Is western civilisation better than aboriginies of the past? (1 Viewer)

Graney

Horse liberty
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
4,434
Location
Bereie
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
"You go on about how Aborigines were so primitive and the English were so advanced. The ‘sophisticated’ Europeans came to Australia and walked around in their funny suits, sweating their arses off while Aborigines knew how to take care of the land, the sophisticated Europeans were hopeless.
You guys are talking about the lack of Aboriginal inventions. What is so bad about the way Aborigines lived? The Aborigines took care of the land damn better than the clever whites. Aborigines burnt off forests to protect them from bushfires and they could survive in the bush. Look at our white advanced society – we are destroying the planet. Where have all these amazing inventions led us? Happiness? I think the Aborigines were quite happy before whites came along. This (current time) is the best we’ve ever had it, in terms of ‘quality of life’ and technology and yet it hasn’t really made us much happier. Isn’t that the point?
Aborigines had a much more complex society than the primal creatures you seem to think of them as. Aborigines do not have smaller brains you obtuse person.
Their decline in population - you attribute to gradual stamping out of those with smaller brains. Lol. Hey the whites deliberately trying to stamp out the Aborigines or ‘breed’ them out would have no effect? Right.
Did you read what that hpemma person said? –“If you knew anything about the Aboriginal culture, you would know the kind of values they have are not focussed on intellect or 'succeeding' in society. They care about one another, about families and beliefs. They knew how to look after each other and survive peacefully. Who the hell are you to say that this is not as important as technological advances?? Why is our society 'better'?”
She is so right. They had an amazing, deep-rooted, unique culture.
You’ll all probably go on about how western technology increased life expectancy and allowed more efficient travelling or whatever but this doesn’t make western culture superior. You need to look at it overall, and nothing about western culture makes it superior. Like hpemma was saying. Why do you value technology over other values? Furthermore, like other people were saying, you have to consider the environment. Australia is the driest inhabited continent on earth; of course the people living on it were going to live differently to those in Europe. Like those other people were saying, Australia is isolated, lacks native animals that can be properly domesticated.
You guys sarcastically suggesting that sticks were the most important achievement by Aborigines is incredibly degrading and offensive. Moreover it shows that you are stupid, not only because of your lack of knowledge of the culture you are condemning but because it shows that you aren’t listening to other people on here. Like, for example, Katie, your response to hpemma’s post - you didn’t take on her message but rather tried to find a loophole in her argument which is feeble, especially since your response did not disprove what she was saying. The fact that indigenous Australians (like every other civilisation that has ever existed on earth) had conflicts does not mean anything and it doesn’t disprove the fact that the Aborigines knew how to take care of the land, they lived in peace with the land and with each other (and like Wil Shakespear said – they didn’t have many wars at all, especially compared to Europe). You have no wish to change your view or even gain more information which might influence your view. Even if you don’t agree with what we are saying, you should try and respect the culture (and not be so dismissive and offensive)."

http://community.boredofstudies.org/3975183/post-557.html

Which is best?
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
170
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
despite sarcastic/racist comments there are arguments for and against on both sides, but when aborigines are compared to other ancient civilisations of the past they were definitely not of the same level
 

Graney

Horse liberty
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
4,434
Location
Bereie
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
There's something to be said for being sustainable custodians of the land. They were well adapted to the unique demands of the Australian continent.
 

jb_nc

Google "9-11" and "truth"
Joined
Dec 20, 2004
Messages
5,391
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
white people who endlessly blab on about the beauty of aboriginal culture/how much abos rule/etc are the fucking worst
 

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Graney said:
There's something to be said for being sustainable custodians of the land. They were well adapted to the unique demands of the Australian continent.
Well. It's likely that they contributed to the extinctions of the Australian megafauna (though not certain), so I wouldn't say completely sustainable.
 

Graney

Horse liberty
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
4,434
Location
Bereie
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Extinction of megafauna happened because the newly arrived pacific island cultures weren't used to the landscape, and the megafauna hadn't evolved to cope alongside humans. Adaptation to sustainability took time and of course the rest of the Australian landscape to an extent was forced to adapt to their culture.
 

moll.

Learn to science.
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
3,545
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
I'd just like to point out that 500,000 people on Australia could not do anywhere near the amount of environmental damage as 20,000,000, even if they tried. So using the environment angle is misleading at best.
 

verdades

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
142
Gender
Female
HSC
2009
Aborigines > Western civilisation.

They didn't kill the land.
They also didn't kill each other off.
 

Will Shakespear

mumbo magic
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
1,186
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
verdades said:
Aborigines > Western civilisation.

They didn't kill the land.
They also didn't kill each other off.
only coz they lived like wild animals, died at 30 or during childbirth, and so the population density never got high enough to allow them to do those things, even if they tried
 

banco55

Active Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,577
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Western civilization gave the world Shakespeare, Newton etc.
 

Graney

Horse liberty
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
4,434
Location
Bereie
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
moll. said:
I'd just like to point out that 500,000 people on Australia could not do anywhere near the amount of environmental damage as 20,000,000, even if they tried. So using the environment angle is misleading at best.
20 million people is too many for Australia's carrying capacity.
 

big8oyjames

Banned
Joined
Dec 16, 2008
Messages
227
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2006
Graney said:
20 million people is too many for Australia's carrying capacity.
meh i doubt it. i think if we had the infrastructure and a few major metropolitan cities inland we would be fine.
 

Will Shakespear

mumbo magic
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
1,186
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
banco55 said:
Western civilization gave the world Shakespeare, Newton etc.
yeah but not on an island by themselves

they had to build on the foundations they pinched from the arabs
who had to build on the foundations they pinched from the greeks & indians
etc.

western civilisation on an island alone would probably still be like the vikings
or aborigines
 

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
moll. said:
I'd just like to point out that 500,000 people on Australia could not do anywhere near the amount of environmental damage as 20,000,000, even if they tried. So using the environment angle is misleading at best.
QFT.

Graney said:
20 million people is too many for Australia's carrying capacity.
And again, QFT.


It shits me off when people go "oh we need to increase immigration and the birth rate because omg we need more people." No.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top