Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

Such tribal societies were/are based on every individual contributing for the benefit of every other individual without having to be paid in money for their contributions.

They didn't have money, Harry...that's why.

But that's circular: "They didn't use money because they didn't have it,

Not "circular," Harry...just "obvious." You can't claim they had any special virtue because they didn't use what they didn't even know about.

They didn't have money because they didn't need nor want it. Their way worked fine for them.

So we should go back to shells, skins and scalps? Because that the sort of thing they was really used in place of the gold and silver coins of the colonists.

There was plenty of technological advancement among them - but working with natural materials, not artificial ones; hence, a sustainable approach.

No cities, no irrigation or fertilization, little medicine, no hygiene, uncontrollable reproduction, a higher that fifty-percent mortality rate, no science, feeding the bugs with your body, early death, darkness when the sun went down, winters with fires...it sounds very "sustainable."

I doubt you can get anybody to sign up for it. And if you get anybody, they won't last long.

Have you ever lived outdoors on the land, Harry? I've done it, with only minimal supplies. But even then, I had more than the ancient tribes had, by a long shot. I had iron tools, a fire-starter and plastic sheeting, at the very least. They didn't have even one of those things. And I can tell you, that even for a week, that's a tough existence. It's no model for the future, I can promise you.

The activity he witnessed was, in fact, a piece of ingenious engineering.

They had many technologies of an extremely limited sort. And they knew hunting, fishing and other sources of food that the colonists had no idea about. Had they not, they would not have survived at all. But I don't think you want to live for a single week with what they actually had, "ingenious" or not. You wouldn't like it, even as a recreational exercise. Trust me.

Indigenous Australians (culturally) see/saw themselves as custodians of the natural world.

I find this implausible

Oh well, it's common knowledge in Australia.

Common legend, I think you mean.

You want to live pretty much naked, eat grubs or meat you kill with your own hands, and write the pictures of all the things you're terrified of on the chalk cliffs around you? I suppose you can do that.

...the gist of it was that one of the colonists observed that the indigenous peoples of the land had so little work to do to meet their needs that they often spent their time sitting around having a good old chinwag in the middle of the day.

Well, that truly is unusual. The Aborigines of Australia were a native population blessed with a universal leisure class? And their lack of industry was a benefit to all?

The wonders of Downunder truly never end.

is it really all that clear who the savages and who the civilised are?

It depends on the criteria you choose.

Were the natives worse than the colonists, as people? Surely not. Were they better? Surely not. People are people. Only the circumstances change. "Civilized" literally means, "of the city."

But "savages"...that's a new word you've brought into the discussion. All I said was the descriptive term "primitive"; but you now say "savages"? It's not a term I would prefer. I'm just content to observe that some people had a lot less technology , far less education, far less "civilization" and a different social system. But I wouldn't call them "savages" for having that.

I do know that there were protocols between indigenous Australian clans for trade, intermarriage, and even entering onto another clan's land. They also held various inter-clan festivals and corroborees. Your suggestion, then, seems very misplaced to me, which is not to say that there weren't some clans who seem to have been more feared (and rightly so) than others, just that, as a generalisation, it is false.

Again, that may just be because the people you know are the ultra-enlightened and specially wonderful Aborigines. I know other tribal cultures, in North and South America and Africa. And the more you know, the more you know how truly "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" life without civilization truly is. Hobbes got that part of his analysis right, for sure.

It's not for nothing that people, once they've tasted civilization, tend to stay with it. And it's not by chance that people so quickly abandon the tribal lifestyle for the relief of the city; and practically nobody, save the ideological survivalists and such, tries to go the other way.

Don't take it from me, though. Get yourself an axe, a box of matches, and a sheet of plastic, and spend a few days in the outback. Then tell me what you think. You might have a different view, then.

[Harbal]

There are a couple of not-too-bad movie versions of Austen's books, too, if you're hesitant about reading one of her tomes. They're certainly good enough to give you a sense of the flavour of her writing. As a straight read, she can be a little demanding for modern tastes.

Yes, I've seen bits of the films, but I don't think I've watched a full one. I do have a sense of her "flavour". Austen fans seem very devoted, so I do intend to find out for myself at some time.

[Immanuel Can]

Austen fans seem very devoted, so I do intend to find out for myself at some time.

She's worth your time. She was certainly a very skilled writer.

[Harry Baird]

Hey IC, I strongly disagree with a lot of what you've written re indigenous culture, and indigenous Australian culture in particular, but I'll leave you with the last word after thoroughly recommending the book from which I quoted, Bruce Pascoe's Dark Emu: Black Seeds, which sheds a lot of light on how comfortable - and, yes, sophisticated - the lives of indigenous Australians were prior to colonisation, as well as leaving you with this review of a related book I've been meaning to read: Bill Gammage's The Biggest Estate on Earth. Here are some choice quotes from that review, some pertaining to the use of fire, a contested point between you and I:

[T]he most common terminology early Britons employed [regarding precolonial Australia --Harry] represented the highest praise of an Englishman: the grasslands were park-like. By this was not meant a national park, but a gentleman’s park or estate, in which large trees were carefully situated within pampered grassland, providing sustenance and shelter to an array of grazing animals.

Gammage is determined to open our eyes to the fact that in 1788 there was no wilderness, but a landscape that reflected a sophisticated, successful and sensitive farming regime integrated across the Australian landmass. Fire was not an indiscriminate tool of fuel reduction or grass promotion, but carefully employed to ensure certain plants and animals flourished, to facilitate access and rotation, and to ensure resources were abundant, convenient and predictable.

[attofishpi]

Hey IC, I strongly disagree with a lot of what you've written re indigenous culture, and indigenous Australian culture in particular, but I'll leave you with the last word after thoroughly recommending the book from which I quoted, Bruce Pascoe's Dark Emu: Black Seeds, which sheds a lot of light on how comfortable - and, yes, sophisticated - the lives of indigenous Australians were prior to colonisation, as well as leaving you with this review of a related book I've been meaning to read: Bill Gammage's The Biggest Estate on Earth. Here are some choice quotes from that review, some pertaining to the use of fire, a contested point between you and I:

[T]he most common terminology early Britons employed [regarding precolonial Australia --Harry] represented the highest praise of an Englishman: the grasslands were park-like. By this was not meant a national park, but a gentleman’s park or estate, in which large trees were carefully situated within pampered grassland, providing sustenance and shelter to an array of grazing animals.

Gammage is determined to open our eyes to the fact that in 1788 there was no wilderness, but a landscape that reflected a sophisticated, successful and sensitive farming regime integrated across the Australian landmass. Fire was not an indiscriminate tool of fuel reduction or grass promotion, but carefully employed to ensure certain plants and animals flourished, to facilitate access and rotation, and to ensure resources were abundant, convenient and predictable.

Well said Harry.

I just had a brief read of IC's post re the natives of Oz, and his statements remind me a little of my Dad's, smacks of borderline racism (that "white" people are somehow more intelligent) - by observation of the way the Aborigines lived.

What people that just make observations without thinking deeper, is that what has been overlooked is the harsh landscape of the the Australian conditions to survive in but MORE IMPORTANTLY with respect to what IC stated, is the ISOLATION - Europeans - and through connections to Asia had VAST amounts of knowledge to share through time. The aborigines had barely a murmur beyond the confines of the huge landmass, made up mostly of desert.

The Aborigines have LOADS of different languages per regions, sure they had no written language, but their stories handed down through their dreamtime accounts actually record CHANGES as verified by today's scientists, in such things as the climate over the years. There is dreamtime stories that scientists have agreed align with the times where the sea level rose, and in the Aboriginal stories they speak of when they over time had to choose whether to head north or south (when Tasmania got cut off from the mainland) - I'm sure there would have been a lot of islands in between that eventually succumbed and many would have died.

Also, the first governor of NSW Arthur Phillip - noted around botany bay upon first see the aboriginal people, scantly clad and living harmoniously that they appeared to be in paradise, a heaven - all happy fishing seemingly without a care in the world...Arthur Phillip insisted that they have legal protection equal to the the settlers, and even when speared by one of them, he ordered his men not to retaliate.

None of the above make these people any lesser than anyone else on the planet

[Immanuel Can]

Hey IC, I strongly disagree with a lot of what you've written re indigenous culture, and indigenous Australian culture in particular, but I'll leave you with the last word after thoroughly recommending the book from which I quoted, Bruce Pascoe's Dark Emu: Black Seeds, which sheds a lot of light on how comfortable - and, yes, sophisticated - the lives of indigenous Australians were prior to colonisation, as well as leaving you with this review of a related book I've been meaning to read: Bill Gammage's The Biggest Estate on Earth. Here are some choice quotes from that review, some pertaining to the use of fire, a contested point between you and I:

[T]he most common terminology early Britons employed [regarding precolonial Australia --Harry] represented the highest praise of an Englishman: the grasslands were park-like. By this was not meant a national park, but a gentleman’s park or estate, in which large trees were carefully situated within pampered grassland, providing sustenance and shelter to an array of grazing animals.

Gammage is determined to open our eyes to the fact that in 1788 there was no wilderness, but a landscape that reflected a sophisticated, successful and sensitive farming regime integrated across the Australian landmass. Fire was not an indiscriminate tool of fuel reduction or grass promotion, but carefully employed to ensure certain plants and animals flourished, to facilitate access and rotation, and to ensure resources were abundant, convenient and predictable.

Well said Harry.

I just had a brief read of IC's post re the natives of Oz, and his statements remind me a little of my Dad's, smacks of borderline racism (that "white" people are somehow more intelligent) - by observation of the way the Aborigines lived.

I marvel at how badly you read, honestly.

My statement, made over and over again has been this: all people are the same, so far as "intelligence" goes, so far as I know. But some cultures are more primitive than others. That's just an obvious, demonstrable fact. There's not one hint of what you're attributing to me in it.

In fact, you end up agreeing with me, without realizing you're doing it. For you write,

Europeans - and through connections to Asia had VAST amounts of knowledge to share through time. The aborigines had barely a murmur beyond the confines of the huge landmass, made up mostly of desert.

There it is. Human nature may be the same, but opportunities are very different. And as a consequence, some cultures are much more technologically and socially sophisticated and technologically advanced than others. It doesn't even need an argument to show it's so: it's so obvious, it's undeniable.

That says nothing whatsoever about anybody's intrinsic potential...their intelligence, morality, integrity, creativity, etc. It speaks only to the level of development of the civilization in which we live.

The problem is the Noble Savage myth, which makes out that some people are more noble, intelligent, sensitive, natural, wise, etc. than others, merely because they live in loincloths instead of business suits. Anybody who knows ancient tribes knows that they are the same as other people, save for their circumstances and culture. They have just as many virtues and vices as the ordinary man. Nobody is some kind of "saint of the woods."

[attofishpi]

Hey IC, I strongly disagree with a lot of what you've written re indigenous culture, and indigenous Australian culture in particular, but I'll leave you with the last word after thoroughly recommending the book from which I quoted, Bruce Pascoe's Dark Emu: Black Seeds, which sheds a lot of light on how comfortable - and, yes, sophisticated - the lives of indigenous Australians were prior to colonisation, as well as leaving you with this review of a related book I've been meaning to read: Bill Gammage's The Biggest Estate on Earth. Here are some choice quotes from that review, some pertaining to the use of fire, a contested point between you and I:

Well said Harry.

I just had a brief read of IC's post re the natives of Oz, and his statements remind me a little of my Dad's, smacks of borderline racism (that "white" people are somehow more intelligent) - by observation of the way the Aborigines lived.

I marvel at how badly you read, honestly.

My statement, made over and over again has been this: all people are the same, so far as "intelligence" goes, so far as I know. But some cultures are more primitive than others. That's just an obvious, demonstrable fact. There's not one hint of what you're attributing to me in it.

In fact, you end up agreeing with me, without realizing you're doing it. For you write,

Europeans - and through connections to Asia had VAST amounts of knowledge to share through time. The aborigines had barely a murmur beyond the confines of the huge landmass, made up mostly of desert.

There it is. Human nature may be the same, but opportunities are very different. And as a consequence, some cultures are much more technologically and socially sophisticated and technologically advanced than others. It doesn't even need an argument to show it's so: it's so obvious, it's undeniable.

That says nothing whatsoever about anybody's intrinsic potential...their intelligence, morality, integrity, creativity, etc. It speaks only to the level of development of the civilization in which we live.

The problem is the Noble Savage myth, which makes out that some people are more noble, intelligent, sensitive, natural, wise, etc. than others, merely because they live in loincloths instead of business suits. Anybody who knows ancient tribes knows that they are the same as other people, save for their circumstances and culture. They have just as many virtues and vices as the ordinary man. Nobody is some kind of "saint of the woods."

Ok, sorry, I am really busy - I should have read more of you posts on the previous page, it was just a skim.

[Immanuel Can]

Ok, sorry, I am really busy - I should have read more of you posts on the previous page, it was just a skim.

That can happen, so no hard feelings.

My position, just to keep it clear, is that native or modern, all types of men are the same constitutionally. But by the same token, I don't believe in any kind of "native privilege" either. Being "native" doesn't make an ordinary person into a specially-moral or specially-natural person. And to think that would be a case of "noble savage" mythologizing.

[Belinda]

Not yet, but I have a new one, Jane and Prudence, which is a treat awaiting me

I'm so glad that I played a small part in your introduction to Barbara Pym. It makes me feel that, at last, I have done some good in the world.

"Jane and Prudence" sounds like an Austen title.

I too thought it may be intended as a reference to one of Jane Austen's main themes, especially in Sense and Sensibility.

[Pattern-chaser]

Austen fans seem very devoted, so I do intend to find out for myself at some time.

She's worth your time. She was certainly a very skilled writer.

In the late 80s, I had a librarian as a lodger. I took advantage of this to get her to bring home the Austen books, one at a time, and I read them all. I found her to be a competent author, but not more than that. She was no Herman Hesse or Ursula K. LeGuin. IMO, of course.

[Harbal]

She was no Herman Hesse or Ursula K. LeGuin. IMO, of course.

But then if she had been, most people would have never heard of her.

[attofishpi]

Austen fans seem very devoted, so I do intend to find out for myself at some time.

I had to read (at school) far too much of Jane Austen, a pseudonym that Barry Fletcher used to write under. A six foot pig farmer from Hampshire with a beard the size of a Rhododendron bush.




(BA!)

[Pattern-chaser]

She was no Herman Hesse or Ursula K. LeGuin. IMO, of course.

But then if she had been, most people would have never heard of her.

Even assuming this is true, what relevance does it have? [Sincere question, not any form of challenge; I am autistic — a question is a request for information, nothing more.] Must an author worthy of praise be widely known and read?

[Harbal]

Even assuming this is true, what relevance does it have? [Sincere question, not any form of challenge; I am autistic — a question is a request for information, nothing more.] Must an author worthy of praise be widely known and read?

You mentioned two authors, with the implication that their work was on a much higher level than Austen's, so I might equally ask what was the relevance of that. I haven't read anything by any of them, so I can't comment on the quality of their writing, but I don't think you are comparing like with like. Popular art and esoteric art both have their place, and the best of both are worthy of praise.

[Pattern-chaser]

Even assuming this is true, what relevance does it have? [Sincere question, not any form of challenge; I am autistic — a question is a request for information, nothing more.] Must an author worthy of praise be widely known and read?

You mentioned two authors, with the implication that their work was on a much higher level than Austen's, so I might equally ask what was the relevance of that. I haven't read anything by any of them, so I can't comment on the quality of their writing, but I don't think you are comparing like with like. Popular art and esoteric art both have their place, and the best of both are worthy of praise.

Yes, I have no quarrel with any of that. But isn't a judgement of an author's writing an opinion? That's what I offered: my opinion, and I did so in the conscious knowledge that it was only my opinion, and nothing more. Didn't I append "IMO, of course" to my text? I hope I did...