On January 26th (Invasion Day)

[mr friendly guy]

Not to provide covering fire for the stupidity you're criticizing, but I honestly don't even understand what you're saying in the second paragraph. Could you expand on it?

The argument sounds like Creationist arguments, but instead of evolution or natural history, put Indigenous history.

Essentially the type of arguments which goes along the lines of scientists says x, they are too arrogant to consider alternate views. Or if I say alternate view y, I would be crucified by scientific community because they can't take alternative views. Wouldn't alternative view y (ie God did it) be more plausible?

That type of argument is very superficial because it doesn't go into why they reject alternate view y, ie because lack of evidence. Its phrased in the way which makes you think they reject alternate view y, because it runs against orthodoxy.

This particular passage from the author is what I am talking about.

We can project all sorts of fantasies onto the origin of humanity our Aboriginal ancestors. There is scant evidence of evolution record of their individual exploits or characters, and very few colonial Aborigines left behind a documented account of their experiences.

I could, therefore, decide that humanity evolved from earlier species my foremothers were courageous warriors of the resistance, or mysterious keepers of ancient feminine wisdoms, or I could envision them as victims and martyrs, enduring the humiliations of colonisation with grace and dignity. These scientific theories romantic fantasies would be accepted as fact, and my ‘truth’ would be applauded. My own (arguably more plausible) vision is that God did it my Aboriginal foremothers had the good sense to form alliances with the settlers, and that they improved their own lives and their children’s prospects as a result.

Sorry if my initial reply wasn't quite clear what I meant. Her argument is that both competing views seem made up or backed by little evidence, but mine sounds more "plausible".

Its poisoning the well by arguing against the evidence of Indigenous victimhood by those who claim it (apparently these peole don't have evidence that Indigenous people needed government permission on who they can marry, nor have evidence that they were treated as fauna and flora). So those who say Indigenous people were oppressed don't have evidence, you know, because its romantic fantasies which would be accepted as fact and truth and applauded (presumably by the Left).

[Simon_Jester]

Thank you that clears it up.

Also... Wait... flora?

[K. A. Pital]

Cut down like trees, eh?

[Gandalf]

Thank you that clears it up.

Also... Wait... flora?

Indeed. Before the 1967 referendum, Indigenous people were effectively managed by the government as flora and fauna.

[Simon_Jester]

Well I mean, I could at least comprehend the idea of a sufficiently racist and evil government treating natives as fauna, as literal wild animals.

But as plants? That one just makes my head hurt.

[GuppyShark]

It's not literal. They were excluded from the census numbers. This is from SBS, our multicultural public broadcaster: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/myths-persi ... referendum

Not being counted properly in the census all those years has fed into the misunderstanding that Aboriginal people were classified as fauna until the '67 referendum.

In recent years, an Aboriginal politician even referred to growing up under a state Flora and Fauna Act.

Several states did, indeed, often manage Aboriginal affairs through departments that also handled flora, fauna and wildlife.

But there is nothing to show Aboriginal people were ever classed as one and the same, despite the fact they were not being counted in the official human population.

[loomer]

I'll dig some stuff up about it when I have some time, but it isn't necessarily wrong to say that there was a lot of endemic violence - including domestic violence - in pre-colonization Australian society. We can only make inference from the records we do have, but a lot of the indigenous cthonic law observed from the earliest days of contact was extremely strict and sanctioned quite a lot of violence. The rest of it is largely bollocks though, especially the idea that settlers were less prone to beat their wives, and especially the subtext that the current state of the communities is a direct reflection of pre-contact ways.

[Gandalf]

It's now officially Invasion Day. It's a day commemorating the two hundred and thirty years of occupation, degradation, genocide, torture, and all of the vile inhumanities of empire which were visited upon us.

We're still fucking here.

[Thanas]

I'll dig some stuff up about it when I have some time, but it isn't necessarily wrong to say that there was a lot of endemic violence - including domestic violence - in pre-colonization Australian society. We can only make inference from the records we do have, but a lot of the indigenous cthonic law observed from the earliest days of contact was extremely strict and sanctioned quite a lot of violence. The rest of it is largely bollocks though, especially the idea that settlers were less prone to beat their wives, and especially the subtext that the current state of the communities is a direct reflection of pre-contact ways.

I would be inherently weary of any such statements recorded by colonist sources, because if you read some of the German sources on the Herero it is quite eassy to believe they were all robber bandits.

[loomer]

I don't think it's necessarily fair to disregard any dreaming stories about wifebeaters, rapists, and murderers. Be wary, but don't discount - while there's reason to believe that the indigenous inhabitants of my country never fought real wars with each other, there's no reason to believe they had a utopian society, and their customary law is full of very stringent penalties and very very strict rules from tribe to tribe. To call up the obvious, a lot of the tribes practiced spearing long before and long after we whitefellas turned up (personally, I always think the system may have some merit), both for minor and major offences. The Dreaming stories are also full of violent supernatural penalties for misdeeds or carried out by bad witchmen. The violences reflect two different forms of ideological system, but it was very present in both from what evidence we do have, and while you're right to be wary, rejecting it out of hand is a mistake. It is impossible to determine how much of the cthonic law is unaltered by us whitefellas, but it isn't fair to go 'all of it is tainted' either.

As it occurs to me you may be unfamiliar, spearing is exactly what it sounds like. If you break certain laws - in some communities any law - they stand you out in a field and throw a spear through your thigh (or some other body part - the thigh is one of the most common targets due to size and relative safety). Usually you recover just fine so long as the aim was true, and if you learn your lesson it's all good. If you don't, the next time traditionally it was probably a death sentence, and it can be for anything from violating marriage taboos to eating the wrong thing to killing certain animals to saying the wrong words. There is no reason to believe spearing is a colonial invention or purely colonial phenomenon, and it sits as part of a broad spectrum of quite stringent penalties observed early and often where contact was relatively (insofar as any colonial contact is) peaceful.