Just wondering because lately I’ve seen Aboriginal tourism advertisements. I would like to say in no way do I mean this as racist, Im just a curious dude and like to know things.
I guess in the area I live in Aboriginals (for the most part) are joked about. In the way that you would joke about an aboriginal or even despise a stereotypical one. But upon meeting an Aboriginal that is actually a nice dude, there can always be mad love. I’ve had a few Aboriginal friends that weren’t like many that went to my school (i.e showered, had parents who weren’t alcoholics and tried in school)
The stereotype of an Aboriginal I guess is they are loud, scummy, always drunk on boxed wine (Goon) or high on petrol or methylated spirits (metho) and live of their benefits. I’m not really sure how to explain it, but I mean a fair majority I have met in my area are the stereotype. I’ve met others that were amazing people and insanely cool; two of my teachers were aboriginal and really nice people. But in general I think that anger towards the Australian Indigenous is the benefits they receive and how much they complain. For example if you’re Aboriginal you can receive flu shots for free, you receive payments just for being Aboriginal and on pretty much ANY form you do you have to state wether you are Aboriginal or not. My friend that is aboriginal had a kid, and with no job was making close to $1000 a fortnight at 16 years of age. Whilst her boyfriend who wasn’t an aboriginal was working full time (40 hour weeks) as a boiler maker apprentice and make $720 a fortnight at 18 years of age.
They force aboriginal culture down everyone’s throat and thank the Elders whenever they speak on a parade at a school or anywhere there’s a certain function that cares about culture. Many rumours about them, I couldn’t confirm (a friend of mine lived in Alice Springs where many Aboriginals reside and confirmed the rumours but who knows). He said as a kid some would come to school completely naked, most without shoes. There would be many burnt out cars because once the tank ran out of petrol they would just burn out the car and get another one (< That I’m not to sure on, but this would be an odd 12 years ago).
At the high school I went to, they had their own area and their own uniforms (which further grouped them). I never understood them having their own uniform, its like saying that they were different from everyone else and basically isolating them even more. The Aboriginals that did normal schooling and wore the same uniforms as us and didn’t associate with the Aboriginal section of the school were usually nice and smart kids. I’d say Aboriginals are entitled to more benefits then most disabled people.
At one stage our Prime Minister apologised publically for what happened to them, they also attacked our now Prime Minister Julia Gillard and stole her shoe they were also burning the Australian flag ect.
At the high school I went to, they had their own area and their own uniforms (which further grouped them). I never understood them having their own uniform, its like saying that they were different from everyone else and basically isolating them even more. The Aboriginals that did normal schooling and wore the same uniforms as us and didn’t associate with the Aboriginal section of the school were usually nice and smart kids. I’d say Aboriginals are entitled to more benefits then most disabled people.
That basically sums up how I would describe how the Aboriginals are viewed in my area of Australia and why they are viewed like that. I hope it didn’t come off racist (reading it, it does sound it but I hold no anger towards them), now I’d like to know how are native’s viewed in your countries and would you travel to Australia for the Aboriginal tourism?
This is an interesting perspective. In most countries the majority of people in the country are the natives rather than the other way around. Pasty white people originate in Europe and in a period of human history these people heavily colonized the Americas and Australasia.
I think that it's interesting and good that the Australian government at least tries to compensate aboriginal people. They are the original people of Australia, you and your ancestors are the outsiders. I'm not very knowledgeable but my understanding is that native north Americans were much more violently subjugated than the Aboriginals, their homeland and culture destroyed and thought of as savage whereas the opposite of invading and judging a newly discovered race as inferior is surely the ignorant and savage point of view.
So, in conclusion you can't really ask what a German or a Finn or a Russian what the natives are like because it is most likely that they are. Yes if we go much further back in history then population movement, slavery, invasions and royalty intermarriage have changed who the dominant and majority race is, in a country but if we get technical than science tells us that we're all from Africa.
On May 08 2012 15:43 FOURPLAYuk wrote: This is an interesting perspective. In most countries the majority of people in the country are the natives rather than the other way around. Pasty white people originate in Europe and in a period of human history these people heavily colonized the Americas and Australasia.
I think that it's interesting and good that the Australian government at least tries to compensate aboriginal people. They are the original people of Australia, you and your ancestors are the outsiders. I'm not very knowledgeable but my understanding is that native north Americans were much more violently subjugated than the Aboriginals, their homeland and culture destroyed and thought of as savage whereas the opposite of invading and judging a newly discovered race as inferior is surely the ignorant and savage point of view.
So, in conclusion you can't really ask what a German or a Finn or a Russian what the natives are like because it is most likely that they are. Yes if we go much further back in history then population movement, slavery, invasions and royalty intermarriage have changed who the dominant and majority race is, in a country but if we get technical than science tells us that we're all from Africa.
When the white man came to aus - it was genocide against the abo's. Only in the last 30/20/10 years has there been a real movement toward rehabilitating them. E.g back in the day, aboriginals could be shot for trespassing (law), and many other examples i can't remember. But it was bad. real bad. Atleast the native americans were given some land, no? Not here. We took everything, and left them for a destiny of low life expectancy, highest disease rates, highest crime rates, etc etc etc etc. But hey! a prime minister said sorry. problem solved
On May 08 2012 15:43 FOURPLAYuk wrote: This is an interesting perspective. In most countries the majority of people in the country are the natives rather than the other way around. Pasty white people originate in Europe and in a period of human history these people heavily colonized the Americas and Australasia.
I think that it's interesting and good that the Australian government at least tries to compensate aboriginal people. They are the original people of Australia, you and your ancestors are the outsiders. I'm not very knowledgeable but my understanding is that native north Americans were much more violently subjugated than the Aboriginals, their homeland and culture destroyed and thought of as savage whereas the opposite of invading and judging a newly discovered race as inferior is surely the ignorant and savage point of view.
So, in conclusion you can't really ask what a German or a Finn or a Russian what the natives are like because it is most likely that they are. Yes if we go much further back in history then population movement, slavery, invasions and royalty intermarriage have changed who the dominant and majority race is, in a country but if we get technical than science tells us that we're all from Africa.
When the white man came to aus - it was genocide against the abo's. Only in the last 30/20/10 years has there been a real movement toward rehabilitating them. E.g back in the day, aboriginals could be shot for trespassing (law), and many other examples i can't remember. But it was bad. real bad. Atleast the native americans were given some land, no? Not here. We took everything, and left them for a destiny of low life expectancy, highest disease rates, highest crime rates, etc etc etc etc. But hey! a prime minister said sorry. problem solved
They get land, compared to a whole life of benefits and countless programs designed to help them, they get SO much help dude and acknowledgement in almost anything and as a sign of respect at most functions you need to have an elder from one of the tribes to do a little speech ect. I don't know about Indians but Aboriginals are given are fair bit compared to land,
I disagree that thanking Aboriginal Elders at cultural events constitutes Aboriginal culture being 'forced down everyone's throat'. Can you provide other examples of this?
You don't encounter many native Americans but in America they're generally associated with gambling (owning the casinoes) or drinking. But overall there isn't a large number of them or a negative stereotype (I live in the midwest so it could be different in other areas). I don't typically take note of a people's racial origins when I meet them more so of their mannerisms and vocabulary (it's much more important to me than how you look).
Native Americans (less than 3rd generation I believe though don't believe this at face value) in the US receive almost fully paid college funds, in fact I'm 1/32nd native american (my grandmother was won in a card game oh boy...).
On May 08 2012 16:18 Dacendoran wrote: You don't encounter many native Americans but in America they're generally associated with gambling (owning the casinoes) or drinking. But overall there isn't a large number of them or a negative stereotype (I live in the midwest so it could be different in other areas). I don't typically take note of a people's racial origins when I meet them more so of their mannerisms and vocabulary (it's much more important to me than how you look).
Native Americans (less than 3rd generation I believe though don't believe this at face value) in the US receive almost fully paid college funds, in fact I'm 1/32nd native american (my grandmother was won in a card game oh boy...).
Doesn't that make you 1/4th native? If your mother is a native, you're 1/2nd native, so it makes sense for you to be 1/4th if she's 1/2nd native (if the grandmother is on your mothers side).
Judging by the sentiment of my high school where almost 90% were immigrants or children of immigrants, immigrants to Canada think that they have quite a privileged position. They get special programs in education (such as scholarships and admissions) and tax exemptions. We don't understand why they don't "integrate into society." There is so much opportunity and all they do is QQ from their reserves about how unfair it is. Instead of trying to succeed it seems more like they want everything handed to them.
I must admit that I feel the above sentiment though I understand why they get all government aid and social programs. What I don't understand is why they so vehemently try to be "independent." I don't see any advantages at all to living in a reserve, seems like a matter of pride. Nobody is forcing them to live in a reserve, they're free to leave the reserve. They can protect their cultural heritage quite easily even if they "integrate with society." Well at least in all the big cities in Canada it's pretty easy.
Hello. I'm actually a native american living in Canada.
I was born and raised in America though... Florida to be precise.
The Natives in Florida are perceived as rich, all members supposedly got stipends from the Casino's they owned. The reserve by my old house owns Hard Rock Casino... they are filthy rich.
Growing up in school though it was a complete non-issue. Everyone mistook me for Cuban/Mexican/South/Central American... I just rolled with it.
Canada is a wholly different story. Apparently we're 'black' which was news to me. Welfare lines, loving fried chicken, etc.
The reason I moved to Canada from America is because my band happens to be Canadian... I wasn't born into one of those rich American tribes. You see in the America's the government give tribes a certain degree of sovereignty. Native casinos are popular in the states because almost all the states have extremely tough anti-gambling laws. Reservations pretty much only have to stick to the federal laws, other than that they are given some freedom.(this is why we don't pay to taxes)
Native American's in Canada, or 'First Nations' as they prefer to be called, don't really profit as much from casinos; as Canada for the most part has laxer gambling laws.
Some of my benefits are better than the average Canadian. For example I have 100% coverage on all things medical, dental, and pharmaceutical. It was amazing going to the doctor's office and not have that copay(although this bit is also a Canadian thing)... Also they will cover tuition costs of any university I get accepted to... oh and not having to pay taxes is pretty sweet too. I saved 1500 dollars in taxes on my last car purchase a couple of years back.
This is pretty fucking sweet too be honest but the conditions on the reserve aren't all that great. We've got like one of the highest suicide rates in North America... Most of the people are on welfare and apparently our drug of choice is glue. Thank fuck I don't live there.
But the question is how are they viewed in our country? Again, pretty much on par with how the blacks get treated in America but no one really cares about us right now because they make more noise. Our country's prison population breaks down pretty much the same as America's except it's the Natives who make up the vast majority of the prison population as opposed to blacks.
It's actually ridiculous how much no one cares about Natives in this country.
There is literally a baseball team's mascot that is a guy in 'redface'(think blackface).
Then we got a football team called the Washington Redskins... could you imagine the uproar there would be if they were called the Washington N*****s?
I live in Hawaii and the situation is fairly bad here for the native Hawaiians. Basically you have to imagine what it would be like if people invaded your country and forbid you to speak your own language, believe your religion, live on your own land etc. Disease wiped out most of the population so there was no question of fighting back. Ever since then, the land has been raped for export crops, and later treated like an amusement park for tourists. Of course the Hawaiian culture was caricatured and sold as well to make more money. So today native Hawaiians have the worst health, high poverty levels, and high incarceration rates compared to other ethnic groups. Things are better as far as respecting the old traditions, but meanwhile American culture has almost completely taken over. It's pretty sad. When I was growing up I was judgmental of some Hawaiians who seemed angry and lazy, but when I took a Hawaiian Studies class in college and learned the history, it makes me see them differently now.
Well there's natives called Sami people in northern Finland/Sweden/Norway/Russia.
At least in Finland they are treated well. They can get education on their own level till university level. They have some kind of representatives in the big government ministries. Their income comes mostly from tourism and reindeer herding ( there's probably more but I don't know that much about them). On some areas reindeer herding rights are reserved for them.
On May 08 2012 15:57 run.at.me wrote: When the white man came to aus - it was genocide against the abo's. Only in the last 30/20/10 years has there been a real movement toward rehabilitating them. E.g back in the day, aboriginals could be shot for trespassing (law), and many other examples i can't remember. But it was bad. real bad. Atleast the native americans were given some land, no? Not here. We took everything, and left them for a destiny of low life expectancy, highest disease rates, highest crime rates, etc etc etc etc. But hey! a prime minister said sorry. problem solved
No different from the kurds (muslims) invading and occupying Spain for hundreds of years really. If Europeans hadn't come to Australia do you really think the Indonesians , Malaysians or Chinese would not have colonised it by now? Civilizations that fail to evolve and grow technologically are doomed in the long term.
Having spent about two years as a visitor in Australia, the 'bungs' you see bumming around outnumber the ones you see working about 20:1. Don't the aboriginals also have a life expectancy that is like 15 years below that of the rest of Australia?
The towns with a higher abo population are scruffier than the ones with the lower ones, you notice quite a difference when driving north from Perth. And I remember one town in South Australia we passed through, where basically every window had bolted-on grates.
The half-Maori I lived with for a couple of weeks in Auckland was pretty cool, albeit a bit weird. I'd say the Maori are the only 'native' race that is outnumbered (at least I think they are) that is not dominated/overwhelmed by the bad influences of western civilization.
On May 08 2012 18:17 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: No different from the kurds (muslims) invading and occupying Spain for hundreds of years really.
The Kurds did not invade Spain. Muslims did yes, but they weren't ethnically Kurdish. The majority of the invading force was Berber. Yes, it may be proper to speak of precedents in history, but at least get your facts right.
On May 08 2012 18:23 Rimstalker wrote: The towns with a higher abo population are scruffier than the ones with the lower ones, you notice quite a difference when driving north from Perth. And I remember one town in South Australia we passed through, where basically every window had bolted-on grates.
Many houses in inner Sydney have bolted-on grates (including mine), and not only to deter Aboriginal invaders.
On May 08 2012 16:14 ohsea.toc wrote: Interestingly enough, studies have found that proportionally fewer Aboriginal Australians drink alcohol than white Australians:
I disagree that thanking Aboriginal Elders at cultural events constitutes Aboriginal culture being 'forced down everyone's throat'. Can you provide other examples of this?
Also, I'm curious, where do you live OP?
I live in Queensland, by forced I mean every school I've been to is covered in native paintings, the colouring in kids for in primary school is aboriginal art, the reading they do is a lot of aboriginal content. Every function they thank the land and elders ect. I didnt mean forced so literally, just that Aboriginal stuff is absolutely everywhere and Aboriginals always seem to group themselves away from people instead of being "Hey I'm Mike" they are always like "Hey I'm Mike the Aboriginal".
On May 08 2012 18:17 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: No different from the kurds (muslims) invading and occupying Spain for hundreds of years really.
The Kurds did not invade Spain. Muslims did yes, but they weren't ethnically Kurdish. The majority of the invading force was Berber. Yes, it may be proper to speak of precedents in history, but at least get your facts right.
The conquest led to a period of several hundred years in which the Iberian peninsula was the province of Al-Andalus, dominated by Muslim rulers, and with only a handful of small Christian states surviving in the mountainous north. In 756 Abd ar-Rahman I, a survivor of the then-recently overthrown Umayyad Dynasty, seized power in Al-Andalus, founding an independent dynasty that survived until the 11th century. Muslim domination lasted longer: until the defeat of the Almohads in the 13th century, after which the Christian Reconquista became irresistible.
We are arguing over minutae here.How about i just retract the statement about Kurds and leave it as the muslims invaded and occupied Spain.The overall point still stands.
On May 08 2012 18:17 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: No different from the kurds (muslims) invading and occupying Spain for hundreds of years really.
The Kurds did not invade Spain. Muslims did yes, but they weren't ethnically Kurdish. The majority of the invading force was Berber. Yes, it may be proper to speak of precedents in history, but at least get your facts right.
The conquest led to a period of several hundred years in which the Iberian peninsula was the province of Al-Andalus, dominated by Muslim rulers, and with only a handful of small Christian states surviving in the mountainous north. In 756 Abd ar-Rahman I, a survivor of the then-recently overthrown Umayyad Dynasty, seized power in Al-Andalus, founding an independent dynasty that survived until the 11th century. Muslim domination lasted longer: until the defeat of the Almohads in the 13th century, after which the Christian Reconquista became irresistible.
We are arguing over minutae here.How about i just retract the statement about Kurds and leave it as the muslims invaded and occupied Spain.The overall point still stands.
Getting the ethnicity of the invaders wrong is something some people might consider a rather large detail.
On May 08 2012 18:17 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: No different from the kurds (muslims) invading and occupying Spain for hundreds of years really.
The Kurds did not invade Spain. Muslims did yes, but they weren't ethnically Kurdish. The majority of the invading force was Berber. Yes, it may be proper to speak of precedents in history, but at least get your facts right.
The conquest led to a period of several hundred years in which the Iberian peninsula was the province of Al-Andalus, dominated by Muslim rulers, and with only a handful of small Christian states surviving in the mountainous north. In 756 Abd ar-Rahman I, a survivor of the then-recently overthrown Umayyad Dynasty, seized power in Al-Andalus, founding an independent dynasty that survived until the 11th century. Muslim domination lasted longer: until the defeat of the Almohads in the 13th century, after which the Christian Reconquista became irresistible.
We are arguing over minutae here.How about i just retract the statement about Kurds and leave it as the muslims invaded and occupied Spain.The overall point still stands.
It is absolutely nothing alike! Conflict between Muslims and Christians was more or less like conflict between Christians and Christians, or Muslims and Muslims. The colonisation of Australia was very much one sided and the natives were displaced and replaced by white settlers - they didn't stand a chance.
The conquest of Iberia has more in common with the Christian conquest of the Levant than the colonisation of Australasia!
During and after the Reconquista, Muslims were generally accepted an integrated within the Iberian kingdoms - it was only when things took a turn for the worse around the time of the reformation and Spanish Inquisition that Spain became much more close-minded.
If you can't see the difference between colonisation and conquest then I can't really help you. Maybe consider the German Drang nach Osten to learn the difference.
I grew up along the Canada-USA border, around Ontario/New York/Vermont. Natives get their own lane for crossing the border, while everyone else has to queue up. Natives aren't filthy rich around here, I think. The stereotype I learned while growing up was they are obnoxious, alcoholic, and only drive massive vehicles like hummers. And alot of the cases, this was true. Not all cases, obviously, I had friend in school that was native, and didn't come close to the stereotype. Awesome guy.
There's also a big problem with smuggling weapons and drugs across the border. Contraband cigarettes are easy to get as legal cigarettes. (A bag is a fraction of the price compared to a carton, but they taste like shit to me).
Honestly I never hear anything about natives anymore, but that may be cause I moved into the city. I see them once in a while on TV, protesting for land rights, etc. But I think for the most part, they are ignored.
A great great grandfather on my dads side was full blooded Cherokee. Not enough for me to still have any Cherokee blood in me or anything though. Indians though have probably among the worst history among any race in the world. Their homeland was invaded, they were practically almost exterminated from diseases the europeans brought with them. Then they were forced halfway across the country to reservations in the Midwest where they were forced to stay, many dying along its way. It's just another skeleton in the closet for the U.S though. You really never hear anything about Native Americans nowadays.
My girlfriend studies Native American ("indian") Folklore, so I probably know a little bit more about "real" Native Americans than a lot of the stereotypes, but not a ton more (she is the one that studies them, not me). She has lived on a Nat. Am. Reservation for 2 years, and is about to go back to one for a year or so this summer. She studies in particular the "Lakota" tribe which lives primarily in South Dakota at this point. She has learned/is learning their language (which is dying out quickly); she is not Native American in any way. I will be speaking primarily about the Lakota, but most of what I say could be generalized to most Nat. Am. tribes, but certainly not all.
The two things most Americans (I would guess) associate with "indians" are reservations and casinos, which are related. Reservations are places where the US government, over the course of time (mostly in the 19th century) battled and eventually herded Nat. Am. Tribes to. Most are not where they originally lived ("pre-contact") , or marginally so. Not surprisingly, being the losers of wars, and the way white people tend to treat the rest of the world, most reservations are situated on pretty undesirable land. This is land that, for the most part, no one else wanted. This is where casinos come in. Reservations have a sort of odd legal status, in that they are governed by the nat. am. tribes, not the state or federal goverment. Of course, there are some laws that apply still, and it is consider part of the US, but they get to have a lot of their own laws. Since gambling is illegal in most US states, casinos show up on reservations, where they can do it legally.
The "lazy" and "handout" stereotypes comes from treaties/deals with the government. Most of these go back to the 19th century as well, and this is particularly true for the Lakota (they don't have casinos). My gf was a teacher at one of the schools, and she says one of the biggest issues is the mentality of wanting a hand-out; they don't want to work for something or earn something, they feel like they are owed something (this is particularly true for where she was, I've heard it is not as bad on other reservations). Most of the residences receive government assistance, and good portion live off of it entirely. On the reservation my gf lived on, the unemployment rate was over 80%. Yes 80%. There is nothing there, no businesses want to be there, and there is no reason to live/work there unless you were born there.
The last stereotype is their issues with alcohol, which for the Lakota at least, is also true. Alcohol is not allowed to be sold on the reservation, but it makes it in anyhow. I think it is more of a symptom than a cause for the extreme poverty there.
I don't know if that covers what you were asking. I plan to visit one of the reservations myself possibly this summer or next year. I've seen pictures, and it is extreme poverty that you might not think exists in the US or other first-world countries.
EPT
