Guest MikeG Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Hmmm, I'm not exactly sure about your characterisation of Australians. White Australians are renowned for being blunt and outspoken.........and having lived there for ten years and visited many times since, I promise you that's a reputation well-earned. Aboriginal people are likely to keep themselves to themselves not because they don't see things in the same way as us, but because our ancestors persecuted them mercilessly for over two hundred years, including state sanctioned kidnapping of their children into the 1960's when I lived there. If I had to live with invaders who stole my land, murdered my ancestors and my kidnapped children I'd probably keep my mouth shut too. We don't talk about bigfoot in Britain because we can say with absolute 100% certainty that it doesn't live here. It's about the only thing we've got in common with Hawaii. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Hmmm, I'm not exactly sure about your characterisation of Australians. White Australians are renowned for being blunt and outspoken.........and having lived there for ten years and visited many times since, I promise you that's a reputation well-earned. Aboriginal people are likely to keep themselves to themselves not because they don't see things in the same way as us, but because our ancestors persecuted them mercilessly for over two hundred years, including state sanctioned kidnapping of their children into the 1960's when I lived there. If I had to live with invaders who stole my land, murdered my ancestors and my kidnapped children I'd probably keep my mouth shut too. We don't talk about bigfoot in Britain because we can say with absolute 100% certainty that it doesn't live here. It's about the only thing we've got in common with Hawaii. Mike Hi Mike, yes I did mention that much worse happened to australian aboriginal people. I grew up in Australia and have now been here for more than fourty years so also have a good idea about the australian nature. I was trying to take care with my words and point to the fact that certain things are not just belched out - indeed much is belched out here but usually mainstream concepts. I have been involved with aboriginal world view, aboriginal research, culture and aboriginal australian people for quite some time. As I said yes they dont speak about things due to the experience of abuse but also it is not really a culturally appropriate thing to just hop out there and speak loudly or brashly. There is much waiting before a rapport is built, trust. As to the OP - about reporting experience. Do you not think that the western world finds things reported for record in the western way as more valid than things reported within indigenous cultures? I mean if we looked at the body of reporting concerning crytozoological creatures by indigenous people across the world as valid, most would then take the existance of yowie, sasquatch etc for granted (and the little people). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 White Australian culture commenced in a brutal situation - people sent for life to a landscape far from ever they had known, for stealing a loaf of bread. That's it? Were there possibly criminals that had committed more heinous deeds? You've a penchant for romantic wispiness. Not any "rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, crap-kickers and Methodists?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 (edited) Do you not think that the western world finds things reported for record in the western way as more valid than things reported within indigenous cultures? I mean if we looked at the body of reporting concerning crytozoological creatures by indigenous people across the world as valid, most would then take the existance of yowie, sasquatch etc for granted (and the little people). In my experience, many cultures mix up myth and extant reality, and don't treat them as seperate items. If people believe things exist, then they exist.....is the way it is justified. Well, I'm a bit more brutal than that. To me, just because a culture says that the moon is a lump of sacred goats cheese hanging from the branches of a sacred tree, that is no reason to take that sort of thing seriously. That's the sort of logic/ madness that ends up with Salem-type witch-hunts, or forcing Galileo to repent. All cultures in my experience have a "boogie-man" figure to scare their kids with. As I mentioned a day or two ago, in Southern and Eastern Africa it is Tokoloshe, the baby eating monster man. In mainland Europe it is the troll. We also invent mythical creatures to give us rewards...........fairies, leprechauns , angels. These are also used for controlling behaviour of the young (and in some places, not just the young). So no, I don't take reports of native sightings of fantastical creatures too seriously. I reckon they say more about the people telling the story than they do about the existence of cryptids. Science is a formalised attempt to take deal with just facts by taking invention & myth out of the equation, and I'll take that over myth and legend every day. However, many great discoveries have been made by listening to local traditions, and re-interpreting them, so we should be wary of chucking the baby out with the bath-water. Use native lore as a starting point for investigation, but it is no more (or less) valid than any of the nonsense that has been passed down through our culture for generations. Santa Klaus doesn't exist, reindeers can't fly, crossing your fingers doesn't bring you luck, and eating liverwort doesn't improve the health of your liver. Now, just to complete the circle, you can't take everything we have "discovered" too seriously either, depending on when the work was done. It's not long ago that we had people claiming to be able to turn lead into gold, and my old school library had a copy of Encyclopedia Britannica (about 1905, I think) which had a section on dragons. We're far from perfect. Mike Edited January 6, 2012 by MikeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 (edited) That's it? Were there possibly criminals that had committed more heinous deeds? You've a penchant for romantic wispiness. Not any "rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, crap-kickers and Methodists?" Incorrigible, yes all of the above except perhaps the mexican bandits (and I dont know what a hornswoggler or bull... is - as for methodists, way more Irish Catholics who had done nothing much but be Irish Catholic). I mentioned the loaf of bread example as it is used in Australia quite a bit concerning the state of the British legal system in the late 18th century and the resultant crearion of a convict colony in Australia. There were many cases of young people being sent to Australia for stealing a loaf of bread, which may or may not have been better than being hanged in England. On the ships over and in the colonies they then underwent incredibly brutal circumstance - this is well documented Incorrigible and sadly not romantic wispiness. Within a few years of colonisation a majority of aboriginal people in the area later known as New South Wales were wiped out. In fact in the first few years of the colony, the colony started to starve as the supply had not come in. Aboriginal people tried to show them where food was as there was so much about but this new land of kangaroos etc did not seem to meet with british culinary acceptance and colonists starved for no reason whatsover.... anyway, as I said the colonisation in the late 18th centrury (1790's) was harsh, brutal and tragic and this is not really disputed. Edited January 6, 2012 by Encounter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 (edited) Not so many murderers made it to Oz.......they were hanged rather swiftly. I doubt whether any Mexicans or Indians made it either, as transportation was really just a way of the British Upper Classes getting rid of as many of the lower classes as they could manage without. As for train robbers......well, it was only a small window of opportunity for them, with the first train running in 1829, and the last shipment of convicts to Australia happening in 1868. Australia had plenty enough poisonous snakes of its own, so I can't imagine anyone bothered sending vipers out there. People really did get transported for life for stealing a handkerchief or a loaf of bread. Mike Edited January 6, 2012 by MikeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 I mistook someone's New Zealand accent for Australian about a year ago. They were amazingly offended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 (edited) I mistook someone's New Zealand accent for Australian about a year ago. They were amazingly offended. Will likely be the same if you do vice versa. Worst of all was the New Zealand actor with thick NZ accent portraying an aussie, in the JAG series a few years back, so not right Aussies forgave the Simpsons episode with cochney accented australians and the prime minister living I think on a sheep station in the outback. Canberra though, our capital, does have lots of roos, and lots of rouse. Edited January 7, 2012 by Encounter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Oh, and avoid the faux pas of suggesting to someone from the UK they're from England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Oh, and avoid the faux pas of suggesting to someone from the UK they're from England. Incorri, Only if they are Welsh, Scottish or from the North of Ireland (NI) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) In my experience, many cultures mix up myth and extant reality, and don't treat them as seperate items. If people believe things exist, then they exist.....is the way it is justified. Well, I'm a bit more brutal than that. To me, just because a culture says that the moon is a lump of sacred goats cheese hanging from the branches of a sacred tree, that is no reason to take that sort of thing seriously. That's the sort of logic/ madness that ends up with Salem-type witch-hunts, or forcing Galileo to repent. All cultures in my experience have a "boogie-man" figure to scare their kids with. As I mentioned a day or two ago, in Southern and Eastern Africa it is Tokoloshe, the baby eating monster man. In mainland Europe it is the troll. We also invent mythical creatures to give us rewards...........fairies, leprechauns , angels. These are also used for controlling behaviour of the young (and in some places, not just the young). So no, I don't take reports of native sightings of fantastical creatures too seriously. I reckon they say more about the people telling the story than they do about the existence of cryptids. Science is a formalised attempt to take deal with just facts by taking invention & myth out of the equation, and I'll take that over myth and legend every day. However, many great discoveries have been made by listening to local traditions, and re-interpreting them, so we should be wary of chucking the baby out with the bath-water. Use native lore as a starting point for investigation, but it is no more (or less) valid than any of the nonsense that has been passed down through our culture for generations. Santa Klaus doesn't exist, reindeers can't fly, crossing your fingers doesn't bring you luck, and eating liverwort doesn't improve the health of your liver. Now, just to complete the circle, you can't take everything we have "discovered" too seriously either, depending on when the work was done. It's not long ago that we had people claiming to be able to turn lead into gold, and my old school library had a copy of Encyclopedia Britannica (about 1905, I think) which had a section on dragons. We're far from perfect. Mike Yes, I understand the scientific approach and that there is room there for both anecdotal evidence and cultural context in any comprehensive investigation. Personally, my investigation into anything is always about its meaning, our greater journey and the wisdom we might find in this journey. This is not to say that should be anyone elses way. I have long since come to believe that it is not as necessary to ask where did something begin, or how much more real is this than that - than to ask what meaning does it have in our existance and how can we use this experience to make our journey more expansive and positive. I am not alone in this. I could say many with close to my outlook but less social, would never bother to discuss or report to the western concrete world, encounters with those beings grouped in the crytozoological sphere. When I think on answering why so much is not reported then I think on what constitutres a report - what makes one report valid and another not. What world view is involved. I realise that this looks silly to some, naive to others, childish to a few as well. While I have enjoyed the scientific approach I really search for possibility and meaning and find that the actual approach of apparent science in modern terms, cuts off so much information and doesnt answer some very important matters. No matter how it seems, and with no attack on science - I am happily open to the symbolism of the turtle carrying the world, the dreaming, the rainbow serpent, the great OM etc as equally valid symbolic explanations concerning our deeper conception and journey. Again, no problem for people to follow the western scientific view but for me this misses out on so many vital understandings with regard to our nature. As physisists now speak of multidimentionality and the consciousness of atoms, Im wondering why so much of the rest of science is still basing all its work on linear time, and three dimentional constraints. Edited January 7, 2012 by Encounter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted January 7, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted January 7, 2012 I mistook someone's New Zealand accent for Australian about a year ago. They were amazingly offended. I'm from East London, i have the most similar accent to Australians that there is apart from New Zealanders & whilst in the US this summer ( & on every trip bar none in fact ) i get labelled as an Australian more than being English EVERY time. & yes, i am never too pleased about that, but you get used to it when it happens multiple times PER DAY !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) Oh, and avoid the faux pas of suggesting to someone from the UK they're from England. Wrong way around!!!! Everyone from the England is from the UK, but not everyone from the UK is from England. The worst faux pas you could commit with anyone of the 4 home nations is to call us Europeans! Mike Edited January 7, 2012 by MikeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) I'm from East London, i have the most similar accent to Australians that there is apart from New Zealanders & whilst in the US this summer ( & on every trip bar none in fact ) i get labelled as an Australian more than being English EVERY time. & yes, i am never too pleased about that, but you get used to it when it happens multiple times PER DAY !!! Theres a form of Welsh accent (like a form of mainstream English, not the famous "how green was my valley" singsong lyrical sound) that really is close to a moderate modern Aussie accent (which is to say not the ocker aus). Then again we are all sort of melting into each others form of English with so much globe hoping, British and US TV and the constant melding of dialects/languages. Edited January 7, 2012 by Encounter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Forbig Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 There's a reason why America is called the land of the free and the home of the brave so I have to say it's probably because they're happy here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts