Narcissus and Narcissism

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{{Narcissistic no, but as I asked you to mention anything interesting as you studied this area, and this is the first time you've even mentioned it since, and you mention nothing of interest, I assume its not very interesting at all. Or you couldnt be arsed to share your discoveries  Typical Ozhobbit, youre probably to busy at sports or something  }}}

Do you mean Aboriginal History?

Yes. Dont you even remember?
And I thought I was the buckied one!  

I had this peculiar idea that no one was interested in my interests!  

Maybe I didn't read your request. I know I don't read all the posts nowadays. There's sooo many of them. Which is good, but bad in one sense, as it's time consuming to keep up at times, and I don't always have a lot of time!

I'm realizing how shabbily Colonialists treated indigenous peoples in Oz - and around the world. I knew it before, but I'm confronting it now in far more detail. People in the past had horrible ideas about life and how the lives of others should be treated. Interestingly, Christians often treated Aboriginals well (by the standards of the day) except they forced Christianity down their throats and damaged their culture and communities with The Word every bit as much as heathen Europeans did with their weapons, diseases and land theft (and rape). Funny thing is, I can't help noticing how Patriarchal tribal communities were too - and that before Christianity! I feel like I've got a split personality now. I admire certain things about European Colonists and Aboriginals, and abhor certain things about them, when, I guess, the usual thing is to take sides. Admittedly, I'm more focused on the evil treatment Aboriginals received at the moment. America had slavery and it's incumbent abuses, but many Colonialists here were just as bad without (official) slavery. It's a huge canvass, Petty, as I'm sure you'll know. Fascinating and gut wrenching by turn. I know so little of my country's History. Shame shame shame.

I felt much the same about my own countries history when I realised I had left school and knew very little about it.
I dont know much about the aboriginal stuff save the sort of stuff that grabs headlines- the taking of children from their families and communities to bring them up as Christian and the like, but nothing much more.
Any thoughts you have or particular historic moments you think are of interest please do bring them up and I can go dig around on the net myself for further info. But helps to have a guiding hand to point me in the right direction, bit like when leaving the pub.

The topical stuff is there. The Stolen Generation. The Possession of Australia and idea that Aboriginals didn't own it. The massacres. The disease spreading. The rapes. But I had never thought about the fact we* didn't even have Treaties with the Aboriginals. Didn't even go through that sham with them - except in my home state, of Victoria. The treaty the "Founding Father' of Melbourne (our capital), John Batman, made with the Kulin tribe was not much more than a sham, either, but it at least recognized prior ownership of country, I guess.

I very recently read a book about Aboriginal impact on the landscape (over thousands of years) - which is what I mentioned before somewhere - and it's interesting how I look at the countryside now. I've opened my eyes a bit and now try to gauge if I'm seeing European or Aboriginal landscapes as I drive around - even when I look out my back door. Fascinating and disturbing. Disturbing when I think of human displacement and abuse and the murder of former inhabitants of these lanscapes.

* The 'we' is funny, because I am third generation Oz on one side, and second gen on the other. Are the Colonialists actually 'my' forebears? But I still feel a bit to blame. My ignorance of the truth seems to damn me.

If you go to Hawaii, the windward side of the island is lush, then the lee side is desert like as the mountain range extracts precipitation from the air flowing over it.

The desert used to be a desert without thorns, in fact the whole island was without thorns. But the missionaries were so shocked at the idea of the natives going about barefoot (that's not Christian!....back when "christian" meant European) that they planted thorn bushes to discourage the practice.

Now Hawaii's stuck with thorn bushes they can't get rid of. Talk about colonists destroying a new land...

Orwell wrote:I had this peculiar idea that no one was interested in my interests!  

Not all your interests of course {{{  }}} but the Aboriginal history is fascinating!
More please, as you have time.  

David!  How goes the picking of suspiciously shaped veg? I trust the harvest is going well- and you can get back to the Who thread post haste!

I think Paganism is still around if you look deeply enough, Pagan festivals transformed into Christian ones, Well Dressing festivals, harvest festivals, some Easter symbols, I reckon theres a lot of superstitions like touching wood, sacred oak trees, that remain under the surface.

I fear Dave is a bit narcissistic about his vegies... I mean, how proud he is of of them! Probably thinks they're the most beautiful in the world. (He might be right about his boobilicious melons, but is that any reason to think his vegies are better than anyone elses!) (Actually, it probably does, but there's a principle involved!)

Halfy, your thorn story is interesting. Makes me think of Europeans changing the environment for their own purposes. Some European let a pair of rabbits go in Victoria (Ozland) in the 1800's. Now they've been rooting the country ever since (and each other, but let's not go into that on a family friendly forum).

Aboriginals have 'worked' the country for thousands of years. The early Europeans thought Australia was a wilderness, and yes some is, but apparently much of it was managed by firestick and by attuned observation and wisdom. Many early colonists thought much of the country looked like English Parks (though still believing it wild). That's because Aboriginals managed the place for their comfort and ease. They were like aristocrats without the hoity toity attitudes. Early Europeans complained about how Aboriginals sat around having lots of Corroborees (singing, dancing, rituals). They did so because they managed their foodscape in a practical manner, interfering just so much as suited their purpose, with plenty of time for community activities - one of which was sitting around chatting, as chatting was a big part of their day along with having lots of Corroborees as stated above. Europeans have brought erosion, salting and habitat destruction, and lots of long hard labour; a Christian work ethic, in fact. Yes, Aboriginals, managed habitat too, and were involved in environmental changes, but not at such a damaging cost to landscape that we clever Europeans achieved.

Mrs Figg wrote:I think Paganism is still around if you look deeply enough, Pagan festivals transformed into Christian ones, Well Dressing festivals, harvest festivals, some Easter symbols, I reckon theres a lot of superstitions like touching wood, sacred oak trees, that remain under the surface.

Christianity is enormously Pagan - but don't tell them that. It makes them feel uncomfortable (apparently). (Judaism is more Pagan than Jews let on for that matter, I reckon).

Orwell wrote: Yes, Aboriginals, managed habitat too, and were involved in environmental changes, but not at such a damaging cost to landscape that we clever Europeans achieved.

Not always. Possible counter examples are Easter Island, the Mayan world, and I'm sure others. And modern Europeans I think have done quite well. In Austria it seems like every morning they set up a blown up postcard on an easel, and scurry around trimming and sweeping everything to make it match.

halfwise wrote:Possible counter examples are Easter Island, the Mayan world, and I'm sure others. And modern Europeans I think have done quite well.  In Austria it seems like every morning they set up a blown up postcard on an easel, and scurry around trimming and sweeping everything to make it match.

I basically agree. I'm not prepared to say Aboriginals were environmentalists. They managed their landscape and so must have had some negative impacts on the natural world. I guess what I'm saying is that they had long term sustainable practices as far as keeping themselves alive without making parts of their landscapes (as far as I know) unliveable for humans. I'm sure there would have been extinctions of certain flora and fauna, but how pervasively, who knows. I suspect their immediate impact was less than the early Europeans. And I think we Modern Europeans, generally speaking, are doing better to make our environments more sustainable while attempting to minimize extinctions and land degradation.

The thing I find fascinating reading what I'm reading at the moment is that the Aboriginals of Australia deserve far more respect for their culture and land management than they're usually given. They were never savages (though all humans can be savage at times) and nor were they primitives, except in technological terms, though they had practical enough technologies to hunt and fish and forage and burn with a view to creating lush pastures and food forests etcetera. Their cultures were highly sophisticated if seemingly 'simple' to those of us who refused to listen, look and understand.

The other side of the coin is, they weren't Greenies. There was no tree hugging going on. And, yet, they respected and revered their landscapes every bit as much as Greenies do. An example: Greenies here are against burning 'natural' landscapes, as they see fire as destroying habitat. Aboriginals burned because they believed they were enhancing habitat and doing so was to be in tune with the Dreaming (loosely speaking), which I guess might be indistinguishable from 'Mother Nature' in it's spiritual sense.  Am I wafling now? I think I am.  

As to the reasons for Mayan and Easter Island social collapse - I don't know enough to agree or disagree with you, Halfy. I'd like to know more. I thought the Mayans had a huge drought or something, and the Easter Islanders over-populated, degraded the land, and then killed each other in a war. My knowledge, I said, is limited - and at least some of it most probably faulty too.

If memory serves the Mayan problem was their farming method, they basically stripped all the trees off hillsides and farmed those, eventually the soil didnt hold together when it rained, they got a wet period and that washed all the soil away and that in turn was followed by inevitable famine.
But that does need doublechecked- I havent studied in the Mayan stuff in ten years or more in really depth and Im going on hazy buckie recollections here.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:David!  How goes the picking of suspiciously shaped veg? I trust the harvest is going well- and you can get back to the Who thread post haste!

We're at the point in harvest were we're planning our endgame. about 20 acres left to haverst which could theoretically be done in as little as 10 days if the weather hoolds. Checking in here whebn I check email and wait for downloads. Enjoying the Aboriginal discussion. it gives me somethihng larger to ponder as I walk in large circles in my field.

The Mayans burned a lot of trees to make lime to paint their temples, or so the latest interpretation goes, leading to major environmental cluster-f*$ks. Easter Islanders removed trees for agriculture, building materials, and fuel. Soil quality declined.

I hadnt heard that Halfy, behind the times in my reading. Seems either way comes down to the same basic problem, screwing the soil, loosing what binds it together, and disaster following.

In relation to the Easter Islanders, all this begs the question (for me): were the Easter Islanders only recent arrivals. If not, what land management practices did they have before they stripped all the trees? I'm assuming here that they were there for a long long time before landscape destruction --- or only for a short time i.e. after recently arrriving; this could be a hundred or more years but not thousands of years I imagine. Was there a "farming revolution" that brought their downfall, or did they bring foreign land management practices with them?

David H wrote:

Pettytyrant101 wrote:David!  How goes the picking of suspiciously shaped veg? I trust the harvest is going well- and you can get back to the Who thread post haste!

We're  at the point in harvest were we're planning our endgame. about 20 acres left to haverst which could theoretically be done in as little as 10 days if the weather hoolds.  Checking in here whebn I check email and wait for downloads. Enjoying the Aboriginal discussion. it gives me somethihng larger to ponder as I walk in large circles in my field.

Did the Indigenous folk of your area have similar land management practices to the Australian Aboriginals, David?

hey, did you hear about that guy who survived hanging (this is a recent story, so not something i am making up), so he survived and the family found him 24 hours after. when he's well enough he's gonna be hanged again. the irony..


adding. he is convicted to death penalty because he had some drugs in his possession, he is a father of two, 37 years old (same age as BC). they found him breathing in the mourge.

i have no idea whether that post fits this thread or not.. but it is kinda narcisistic

Thats darkly ironic.  

yah.. and sadly very true.

and very recent.

Orwell wrote:Did the Indigenous folk of your area have similar land management practices to the Australian Aboriginals, David?

Very much so. Fire was used to keep certain areas open for crops such as camas, and water was dammed or drained to keep certain areas marshy but not flooded for crops such as cranberries, both of which were grown in large quanity for trade with inland tribes . Oyster shells were returned to the bay according to traditional practice, where they formed reefs on which the new oysters could thrive. Salmon were harvested in unimaginable quantity for resale to inland tribes, but only at certain times and in certain places. The taboo system was very strict on this. It was all carefully culturally regulated.

One of the first 19th century journals from this area describes a 6 mile long cranberry bog which would include the land I'm now farming. Of course it was natural when the homesteaders took over the land that many of the traditions continued. But officially it's a bit awkward to acknowledge that white farmers confiscated land from red farmers to use for the same purpose. Far easier to claim they weren't using the land. I think that's why the myth that Indians didn't farm runs so deep.