http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-35922858
>Students are instructed to use the terms "Indigenous Australian people" or "Aboriginal peoples" in place of "Aborigines" or "the Aboriginal people", to avoid implying that all Indigenous Australians are the same.
>The guide also lists words such as "primitive", "simple", "native" and "prehistoric" as less appropriate than "complex and diverse societies".
>But UNSW says it does not mandate what language can and cannot be used.
What does /his/ think about this? I'm of two minds, honestly. I try to use the most precise language I when I talk about/write about history to ensure my perspective it totally clear, and the language you use to refer to the subjects you're studying can have a pretty significant influence on the way your work is interpreted.
I'm a grad student and I've studied, for instance, the WWII and the American south a lot. When I'm writing about slavery in the south, I use terms like "white Virginians", "black Americans", "enslaved persons", etc instead of "whites" or "blacks", to emphasize the importance of characteristics other than their racial identity. When I write about the Holocaust or WWII, I use "German citizens", "Jewish Germans", "German soldiers", "Russian Soldiers", and so on instead of the boring political vernacular that equates all of the belligerents/victims with their national, religious, or political status. Since good arguments are often founded on judicious and thoughtful phrasing instead of using simple language you might be reflexively inclined to use is a really important part of writing history, I'm sort of sympathetic to the idea that we should help students understand this stuff.
>Use of a term such as "nomadic" is discouraged on the grounds that it implies Indigenous Australians were not permanently settled, supporting the doctrine of terra nullius that English settlers used to justify occupying land in Australia.
This is a bridge too fucking far though.
>>907089
cont'd
The whole point of using the right terminology is to accurately reflect the reality of the historical record. As I understand it, indigenous Australians were absolutely a nomadic, non-sedentary people without permanent settlements. Assuming that somehow justifies the doctrine of terra nullis and altering the way you describe a group to reflect revisionist bias just demonstrates that whoever wrote this is more interested in dictating to students rather than actually arguing against the substance of colonial ideology. It's really shameful that historians would do something this disingenuous, imo - setting aside scholarly standards because of political bias is like the worst sin a historian can commit
Fucking abos didn't contribute nuffin. Its a shame more of the world wasn't colonized by large numbers of Anglos. The Anglosphere is basically the best collection of countries in the world.
>>907120
Thank you for your irrelevant and ignorant contribution
>>907089
Stop making these paragraphs-long bait posts, no one's going to fucking bother with this shit unless its two lines of greentext about how SJWs ruined your life somehow.
>>907130
I'm trying to ask a legitimate question about the way history is being taught on a history board, you fucking troglodyte
>>907127
Suck more libtard dick, ausfag. Soon you won't be able to write any "disparaging" remarks about "Australia's primary, first and best ethnic group"
dreamtime aint free
>>907130
It doesn't read like bait to me.
I'm dumb. Where's the problem?
The term is not 'invade', when it's a modern state settling in territory without existing modern states.
It's called ethnic cleansing, or genocide, or whatever term you prefer.
Britain invaded India, Britain did not 'invade' Australia, there was nothing to invade.
Also
>people who think non-civilized societies are primitive
Jesus Christ. You all have access to search engines.
>>907089
>college kids-these-days moral panic clickbait threads on /his/
>>907130
maybe you should try reading posts instead of puking out some worthless shitpost.
>>907192
>it's not an invasion if the invaded don't fit X criteria
The problem comes when the people doing the invading are the ones who determine the criteria.
>>907188
>Where's the problem?
its the 'they're saying a white ethnic group did something wrong to a non-white group, this is anti-white' meme
>>907089
It wasn't really an invasion nor was it a settlement. Settlement would imply terra nullius was correct but its well settled that this wasn't the case.
I would call it something like colonial displacement, where the colony displacess the original peoples of the land.
>>907216
Wow it's almost as though words have specific meanings
i'm ausfag and this is not really triggering unless you're a bogan.
>>907227
If the Australians who were living on the island now were killed or deported, and replaced by colonists from China, what would you call that?
>>907234
>i'm ausfag
Opinion disregarded.
>>907221
I'm not sure I understand your point. Where is the problem? Is it historical? Anthropological? Sociological? If so, in what sense? Etc. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
>>907244
Or maybe it's a semantic problem?
>>907236
Apples to oranges. While the indigenous peoples did have customary law in spite of their nomadic non agrarian/sedentary lifestyle, its incomparable to the Australian state today.
>>907258
How is it different?
The new people will have different laws from the European Australians. They will say, hey, the old laws weren't as real as our laws.
>nomadic
Not most aboriginals as of the first settlers. Why do people think all non-farmers are nomadic? In prehistoric times, almost all people were mostly sedentary, it's just that farmers pushed the non-farmers out of the best places to live. I guess that happened over the course of a few generations in Australia.
>non agrarian/sedentary lifestyle
Most of them had a sedentary lifestyle, but they weren't farmers, they were 'gardeners', and 'forest-keepers'. These are the first steps to agriculture.
>>907278
So what you're saying is that they were pre-agriculture cavemen
Sorry, forestmen
>>907296
>cavemen
No.
>forest-men
Yes. They were actively engaged in managing their environment.
It's a complicated issue I guess. I agree that the second point is pretty overboard. I reminds me of a first year Canadian history course I took where the professor was critical of the Bering Land Bridge because it "implied that all people in the Americas are immigrants and could be used to deny indigenous territorial claims." It's all good intentions, but in academia you don't get to pick what theories and ideas you support based on what's politically convenient. Beyond that it becomes much more complicated when simply talking about word choice. Obviously loaded terms like "primitive" or "savage" have little place in serious scholarship, but I agree that it needs to come down to what is most precise and accurate. reevaluating the vocabulary used in schools is never a bad idea.
>>907089
That's perfectly reasonable.
>>907258
I'd like to know what metrics you think are valid for determining the value of a culture. I don't think one that is less organized or politically developed somehow intrinsicly has more right to claim land or resist foreign intervention.
>>907278
>>907335
Because the Australian nation state is well recognized as a political unit commonly known as a nation state. I know theres an artificiality to this all but it means that say if China invaded today it would be well recognised as an invasion.
On the otherhand, in 1788 the aboriginals were not seen as such a unit. Their own laws and culture were vastly different from the western paradigm.
That's why if you look at Mabo, you'll see that native rights only apply where there's sufficient evidence of an ongoing connection to the land in question.
I would have to say that I'm probably approaching this from a very different perspective to you both. [spoiler] You both sound like sociology students whereas I'm studying law [/spoiler]
>>907227
I think colonial displacement is pretty good, but only if you use it to specifically refer to the initial phase of colonial conquest, not the relationship on the whole. If you're looking at the whole colonial experience, I think any its important to emphasize that, by all accounts what this anon pointed out is true:
>>907192
>>907328
>I reminds me of a first year Canadian history course I took where the professor was critical of the Bering Land Bridge because it "implied that all people in the Americas are immigrants and could be used to deny indigenous territorial claims."
What bugs me about that, besides it being wrong, is that it feels like a really lackluster way of criticizing colonial conquests and their subsequent cultural genocides, etc, because it sort of implies that those grievances wouldn't be legitimate if the occupants weren't strictly indigenous. It implies there are some contexts in which the displacement and cultural eradication of people is acceptable if they're not some arbitrarily determined length of time from their ancestor's immigration. Like, who gives a shit whether, in geological time, Native Americans are a totally autochthonous ethnic group or not? Even if they did cross the Bering Strait, it was an extremely long time ago, even in historical terms.
>>907335
Not the anon you're responding to, but I do think there are certain metrics that can give you some insight into the relative "value" of a foreign culture, from a western perspective. The presence of representative democracy, generalized respect for human rights and, more specifically, the rights of women and minorities, secular governmental institutions and social tendencies, less hierarchical informal social institutions, and so on.
Obviously this isn't some kind of codified points system whereby all cultures can be judged, and national government / nations don't necessarily reflect cultural tendencies, but I think you can generally use them to get a grip on the degree to which a foreign culture embraces fundamental, universal moral principles. Like I'd assert that French or American culture is superior to Saudi culture by all of those metrics.
>>907130
Shut the fuck up you fucking cunt
>>907089
>Implying that Abos aren't white
>>907089
Immigrants should accept culture and tradition in europe = european invading a country, destroying culture, tradition, killing people, starting TWO worldwars, hypocrite much?
>>907103
> As I understand it, indigenous Australians were absolutely a nomadic, non-sedentary people without permanent settlements.
Most not all.
>http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2003/03/13/806276.htm
It claims that Captain Cook's landing in 1770 was an invasion despite him landing for a few days, claiming it for Britain and sailing off again.
>>908109
>Immigrants should accept culture and tradition in europe = european invading a country, destroying culture, tradition, killing people, starting TWO worldwars, hypocrite much?
T- white guilt faggot
>>908137
I think he's being facetious, my little /pol/trash.
>>908140
>samefagging this hard
Fuck off back to leftypol, sjw
>>908147
How far this board has fallen...
>>908151
>"he" actually believes that opinions that are not not leftypol/revleft approved should be banned
Nu-males, everyone
Inbreed rednecks, dumb wannabe nazis are the reason why the western world gets more fucked up.
>>907089
>Use of a term such as "nomadic" is discouraged on the grounds that it implies Indigenous Australians were not permanently settled
They were in some areas.
>>908166
dumb wannabe nazis are a tiny minority, if they weren't, why would a white majority country ever allow anything like pic related?
the majority of white people are liberals and willing to cuckold themselves in order to avoid false accusations of racism, the idea they have power and privilege in society is a complete myth
>>908166
Nu-male butthurt is delicious
>>908165
>any opinions I don't agree with should be banned
The true face of leftypol, everybody
>>908178
>>908180
Facism failed, history showed, only inbreed rednecks, white ghetto alcohol drinker(and third world low brains like asians, hispanics and africans) will praise for an facism system again. It will lead to war again. Europeans started enough wars, or i am wrong? Think about your "women", when you fall in war, i will take them, idiot.
>>908196
disagreeing with liberals doesn't make me a fascist
>>908151
It was like this from the start, you cunt.
>>908196
This is a falseflag, right?
>>907236
labor 2016
This is actually becoming a really big problem for universities, and it needs to be addressed:
>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2002636
>http://www.aaup.org/article/rethinking-plight-conservatives-higher-education#.VvuqQfl95aQ
>>908339
457 visas were Howard era
one-eyed partycucks are the worst
>>908165
>pic related, most accurate summary of modern leftist
>>907089
>It wasn't an invasion?
Of course it was an invasion, just like the Normans invading the primitive Anglo's.
>Use of a term such as "nomadic" is discouraged on the grounds that it implies Indigenous Australians were not permanently settled
Sure it doesn't apply to all aboriginals, don't be a lazy fuck and generalise, see >>908123
>>908165
>Doesn't provide reason
>literally H****r
Are you kidding me?
>>908165
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!!!
The thing that shits me is that they seem to take this binary view, aboriginals and British, as if these two groups were homogeneous. There are thousands of aboriginal languages and even more various tribes with their own cultures and identities, while the Brits were from all over the isles. There were vast differences between the aboriginals in one area to another, some managed to sign treaties while others were cannibals. While the different types of Brits had their own tensions, you can see racism against the Irish and Scots quite clearly within newspapers of the time, posters and so on, lots of historical documents surrounding that.
But most every single mainstream history I have come across always puts the two at ends. Very black and white, in more ways than one, while in reality you can see it was a complete clusterfuck. You'd have one settlement where aboriginals were not to be mistreated then 20kms north you'd have one where they'd be kill on sight, all the while Irish were treated like dogs.
Australian history simply is purposefully explained in such a vague fashion that it is highly susceptible to ideological rewrites and for most the world it is an utterly mundane history so it sees very little objection.
>>908151
>if you don't have the same opinions as me, you're just wrong!
Man, if you want a leftist circlejerk, there's plenty of them on the net, maybe you'd like reddit, or the comment section of buzzfeed better?
>>907089
It's about time they done this and I feel all universities around Australia should follow this example. Saying settled is just a way to make the large white population of Australia make them selves feel better when they go to tell some Asian to go back to their boat.
>>907130
Epic
>>907089
And USSR invaded and occupied Eastern Europe.
Why do you even ask whose questions? Modern humanitarian sciences and economics are 90% propaganda, 9% "discovering" of already known facts and 1% actual science.
Well, yeah, Australia wasn't unpopulated when Cook et al. arrived.
People that are mad about this are historical revisionists.
>>907366
Eddie Mabo was Torres strait islander
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torres_Strait_Islanders
Not aboriginal, how many generations until I can claim?
>>907202
Aye, this is what we get for wanting a legitimate board to discuss history
>>907089
"Peoples" is pretty important.
I'm tired of Aboriginal people complaining about "cultural appropriation" of things like the didgeridoo and making up fake rules, when they didn't even know what a didgeridoo was until the mid '20s. If you're not from Arnhem land or Kimberley, it's not your "ancient sacred instrument"
>>907130
Dont you have some jewish suffering facts to invent schlomo?
>>907089
>prehistoric
they literally were though. I don't understand why this is difficult. I mean really most of northern Europe was prehistoric until the Hellenistic period, but you don't see me moaning that the phrasing is disrespectful to the proud Brythonic peoples
>>907089
>"native" and "prehistoric"
these are just words to describe different eras and people's ancestral origins
clearly this has nothing to do with fighting racism but finding reasons to falsely accuse people of racism
ok so the Brits invaded Australia
and what did they do for the country?
turn it into one of the best in the world
so what's the problem here?
>>908165
>muh Trump
please consider suicide
>>908344
my professor un-ironically said that we won the war of 1812
she's also the most hated professor in the history department
coincidence?
Seriously, everyone in my class fucking hates her
>>907335
>muh cultural relativism
>>908151
hello r*ddit
