"I asked myself, about a year ago, WHY our ancestors had better technology (and
therefore an advantage in conquering less developed nations".
The expression of "less develop nations" is no more than a very ignorant idea
invading countries have over other countries to excuse themselves for the
destruction and imposition of their own culture over other cultures. But most
of it to exploit them, stealing and slavery them in many ways. My view about
the human race is that the bad people are always the winers and the ones who
promote real civilization based are always the losers. Undevelop or Develop
countries is just a wrong perception we all have about different cultures based
in our own wrong perceptions.
--- On Sat, 18/9/10, audreydc1983 <audreydc1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: audreydc1983 <audreydc1...@yahoo.com>
Subject: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions
Date: Saturday, 18 September, 2010, 23:02
Yep, I agree with you - the situation in Australia is a whole different
(although somewhat similar) can of worms.
But - honestly - couldn't John Howard have just issued a statement to the
Aboriginal people acknowledging the "mistakes" of the past? If I were
Australian, I would BALK at him "apologizing" for me, or white people in
general for what happened then.
The sad truth is that the Aboriginals (like the Native Americans, and countless
other peoples) were overcome by force: better technology and firepower. That
can't be changed - especially by a "sorry" from one white politician.
I asked myself, about a year ago, WHY our ancestors had better technology (and
therefore an advantage in conquering less developed nations)in the first place
- and with luck, I stumbled upon this book, called 'Guns, Germs, and Steel' in
my local library:
It's a fascinating read. We already know the "how" of it happening, but here's
an interesting theory as to the "why" of it all.
It's good chatting with you all!
--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, mike brown <uerusub...@...> wrote:
> Hi Audry and Artie,
> It's quite a different situation in Australia regarding Aboriginal people.
> the conservative leader John Howard was in power he refused to sayÂ 'sorry'
> the indigenous people despite being called uponÂ to do so for a number of
> His argumentÂ was similar to both yours: that he wasn't personally
> for the crimes committed by people of a different generation. The Aborigines
> point, however, was that policies enactedÂ by a different government still
> affects Aborigines today (for example, taking 'half-blood' Aboriginal kids
> their mothers and putting them into foster care or Christian missions - just
> because they had white blood in them). Furthermore,Â people living in
> today live on the land that was traditionallyÂ Aboriginal landÂ and was taken
> without payment. Does kinda make a point that white people living on land
> from the native people (nearly always by force) do share responsibility with
> those people from a different generation. To say, "Sorry" is to recognise
> there is no 'break' from the past (how convenient for whte landowners, eh?)
> that we continue to enjoy what was once somebody elses without due
> ps Audrey, I used to be in the British infantry and have great respect for
> US Marines (not as good as the Brit Army, but still damn good!) Â :