-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Racism in Australia
- Thread starter gerg
- Start date
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
Hoots mon, theres a troll loose, aboot this hoose......
What's your nationality gerg?
Average life expectency Nigeria:- 46.9 years
Average Life Expectency Bangladesh:- 60.25 years
Average life expectency Australian Aborigine:- 67.0 years
Not a smart debating tactic to make things up then repeat them as fact....
Kevin_Lowe
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2003
- Messages
- 12,221
I checked and it turns out you're half right - I was slightly misremembering these figures:
http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/health/aboriginal-life-expectancy.html
Which states that australian aboriginals have a substantially lesser chance of making it to age 65 than Nigerians. Presumably Nigerians have a higher infant mortality rate, because they do indeed have a lower overall average age of death, but they live to an old age far more often than indigenous Australians.
For comparison here's a graph. Check where 60 (the average life expectancy of an Australian aboriginal male) falls.
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds..._le00_in&idim=country:NGA:AUS:BGD:KHM:ZAR:COG
It seems likely that Australian aboriginals are less likely to die as infants than those in severely disadvantaged countries, but even more likely to die before they reach old age. Overall they're better off than Nigerians and worse off then Bangladeshis, whose overall life expectancy is equal to that of an Australian aboriginal woman's.
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
It is also Worth noting that they ALSO have a MUCH higher life expectancy now than they did before white settlement. If you want to talk about whether they have been disadvantaged by white settlement, and want to use life expectancy as a measure, they are undoubtedly better off than they were before Europeans came.
The obvious metric is why do they have a shorter life expectancy now than other Australians. The answer is quite simple- they live a different lifestyle to other Australians. Alcoholism, drug use, violence, abuse and malnutrition are all much more prevalent in Aboriginal society than European.
The question is, do we want to change this? It might seem insanely obvious that the answer is yes, but that is simplistic. Aborigines have different problems because they live different lives. At least to some extent, this is because they CHOOSE to live differently to the rest of the society.
Are we justified in imposing changes (and, if we want results, that would have to include somehow stopping Adults from choosing to drink and use drugs) on people because we feel guilty they won't live as long? It would seem you can't on the one hand advocate wholesale change in a peoples way of life, whilst still decrying things like the "Stolen (10% of a ) Generation". Aborigine children taken now from alcoholic, abusive parents would no doubt live a longer, healthier life than if they are left where they are, but what government is going to wear the political fallout from that kind of act?
Kevin_Lowe
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2003
- Messages
- 12,221
Completely ignoring quality of life rather than length of life, the disparity between the life expectancies of indigenous people and conquering people in other nations is much greater (~20 years) in Australia than in other nations.
(Data from the link I gave earlier, http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/health/aboriginal-life-expectancy.html ).
Choosing pre-conquest life expectancy as a point of comparison seems to be to be disingenuous at best. The question is how aboriginal Australians do compared to the rest of the modern Australian population, not how they do compared to their long-dead ancestors.
If the answer is no, I think your moral views are very strange indeed.
My view is that they would not make those choices if they were well-informed, rational, and had the opportunities available to other Australians. We can help them on all three fronts.
Absolute nonsense. Being opposed with hindsight to a dumb and counterproductive government program does not commit us to opposing all government programs ever. That would be appallingly simple-minded.
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
An alcoholic also CHOOSES to drink. Trust me on this - I am one. Does that mean that this is good or healthy?
Have you researched the historical details at all?
Oh, so you are going to choose how the Aborigines are going to live, despite what they now want themselves. How nice.
Hallo Alfie
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 10,691
Can you plese tell us what it is you think they want?
Do you always try to deliberately miss the point when you make trolling posts?
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
Me? No. I don't have the experience. But then again, I'm not the one arguing that poverty, alcoholism and drug addiction are good for people.
MG1962
Unregistered
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,252
No - from 1990 to 2005 we let this organisation make those choices. It was run by Aboriginal people for Aboriginal people
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_and_Torres_Strait_Islander_Commission
We now give that responsibility to these people
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Indigenous_Policy_Coordination
The lifestyles of Aboriginal are as diverse as those of other elements of the population. Not all Aboriginals want to return to the 'noble savage' lifestyle
Last edited:
I don't know what they want. I merely feel that if a people want to behave a certain way internally then that is only their choice to make, no one else's.
Hallo Alfie
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 10,691
So do you think that an outback society should be run independant of any outside interference? That the local residents can live as they always did, exploit the land and leave in peace and harmony - you know, Utopia.
What a wondeful idea, except it simply doesn't work.
Here's a little overview of the problem; something of a generalisation but...
Like any society, 10% are going to be addicts/alcoholics, another 25% will abuse these substances.
Some nice locals will 'import' these things in for these individuals.
Given the culture of sharing all our property that the indigenous have then everything is - in rough terms - pooled. So any money that was 'earmarked' for you know, the unimportant things like food, clothing and education are foregone on said drugs and alcohol.
Police can have little influence because they are now living with traditional laws. The problem is that the strongest willed - you know, the community leaders tend to be the most violent and are either exploiting the situation and/or drinking and drugging.
Not to mention the fact that some of these are quite adept at other abuses of wives, children etc. Add some pornography and you have a wonderful melting pot for any sort of crime.
There is very little work as the government gives them all "sit down money", so there is little need to try and improve ones lot. And idle hands make for the devils playground. You can't imagine some of what goes on.
So, you want freedom of choice for the 10% addicted? Or is it the other 25% who use dangerously? Or would it be better to cease the availability of the substances to allow the 65% to live more prosperous and healthy lives?
So which people do you think want to live what way/ Do they all have that "coice" of which you so ignorantly speak? And how should this type of problem be managed?
Respectfully, you have no idea. Do some research, then come back and chat.
Last edited:
I'll ask again: Have you done your research on the incident?