Political Correctness Rant

[Jerry_Atrick]

13 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Getting back to aborigines, I have to say that I disagree with the "first nation" description.

They were not a nation in the slightest sense of the world. They were a bunch of warring tribes who hated each other even more than they hated whites.

The reason they didn't get inbred was that if 2 groups inadvertently met, the women from the weaker group would be herded over to the other group. If they were just raped, there was no need for a fight.

Most lost whites were killed out of hand. Those who survived did so because somebody in the tribe thought they may be a reincarnated dead relative. Sure, they were now white, but dying and being ressurrected  would surely be a traumatic experience which may well have physical side effects.

I would recommend going thogh all the vids on this page: https://www.sydney.edu.au/about-us/vision-and-values/our-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-community/kinship-module/learning-module.html

 

I am not saying they didn't have their wars, just liek the Europeans... nor the toxic atrocities that come with war.. but "a bunch of warring tribes".. seems a little too simplistic. They seemed to have a bunch of nations that taded with each other and yes, fought each other.. We are still doing that today.. they are many, many yearsolder than us.

 

 

[old man emu]

15 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Getting back to aborigines, I have to say that I disagree with the "first nation" description.

And I would agree, because the correct term is "First Nations".

 

It's possible that descendants of the Pre -1788 peoples of Australia, whom we call "Aborigines" in the Australian context, are fighting a battle to have Post-1788 immigrants understand that the Pre-1978-ers were not a unified population, but were co-existing groups, each with its cultural bents. Even today, can a descendant of the Post-1788 immigrants argue that all occupants of Europe, Asia, Africa or pre-Columbian Americas unified culturally?

 

Strewth, that's a convoluted way to try to avoid using terms under discussion !😖

[Yenn]

I cannot think of any part of the world that has not had invaders and wars, except for Antartica, but it was definitely terra nullius when modern man went there.

I just wonder what the aboriginals would be doing now if one of the other countries had taken over. Would they be talking French, Dutch, Portugese, German or Spanish?

If German how would they have coped with the beer halls?

They would probably have loved frogs legs and probably ate them before the French.

They would have been happy with the Spanish, all good little Catholics Not practicing contraception.

The Portugese would have been the best, they could have been Catholics  as well as gambling at the casinos.

I don't know what they would have done with Tulips and Clogs from the Dutch, Maybe wiped themselves out eating the tulip bulbs. Good job the Dutch didn't come here.

[Bruce Tuncks]

There was little need for white men to kill aborigines. All you needed to do was to give a  nearby tribe some guns and they would kill all the other tribe they could.

It was no different in the USA except that the redskins were more formidable. Apparently the first whites into the Mississippi valley only met a remnant of the thousands of tribespeople that were normally there. Smallpox had decimated the redskins before they faced the whites.

Well our Aborigines were very bad at defending their world. So bad that they declared it  terra  nullius"

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

I agree that it is naive to think Australia wouldn't have been colonised, probably through invasion, particularly as the world got smaller long before European culture would have sought a peaceful solution to acquiring resources and opening new markets.

 

I recall chatting to a young first nations (then termed Aboriginal) adult about it (at the time, a rare sight in Melbourne, for white fellas anyway) and suggested it was a matter of time.. a more benevolent country may have found it; or a less benevolent one that would have no worries wiping out all first nations to get their hand on the booty without having to deal with the inevitable future issues allowing them to survive would eventually bring.  He disagreed with a lot of what I was saying, but he could not disagree with the fact it was only a matter of time before there would be a foreign occupation of the land and that the technology most foreign countries had for fighting was advanced.

 

However, I, and the High Court of Australia, as well as the majority of the legal profession, disagree that Australia was terra nullius, which was an "international" (read European) legal concept at the time referring to being able to take empty (i.e. unsettled land). Cook used the fact that there were no man-made or seemingly man-enforced boundaries, no permament structures for homes or fenced off/managed agrigulture to declare the land empty, despite it being populated. Even if it were sttled, of course, this would not have stopped an invasion of Australia - which is required when the land is settled, but a declaration of Terra Nullius makes it far easier to take the land under "International" law of the time, as there is no requirement for reparations and coming to a peace treaty..

 

I encourage you to watch the second video in the list I linked to from the UNSW at the top of this page.. Clearly Australia, pre-1788 was settled and there were over 250 nations, all marked by more natural borders; each had at least one language and each had their own culture. Each had their own laws (mainly around kinship and moiety) and their own system of justice, education, etc. They traded amongst each other and, yes, they protected their turf and responded to aggression. In all wars, there are barbaric actions performed even by the good guys, and first nations people are no exception. From memory, there is only one or two languages that survive as (relatively speaking) "ubiquitous", with over 200 languages lost..

 

The main difference is that first nationers did not have the concept of permanent residence or agriculture, as they learned to co-exist with nature and saw no need to progress technology (that is my opinion - happy to be corrected). Although, it is arguable they invented/first understood the aerofoil; there was no one they could show that could have had us flying earlier.

 

If you google terra nullius Australia, you will find plenty of credible resources that will debunk the theory that Australia was not settled at the time.. This is a government reference talking about Mabo: https://aiatsis.gov.au/sites/default/files/docs/research-and-guides/native-title-research/overturning-doctrine-terra nullius-the-mabo-case.pdf

 

 

Edited August 27, 2020 by Jerry_Atrick

[Bruce Tuncks]

Quite right Jerry. I would argue that " they didn't see the need" was more like " they never imagined the possibility". Gosh, they often starved and they suffered from exposure.

They used the tactics  of deliberately starting fires and poisoning water holes, which sure would get a whitefeller into trouble these days. They abandoned their old folk to die when they couldn't keep up with the tribe, and they treated their women so badly that they didn't try to escape when kidnapped by a white squatter, being better off than in the tribe.

There are some good things about their culture though,  the lack of land ownership being one of them.

But on the whole it was an awful life they led, and most of the awful things were the result of lack of technology.

These days they are well-off, and a typical family group gets thousands in their social security pay, bolstered as it is with special allowances and royalties. Many people, obviously 90% white, choose to be legally aboriginal if they can achieve it. For example, the first "aborigine" to graduate medicine here was a blonde woman.

I well know a guy who is claiming aboriginality ( which I never noticed in 40 years ) to get some royalty money, about $5000 a year.

Yep, I would like to be a legal aborigine too.

[nomadpete]

I'm not sure whether this post belongs here or in the GRIPES thread. Maybe both.

 

My Firefox upgraded itself.

 

A major change is the renaming of the MASTER PASSWORD. Apparently the phrase "master password" has been found to be RACIST !!!

 

HAS NOBODY HEARD OF CONTEXT ???

 

They say:-

 

"Firefox exclude terms that exclude and damage people.

‘Master-slave’ is a metaphor that perpetuates racism.

.........

Master-slave’ is a metaphor that perpetuates racism. Firefox strives for inclusion and clarity; we have no need for terms derived from harmful metaphors when we have plenty of alternatives that are more inclusive, more descriptive and non-racist. For this reason, all instances of Master Password are being replaced with Primary Password in the Firefox browsers and products.

Deprecating the term Master Password is also in accordance with the "Derogatory Language" section of the Mozilla Community Participation Guidelines."

 

All very admirable........... But I ask whether anyone was actually personally "offended and excluded" by the common use of the term "master password"? What race was it allegedly directed at? No race was ever mentioned.

Edited September 4, 2020 by nomadpete

[old man emu]

Have you noticed that all these terms derived from harmful metaphors are only pricking the consciences of the Yanks?  Slavery as an economic reality might have been ended there 175 years ago, but they have managed to maintain it as a cultural reality to the present day.

 

'Master-slave’ is a metaphor that perpetuates racism. So be careful when you are maintaining your plane's hydraulic brakes and talking about your master and slave cylinders. And for those of you flying behind round engines, don't 

talk about master and slave connecting rods.

 

It's bad enough that the Piper Aircraft Company has usurped the names of the indigenous cultural groups of North and South America for financial gain without paying royalties.

 

Royalties:  Sense of "prerogatives or rights granted by a sovereign to an individual or corporation" is from late 15c. From that evolved more general senses, such as "payment to a landowner for use of a mine" (1839), and ultimately "payment to an author, composer, etc." for sale or use of his or her work (1857).

 

[spacesailor]

The term slavery was,nt Australian.

We only did "BlackBirding".

So what will we call those poor birds, that have the name, BLACKBIRD.

And what of Mr Black, and Mr White ?, will they be ostracized because of their respective names.

spacesailor

[red750]

Like the African American entertainer here some years ago, I think for the Logies presentation, who said theat Whiteman Street outside the Crown Casino should be renamed Blackman Street.

[old man emu]

6 hours ago, nomadpete said:

Master-slave’ is a metaphor that perpetuates racism.

Only in the USA. In civilised countries, the relationship is described as Master and Servant.

 

How will we describe a highly qualified commander of a sea-going vessel if we can't use the title Master Mariner.

 

And how will the three arms of the US military deal with the rank of Master Sergeant?

[octave]

I don't really understand why anyone has a problem with a company changing it's terminology. No one is suggesting the we have all been banned from using the term master.  The company has merely changed it's terminology. From time to time language does change to reflect changes in society. This company has made the rational decision to update and has no doubt worked out that it is better for business.   

 

I read the Mozilla Community participation document that was linked and I have absolutely no problem with it and I cant imagine why anyone would object. Workplaces usually have a code of conduct.  there is nothing radical or onerous about it as far as I can see.

[Subria]

What a sad "I'm offended" society we now live in! We are leaving our children a disturbed jelly mess! They will have mental issues their whole lives due utter stupidity!

[spacesailor]

We Are banned from using the term "nigga" when referring to people that live beside the "niger river in Africa. 

I,Ve no idea what to call them now.

Also the same for the people of the Mediterranean  Island of Lesbo.

spacesailer

[nomadpete]

Octave, I have no beef with the evolution of language when there is a logical change involved. My annoyance in this case centres around the fact that of all the important security improvements incorporated in a updated programme, the most important highlighted change was this trivial nomenclature change of a well accepted, non cultural or race related term. And also, my confusion regarding how any statistically significant large group of individuals might feel "offended and excluded" by use of such a logical, directly descriptive term. Nor do I understand how any individual could be 'damaged' by its use, which is stated in their press release.

Edited September 5, 2020 by nomadpete

[octave]

  It doesn't really matter whether you see it as logical the company made its decision no doubt based on its market research.  Whilst I cant see that it  is a ground breaking change I also can't see why anyone would particularly care.or be offended by the change.

 

The aim of any business is to sell their product, moving with the times makes sense. If they have misjudged and "offended" people by changing  a term then they will no doubt lose customers (although I doubt it)  

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Master, generator, magneto switches on. Err, what is my checklist now?

[old man emu]

4 hours ago, Subria said:

What a sad "I'm offended" society we now live in! We are leaving our children a disturbed jelly mess! They will have mental issues their whole lives due utter stupidity!

 

What people fail to realise is that if something offends them, then the problem is not with the thing, but with themselves. They are putting themselves at the centre of the world, and basically saying, "My opinion is more important than yours, unless you agree with me." I can feel empathy for a person on the receiving end of a belittling outburst, but I doubt if the words used would offend me. Not more than 50 years ago, the use of F*ck was considered to cause offence in a reasonable person. Today it is in common use as a replacement for earlier expletives. As far as I know, there is only one word that really offends women , and that is the "c" word. A yobbo can use any of the forms of f*ck to a female constable and most won't blink an eye, but call her a "c" and Hell hath no fury.

[onetrack]

There goes my BDSM nights. What are we going to call each other, now?? "Primary" and "Secondary" just don't cut it, when you're wielding a whip on someone in a dog collar. 

Edited September 5, 2020 by onetrack

[Marty_d]

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

 

What people fail to realise is that if something offends them, then the problem is not with the thing, but with themselves. They are putting themselves at the centre of the world, and basically saying, "My opinion is more important than yours, unless you agree with me." I can feel empathy for a person on the receiving end of a belittling outburst, but I doubt if the words used would offend me. Not more than 50 years ago, the use of F*ck was considered to cause offence in a reasonable person. Today it is in common use as a replacement for earlier expletives. As far as I know, there is only one word that really offends women , and that is the "c" word. A yobbo can use any of the forms of f*ck to a female constable and most won't blink an eye, but call her a "c" and Hell hath no fury.

You've never met my wife - she uses the word a lot more often than I do!  (Which, I hasten to add, isn't all that often - but she doesn't shy away from it if the situation calls for it).

[old man emu]

9 hours ago, Marty_d said:

You've never met my wife - she uses the word a lot more often than I do!

Apparently younger women are now using the word as part of their reclamation of their gender.

https://qz.com/1045607/the-most-offensive-curse-word-in-english-has-powerful-feminist-origins/

 

I suppose that it's the times that you were brought up in that determines the offensiveness of expletives. I know my Dad, born in the 1920's would never use f*ck in mixed company, and "bloody" was frowned upon by my grandfather. Now my millennial son over sauces the pudding of his conversation with f*ck. His constant usage grinds on our ears, but when you hear if sprinkled in the conversations of  Primary school kids, you know you've lost the battle. Many's the time I used "C" in berating something mechanical that is not responding, but I have to be really worked up to throw it a a bloke, and I'd have to be nearly homicidal to direct it at a woman.

[pmccarthy]

I never swore in front of my family ( despite being a miner) and my five children don't swear much either. I think it is learned behaviour.

[Jerry_Atrick]

I never swore until I went into the banking industry... Troopers have placid linquistics in comparison.

[red750]

I know women who use the form "CU Next Tuesday" on farcebook. Not picked up by the checker.

[Bruce Tuncks]

The NZ Maoris were better at fighting. The treaty of Waitangi was signed by whites who were well aware that their military supremacy could be lost by the sinking of a couple of ships.

The fact that they later double-crossed the Maoris is now lost on the court hearings about Maori rights.