I've been reading this book by Bill Bryson. He's an American born author that lived in England for most of his life and he does a ton of traveling, because that's what he does. He goes to wonderful or not so wonderful places, writes a book about the experience, and makes some money while having fun doing so.

The book I'm currently reading is called In a Sunburned Country , and is about Australia. And through this book I've lived vicariously in Australia and find it to be one of the most beautiful, interesting, and sometimes backward continents. My concern here, is not so much a concern, but an interest in other's opinions.

Bryson goes into explain about the Aboriginal people of Australia, taking great pains to expalin all of the facts as are known today. The length of time they've been there, the odd circumstances of them even inhabiting the county, the ill (that's saying it in a nice way) treatment they received. Bottom line, what do you guys think of it?

Why backwards?

The way Aboriginal people have been treated in Australia is nothing short of a disgrace... (I'm sure I'll elaborate when I am less 4am-ed)

Things like this !

"No researcher told the people whose blood was taken why and how their blood would in fact be used," Chen said. "Different researchers told them the same thing: that their blood was to be used for a health check,"

  It was actually for various genome projects the Aborigines were told nothing about.

All that I've heard from Australians is that the treatment of Aboriginies in the past is very embarassing to them now. That sentiment comes from my family in Oz and as I've never visited I cannot fairly comment any more.

On a side note. I'm reading Bryson's The Lost Continent and there is a similar line concering the US of A and its treatment of the native americans. The only other book of his I've read is A Short History of Nearly Everything.

I can't think of a conquering ('colonizing', if you prefer) people that haven't acted in this way. Given the disappearance of premodern hominid species, I'd say that the behavior is possibly hardwired into us (rather than a byproduct of civilization).
 

In Response to snipergirl (#23390):

One word: Queensland. "Madder than cut snakes"

And this post isn't completely about the treatment of the Aborginies. It can also be about the circumstances concerning their being there in the first place. That or anything to do with the author himself.

i.e. Even though Bill Bryson is technically an American, due to his time spent in England he has a very British sense of humor.

How do you feel about the treatment Native Americans received?

   

In Response to GeminiCrash (#23398):

cf: backwardsness
One word: Queensland. "Madder than cut snakes"

Queensland doesn't count for moral judgement, because everything in Queensland is trying to kill you. Along with the sharks, jellyfish, crocs, spiders, snakes, ninja kangaroos, and miscellaneous diseases, I got warned about the killer trees while I was there.
 

In Response to gtyrrell (#23396):

the behavior is possibly hardwired into us

I disagree completely. Just because a ball will roll down a hill every time, this does not mean that it the nature of balls to roll down a hill. Extinguishing another species or does not require a systematic war, just constant expansion and control of resources. Think of the plight of large mammals in North America after humans appeared. There was no benefit to killing off so many food sources.

Also, colonizing battles are distinctly different from evolutionary ones, as crossbreeding (both literally and of ideas) does not happen between different species.

In Response to deerboy (#23399):

It's about the same really. In my opinion; however; their treatment seems a little more harsh since the Aboriginies were in Australia longer and their arrival on the continent is speculated to this day -Australia was never a part of Pangea. And, there weren't monkies in the jungles or anywhere for that matter until the Eruopeans thought it would be a good idea to bring them to add some "life" to the rather "boring" country; so they couldn't have evolved from "Australian" simians. It's almost as if they were put there. And if they got there how some people believe they got there - crossed at least 60 miles(if I recall correctly) of dangerous water in at most a couple rafts - then they diserved to be there.

In Response to deerboy (#23401):

Think of the plight of large mammals in North America after humans appeared. There was no benefit to killing off so many food sources.

Current [sciencedaily.com] thinking [newscientist.com] favors climate change for the extinction of the North American megafauna.

Also, colonizing battles are distinctly different from evolutionary ones, as crossbreeding (both literally and of ideas) does not happen between different species.

I'll have to look up references when I get home, but there are respected scholars that think that's exactly what happened with earlier branches of the family tree. There's a site somewhere in Africa that showed evidence of a protohominid massacre, with two distinct species using different tools/weapons; the losers didn't get crowded out by evolutionary winners, they lost a war.

More recently, the Neanderthal were likely part assimilated, part exterminated. In The Masks of God, Joseph Campbell had some pretty compelling evidence that cultural/religious aspects of the Neanderthal (a fascination with bears and red earth, and certain burial practices) were adopted and carried far and wide by more modern humans.

Eventually, they showed up up in a wide band around the Arctic long after the Neanderthal are generally agreed to be extinct. Either the 'thal lived a long time after we thought they died out (possibly by crossbreeding), or they taught some Cro Magnon (or even more modern humans) some of their rites. Of course, we could argue as to whether or not the Neanderthal were distinct enough to count as another "species", but non-breeding ability need not preclude cultural exchange.
 

In Response to gtyrrell (#23400):

Ha! The trees don't kill you! they just give you great stinging pains for the next 3-5 years.

And regarding all those other miscellaneous statements about Queenslanders: You're all as ugly as a cat licking shit off a thistle.

In Response to unFalln (#23408):

Ha! The trees don't kill you!

Yeah. I'd heard it was the drop bears that did that.

In Response to zamphir (#23409):

Nah, drop bears merely promoted copulation.

In Response to unFalln (#23410):

Nah, drop bears merely promoted copulation.

I said "Bears" not "Beers".

In Response to zamphir (#23411):

Drop Beers? cool!

In Response to unFalln (#23412):

Drop Beers? cool!

No.

DO NOT DROP YOUR BEER.

In Response to zamphir (#23413):

But wouldn't it be cool if it rained beer?

In Response to GeminiCrash (#23406):

Oh my god. Goodbye American education system. I cannot begin to tell you what is wrong with your posting. Can you back to grammatical errors? At least they can be blamed on laziness and not a fountainhead of ignorance.

-Australia was never a part of Pangea.

Wrong [scotese.com] and irrelevant. Lets use some accepted dates (or thereabouts - I know there are some new civilization dates, this is just for illustration)

Pangea: 200,000,000 years before present
Aboriginals arrive in Oz: 40,000 years before present
Native Americans (sic) arrive in North America: 10,000 years before present

I can't find them, but due to Australia being mostly a desert, mortality quantites are tens of millions for Native Americans versus hunderds of millions for Australian Aboriginals.

they couldn't have evolved from "Australian" simians

Evolution is not a pathway to inevitabilities. Homo Sapiens evolved once, a statistically unrepeatable instance.

Now is the time to break out "go read Guns, Germs, and Steel". Good read, and you will learn a lot

In Response to GeminiCrash (#23406):

We have monkies in our jungles? I want one! I want one!

In Response to gtyrrell (#23407):

Good and informative points.

However,

There's a site somewhere in Africa that showed evidence of a protohominid massacre, with two distinct species using different tools/weapons; the losers didn't get crowded out by evolutionary winners, they lost a war.

How do you think evolution happens? Your hypothesis requires evidence of massacres solely for the purpose of feeding some innate bloodlust or deep-seated xenophobia. While these may exist, I don't believe you can demonstrate that this 'massacre' is anything more than a battle for resources at the intersection of two groups trying to monopolize them. A 'war' would require a systematic series of such sites over a large area created at about the same exact time, which is probably impossible to confine looking at geologic evidence.

The simple rule here comes from evolution- two species competing for the same resources in the same way soon become one species. These sort of events define evolution. If you want to call it a 'war', then you are merely speaking of the daily fight versus entropy. I think Malthus said something about this.

I concede the 'ideas' point can cross between any species capable of culture. Can you demonstrate the genetic perseverance of those mighty 'Neanderthal'? I don't think so. Cause they met a little animal called 'Homo Sapiens', and you got YOUR BUTT KICKED!! HOMO SAPIENS RULES!! WHOO!!

In Response to unFalln (#23408):

Ha! The trees don't kill you! they just give you great stinging pains for the next 3-5 years.

Damn. Led astray by a crafty Queenslander. Guess I didn't have to kill all those trees before they attacked me.
 

In Response to gtyrrell (#23419):

Go quickly to Brazil and them your story.

In Response to deerboy (#23421):

23421 += tell;

In Response to deerboy (#23418):

There's a site somewhere in Africa that showed evidence of a protohominid massacre, with two distinct species using different tools/weapons; the losers didn't get crowded out by evolutionary winners, they lost a war.

Home now, and double-checked my references. My recollection was off, in that it wasn't two protohominids in a fight. A band of homo habilis dumped a ton (literally, one ton) of rocks on a band of baboons. Sorry for the confusion.

Can you demonstrate the genetic perseverance of those mighty 'Neanderthal'?

Others who've made this their life's work have claimed intermix between Neanderthal and modern humans. It's far from settled, and it won't be settled unless we get a good genetic sample from a Neanderthal for comparison against that burly guy down the block.
 

In Response to gtyrrell (#23407):

Current [sciencedaily.com] thinking [newscientist.com] favors climate change for the extinction of the North American megafauna.

"Two recent studies, including one by scientists with blantant agendas," favor climate change for the extinction of the North American megafauna.