I'm going to reply in dot points because..well it's a long post.
 When you come to long paragraphs with seemingly no point just skip them. I'm tired as all hell but wanted to write a reply before this turns into some flame war. the essencials are contained in the beginning and end.
- Non-Aboriginal locals (I'm not aussie, only a citizen) often have contempt for modern
aboriginal society, since there are many drunkard aboriginies (they didn't develop they enzyme the whites did to break down alcohol as effectively) who do horrible things, and they are far more prevalent in the news and media than those who do not. pre-colonisation Aboriginal history which is compulsory education in NSW since primary school is held neither in contempt or high esteem. It just is.
- I'm not posing as arrogant, I am
arrogant, consequently I'm not unsure of myself nor am I angsty, but I don't pretend to know it all. I do however take offence to beign called a racist since in my
eyes comments can only be racist if intended to be prejudicial or...racist. Mine was not, it was a matter of oppinion stating that Aboriginal culture because of its style does not grip me. Your oppinion on my comments is your oppinion, as mine is mine, it is not however, a universal consensus and so does not give you the right to unilatterally declare it racist.
- Noooo, I'm talking about Aboriginal culture. I'm pretty sure I mentioned it specifically. Me not being enthused about said culture is PARTIALLY about my preferences, and PARTIALLY about how that culture fares with respect to them.
- This one I liked:
Oh really? You mean, like, the advent of the Europeans didn't have any impact on them whatsoever? You mean, like, they didn't trade with Macassarans (I'm most familiar with Yolngu people, hence the example)? You mean, like, they don't have a history? Like, no stories of the olden days to tell your grandchildren? C'mon, stop being silly. Nothing ever remains the same.
No, they had stories as we both know, but I think it's pretty obvious that I'm talking exclusively about pre-colonisation, just as when most people say "Aztec culture" they will likely mean strictly pre-colonised culture. Stories they had, but they passed them down generation to generation to generation. Their creation myths are ancient, like ANCIENT, so little change there. The Aboriginal people who came to the schools were proud of how far back their cultural identity and stories stretch. THIS is why I said they didn't change. Because their legends have continued relatively unchanged, as have their customs and traditions, for millenia.
- Yes you are entirely correct about the kinship relationships. (yay yr9 geography) And I'll be honest I was impressed at that, the system which determines your category based on your parents' categories and hence determines the category of your future partner. Cunning system to avoid inbreeding, but immaterial and I think now is the time to make a very important clarification. I noticed you made a rather angry comment
Yes, we (I) know very little of the history of the pre-European contact Australia, ...t mainly because, ... many generations of the people who inherited and transmitted the history and the traditions were persecuted (sometimes to the point of extermination) by White Australians. The cultural transmission was purposedly broken in many communities before their histories had the chance to be recorded. At the very best, the Aborigines and their culture were ignored for a long time, because - you guessed - many people didn't find them interesting enough to care.
(my bold) This bit gets confusing, I'm sorry, I'll try and edit later
I'm not saying at ALL that they aren't interesting, but I
don't find them to be. I believe very much that their history and culture and languages should be recorded, just not by me. You seem to be of the oppinion (or so it sounds) that I am the aussie equivalent of a Redneck, who doesn't care about the fate of the Aborigines. I do, and I respect
their cutlure, it just doesn't fascinate me.
- For the record, in case it comes up, I did support the Apology -
On the topic of Immateriality, we're talking about Ancient civilisations here. Latin America is littered with Cities and Pyramids, Egypt too, Rome has ruines all over Europe and the Greeks have preserved a lot of their buildings. The written literature of these cultures exists to this day. It's something to connect with. Even if they die out (and actually, those ones did) they have left their mark on earth. I'm a science man at heart, so clearly I respect technology, thought, ideas. The Aborigines settled Oz some 50,000 years ago. WAY before the end of the last Ice age, their level of technology for the time was average except that they showed ingenuity in building watercraft with which they could make it to Australia. Other cultures and peoples made technological breakthroughs. Agriculture, Iron working, construction, the list goes on. They developed vast empires and unified tribes. Now, I'm not at all saying that the Aboriginies' failure to do the same makes them a lesser people. As Aesop said, necessity is the mother of invention, and in fact for a long period in human history outside of Oz there was a technological halt since there was no need. I'm certain that had the Aboriginies faced hardships the likes of those the Europeans faced, and had the same materials at hand, they would have advanced technologically as well, however, they did not.
Looking from the point of view of a sociologist, I'm sure the Aboriginies represent a veritable gold mine of wealth, but even empires which I salivate over (Egypt being the first) when it comes to the actual day-to-day culture of the people, I don't care. I couldn't tell you what your average Roman Greek or Egyptian peasant did on a wednesday, what I CAN tell you is who was elected to office and how, who was assassinated, how they ran the empire, military conquests, great thinkers and leaders.
Aboriginies as far as I know (I may be wrong) never really developed philosophy, natural phenomina were explained by their myths, moral lessons passed on via stories, but were there any great thinkers? any heroes? Well, ok, speaking the names of the dead is banned so I'll admit there may have been but we don't know.
I understand I've gone way off topic here, but the point I'm poorly trying to make (and it's 2am) is that Aboriginal culture does not tell us of any great thinkers or individuals, they made no technological, philosophical breakthroughs, they didn't unify into greater and greater groups, they never broke out of being hunter-gatherer nomadic tribes. For want of a better explanation, I don't see how their societies differed in the 1600's from N-thousand BC. There is nothign wrong with this of course. Merely prevailing for 50,000 years is in and of itself a great achievement*To the crux of the matter:
Isn't MFKR short for "Mate-Feed-Kill-Repeat"? If so, pray tell, is it not a dismissive and derogatory term? If so, how is describing a culture, any culture, in blanket dismissive and derogatory terms, different from being "racist"? One doesn't exactly need to "prove you wrong" to see that the picture you're showing us has racist frames.
Yes, it is MAte Feed Kill Repeat, as Slipknot stated the term was meant to reffer to the basic cycle of life. In this regard it wasn't meant to be derogatory at all, but yes it was dismissive. I'm not being racist, in that I'm not saying Aboriginal culture is lesser than my own, or that it isn't somethign to be proud of. The heritage is rich in stories and tradition, and they have prevailed in Australia for tens of millenia. However, it does not have any of the features of a culture which make it interesting to me.
Again, there's absolutely nothing wrong in not taking an interest in Aboriginal, Polish, French, or any other culture. But there's a fundamental difference between saying "I'm simply not interested in it. It doesn't float my boat" and "Oh, c'mon, can't you see it's really worthless? They're little more than animals, anyway. MFKR for 50,000 years" (which is what you've effectively said).
No, what I effectively
said was "It's boring, they did the same thing over and over for millenia" by which I stand. If you can show me cultural evolution in Aboriginal society, it'll be news to me and I'll have to admit I was wrong, but otherwise, I don't find it interesting to read about such groups (and there are many) I mean even the schools only ever assessed post colonised aboriginal history. If you're going to say that because I said it was "boring" I was racist, ask yourself if you've ever called something boring without adding "... in my oppinion".
So yes, I was dismissive, but I respect their culture, I never said they were worthless or animalistic or even primitive, what I DID say is that they did NOT evolve much culturally, nor did they ever come to the same breakthroughs and innovations that many of what we concider "great civilisations" did. If I'm wrong there, correct me, but otherwise I don't see how pointing this out, and not being interested in societies like this is racist. Racism is me saying that BECUASE they never developed mechanisms or farming or settled down, they're nothing but primitive spear-chukkas. We all know this simply isn't the case and you'll be hard pressed to find someone on an intellectual forum such as this one who would think otherwise.
*Speaking of which, why is Damin so great? I saw the wiki some months ago, but didn't see much there, nor did I find other resources on it, so please enlighten me, all I know is it was an artificial language (yes I think that is the concensus I read) which is the only one to use a click-consinant outside of Africa which was used as a ritualistic second language after a man was innitiated