The sound of Australia
Does the blind indigenous singer Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu possess the finest Australian voice that has ever been recorded? A writer in the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper has scaled those descriptive heights, and it's a persuasive claim.
As the music-forward website Hot Indie News recently noted, Q Magazine described his voice as "celestial... aching with the pain of the past and hope for the future". No less impressed, The Independent newspaper in the UK said it was "unwavering in its delicate beauty".
I was lucky enough to hear him live in the most spellbinding of concerts as he was just on the cusp on his fame, and went out and bought his debut CD straight away. His voice has that enchanting quality, as tens of thousands have discovered. The album, Gurrumul, ended up on the BBC's list of top 10 world music releases of 2009, and is about to be released in America.
The singer, who grew up on Elcho Island off the coast of north-east Arnhem Land, is about to set off on his first US tour as well, and by the middle of next month will have performed in Washington, New York, Los Angeles, Boston, and a string of other US venues. Catch him if you can.
The international recognition being heaped on Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu comes at a time when other indigenous performers are complaining of being marginalised and neglected at home. A new study from the Australia Council for the Arts and the Australasian Performing Rights Association suggests that indigenous musicians get only a small fraction of airtime in their own country. On the national broadcaster, ABC, indigenous music makes up less than 2% of the music played, while on commercial radio stations it's even worse - 0.14%. There is a common-held feeling that you have to make it abroad, as Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu has now done, before being granted the kind of recognition at home that is commensurate with our talent.
Even when some indigenous bands get record deals, they are often asked to become more mainstream.
Recently, indigenous singer Lou Bennett told ABC's AM programme: "They did not understand us. They wanted to make us a band that fitted the mainstream. They asked even to lose weight. They asked us to change our songs."
According to the report, indigenous groups often found it hard to get live gigs, and there was even one example of a group being turned away when the organisers realised its members were Aboriginal.
For music-lovers everywhere, the report raised a troubling thought: there might be other Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingus out there, and we might never get to hear them.
I'm listening to his CD as I write, and pondering that claim: is his truly the finest Australian voice that has even been digitised, put on vinyl or recorded for posterity in any other form? John Farnham, Natalie Imbruglia, even Dame Joan Sutherland? I think he has the edge, and America will soon get to judge.
UPDATE: It is hard to talk of the discrimination against indigenous musicians without mentioning the row engulfing Australia rugby league in the lead-up to the second State of Origin match between Queensland and New South Wales, the code's great mid-season showpiece.
One of Australia's most legendary players, Andrew Johns, has had to step down from his coaching position with New South Wales, after it was revealed that one of the NSW players, Timana Tahu, had walked out of the squad. Tahu had been offended by Johns' use of racist slurs to describe one of Queensland's star players, Greg Inglis, which he claims was not an isolated incident. Johns has apologised for his remark. You can read more here.
I'm 
© 2012~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~54~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Nick Bryant wrote:
"Does the blind indigenous singer Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu possess the finest Australian voice that has ever been recorded?"
Everyone born in Australia is "indigenous!" Look up the meaning of the word!
Why do people like you have to be so politically correct that you end up by definition being incorrect? You also create and perpetuate divisiveness and racism by using such a term to the exclusion of other races!
Complain about this comment
Nick
It is public knowledge that Andrew Johns suffers from Bipolar Disorder
Johns allowed his psychiatrist to discuss this in the media some years ago
His current behaviour is consistent with the manic phase of the disease, especially if he is not taking his medications
Hence, some cautiousness in the NRL about Johns' 'racist' outbursts
More broadly, BBC reporting would benefit from seeing things beyond black and white
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
Gurrumul has a hypnotic voice but the packaging is bland and he looks like being the new easy listening for the caring middle classes.
Archie Roach also has an angelic voice but only two or three good songs and his band tends to middle-of-the-road AOR.
Actually, most of the best older "indigenous" singers do country music which remains popular among Aboriginal Australians but mostly flies beneath the radar or even beneath the contempt of urban critics, who are nevertheless quick to dish out accusations of racism.
Troy Cassar-Daly, Warren H Williams and the the grandaddy of them all Jimmy Little spring to mind as beautiful Australian voices singing country, even if their material doesn't really grab an urban audience.
Complain about this comment
#1 AllenT2:
Gosh, I thought Nick's blog was about the sublime quality of the human voice.
Anyway here is one definition of indigenous Allen "naturally existing in a place or country rather than arriving from another place".
So by that definition, Australia's aboriginals are indigenous and everyone else "arrived from another place".
Of course, if you want to split hairs, Australia's aborigenes "arrived from another place" via the land bridge from Asia 40.000 years ago.
So, following that logic Australia has no indigenous people.
But back to Nick's point, I'll never forget Jimmy Little and "Royal Telephone".
Just kidding...of couirse we should hear more of "our" culture.
Complain about this comment
Greg Warner wrote:
"Gosh, I thought Nick's blog was about the sublime quality of the human voice. Anyway here is one definition of indigenous Allen "naturally existing in a place or country rather than arriving from another place".
So by that definition, Australia's aboriginals are indigenous and everyone else "arrived from another place"."
Nonsense. The word indigenous is synonymous with the word native. Are you now going to tell native born Australians that they are not native? And if a person being born in a particular place is not "naturally existing" then you tell me what is!
"Of course, if you want to split hairs, Australia's aborigenes "arrived from another place" via the land bridge from Asia 40.000 years ago.
So, following that logic Australia has no indigenous people.
But back to Nick's point, I'll never forget Jimmy Little and "Royal Telephone"."
It has nothing to do with "split hairs," it has to do with confronting ridiculous politically correct terms that are by definition being used incorrectly and that at best is ignorant and at worse racist. All that does is create and promote divisiveness and racism!
Complain about this comment
Judith Durham.
The Seekers' version of Waltzing Matilda is absolutely brilliant.
Complain about this comment
I'd go with the UN which describes indigenous peoples as those having historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies. As for purity and other worldliness of voice, my vote goes to Helen Porter Mitchell (Dame Nellie).
Complain about this comment
... give me Chris Cheney singing West End Riot in the back of the Tote (yay the Tote's back!).. or Phil Jamieson at his meth-addled worst howling thru Lost Control at the Corner.. Bring me noise or bring me - what? You'll have to speak up.
And here's a slightly argumentative question - surely if aboriginal artists were as good as aboriginal athletes (for an obvious and stereotyped example) we wouldn't need grants & handouts & airplay quotas to hear of them? Surely the fact of being good is enough to get a guernsey (to push the analogy further). I mean, as of now, I've heard of Geoff Yunupingu. Not from a grant or subsidy or airplay quota, but from cruising the net for news. People say he's good, and now I've heard of him.
IMHO - targetted grants hurt the 'yartz', in all aspects.
Complain about this comment
Personally I have always preferred original as opposed to aboriginal, as a handle for our people. Then again maybe its time we learnt the countries we are referring to rather than bundling all original people into one name group. We would start to sell a lot more original people's map of this continent and start educating more people as to what Australia was all about before white settlement.
As to the comments concerning who was here first. The belief of the original people is that Australia was the original settled place and that different mobs/tribe moved out from here and onto other places, now know as continents etc.
Because of the very early custom of Aboriginal people crushing and burning bones of those that had passed over, very little proof of those early peoples would therefore remains.
As to the music, and therefore main topic, Geoffrey's voice is heavenly. Anyone that hasn't heard him sing should get a copy of his music. As to general music by original people of this country, Yothu Yundi's band was great, and I love some of Paul Kelly's stuff.
Complain about this comment
This news item relates to both this, and the previous soccer blog of Nick. For those quoting figures concerning popularity of particular sports, live entertainment outshines them all.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/17/2929268.htm?section=justin
Complain about this comment
For those that don't believe there is entrenched racism in some quarters of Australian politics, particularly Queensland police, a read of this article and original statements made by the police at the time of the incident, and the following farce known as an enquiry, should show you to the contrary:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/17/2929300.htm?section=justin
Any indigenous person trying to make a go of their lives don't stand a chance if your every move is monitored by racist police. And any indigenous/original person will tell you it is quite normal to be pulled over in Queensland if you are know to the police, even when picking kids up from school.
Complain about this comment
It seems my post #2 is unlikely to get through the mods.
Regarding Johns' 'racist' outbursts......Andrew Johns publicly discussed problems with his health 3 years ago
Not everything is black and white
Agree with #8, Nellie wins
Complain about this comment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xavier_Rudd
For those whom aren't Australian, Xavier isn't Kevin's musically talented brother but a musician which has been around since the turn of the century. Not an Aborigine however well known for lyrics which often revolve around social injustices that pertain to the Aborigines.
I think it is important to be always conscious that Aborigines are sadly more often enough under represented in Australia. If we look at the 2006 census we can see that the proportion of indigenous people between the age of 25-34 to possess a bachelors degree is approximately 6% (sorry AllenT2, I'm just citing the Australian Bureau of Statistics) whilst the nationwide average of 25-34 year olds which possess a bachelors degree is 25%.
Whilst it is debatable that the 25% can be skewed with degrees which don't transpire to employment in the workforce (eg. Bachelor of Arts majoring in Klingon anthropology) but it is still quite a discrepancy none the less.
I think it is great that Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu is going on a world tour and whilst the harsher critics might palm him off and say "oh he's no John Lennon or Cat Stevens/Yusef Islam" and so forth I think it is a positive sign that there is an avenue for Aboriginal artists to make a name for themselves and possibly so on the international stage
Complain about this comment
#6 AllenT2 wrote:
"Nonsense. The word indigenous is synonymous with the word native. Are you now going to tell native born Australians that they are not native? And if a person being born in a particular place is not "naturally existing" then you tell me what is!"
You wrote that after your post #1 to Nick Bryant "Everyone born in Australia is "indigenous!" Look up the meaning of the word!"
So, I looked up the word in the dictionary and I told you what indigenous means and you say "nonsense".
I suggest YOU look up the meaning of the word rather than just THINKING you are the font of all wisdom...and BTW...go to Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu's website and you will see his website uses the word indigenous.
So an indigenous person is using the word indigenous but you don't like it.
I will repeat what I said "So by that definition, Australia's aboriginals are indigenous and everyone else "arrived from another place".
Is that politically correct enough from you?
Complain about this comment
There seems to be some implied racism because some indigenous singers have found the music industry tough. Is this comment for real. It's a cut throat business for everybody. For example, even the Beatles almost starved to death in Hamburg trying to make a go of it in the beginning. Why is it that when indigenous Australians have to do it tough it's always the white mans fault.
For the record I like Jimmy Little, Gurrumul and Bon Scott. I also get a lump in the throat whenever I hear Peter Allen sing Tenterfield Saddler.
Complain about this comment
Greg Warner wrote:
"You wrote that after your post #1 to Nick Bryant "Everyone born in Australia is "indigenous!" Look up the meaning of the word!" So, I looked up the word in the dictionary and I told you what indigenous means and you say "nonsense"."
Yes, it is nonsense because the definition of the word is quite clear.
Merriam Webster: : "having originated in and being produced, growing, living, or occurring naturally in a particular region or environment."
synonyms see native"
Answers.com: "Originating and living or occurring naturally in an area or environment. See synonyms at native."
YourDictionary.com: "existing, growing, or produced naturally in a region or country; belonging (to) as a native"
MSN Encarta: "originating in and naturally living, growing, or occurring in a region or country Synonyms See native."
TheFreeDictionary.com: "Originating and living or occurring naturally in an area or environment. See Synonyms at native."
Now do I also have to explain the definition of the word native?
"I suggest YOU look up the meaning of the word rather than just THINKING you are the font of all wisdom...and BTW...go to Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu's website and you will see his website uses the word indigenous."
Are you saying the dictionaries are wrong??
And why would I go to anyone's site that you recommend if it is only going to be in contradiction of what the actual meaning of the word is?
"So an indigenous person is using the word indigenous but you don't like it."
So what? It is to the advantage of many intolerant, divisive, and even racist people to see themselves as uniquely "indigenous" compared to other "indigenous" people that are say white. After all, if it gets them special treatment and attention then that only serves as an incentive. And if they can add injustices that were done to their ancestors, not them, more the better. In the end though, you or that person, or anyone else, can not get around the definitions of the words indigenous and native. They are clear.
"I will repeat what I said "So by that definition, Australia's aboriginals are indigenous and everyone else "arrived from another place"."
How did a person that was born in Australia and that was white "arrived from another place?" How is that logically possible?
You are doing your best to give meaning to a word that long ago already had one.
"Is that politically correct enough from you?"
Why would you ask me that? It should be quite clear to you by now that I don't subscribe to the concept of political correctness. I believe in common sense, logic and honesty, things that are not synonymous with political correctness.
Political correctness is doing more to destroy Western civilization than anything else. It is doing the most in creating, supporting and perpetuating intolerance, divisiveness and racism.
Ironically, many of the the kind of people that practice political correctness think they that are doing the opposite of those things. I suspect that is the case with the author of this blog.
I don't know anything about the singer that the author of this blog refers to but it is a real darn shame that he is not seen simply as one of Australia's best singers, and left at that. A real darn shame.
Complain about this comment
"Xavier isn't Kevin's musically talented brother"
Nor is he Mike Rudd's son.
That's Mike Rudd, the Kiwi musician who was such an original and creative mainstay of the great Melbourne music scene of the 70s - Party Machine, Spectrum/Murtceps, Ariel etc - did I ever mention hwo great it was in Melbourne in the 70s?
Anyway, this is more about voices than material, so I guess Gurrumul is up there. It's a bit disingenuous to pretend he was plucked out of obscurity though - he'd already had big hits as a member of Yothu Yindi
Complain about this comment
AllenT2: Thanks for your highly insightful contributions so far, you've certainly given us all a lot to think about. Unfortunately it looks like you've been overruled on this one, but I'd be really interested to get your discerning observations on the actual topic. :)
Complain about this comment
He is the first singer to bring the real essence of Australia to the world. His voice is pure magic and he enhances the performances of every orchestra and singer that he accompanies/sings with. His concert with Sting is wonderful.
Complain about this comment
stirling222 wrote:
"AllenT2: Thanks for your highly insightful contributions so far, you've certainly given us all a lot to think about. Unfortunately it looks like you've been overruled on this one,"
Maybe you should inform the publishers of dictionaries all around the world that they have also been "overruled."
"but I'd be really interested to get your discerning observations on the actual topic. :) "
A truly "discerning" observer would recognize that my "observations" are "on the actual topic," much more than you or others realize.
Complain about this comment
AllenT2 wrote:
"Yes, it is nonsense because the definition of the word is quite clear".
You then quoted a number of definitions of the world "indigenous" from various dictionaries which actually support the word Nick Bryant used..."indigenous"...and which I agree with...
For example...Merriam Webster: : "having originated in"...
Answers.com: "Originating"...
YourDictionary.com: "existing"...
MSN Encarta: "originating in"...
TheFreeDictionary.com: "Originating"...
And the definition I used "naturally existing in a place or country rather than arriving from another place" is from the Cambridge Dictionary.
You wrote "Are you saying the dictionaries are wrong??"
No...I am not saying that...I am saying YOUR interpretation is wrong!!
However I know from your previous posts that you have a one track logic that when put to the test turns out to not be logic at all but a dogmatic repetition of your own muddled thinking which you underline with a holier-than-thou disdain, for example..."Now do I also have to explain the definition of the word native?"
Oh how droll it must be for you, but you forget one thing...a synonym is a word with a "close meaning", not the ACTUAL meaning...otherwise the English language would not be so brilliantly specific...
And then, with your strange logic you say "And why would I go to anyone's site that you recommend if it is only going to be in contradiction of what the actual meaning of the word is?"
That is really weird...I didn't recommend it...the LINK is the name of the singer Nick's blog is about, the 6th, 7th and 8th words in Nick's piece...if you really wanted to know what Nick was talking about, you had the opportunity to follow the link and find out that this indigenous person's website refers to this indigenous singer as an indigenous person.
Do you get that?
And you ask "How did a person that was born in Australia and that was white "arrived from another place?" How is that logically possible?"
The answer is quite simple...if one people has lived in Australia for 40,000 years and a bunch of new people come, over 200 years, it is logical to differentiate the two peoples by saying that the new arrivals "arrived from another place".
I then wrote "Is that politically correct enough from you?" and you answered "Why would you ask me that?" which again is very weird because you said in your Post #1..."Why do people like you have to be so politically correct that you end up by definition being incorrect?"
And here's a thought...why don'y you organise a survey of Australia's indigenous people and ask them if they prefer to be known as Australia's indigenous people or natives.
I agree with you that we all should be called by the collective "Australians" but we humans have a way of categorizing ourselves that is part of our nature...you are an American as I recall.
I also recall that in Nick's previous blog you went to great lengths to educate us on the concept that what a people does inside its own borders is the right of that people.
So here, mate, we refer to our aboriginal (it means ORIGINAL inhabitants) brothers and sisters as indigenous people.
And as my friend/nemisis stirling 222 says of you Allen..."I'd be really interested to get your discerning observations on the actual topic. :)"...thank you stirling.
And BTW...Geoffrey's voice is exquisite...
Complain about this comment
Relating to accusations of Australia being racist, particularly in the earlier part of this year when we were accused of racism towards Indian students.
Readers may recall the world media went ballistic on this matter.
It was widely claimed we were stabbing, burning and generally murdering Indian students.
Then came the first police reports that the burning of an Indian farm worker had been done by fellow Indians working in Australia at that time.
The second incident the police found had been when an Indian person had tried to burn his car for insurance purposes and accidentally burnt himself.
Now the latest news it that the first Indian incident, where an Indian student working at a take away food outlet had been knifed and killed while on his way to work, was committed by a 15 year old youth.
Police are saying there is no indication that this was a racially motivated attack.
All three incidents were beatups that incited much hatred amongst Indians against Australians...you can still find the comments on the subject in Nick's blogs of that time.
As a result of this irresponsible reporting the Australian Cricket team, and Australian visitors to India, were warned not to go there for fear of reprisals.
Since the irresponsible reporting of these incidents, the media has done little to nothing to rectify their one sided and totally incorrect rants.
In fact when the final police reports after their investigations were made know, most media outlets gave the reports the barest of coverage.
The media are a powerful body with influence on all aspects of our lives. Rarely do they put truth over sales of their particular
I think its time we all rallied against the out of control garbage reporting generally dished out by an organisation that is anything but responsible.
And as an example, this article at our ABC still promotes the anti Indian myth by selectively using quotes that sway readers to believe racism is still alive, if barely under control, in Victoria.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/18/2930208.htm?section=justin
Complain about this comment
Are you OK, Pete? Not sure why you felt that rant was appropriate or necessary. Have you read this blog's title? I don't think that particular issue was currently occupying anyone's political thoughts until you passionately raised it.
What is your occupation? What qualifies you to so categorically damn so many journalists and their work? Have you been present at every incident? Spoken to every witness? Seen police statements? Or is it just what you 'reckon'?
I would guess the latter, so I suggest you keep your non sequiturs quiet until they become relevant.
Complain about this comment
24 stirling222:
Nick said in parts: "UPDATE: It is hard to talk of the discrimination against indigenous ..... had been offended by Johns' use of racist slurs."
Inference of discrimination and racism were part of Nicks blog.
Are you saying that we should only be replying to Aboriginal discrimination and racist comments, not of other comments pertaining to the subject?+
If the BBC thought my post was off topic, they would have removed it, just like they would have removed AllanT2's comments re the world 'indigenous'.
Now a question for you. Why were you softer and kinder to AllanT2, an American, than you were to me an Australian?
Speaking of racism....have you looked in the mirror lately?
Complain about this comment
What is it with Australia ? Every 6 months or so we hear words like marginalisation,race,inequality,racist violence and then some thoughtless bloke goes public and makes a complete idiot of himself(this time though within a span of a week; 2 nincompoops have done it) thus ensuring that this cycle keeps perpetuating.Makes Australians look like completely uneducated red-necks " heeeeehhhaaaawww!!!" Not sure how that would sound with an Australian accent.The 2 % spoil it for the 98% I guess.
Complain about this comment
Greg Warner wrote:
"You then quoted a number of definitions of the world "indigenous" from various dictionaries which actually support the word Nick Bryant used..."indigenous"...and which I agree with...
For example...Merriam Webster: : "having originated in"...
Answers.com: "Originating"...
YourDictionary.com: "existing"...
MSN Encarta: "originating in"...
TheFreeDictionary.com: "Originating"..."
LOL. Where are the rest of the definitions that you so conveniently and obviously left out? :)
"And the definition I used "naturally existing in a place or country rather than arriving from another place" is from the Cambridge Dictionary."
How does a person born in Australia fall under "arriving from another place?" That would be quite a feet to accomplish such a thing.
"No...I am not saying that...I am saying YOUR interpretation is wrong!!"
LOL. Most people use dictionaries for what they were designed for, to find the meaning of words, not to make "interpretations!" :)
"However I know from your previous posts that you have a one track logic that when put to the test turns out to not be logic at all but a dogmatic repetition of your own muddled thinking which you underline with a holier-than-thou disdain, for example..."
What exactly does your dissatisfaction with my "previous posts" have to do with you proving me wrong and proving yourself right on what we are discussing right now?
If you are confident in the logic of your argument why do feel it necessary to attempt a character assassination? Are you confident in your argument?
"Oh how droll it must be for you, but you forget one thing...a synonym is a word with a "close meaning", not the ACTUAL meaning...otherwise the English language would not be so brilliantly specific..."
I'll use your prefered source for a ditionary.
Cambridge: Synonym: "a word or phrase which has the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or phrase in the same language"
How is "actual" different from "the same?"
How can the word native be "nearly the same" or "close meaning" to the word indigenous when the meaning of the word is obvious and clear, or black and white?
"And then, with your strange logic you say "And why would I go to anyone's site that you recommend if it is only going to be in contradiction of what the actual meaning of the word is?"
That is really weird...I didn't recommend it...the LINK is the name of the singer Nick's blog is about,
These are your words: "go to Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu's website!" Do I now need to post the meaning of the word recommend?
"the 6th, 7th and 8th words in Nick's piece...if you really wanted to know what Nick was talking about, you had the opportunity to follow the link and find out that this indigenous person's website refers to this indigenous singer as an indigenous person."
It is quite clear I was addressing his unfortunate use of a term that was wrong by definition and at best ignorant, and at worse racist. The incorrect use of a word that creates, supports and perpetuates divisiveness and racism.
"Do you get that?"
I "get that" you are incapable of accepting the long held and actual meanings of words.
"The answer is quite simple...if one people has lived in Australia for 40,000 years and a bunch of new people come, over 200 years, it is logical to differentiate the two peoples by saying that the new arrivals "arrived from another place"."
The white person born in Australia can not logically and physically have "arrived from another place!!!" Someone born elsewhere would fall under such a category!
And your idea of "to differentiate" is in fact to discriminate!
"I then wrote "Is that politically correct enough from you?" and you answered "Why would you ask me that?" which again is very weird because you said in your Post #1..."Why do people like you have to be so politically correct that you end up by definition being incorrect?"
And I will say it once again, why would you think I would appreciate you being politically correct when it is obvious, and I have made it quite clear, that I have no use for such a concept?!
"And here's a thought...why don'y you organise a survey of Australia's indigenous people and ask them if they prefer to be known as Australia's indigenous people or natives."
Such a thing wouldn't be valid for people like you because I would also be asking white indigenous natives.
"I agree with you that we all should be called by the collective "Australians" but we humans have a way of categorizing ourselves that is part of our nature...you are an American as I recall."
That kind of "categorizing" is simply discrimination.
Once again, it is not only by definition incorrect but it is also at best ignorant and at worse racist. That kind of "categorizing" creates, supports and perpetuates divisiveness and racism!!!
And what does my being "American" have to do with anything discussed thus far?
"I also recall that in Nick's previous blog you went to great lengths to educate us on the concept that what a people does inside its own borders is the right of that people."
You are not the collective "us." I am talking to *you* right now. By addressing yourself as "us" you do not add weight and validation to your words or your arguments the way you think you do.
As for my remarks to the definition of the word indigenous, and my response to the author of this blog, I don't see what that has to do with "what a people does inside its own borders is the right of that people." Mr. Bryant is not even Australian. :)
"So here, mate, we refer to our aboriginal (it means ORIGINAL inhabitants) brothers and sisters as indigenous people."
I am not your "mate." I could never be a friend to someone that discriminates and that creates, supports and perpetuates divisiveness and racism. That is what you, or anyone else, is doing when you use a word to describe only one group, or race, of people when by definition it also describes and applies to another group, or race.
"And as my friend/nemisis stirling 222 says of you Allen..."I'd be really interested to get your discerning observations on the actual topic. :)"...thank you stirling."
See my response to him for your answer.
"And BTW...Geoffrey's voice is exquisite..."
Is it "exquisite" because it is simply so or because he is also "indigenous?" After all, if the topic is a simple matter of him having an "exquisite" voice then what is the point of adding all that other "indigenous" nonsense?
Complain about this comment
parragirl wrote:
"I'd go with the UN which describes indigenous peoples as those having historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies."
Why would you do that when the word already has, and always had, a meaning??
Complain about this comment
AllenT2 and Greg: I think the reason for your disagreement is because one is referring to lineage/history of a person and the other is referring to the individual's current status.
I may be indigenous to Australia as an individual, but my inheritance is not. I may be Australian five generations, but my inheritance, lineage etc is mixed European.
When most people refer to indigenous, I believe they are referring more to the inheritance/lineage, rather than the individual status of a person here and now. That's my understanding of it.
Complain about this comment
stirling222 wrote:
"Are you OK, Pete? Not sure why you felt that rant was appropriate or necessary."
Does he have to be not "OK" simply because you don't agree with what he says?
"Have you read this blog's title? I don't think that particular issue was currently occupying anyone's political thoughts until you passionately raised it."
What the title says is not what the article is only about. The author of this blog brought up the central issue that Pete has addressed.
"What is your occupation? What qualifies you to so categorically damn so many journalists and their work?"
He is a free citizen with the right to express his views in the same way those journalists do. The fact that they are journalists doesn't make them more qualified to tell the truth.
"Have you been present at every incident? Spoken to every witness? Seen police statements? Or is it just what you 'reckon'?"
It didn't sound to me like he was merely shooting from the hip. It sounds to me like he is addressing further reporting that appears to have factually concluded that the truth was not part of the original stories.
"I would guess the latter, so I suggest you keep your non sequiturs quiet until they become relevant."
Other people would prefer, rightly, to simply agree to disagree.
Complain about this comment
11pete11 wrote:
"AllenT2 and Greg: I think the reason for your disagreement is because one is referring to lineage/history of a person and the other is referring to the individual's current status.
I may be indigenous to Australia as an individual, but my inheritance is not. I may be Australian five generations, but my inheritance, lineage etc is mixed European."
But the word indigenous does not have anything to do with "inheritance" or "lineage." Either a person is indigenous or they are not.
I am pleased to see that you consider yourself indigenous. Bravo!
When most people refer to indigenous, I believe they are referring more to the inheritance/lineage, rather than the individual status of a person here and now. That's my understanding of it.
Complain about this comment
I'd say AllenT2 knew he was fighting a losing battle 20 comments ago but feels he can ride it out so long as he keeps repeating himself and assuming moral superiority.
"I am not your "mate." I could never be a friend to someone that discriminates and that creates, supports and perpetuates divisiveness and racism. That is what you, or anyone else, is doing when you use a word to describe only one group, or race, of people when by definition it also describes and applies to another group, or race."
Alright mate, tone it down, unless you are accusing the BBC of all this nonsense, too? The one slither of respectability your posts had has now evaporated as you hand out the undeserved accusations and slurs. And, unusually for someone who has chosen to take a moral crusade against 'racism' you find yourself in a minority of one. I would suggest you readdress your stance.
And Pete, I'm sorry you felt I was kinder to Leonard Peltier than you. I can assure you my tone was equally caustic on both occassions. :)
Complain about this comment
stirling222 wrote:
"I'd say AllenT2 knew he was fighting a losing battle 20 comments ago but feels he can ride it out so long as he keeps repeating himself and assuming moral superiority."
Acknowledging the correct meaning of the word indigenous has nothing to do with "morality." That is illogical.
"Alright mate, tone it down, unless you are accusing the BBC of all this nonsense, too?"
Once again, I do not care to have anything to do with political correctness so no I will not "tone" "down" what I am saying.
And yes, I believe the BBC itself is a big source of what I have been talking about. It is a big part of the culture of that organization. They are all about political correctness and they are all about practicing it even if it means that in the end all they end up doing is creating, supporting and perpetuating more intolerance, divisiveness and racism.
Of course, I am sure they somehow believe they are preventing those things.
"The one slither of respectability your posts had has now evaporated as you hand out the undeserved accusations and slurs.
Obviously you disagree with my view at a very emotional level so it doesn't surprise me that you see my views as "undeserved accusations and slurs." Again, not surprised.
"And, unusually for someone who has chosen to take a moral crusade against 'racism' you find yourself in a minority of one."
The "minority" here are the only ones that are truly engaged in a "moral crusade against racism!" You and the rest are certainly not.
"I would suggest you readdress your stance."
Not going to happen. You'll just have to learn to be more tolerant of other people's views and learn to agree to disagree.
"And Pete, I'm sorry you felt I was kinder to Leonard Peltier than you. I can assure you my tone was equally caustic on both occassions. :)"
No surprise there. In fact, I was going to post a response to Pete saying just that but he is quite capable of responding to your hostility and sarcasm all on his own.
Complain about this comment
Edit: The last paragraph in my post, #31, was Pete's, that I accidentally left in my response. The corrected version follows.
11pete11 wrote:
"AllenT2 and Greg: I think the reason for your disagreement is because one is referring to lineage/history of a person and the other is referring to the individual's current status.
I may be indigenous to Australia as an individual, but my inheritance is not. I may be Australian five generations, but my inheritance, lineage etc is mixed European."
But the word indigenous does not have anything to do with "inheritance" or "lineage." Either a person is indigenous or they are not.
I am pleased to see that you consider yourself indigenous. Bravo!
Complain about this comment
AllenT2: "The "minority" here are the only ones that are truly engaged in a "moral crusade against racism!" You and the rest are certainly not."
You got me! I do have to concede to you that I am not on a moral crusade against racism. It's revolting and I don't like it, but I can't really imagine setting off on a moral crusade over it. I would question your vision for your 'moral crusade' however, as a sizeable proportion of your personal crusade appears to involve nitpicking in inoffensive BBC articles. Not exactly stuff to make Nelson Mandela proud, is it?
"You'll just have to learn to be more tolerant of other people's views and learn to agree to disagree"
Like you?
Complain about this comment
33 AllenT2: The reason we are all involved in this slight red hearing is because Nick referred to Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu as being indigenous.
You then replied "Why do people like you have to be so politically correct that you end up by definition being incorrect? You also create and perpetuate divisiveness and racism by using such a term to the exclusion of other races!"
Are you saying Geoffrey is NOT indigenous? And if so how would you identify him if you were in Nick's position?
Most Australians understand that indigenous, as stated by Nick, refers to Aboriginal people. Had he made referral to a white Australian as a non indigenous Australian, a person born here but of white inheritance, then your point would be valid.
I have already stated that I consider myself indigenous, yet my family roots are not. Does that make me politically correct?
I have, in many of my posts, referred to myself and those of us born in this country as generational Australians, and the new comers as paper Australians.
It is not the names that we use so much as the meaning behind those names that need to be addressed.
To create a racist or discriminatory process simply because someone is called indigenous, or generational or paper Australian has more to do with the ulterior motive of the person making such a claim.
Complain about this comment
This separation of identity is the reason behind much of the racism and culture divide but it is perpetuated by Aboriginals as well. Why don't we all just call ourselves Australians without some other form if identity. Also why do so many people feel the need to identify themselves as "Lebanese Australian" or "Italian Australian" and all the other nationalities they claim to be of origin.
Complain about this comment
11pete11 wrote:
"33 AllenT2: The reason we are all involved in this slight red hearing is because Nick referred to Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu as being indigenous."
I, AllenT2, did not write what!
"You then replied "Why do people like you have to be so politically correct that you end up by definition being incorrect? You also create and perpetuate divisiveness and racism by using such a term to the exclusion of other races!"
Now that I wrote. Again, I did not write the beginning quoted remarks! You are mixing up posts of more than one person!
"Are you saying Geoffrey is NOT indigenous? And if so how would you identify him if you were in Nick's position?"
Your response and question does not make sense based on what you are responding to and what I wrote. Why would I, based on what I wrote, think that the singer is not indigenous?? Think it through Pete.
"Most Australians understand that indigenous, as stated by Nick, refers to Aboriginal people."
That may be so but it is still by definition incorrect to apply it to "Aboriginal people" and not the rest of Australia's indigenous population, such as whites born in Australia.
"Had he made referral to a white Australian as a non indigenous Australian, a person born here but of white inheritance, then your point would be valid."
No, it is quite clear he is referring to and discriminating one group of Australians as indigenous to the exclusion other indigenous Australians. Any reasonable person can see that.
And are you not the one recently arguing with someone else about the creating and perpetuation of racism? It's as if I am now reading the writings of a different person. Strange.
"I have already stated that I consider myself indigenous, yet my family roots are not."
What are you going on about? If you were born in Australia then of course you are indigenous! I agreed with you!
"Does that make me politically correct?"
Why on earth are you asking me that?!
Obviously I do not like anything having to do with political correctness!
"I have, in many of my posts, referred to myself and those of us born in this country as generational Australians, and the new comers as paper Australians."
OK, and? What does that have to do with anything I have written?
"It is not the names that we use so much as the meaning behind those names that need to be addressed."
Dude, the word indigenous already has a "meaning!!!" I am addressing people that clearly have their own meaning! Have you not been reading my posts?!
"To create a racist or discriminatory process simply because someone is called indigenous, or generational or paper Australian has more to do with the ulterior motive of the person making such a claim."
Whether there is an "ulterior motive" or the person using the word indigenous to the exclusion of other indigenous Australians is merely ignorant the fact remains that using the term indigenous in such a way is not only by definition incorrect but it creates, supports and perpetuates intolerance, divisiveness and racism.
Complain about this comment
stirling222 wrote:
"You got me! I do have to concede to you that I am not on a moral crusade against racism."
Obviously.
"It's revolting and I don't like it, but I can't really imagine setting off on a moral crusade over it."
Yet you have put considerable effort in countering someone else from addressing the primary reason for the creation, the support and the perpetuation of racism.
"I would question your vision for your 'moral crusade' however, as a sizeable proportion of your personal crusade appears to involve nitpicking in inoffensive BBC articles."
See what I mean?
Referring to one group of people as indigenous to the exclusion of another group that is also indigenous is not "nitpicking!" Or are you one of those people that think that racism is OK so long as it is coming from those that are in the minority or seen as disadvantaged or oppressed in some way, and their supporters?
"Not exactly stuff to make Nelson Mandela proud, is it?"
Gee, I didn't realize I needed "Nelson Mandela" to tell me what the definition of the word indigenous is and his approval on what is obviously right and what is obviously wrong.
"Like you?"
Would you like me to highlight the difference between my posts and yours?
And how can you judge what is or is not tolerant, in regards to my posts, when you can not see the obvious and inherent intolerance in calling one group of people indigenous to the exclusion of another group of people that are also indigenous?!
Complain about this comment
nick wrote:
"This separation of identity is the reason behind much of the racism and culture divide but it is perpetuated by Aboriginals as well. Why don't we all just call ourselves Australians without some other form if identity. Also why do so many people feel the need to identify themselves as "Lebanese Australian" or "Italian Australian" and all the other nationalities they claim to be of origin."
As an American, and as it also applies to my country, I agree. I will go further though and say that I believe it is in fact the primary reason.
Complain about this comment
#28
Why would you do that when the word already has, and always had, a meaning??"
The meaning that indigenous "always had" has expanded its meaning to take into account current social realities. The beauty of language is its dynamism to do this. If you want to adhere to the static, restricted use of the Latin indigena from which this word derives, be my guest. But I will stick by the semantic shift which embraces concepts of lineage ie terragenus. My family may have graced the continent since 1812, however, I would never call myself a "native" of Australia.
Complain about this comment
38 AllenT2: When I reply to someone's post I put it as I did on this one. If however I was posting quote I would have put:
38 AllenT2 wrote:.....then I would have put it in inverted comma's...please re read my post at 36 in that context, as you have done with anything else I have posted to you. I always use the same process.
"Why would I, based on what I wrote, think that the singer is not indigenous?? Think it through Pete."
Oh, so you accept he is indigenous, just that you don't want him being singled out as indigenous...strange thinking....
"Obviously I do not like anything having to do with political correctness!"
Politics is the law of any country...you are basically saying you are against the government rules and laws...politically correct is when the rules and regulations are based on the political procedure....strange thinking...again...
I am completely ignoring those parts where you replied to a line without reading the continuum...strange thinking....
"Dude, the word indigenous already has a "meaning!!!" I am addressing people that clearly have their own meaning! Have you not been reading my posts?!"
Yes I have been reading your posts but you certainly have not been reading mine....in context...that strange thinking thing again....a person can be indigenous...that is they were born here...their lineage/history is not...are you suggesting my 5th generation relatives were indigenous to Australia...even though I have stated in a number of places that they came from Europe?
Again your argument is for argument sake..and as it is certainly moving away from the spirit of the topic, I will no longer reply to your strange replies.
Complain about this comment
parragirl wrote:
"The meaning that indigenous "always had" has expanded its meaning to take into account current social realities. The beauty of language is its dynamism to do this. If you want to adhere to the static, restricted use of the Latin indigena from which this word derives, be my guest. But I will stick by the semantic shift which embraces concepts of lineage ie terragenus. My family may have graced the continent since 1812, however, I would never call myself a "native" of Australia."
So in addition to redefining the word indigenous you have now singlehandedly redefined the word native too? :)
Wow.
Complain about this comment
Well Mr AllenT2, as you're so keen to show us the way regarding equality, racism and its causes, you'll doubtless be encouraged that I took a few minutes to peruse some of your contributions to other BBC blogs in order to further my own moral education and attempt to become an all-round better man.
I was, however, confused by some of your language. I would have thought that one so proudly vaunting on their equalist philosophy would surely avoid using words such as "illegals" When discussing human beings.
"American culture is "unique" and "should not be watered down by large numbers of immigrants who refuse to embrace the" American "language and culture!!!"
"watered down"?
"It should clamp down on loopholes in immigration laws that allows industries like the entertainment industry, for example, from employing foreigners instead of Americans."
"Clamp down"? "Foreigners"? Now, I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but these examples along with many other misguided comments about Mexicans, don't sound like the sentiments of a crusader against racism, rather an embittered protectionist.
My question to you is, should a Mexican immigrant happen to give birth in Arizona, would you consider the child indiginous? I would assume yes, given your previous remarks, so should that child have the same rights you'd expect your own children to be granted? Of course that would include the right to be cared for by his (illegal) mother.
Complain about this comment
Nick wrote: "This separation of identity is the reason behind much of the racism and culture divide but it is perpetuated by Aboriginals as well. Why don't we all just call ourselves Australians without some other form if identity. Also why do so many people feel the need to identify themselves as "Lebanese Australian" or "Italian Australian" and all the other nationalities they claim to be of origin."
Pete, maybe you could help us with this one. You are the one who likes to blame recent European immigrants (including the children born in Australia) for many of your nation's problems. When do you believe someone has earned the privilege to simply call themselves 'Australian'?
Complain about this comment
11pete11 wrote:
"When I reply to someone's post I put it as I did on this one. If however I was posting quote I would have put:"
Pete! You mixed up someone else's post with mine! It's obvious or otherwise you would not have immediately followed his quoted remarks with mine preceded by "You then replied!" Any reasonable person would see that as you mixing up someone else's comments with mine!
"Oh, so you accept he is indigenous, just that you don't want him being singled out as indigenous...strange thinking...."
Are you kidding me?! Are you even reading what I am writing?!
Of course the guy is indigenous, as are white Australians that are born in Australia! He and his race are being "singled out as indigenous" TO THE EXCLUSION OF OTHER INDIGENOUS AUSTRALIANS! That is what I have been addressing the whole time throughout this discussion! Why is that so difficult for you to grasp?!
"Politics is the law of any country...you are basically saying you are against the government rules and laws...politically correct is when the rules and regulations are based on the political procedure....strange thinking...again..."
Yeah, you said it, "strange thinking!"
I'm speechless. Wow!!
"I am completely ignoring those parts where you replied to a line without reading the continuum...strange thinking...."
Well, whatever you feel helps you in your argument. Apparently that's more important to you than the truth, common sense and logic.
"Yes I have been reading your posts but you certainly have not been reading mine....in context...that strange thinking thing again....a person can be indigenous...that is they were born here...their lineage/history is not..."
Once again, the definition of indigenous has nothing to do with lineage!
"are you suggesting my 5th generation relatives were indigenous to Australia...even though I have stated in a number of places that they came from Europe?"
If your "5th generation relatives" were not born in Australia then of course, by definition, THEY ARE **NOT** indigenous! Read my posts!
"Again your argument is for argument sake..and as it is certainly moving away from the spirit of the topic, I will no longer reply to your strange replies."
No, Pete, it is your replies that have gone well beyond "strange!" I have stated very clear, concise and simple things that anyone with a normal level of intelligence should be able to understand! And no, that does not mean I am calling you stupid.
I also have no desire to continue responding to someone that is either playing games with me or simply can not grasp the very obvious and clear things that I have written and that can not handle the flow and order of this discussion!
Complain about this comment
46 AllenT2 wrote: "Pete! You mixed up someone else's post with mine! It's obvious or otherwise you would not have immediately followed his quoted remarks with mine preceded by "You then replied!" Any reasonable person would see that as you mixing up someone else's comments with mine!"
Okay we'll play it your way. Please post the 'someone else's post' you claimed I posted as yours.....you won't find it...because it was mine...said that time...by me...to you...I would have thought you would have at least mentioned the person's name I was supposed to get it mixed up with.
And if I have to explain the minuscule of posts just to get past the first few lines...I'm not going to even bother trying to reason with you...
Complain about this comment
45 stirling222: Hey Stirling, don't bring me into this please. I have enough on my plate putting up with AllanT2.
Complain about this comment
The simplest way to avoid this whole indigenous, native, aboriginal name calling and instead use the world that describes the situation best:
Autochthonal.
But don't ask me to pronounce it.
Complain about this comment
11pete11 wrote:
"Okay we'll play it your way. Please post the 'someone else's post' you claimed I posted as yours.....you won't find it...because it was mine...said that time...by me...to you...I would have thought you would have at least mentioned the person's name I was supposed to get it mixed up with."
It's a very simple matter of learning how to post in a manner so that any reasonably intelligent person can follow what you are saying.
"And if I have to explain the minuscule of posts just to get past the first few lines...I'm not going to even bother trying to reason with you..."
I thought you said you were not going to respond to me at all?
These are your words: "I will no longer reply to your strange replies."
Complain about this comment
11pete11 wrote:
"45 stirling222: Hey Stirling, don't bring me into this please. I have enough on my plate putting up with AllanT2."
Pete, if you find responding to my posts upsetting then why do it? It's not like I am trying to upset you.
Complain about this comment
stirling222 wrote:
"Well Mr AllenT2, as you're so keen to show us the way regarding equality, racism and its causes, you'll doubtless be encouraged that I took a few minutes to peruse some of your contributions to other BBC blogs in order to further my own moral education and attempt to become an all-round better man."
You are not going to turn into one of those forum stalkers, are you? :)
"I was, however, confused by some of your language. I would have thought that one so proudly vaunting on their equalist philosophy would surely avoid using words such as "illegals" When discussing human beings."
What does a person entering a country illegally have to do with "equalist philosophy?"
"Now, I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but these examples along with many other misguided comments about Mexicans, don't sound like the sentiments of a crusader against racism, rather an embittered protectionist."
Oh I see, so now I am racist because I am against Mexicans entering our country illegally? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
By the way, my wife is Mexican. :)
On the "protectionist" comment I see nothing wrong with America clamping down on the long unchecked and uncontrolled exports of American jobs and know-how, whether those jobs are actually going overseas or being taken by foreigners here in America. This is a very common sentiment in most Western countries. Ask the French, ask the Germans and ask the British.
And contrary to what you might think, America doesn't have any responsibilities towards the people of other countries when it comes to providing jobs and know-how.
"My question to you is, should a Mexican immigrant happen to give birth in Arizona, would you consider the child indiginous?"
Of course, because as you should know by now I stick to the actual meaning of the word, unlike you and others in this forum.
"I would assume yes, given your previous remarks, so should that child have the same rights you'd expect your own children to be granted?"
Under current American law that child is a born American citizen.
That law, or amendment, was put in place to address the status of freed slaves so that they would by law be recognized as Americans, which was a good thing. The law, or amendment, filled its intended purpose.
Unfortunately, now that law is commonly used by illegal immigrants to try and keep themselves in America, which is ironic and hypocritical because those same people have no problems disrespecting America's laws on immigration but then they want to use that law, never meant for them, to keep themselves from being deported.
I, and an increasing number of Americans, believe that law needs to be abolished and America should fall in line with the rest of the world where just because you are born in a country doesn't mean you are automatically a citizen. All it does is encourage illegal immigration.
"Of course that would include the right to be cared for by his (illegal) mother."
See what I mean? :)
Many such mothers, by the way, have already been deported, and rightly so. Currently the child can either stay or go back with the parent. Hopefully in the near future the law will be abolished so that innocent children are not placed into such a position by selfish and law breaking parents. Arizona is now the first state to challenge that law, and rightly so.
Any other questions?
Oh, by the way, my *legal* Mexican wife agrees with me entirely on my views on illegal immigration. She is embarrassed and angry that so many of her countrymen and women think they have the right to come to America illegally.
Complain about this comment
#49 Autochthonal (Or-tock-tonal) is generally used to describe herd animals like goats, sheep, pigs, donkeys etc. that are breeds unique to a region.
Which brings me to the point that "indigenous," "native," "autochtonal" are all adjectives and can be used on their own as in "the kangaroo is indigenous to Australia." Note that Nick's use of indigenous when referring to a person is always followed by a noun - the preferred usage of Indigenous Australians.
Any more suggestions for "the sound of Australia?"
Complain about this comment
50 AllenT2: Ha, ha. I have written every single one of my posts in reply this way since coming here almost two years ago, and you are the first to misread me. Like many of your posts, you love to antagonise, and argue, even when it is painfully clear to most other posters that you are totally wrong. As is the case with your interpretation of indigenous.
"I thought you said you were not going to respond to me at all?
These are your words: "I will no longer reply to your strange replies.""
Oh my god, I've broken my vow...I've gone against my word...Father confessor where are you..I have sinned.
Allan grow up, and stop trying to run the show. It is not your blog any more than it is mine. We are guests here and unless the BBC or Nick to the contrary, we can say what we bloody well please, when we please, even if that means changing our minds on some topics. Get over it.
Complain about this comment
51 AllenT2: 'Having enough on my plate" is not the same as being up set. You, for one, should know to use the right phrase in the right content. After you've gone on about it here ad nauseoum and totally off topic.
Exasperated would have been the word you were searching for, had you bothered to do a search at all.
As to the context of Nick's blog, what have you contributed to the discussion, other than descention and contradiction? Nothing.
And it is this that I choose not to continue with, as it breaks house rules, which surprises me that someone hasn't removed your posts as they are totally off topic....as well as ridiculous....from the word ridicule...used in its original meaning but which has changed as English does as it is a growing language. Hence why indigenous will eventually be known and used in the context used by Nick in this blog. If you don't like it, learn another language. Like French.
Complain about this comment
I was about to congratulate my fellow posters on their successful "decimation" of AllenT2's incoherent blatherings about the word "indigenous". I have however changed my mind as I expect I would then receive a lecture on my inaccurate application of the word decimation. I expect AllenT2 would launch into an historical lecture on the word originating from ancient Rome. He would talk about how the word was used to describe the punishment dealt out to Roman soldiers showing cowardice in the field of battle. The punishment being every tenth soldier being singled out for execution so the others don't run away from the enemy in future. I expect he would declare victory on the basis that he is 90% correct.
The point of AllenT2's postings seems to be based on his desire to prove to us that he is smart. He fails in this attempt because he fails to grasp that language is a living thing. It changes so certain words have a contemporary meaning. Furthermore, language is used to convey a particular message. As long as this is achieved, then it doesn't really matter what words are used. From what I can see, everybody, including AllenT2, knew what Nick Bryant was saying.
I'm now going to put on a Vince Jones CD who I happen to think is a very good Australian singer. I don't know whether this is of any interest to anyone because AllenT2 appears to have successfully derailed any meaningful discussion of the main topic of discussion. I will however gain some satisfaction in the knowledge that AllenT2's keyboard will go into meltdown trying to reject my observations of his behaviour.
Complain about this comment
AllenT2 wrote: "Oh, by the way, my *legal* Mexican wife agrees with me entirely on my views on illegal immigration. She is embarrassed and angry that so many of her countrymen and women think they have the right to come to America illegally."
Just a feeling I get from your writing style, but I reckon if I were your wife I'd agree with you wholeheartedly on most issues, too.
"Oh I see, so now I am racist because I am against Mexicans entering our country illegally? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense"
I never accused you of racism, but it does sound like you have had to fend off that accusation a number of times before, and I know how the people with your politics think here, in my own country.
Complain about this comment
11pete11 wrote:
"51 AllenT2: 'Having enough on my plate" is not the same as being up set. You, for one, should know to use the right phrase in the right content. After you've gone on about it here ad nauseoum and totally off topic."
My determination that my posts are upsetting you are my opinion. My remarks regarding the meaning of the word indigenous is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. See the difference?
As for me being off topic I present your own words: "If the BBC thought my post was off topic, they would have removed it, just like they would have removed AllanT2's comments re the world 'indigenous'."
You are now contradicting yourself. My posts have been on topic, even you admitted it.
"Exasperated would have been the word you were searching for, had you bothered to do a search at all."
Why would I have searched for such a word when in my opinion I simply thought your were getting upset, unnecessarily, by my posts?
Why be "exasperated" anyway?" If you are comfortable and sure of your position you should not be feeling exasperation at all.
"As to the context of Nick's blog, what have you contributed to the discussion, other than descention and contradiction? Nothing."
Where have I contradicted myself? Quote me, if you can. You have truly contradicted yourself when you said: "If the BBC thought my post was off topic, they would have removed it, just like they would have removed AllanT2's comments re the world 'indigenous'."
As for "dissension," that's what you get when people are allowed to freely express their opinions. That's a good thing. In China, Russia, N.Korea and Iran "dissension" is seen as a bad thing, unsurprisingly.
"And it is this that I choose not to continue with, as it breaks house rules, which surprises me that someone hasn't removed your posts as they are totally off topic....as well as ridiculous.
So then why are you persisting in doing what you yourself are now condemning? Remember, you said you were no longer going to respond to me.
"...from the word ridicule...used in its original meaning but which has changed as English does as it is a growing language."
Too bad the meaning of the word indigenous hasn't "changed," huh?
"Hence why indigenous will eventually be known and used in the context used by Nick in this blog. If you don't like it, learn another language. Like French."
Well there it is in your own words. It "will *eventually* be known and used in the context used by Nick in this blog." Thank you for admitting that he is using the the word incorrectly.
Don't worry Pete, I will no longer address your feelings as it is of course off topic and appears to upset you even more. I can assure you my concern was not meant as some kind of insult, condescension, or strategy in the course of an argument or debate that some here like to engage in and that you yourself was a target of in this thread.
Complain about this comment
sydneycynic wrote:
"I was about to congratulate my fellow posters on their successful "decimation" of AllenT2's incoherent blatherings about the word "indigenous". I have however changed my mind as I expect I would then receive a lecture on my inaccurate application of the word decimation. I expect AllenT2 would launch into an historical lecture on the word originating from ancient Rome. He would talk about how the word was used to describe the punishment dealt out to Roman soldiers showing cowardice in the field of battle. The punishment being every tenth soldier being singled out for execution so the others don't run away from the enemy in future. I expect he would declare victory on the basis that he is 90% correct."
Actually, I am 100% correct as I follow the actual definition that I posted from numerous dictionaries. If you care about the truth you would have challenged them yourself. I'm not surprised you did not.
"The point of AllenT2's postings seems to be based on his desire to prove to us that he is smart."
Abiding by the definition of a word is my way of proving I am smart?
"He fails in this attempt because he fails to grasp that language is a living thing. It changes so certain words have a contemporary meaning."
That "living thing" has not changed its meaning of the word indigenous to suit you and others here. The "contemporary meaning" is as I have stated it is. What you want and what is are two different things.
"Furthermore, language is used to convey a particular message. As long as this is achieved, then it doesn't really matter what words are used."
The message conveyed is that it is OK to discriminate against one group of people so long as they are considered the minority, the oppressed or the one wronged in some way.
The message conveyed is certain people will continue to ignorantly and/or through their own self interests, or because of political correctness, create, support, and perpetuate intolerance, divisiveness, and racism by wrongly applying certain words and descriptors to identify and classify one group of people over another.
"From what I can see, everybody, including AllenT2, knew what Nick Bryant was saying."
Of course I knew what he was saying or otherwise I would not have recognized it as being wrong. :)
"I'm now going to put on a Vince Jones CD who I happen to think is a very good Australian singer."
Nice to see that you didn't bother classifying that "good Australian singer" as indigenous or not. :)
"I don't know whether this is of any interest to anyone because AllenT2 appears to have successfully derailed any meaningful discussion of the main topic of discussion."
Why, because you and a few others can not accept the actual definition of a word and its improper use? Does a "meaningful discussion" for you mean everyone having to agree, or else?
"I will however gain some satisfaction in the knowledge that AllenT2's keyboard will go into meltdown trying to reject my observations of his behaviour."
This is only your second post throughout the whole thread and in the first one you didn't even address my remarks and now your "observations," outside of saying "language is a living thing," which I addressed, are:
1- "I was about to congratulate my fellow posters on their successful "decimation" of AllenT2's incoherent blatherings about the word "indigenous"."
2- "I expect he would declare victory on the basis that he is 90% correct."
3- "The point of AllenT2's postings seems to be based on his desire to prove to us that he is smart."
4- "From what I can see, everybody, including AllenT2, knew what Nick Bryant was saying."
5- "I don't know whether this is of any interest to anyone because AllenT2 appears to have successfully derailed any meaningful discussion of the main topic of discussion."
6- "I will however gain some satisfaction in the knowledge that AllenT2's keyboard will go into meltdown trying to reject my observations of his behaviour."
Somehow I think my keyboard will survive your insightful "observations." ;)
Complain about this comment
stirling222 wrote:
"Just a feeling I get from your writing style, but I reckon if I were your wife I'd agree with you wholeheartedly on most issues, too."
Disregarding your character assasination attempts for what they are, my wife doesn't need anyone to form her opinions for her and she will not change or reinforce her position on something just because someone, or a group of people, disagree, or agree, with her.
"I never accused you of racism, but it does sound like you have had to fend off that accusation a number of times before, and I know how the people with your politics think here, in my own country."
There is no "but." Your words, and they are clear, and that I am sure were purposely and carefully chosen, were about painting me as a likely racist. It's part of your character assasination attempt since your arguments, and the arguments of others, are not strong enough to stand on their own.
People that have accused me of racism are people like you, people that are unwilling or incapable of recognizing blatant reverse discrimination and then go on to call others racist because they recognize reverse discrimination for what it obviously is!
People that have accused me of racism are those like Mexicans, or other so-called latinos, that belong to racist organizations like La Raza (translated: The Race) when I show or express support for the enforcement of America's immigration laws when in fact those people are the ones that are racist!
My "politics" in regards to immigration are in accordance with the fundamental and existing immigration laws of most countries througout the world, including Mexico which strictly guards its southern border but hypocritcally bristles and complains when America tries to strictly guard its own southern border!
My "politics" recognizes and supports the sovereignty and right of all countries to control and enforce fundamental immigration laws that are designed to monitor and control who is and isn't allowed into their countries!"
It isn't about my "politics," it is about fundamnetal and universal immigration laws supported throughout the world. You can not paint the later as extremist, the way you are attempting to do with the former.
Complain about this comment
#27 AllenT2 wrote:
"LOL. Most people use dictionaries for what they were designed for, to find the meaning of words, not to make "interpretations!" :)"
The problem I am having with Allen T2's replies is that they are skewed enough to seem that he is making a point when he in fact he is off the mark.
For example, Allen T2's comment above was a reply to my assertion "I am saying YOUR interpretation is wrong!!"
If you quote the meanings of a word from various different dictionaries the descriptions are all going to be slightly different, because I for example could not take the Oxford Dictionary and publish it under my own name as "Greg's Dictionary"...for copyright reasons I would have to change some of the words or I would be sued.
So the descriptions of the meanings of words are not always the same. However, the most root of the meaning of a word is usually contained in the first word or two of the description of a particular word, which is why I edited the descriptions from the dictionaries AllenT2 quoted to include the root meanings...Merriam Webster: "having originated in"...Answers.com: "Originating"...YourDictionary.com: "existing"...MSN Encarta: "originating in"...TheFreeDictionary.com: "Originating"...
Allen T2 also wrote quoting the Cambridge Dictionary I had quoted for the meaning of the word "indidenous": Synonym: "a word or phrase which has the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or phrase in the same language"
How is "actual" different from "the same?"
Well, again you have cherry picked the "meaning" of synonym...you left out the "nearly the same" part. Very few words in the English language have the actual or same meaning as another word. Think about it, why add a word to the language when the word for that thing or state already exists? Most synonyms are "nearly the same".
For example take the Dutch word for bed...bunk, which has entered the English language as a specific kind of bed, usually found in kids' rooms, on ships and in barracks.
Imagine the new soldier who enters his new barracks and says "OK where do I bunk?"
He can't very well say "OK where do I bed?" because when used as a verb, to bed has an entirely different meaning...that soldier might get some odd looks if he asked "Where do I bed?"
The English language has become the world's default language because it is so precise and I am afraid it has a precision that has not as yet made an impact on you.
When I wrote "So here, mate, we refer to our aboriginal (it means ORIGINAL inhabitants) brothers and sisters as indigenous people." you replied ..."I am not your "mate."
Well, mate, again you are missing the point which is called "the vernacular". I was using the word "mate" as a put down, as Nick Bryant noted its use in that context when he described Kevin Rudd's use of it in reply to Kerry O'Brien on the 7:30 Report...mate.
I also said "And here's a thought...why don't you organise a survey of Australia's indigenous people and ask them if they prefer to be known as Australia's indigenous people or natives".
You answered "Such a thing wouldn't be valid for people like you because I would also be asking white indigenous natives".
OK...to be more specific...all those Australians who consider themselves to be Aboriginals...I believe that Australia's "indigenous" (as I see the word) people would rather be called indigenous than native, because with hundreds of years of English usage of that word with all its nuances, the word "native" carries with it, undortunately, racist overtones.
I then wrote "And BTW...Geoffrey's voice is exquisite..." and you answered "Is it "exquisite" because it is simply so or because he is also "indigenous?" After all, if the topic is a simple matter of him having an "exquisite" voice then what is the point of adding all that other "indigenous" nonsense?
And this is where your argument falls down completely...it isn't nonsense. It means we like and respect him and his culture and his inheritance and his legends and art and all that he stands for.
He is our brother.
He is unique.
The danger is if we do not respect his unique "indigenousness" he will become more like those not like him, those whose culture is plastic and "modern", those whose legends come from TV and Hollywood and not from the dreamtime when the great serpent carved out this old, red and weather-beaten land.
Complain about this comment
AllenT2 should be aware that I limit my posts because I do not wish to risk the possibility of boring everyone. Obviously AllenT2 has no such inhibitions. He even takes it upon himself to regurgitate vast tracts of my past postings. For example, the last third of his posting rehashed the last six points of my comments. The punch line, NONE. What's your point?
I could go on about the contemporary nature of language, but I have already done that and it just bounced off AllenT2's frontal lobe. Unfortunately, AllenT2 still likes to quote excerpts from dictionaries i.e.from publications going back to Samuel Johnson in the 1770's (see the Oxford Dictionary). Seeing AllenT2 is an American I can see why he likes the literal interpretation of texts. No doubt he's a big fan of his right to have a machine gun based on the Constitution's declaration of a right to bear arms. The possibility of language evolving past a strict literal sense is a foreign and unfathomable concept for AllenT2. I don't know how he's ever going to cope with the rise of Chinglish, Spanglish and Globish.
Please do not misconstrue my failure to respond to your every utterance as an acceptance of your point. Unlike yourself I often have better things to do. At the moment there's nothing on television and pulling your chain is good entertainment. Speaking of entertainment, have you anything to say on the primary point i.e. who is Australia's best singer?
I have been through some of your past postings and note you have made a point of declaring your wife is a Mexican. For what it's worth, I've got nothing against Victorians.
Complain about this comment
This article is about Gurrumul Yunupingu's great talent, which I guess is why Nick Bryant titled it "The Sound of Australia", not "Let's-compare-dictionaries Australia". Folks . . . get over yourselves with your long dictionary-quoting explanations about what should have been written.He is that good with no sense of sight. Some of us have everything perfect but cannot even make a quarter of what he is. Appreciate the talent or simply shut up. Even better, sit at home and enjoy your assorted dictionaries instead. No one said everyone must like/listen to Gurrumul. Good thing is that he is making it in and out of Oz-land: Clearly not everyone is into dictionaries.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS