Stereotypes of Australia?

[Thurlor]

Within a group of rational people such as INTPs there are probably less stereotypical views of the outside world than within other groups. That being said, those stereotypical views we do have are probably atypical.

So, a question for the non Australian forum members;

What are the stereotypes you associate with Australia and/or it's people?

And now a question for my fellow Australian members;

What do you think is the most prevalent stereotype associated with Australia and us?

 

[Thurlor]

OMG,

Seriously?

 

[Duxwing]

:/ RIP

Steve. I miss him.

As for stereotypes:

• Digeridoos
• Boomerangs
• Outback
• Kangaroo
• Wallaby
• Dingo
• Dingo ate my baby

-Duxwing

 

[redbaron]

Something like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=vQDVmpoKmJA

 

[Wolf18]

Overly-whitened teeth (in my experience, at least), surfers, road trains, rabbits.

SW

 

[Absurdity]

Never been there, but:

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

 

[Cognisant]

Inside Australia there's a few groups of people, in rural areas there's the mostly-white farmers, many of whom are from farming families and working family owned land, they tend to be conservative but not total dicks about it, far more interested in how much water their land is getting and how much their produce sells for than anything that happens elsewhere.

Also in rural Australia there's "black towns" one of which I think is actually called that, some of these places can make third world countries look good, except they're funded by goverment welfare so people don't starve, though their neglected children sometimes do. There's a special kind of racism at work here, the "Noble Savage" myth has lead the goverment to do everything they can to help these people while ironically having exactly the opposite affect, people in these towns actually think they're noble savages, that they can't function in a modern white man's world and thus they can't, they're not just wretched, they're entitled, but nobody has the guts to cut them off.

They're Australia's shameful secret.

Everywhere else is pretty rosy by comparison, we've got tourists, mining, large scale agriculture, a huge fishing industry, for such a small country population wise Australia is quite wealthy. Inner city and suburban Australians benefit from this most, there's not much to say about the city living "townies" we're just like people from UK and US cities, the suburban scum on the other hand that we affectionately call "bogans" are kind of like rednecks except they lack any appreciable culture of their own, they borrow the worst of it from everywhere else. Every weekend the bogans come into the city to party, they get wasted, loud, piss everywhere, leave rubbish everywhere, they're just scum, there's no excuse for it.

Finally Australia is a very multicultural country, we have people from everywhere, I'll let you figure out for yourselves how well the immigrants and bogans mix, but as far as townies are concerned they're just all people, indeed we'd like to see more of them, after all it's not like the bogans will go work in the mines, though they'll complain to no end about the difficulty of getting jobs.

 

[Cognisant]

Spoiler

Never been there, but:

That's quite possibly a quote.

Police here are very different depending upon which state you live in, in New South Wales they're infamous for shooting first and shooting again if the first shot didn't do the job. In Queensland they're more laid back, more corrupt too, especially around the Gold Coast where there's a potent mix of money, drugs and nightclub owners doing favours for anyone who will let them bend the law. In and around aboriginal towns it's not the cops you have to worry about, they'll arrest you sure, but alongside this there's aboriginal law enforcement and if you mess with their community they'll get old school recompense, everybody knows about, nobody stops it.

In a way suburban/city Australia and rural Australia are like two very different countries with very different rules.

 

[TheScornedReflex]

SHEEP SHAGGERS!!

 

[Magus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qm61svN4U5g

 

[John_Mann]

Crocodile Dundee.

My sister lives in Sydney. Great Place!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5IU02ptUQI

 

[Lot]

I don't actually believe these so much, but this is the impression from US media I get.
Super friendly
Easily excitable
extreme sports
Loud
Crocodile Dundee

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

[mention]Cognisant[/mention]

You're forgetting the noble bogans that the government looks after.

 

[loveofreason]

These?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdgTpBvp9n4

 

[Beat Mango]

Good god. What horrible stereotypes are attached to my country. I must leave.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRz8FWPUmpI

 

[just george]

Also in rural Australia there's "black towns" one of which I think is actually called that, some of these places can make third world countries look good, except they're funded by goverment welfare so people don't starve, though their neglected children sometimes do. There's a special kind of racism at work here, the "Noble Savage" myth has lead the goverment to do everything they can to help these people while ironically having exactly the opposite affect, people in these towns actually think they're noble savages, that they can't function in a modern white man's world and thus they can't, they're not just wretched, they're entitled, but nobody has the guts to cut them off.

They're Australia's shameful secret.

Aborigines are kept in those conditions on purpose, as part of a war of racial attrition. So long as they're economically useless, and generally uneducated, they stay as they are while their resources are extracted.

Imagine if all the black children back in the 70s went to law school - you reckon the mining companies would be doing as well as they are?

Doooooont think so.

 

[Solitaire U.]

+ the vehicle in my avatar.

 

[Brontosaurie]

they are sort of like south africans

it's warm and they speak english and they smoke barbiturates

they have some other negro peoples to oppress

they like driving along the ridges and canyons, blasting the music

in the scorching sun

 

[Cognisant]

You're assuming they have land rights, rather they have whatever wasteland the government oh so kindly gave them, and the mining companies aren't actually doing all that well, they're making a profit sure but if you consider the size of these projects the profit margin is dwarfed by the amount of money they're spending, Gladstone is a great example of this, a tiny little town with the local council having more money than they know what to do with, brand spanking new roads everywhere.

A conspiracy assumes competence, from the Australian government? You've got to be kidding

 

[Hadoblado]

Google imaging 'Australia memes' yields some decent results.

 

[just george]

You're assuming they have land rights, rather they have whatever wasteland the government oh so kindly gave them, and the mining companies aren't actually doing all that well, they're making a profit sure but if you consider the size of these projects the profit margin is dwarfed by the amount of money they're spending, Gladstone is a great example of this, a tiny little town with the local council having more money than they know what to do with, brand spanking new roads everywhere.

A conspiracy assumes competence, from the Australian government? You've got to be kidding

Assuming? It's their land. In every other invasion/genocide, the theft of land was outright. When Australia was founded, the clowns in power declared that "no one lives here" (except that there were), and then later accepted those people as citizens.

Therefore not only do they have rights, but their case is fairly rock solid. The only difficulty is that the defendants are the same people that work as judges

Anyway the Australian Colonial Administration doesn't have to be competent. The ones who set the system up clearly were. All the government has to do is be a place holder, and that's that.

Oh and as if the mining companies are only "doing alright". They're killing it. I DJed at a mining corporate function, with all of the heads of the mines in the Territory in attendance. Let's just say they talk when they're drunk. It was like being in that movie Syriana - same attitude, same accent, samesamesame.

 

[Cognisant]

Ah but y'see they're all managers, put a bunch of managers in a room, give them alcohol and were it not for the higher ups there to have their egos stroked a literal pissing contest would occur, I've seen retail managers behave exactly the same way, unless it's been a bad year in which case they huddle quietly together like scared sheep, all desperate not to be the one the executives choose to make an example of.

It's a binary thing, they either made budget or they didn't.

 

[loveofreason]

Perhaps ego-stroking over low-achievement is typically Australian.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Assuming? It's their land. In every other invasion/genocide, the theft of land was outright. When Australia was founded, the clowns in power declared that "no one lives here" (except that there were), and then later accepted those people as citizens.

This was over turn by the Eddie Mabo case.

Therefore not only do they have rights, but their case is fairly rock solid. The only difficulty is that the defendants are the same people that work as judges

Aborigines are kept in those conditions on purpose, as part of a war of racial attrition. So long as they're economically useless, and generally uneducated, they stay as they are while their resources are extracted.

The people who once owned the land are now long gone and dead. Since the twenty year grace period, as afforded under common law, has expired a long time ago, the ancestry have no just claim. It is not like any of them could fulfill a burden of proof anyway.

 

[just george]

This was over turn by the Eddie Mabo case.





The people who once owned the land are now long gone and dead. Since the twenty year grace period, as afforded under common law, has expired a long time ago, the ancestry have no just claim. It is not like any of them could fulfill a burden of proof anyway.

The issue is a lot larger than that.

The facts of the matter are that the English came here and declared that no one lived here.

Then the Australian Government said "under English common law, your grace period has expired, and you cannot fulfill a burden of proof".

A logical person, on the other hand, would say "hang on a minute - what right do the English or Australian governments have to implement English common law on Aboriginal land? Surely it's the other way around - the English should have to prove their right to be here under Aboriginal law"

Then we get into what I said before - that the defendants and the judges are the same people, and so there's a massive conflict of interest.

When all of this happened in Canada, the English government got the native people to enter into an agreement with them, under corporation law. Therefore the Canadian aborigines entered into the deal of their own free will (though some will contest that), and so what is happening in Canada has some legitimacy.

That isn't true in Australia, and by rights, this should be decided based on Human or Natural Law, the law of sovereigns, which in short is the general human understanding that if your people lived in a place first, it is yours unless you are conquered or bought out.

The only acceptable outcome would be an agreement that all of the land in cities plus roads connecting them is owned by the people who live there, and the rest of Australia belongs to the Aborigines, who may sell it if they like.

But let's be honest. People are greedy. If the government can steal land by playing dumb, it will - and that is why money is thrown at the Aborigines - to keep them drunk, keep them stupid, keep them uneducated, and keep their numbers small.

It's a war of attrition, with the weapons of choice being alcohol, political theater, and public opinion.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

The only acceptable outcome would be an agreement that all of the land in cities plus roads connecting them is owned by the people who live there, and the rest of Australia belongs to the Aborigines, who may sell it if they like.

It is not acceptable and it is not going to happen. Those who once owned the land before the British occupied it are gone. They no longer exist. Ergo, no higher claim on the land can be made over the current rightful and just owners. Furthermore, the current inhabitants do not bear the sins of their ancestors. Just like the "rightful" owners, the ones who have committed the wrongs are long gone and dead. You would be committing a wrong yourself to expropriate the land of the current rightful and just owners.

While you're crying a river for the Aboriginals, why don't you cry a river for all of the aboriginals throughout history, in all of the lands around the world, who were conquered, displayed, murdered. Those damn German Engles displaced the aboriginals who resided in the area currently called England before the Romans invaded. The modern Engles (English) have not right to be there!

 

[Thurlor]

The whole issue of aboriginal rights is rather complex to say the least.

I've often read that the aboriginals never made any claim to land ownership. AFAIK they expressely denied owning the land. If that is all true and not just apocryphal stories then what land rights issue is there?

If they get the land should they also get the infrastructure associated with it? Should it be free?

The biggest issue however is that none of the people that were involved are alive any longer so this is all a waste of time.

Should an individual be held accountable for the actions of one of their ancestors? Can a nation be held accountable for it's actions when no-one in power was in power when said actions took place?

 

[TimeAsylums]

Sounds like the Hawaiian islands or any other chain of islands all over again, imo just on a much larger scale. As previous poster's have said, of course they can fight for their rights, but the bigger forms of governments with their money and power always hold da powa.
^Oversimplified, but sums it up.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Should an individual be held accountable for the actions of one of their ancestors? Can a nation be held accountable for it's actions when no-one in power was in power when said actions took place?

Due to the fact that individuals are separate acting autonomous agents, individuals can't be held to account for the actions of another individual.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Due to the fact that individuals are separate acting autonomous agents, individuals can't be held to account for the actions of another individual.

I fully agree.

But how about how the court handles minors, er people under 18? Aren't their parents held responsible?

 

[Thurlor]

@ProxyAmenRa

I agree completely. Those questions were rhetorical though.

We need a different question mark for rhetorical questions. Even if it's only ever used on this forum.

 

[Thurlor]

What about cases like Tasmania where the local population would have died out regardless of European intervention? The Tasmanian Aboriginals were on the brink of complete extinction.

 

[TimeAsylums]

not really up for an argument (as I have no final opinion) on whether an imperial force has the right to choose to let the life of other populations or whether the dying out population has the choice/right to do so.

 

[walfin]

Farms.
Sheep.

Slow (esp. WA: Wait Awhile )

G'die Mite.
Boomerangs.
Didgeridoos.
Crocodiles.

The people who once owned the land are now long gone and dead. Since the twenty year grace period, as afforded under common law, has expired a long time ago, the ancestry have no just claim. It is not like any of them could fulfill a burden of proof anyway.

Let's talk about Common Law.

What about the principle of Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet?

If the English did not have a right to possess the land in the first place, then their descendants have inherited no right to possess the land now. Ergo, they're squatters.

Now, fine, Australia is a Registered Land jurisdiction and the English common law of property doesn't apply. But even under the Torrens system of property registration, an aggrieved person can sue the government for a claim against the assurance fund. Which means that there should at least be compensation to the aborigines for the value of their land.

But anyway. I must say that Australia did the right thing with Eddie Mabo and the Native Title Act thereafter. I'm glad that the Government didn't hold the manifestly unjust view that the aborigines have no just claim.

 

[TimeAsylums]

http://youtu.be/XfR9iY5y94s

top two comments with 100+ upvotes:

I live in Australia and I can safely say that this is an accurate representation of living here

I lived in Australia for a year on a working holiday visa, and still don't know why they don't use this as their national anthem. It is so much better than "Advance Australia Fair"

 

[just george]

It is not acceptable and it is not going to happen. Those who once owned the land before the British occupied it are gone. They no longer exist. Ergo, no higher claim on the land can be made over the current rightful and just owners. Furthermore, the current inhabitants do not bear the sins of their ancestors. Just like the "rightful" owners, the ones who have committed the wrongs are long gone and dead. You would be committing a wrong yourself to expropriate the land of the current rightful and just owners.

While you're crying a river for the Aboriginals, why don't you cry a river for all of the aboriginals throughout history, in all of the lands around the world, who were conquered, displayed, murdered. Those damn German Engles displaced the aboriginals who resided in the area currently called England before the Romans invaded. The modern Engles (English) have not right to be there!

I disagree entirely, because your entire argument rests on English law being the law of the land, with absolutely no reference to aboriginal law.

Even if we were to accept waffle's point of view that this may be viewed through the prism of squatting, it is further complicated by the fact that we have 2 separate groups technically squatting on the same land - those being, of course, the descendants of the aborigines who were displaced, and the descendants of those who took the place over and asserted English law.

No matter which way you look at it, the Aborigines have the stronger claim, because no matter how long the English squatted, the aborigines squatted longer and so have first claim, plus of course the English did not have the right to impose their law on the land in the first place, and admitted it in their own writings by declaring Terra Nullius ("no one lives here")

Oh and just to clarify, the position of the aborigines is that they do not own the land, and rather, belong to the land.

In short, the two systems are incompatible, and cannot be resolved, since if the aborigines belong to land owned by the English, then they become property of the English, which is illegal under English law.

That is why I said that the only reasonable thing to do is separate the two ideologies geographically - but who in government, let alone a mining company CEO, is reasonable when trillions of dollars in resources are in the pot? None.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

No matter which way you look at it, the Aborigines have the stronger claim, because no matter how long the English squatted, the aborigines squatted longer and so have first claim, plus of course the English did not have the right to impose their law on the land in the first place, and admitted it in their own writings by declaring Terra Nullius ("no one lives here")

Individuals are distinct autonomous acting agents. Two different individuals do not magically become the same individual just because they share certain similarities such as being the same race. The once rightful owners who are long gone and dead held the claim. The individuals whom are Aboriginal and exist today are not the same individuals who existed when the land was expropriated. Ergo, the individuals who are Aboriginals who exist today have no rightful and just claim.

By the way, half of the damn aboriginal tribes were cannibals. Some gold standard system of morals and ethics they had...

Now go off and cry a river for all of the displaced peoples throughout all of history.

 

[Thurlor]

@just george

You are to blame you for all that your ancestors have done wrong. Do you feel guilty for all the wrong that they have done?

 

[walfin]

@just george

You are to blame you for all that your ancestors have done wrong. Do you feel guilty for all the wrong that they have done?

Can the debate go here instead?

This seemed like a nice thread. Let's not spoil it.

 

[just george]

Individuals are distinct autonomous acting agents. Two different individuals do not magically become the same individual just because they share certain similarities such as being the same race. The once rightful owners who are long gone and dead held the claim. The individuals whom are Aboriginal and exist today are not the same individuals who existed when the land was expropriated. Ergo, the individuals who are Aboriginals who exist today have no rightful and just claim.

By the way, half of the damn aboriginal tribes were cannibals. Some gold standard system of morals and ethics they had...

Now go off and cry a river for all of the displaced peoples throughout all of history.

Individuals are, but entire societies or governments are not. Who are the English to say that their government is eternal, yet all of the aboriginal councils/tribes are not?

Also, it doesn't matter if half of the aboriginal tribes were cannibals. These people have natural rights. Plus, what about the 50% that were not? Should we punish them because of something that the other 50% did?

Makes no sense.

 

[just george]

@just george

You are to blame you for all that your ancestors have done wrong. Do you feel guilty for all the wrong that they have done?

I don't feel any guilt, because I didn't do anything wrong to anybody. Nor am I saying that present day Australians should feel guilty, or bear the burden of something that their ancestors did.

However, that doesn't mean that we should perpetuate our ancestors mistakes.

Australia is a big country. Surely there's enough land around to come to some agreeable conclusion.

Is it really that important for the Queen to have hundreds of thousands of acres of Crown land, that she never sets foot on, that we should be denying it to real, living people who have a claim?

Why is that goat legged centaur so important? Boot her out, give the land back to the Aborigines, and then buy it back from them. Better than letting the Queen have it, when all she does is tell everyone that they aren't allowed to set foot on it.

 

[Cognisant]

Where are you from?

Besides the aborigines don't need compensation, they're already getting it in the form of welfare and despite the best of intentions it has done them very little good and a great deal of harm.

We can debate the validity of claims all week long, heck I'm not even going to bother refuting you on that, because all of that aside there's still the fact of the matter that if we just gave them dogballs of money we'd be just about committing genocide.

 

[Cognisant]

I suppose that fits the technical definition of a "solution", would put a final end to the matter too.

A final solution.

Where have I heard that before?

*gets blindsided by the Goodwin's law hammer*

 

[Hadoblado]

Besides the aborigines don't need compensation, they're already getting it in the form of welfare and despite the best of intentions it has done them very little good and a great deal of harm.

This. Aboriginal youth are being destroyed by the habits that welfare can afford. When you're 15 and getting a sizable sum of money every week what else would you spend it on but drugs and alcohol, when your shattered culture demands just that?

Treating them any different to a poor white person has done nothing for them, we should admit the mistake, assimilate them, and move on.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

assimilate them, and move on.

I've developed a new stereotype for you Aussies:

[BIMG]http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/10600000/We-are-the-Borg-Voyager-themed-star-trek-voyager-10641260-2560-1600.jpg[/BIMG]