Australia - Muslims told "live by our ways or get out."

Originally Posted by Bridie

I was mostly speaking of SE Asians. These are our neighbours. Can you expand on your meaning regarding using anglo-saxon rules to measure the Chinese etc. How Japan could possibly pose a threat with such a low birth rate? Give them a few centuries and there won't be any left.

I was refering to intelligence. As for a threat, China.

We often grow preconceived and/or wrong ideas about a people because they are different to us and then we don't understand them. It is a common [and big] mistake. Most often taken to extremes by A-S.

No need to keep quiet. Of which island do you speak?

Gran Canaria, off the coast of W-NW Africa.

I'm sure you would know better than to compare a CONTINENT with such great diversity to a small island??

Diversity is [unfortunately] big here too. But it is true that it is still not comparable to the diversity existing in a big landmass like Australia. On a one-to-one comparison picture. On the scaled picture, however..

[Phlegethon]

I still see Australia as a former dumping ground for criminals and prostitutes. By now the physical shackles have disappeared and replaced by mental shackles. As long as Australia maintains a neoliberal economic growth that cannot be sustained without immigration I do not really give a damn if there are race riots and murder & mayhem down under.

From a nationalist viewpoint forced assimilation is about the biggest mistke one can make and I am surprised that Aussies are still so stupid they call for it. Those few muslims who have killed in Europe actually were those the respective governments considered the best assimilated.

[Bridie]

I was refering to intelligence. As for a threat, China.

I wouldn't see China as a particular threat ATM because of the social degradation and upheaval that curently is only beginning to plague them. The one child policy is apparently proving to cause as many problems as it was intended to solve according to many. I will re-assess that opinion at any time though.

I still see Australia as a former dumping ground for criminals and prostitutes.

I both agree and disagree with this:

I agree because the foundations of the Australian psyche and culture were laid down during the "convict days". So free settlers that came after and even during this time were affected and shaped by a convict mentality.

I disagree because the bulk of the convicts were not violent criminals (although many of the Irish were political prisoners), nor were the women generally prostitutes before conviction. (Although, by necessity, many women prisoners "attached" themselves to a chosen male in an attempt to ensure protection in a male dominated environment. And yes, they often had to resort to whoring themsleves - but no doubt, the alternative would have been even worse for them.) Even the English weren't stupid enough to colonise a new land with people who would compromise its success.

Sending convicts to Van Diemen's Land was largely part of a strategy to expand their empire. This new land wasn't merely a dumping groud for undesirables. I won't go on about the social and economical climate of England during the 16th and 17th centuries that allowed sending their own citizens into hell to be, on the surface, justifiable for the English politicians of the day.

Nor will I go on about the cruelty of their child migration scheme, using vulnerable orphans or bastards to suit their own agenda.

By now the physical shackles have disappeared and replaced by mental shackles.

Peeling back the layers of the onion, our shackles are the legacies of our convict "founders"..... collective low self opinion and confidence; mistrust and resentment of authority and a subsequential tendancy to rebelliousness; never over-estimating our own importance in the scheme of things; our tendancy to sympathise with the under-dog; our pride in being able to take the hard knocks, and never break.

Well, that's *Australian Culture 101* finished for today!

[Bridie]

Okay, now I've got a little bit of time, I can finish my response....

From a nationalist viewpoint forced assimilation is about the biggest mistke one can make and I am surprised that Aussies are still so stupid they call for it.

IMO There are 2 politically correct opinions in Australia ATM;
1) Multi-racial society with assimilated citizens (1 culture).
2) Multicultural/racial society.

If the pollies want to win the game, they have to play by the rules.... otherwise they're out. That's a sad fact, yet true everywhere I think, not just in Australia.

[Phlegethon]

Originally Posted by Bridie

nor were the women generally prostitutes before conviction. (Although, by necessity, many women prisoners "attached" themselves to a chosen male in an attempt to ensure protection in a male dominated environment. And yes, they often had to resort to whoring themsleves - but no doubt, the alternative would have been even worse for them.)

Only one quarter of the convicts transported on the First Fleet were women. If we add gaolers and officials to the numbers of males, women were outnumbered by roughly six to one in the convict settlements until the increase in free female immigration in the 1830s (Carmichael, 1992, p.103). To achieve even this level of comparability in the numbers of men and women, the authorities had to transport women on much less serious offences than those for which men were transported (Robson, 1963, 1965; Oxley 1988). But, the supply of female offenders was still not sufficient to keep pace with that of male convicts. This meant that, if the intention to use these women as sexual partners for convicts was to be fulfilled, some or all of the convict women would have to have multiple male partners. Indeed, in Phillip's opinion, 'the lusts of the men were so urgent as to require the prostitution of the most abandoned women to contain them' (Rutter, 1937). The fact that 12 percent of convict women were recorded as prostitutes before leaving Britain no doubt predisposed them to continue their former occupation in the colony (Robson, 1963). Other conditions in the penal settlements encouraged widespread prostitution. In the early years of the settlement no provision was made for housing for female convicts and a woman's best chance of accommodation was through striking up a liaison with some man. Those who could not or would not attach themselves to one man found the temporary bartering of sex for accommodation just as effective. Women were also the frequent targets of male violence and many found it necessary to seek the protection of one man, in return for sexual favours, against the sexual demands of other men. Limited opportunities for female employment in the early years, where the major demand was for male muscle-power, also placed pressure on women to prostitute themselves as one of the few ways in which they could earn a livelihood. According to Anne Summers, the result was a situation of 'enforced whoredom', either to one man or to many (Summers 1975, pp.267- 85; see also Alford, 1984, p.44; Aveling, 1992). There is considerable debate about the exact level of prostitution in convict society (Lake 1988). Historians such as Lloyd Robson (1965), Alan Shaw (1966) and more recently Robert Hughes (1987) have tended to accept the judgements of contemporary officials who condemned the female convicts generally as 'damned whores', possessed of neither 'Virtue nor Honesty'. But the evidence upon which this judgement is based is problematic. How can we know, for instance, whether the frequent allegations of universal whoredom reflected the class- and sex-based prejudices and preconceptions of literate officials more than actual practices in the colony? As Michael Sturma has pointed out, middle and upper class commentators tended to see working class women as prostitutes simply because their behaviour transgressed their own class-based notions of feminine modesty and morality. For instance, long-term de facto relationships were a common and accepted part of early nineteenth century working class culture, but from the perspective of the middle or upper class observer, these women were prostituting themselves, albeit to 'one man only' (Sturma 1978). Such men were also shocked by working class women's open and aggressive sexuality compared to that of 'virtuous' women of their own class (Daniels 1993). Early feminist historians such as Anne Summers and Miriam Dixson have ironically reinforced this picture of wholesale whoredom by incorporating the stereotype as a key element in explaining Australian women's current low status in relation to Australian men. Women were compelled into prostitution by State policy and structural factors rather than their own personal 'vice' but they were, by these accounts, prostitutes nonetheless (Summers 1975; Dixson 1975). Portia Robinson (1985), writing in the mid-1980s, presents the opposite view of the women of Botany Bay as good wives, good mothers and good citizens. If they were prostitutes, she says, it was as a result of their criminal environment in Britain rather than conditions in Australia. On the contrary, Australia offered women the chance for redemption (Robinson, 1988, p.236).

In the final analysis, it is impossible to know exactly how many women engaged in commercial sex during the convict period. Despite this, prostitution obviously was a key institution in convict society, providing one of the few economic options for women who supplied a high level of demand for sexual services in a disproportionately male population (Alford 1984). There is a sense, too, in which the actual numbers of women working as prostitutes is irrelevant to an understanding of the place prostitution played in colonial society. What is more important is the fact that those in authority believed it to be widespread yet, apart from ritual expressions of disgust, showed a high degree of toleration for the practice. As noted earlier, this toleration reflected the official belief that prostitutes provided a necessary outlet for the powerful lusts of working class men. It was also accepted because the women who provided this service were, from the point of view of the ruling class, the 'other' - working class women with values and behaviour markedly different from those of women of their own class. The sharp contrast between the speech, dress and behaviour of convict women and the demeanour of middle and upper class women also helped mask the extent to which sexual services were exchanged for financial gain across social classes. Because of this, convict society, particularly in the earlier decades, was noticeably more tolerant of women of 'easy virtue' amongst its upper echelons than was contemporary British society or later colonial society.

Deborah Oxley (1988, p.87) makes another important point in identifying prostitution as a structural part of the capitalist patriarchy which characterised colonising society. Working class women's role in this society was primarily to reproduce the working class: future, past and present. An intrinsic part of this role was the provision of sexual services to men, through marriage, force or payment. Sex was commercialised and turned into a commodity.

The convict era was thus crucial in setting the pattern for the history of prostitution in Australia. It saw the establishment of the sex industry as an important part of the life experience and work options of women within colonising society; it was also during this period that the extent of prostitution came to be used as a gauge of the worth of colonial women and of the success of colonial society more generally. Prostitution assumed a rhetorical and symbolic significance quite apart from its importance as an avenue for women's economic survival.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/24/230.html

[Phlegethon]

Originally Posted by Bridie

Well, that's *Australian Culture 101* finished for today!

Australian culture? That's an oxymoron. Unless Rolf Harris qualifies as "culture".

Tie me kangaroo down, sport, tie me kangaroo down...

[Bridie]

Australian culture? That's an oxymoron.

Oooohhh.... look at you, you nasty little man. You got to stop all this butch behaviour Phlegethon.... I think I'm developing a bit of a crush on you. I'll give you 10/10 for enthusiasm anyway.

Regarding your quoted text, I'm honestly flattered that you would think so highly of me as to feel the need to re-affirm the correctness of my own post.

There is nothing in that quote which actually contradicts anything that I stated. By saying "generally" women convicts were not whores before conviction, I meant that the large majority where not whores (and indeed the text you've provided gives the figure to be 88%). To re-state it in different terminology..... women convicts were "ordinarily" NOT prostitutes BEFORE conviction. It is well known in Australia that so many women had no choice but to whore themselves in the volitile and uncivilised environment that they found themselves in. Volitile and uncivilised.... well, that's a male dominated environment for you!

How can we know, for instance, whether the frequent allegations of universal whoredom reflected the class- and sex-based prejudices and preconceptions of literate officials more than actual practices in the colony? As Michael Sturma has pointed out, middle and upper class commentators tended to see working class women as prostitutes simply because their behaviour transgressed their own class-based notions of feminine modesty and morality. For instance, long-term de facto relationships were a common and accepted part of early nineteenth century working class culture, but from the perspective of the middle or upper class observer, these women were prostituting themselves, albeit to 'one man only'

Interesting.

Portia Robinson (1985), writing in the mid-1980s, presents the opposite view of the women of Botany Bay as good wives, good mothers and good citizens. If they were prostitutes, she says, it was as a result of their criminal environment in Britain rather than conditions in Australia. On the contrary, Australia offered women the chance for redemption (Robinson, 1988, p.236).

Two different interpretations of the same material. Typical in the analysis of historical events. Who's to say who's actually right? Could be neither.

Thanks for taking so much time to make me appear so righteous.... honestly though, its not needed.

[Phlegethon]

Originally Posted by Bridie

Two different interpretations of the same material. Typical in the analysis of historical events. Who's to say who's actually right?

I am, being a properly qualified historian.

Originally Posted by Bridie

Thanks for taking so much time to make me appear so righteous.... honestly though, its not needed.

The funny thing is that this was some Feminist borderline scientific text, notorious for the ultimate scientific crime of selecting dubious sources, ignoring others and mingling them with assumptions (I would not even call them theories).

In my memory I have a figure of 40,000 prostitutes deported from England to Australia. And if you know the England of that time you know that the was only a very small segment of the prostitutes in London alone.

All these things reconsidered I stick to my opinion that genetically white Autralians are hybrids, genetically linked to notorious criminals, sleazy whores and a few aboriginals thrown in (when prostitutes were out of reach). With all this in mind Australians and their quasi-incestuous gene pool should be kinda happy about the influx of Asians.

[Phlegethon]

Originally Posted by Bridie

Volitile and uncivilised.... well, that's a male dominated environment for you!

Sounds more like an Anglo-dominated environment to me.

By the way, it is volatile, from the Latin volare.

Volare, oooohooooh, cantare, ooohooohooohoooh...

[Phlegethon]

By the way, being a prostitute and being a convicted prostitute are two different things. It is safe to assume that in Victorian England only a very small percentage of prostitutes got convicted (most often for not staying in their designated areas).

[Bridie]

I am, being a properly qualified historian.

LMAO You have just completely discredited yourself in my eyes. Need to bandy about your qualifications do you? You obviously feel threatened by me. I'm not even going to sink to your level and state what my qualifications are.

The funny thing is that this was some Feminist borderline scientific text,

Ha ha ha.... historical theory scientific??? Hmmmm....

notorious for the ultimate scientific crime of selecting dubious sources, ignoring others and mingling them with assumptions

I seriously doubt that you do have a degree in history after reading this ridiculous comment. EVERYONE selects information that will support their own agenda or the theories that they wish to support. Saying that there can be objective evaluation of any information is like saying that journalists can be objective! PMSL (Although, apparently they do try!)

There is no reality dear Phlegethon, merely perceptions of it.

All these things reconsidered I stick to my opinion that genetically white Autralians are hybrids, genetically linked to notorious criminals, sleazy whores and a few aboriginals thrown in (when prostitutes were out of reach). With all this in mind Australians and their quasi-incestuous gene pool should be kinda happy about the influx of Asians.

And this is just such an obvious attempt to infuriate me, but it won't work.

Not the sharpest tool in the shed are you Phlegy old boy?

[Bridie]

By the way, being a prostitute and being a convicted prostitute are two different things. It is safe to assume that in Victorian England only a very small percentage of prostitutes got convicted (most often for not staying in their designated areas).

Why do prostitutes concern you so?

[Bridie]

Sounds more like an Anglo-dominated environment to me.

By the way, it is volatile, from the Latin volare.

Volare, oooohooooh, cantare, ooohooohooohoooh...__________________

If you're trying to charm me Phleg, you going to have to do better than that. I know you're lonely and all.... but honestly.....

[Phlegethon]

I can fly and I can sing. Even in Latin. That's it.

Addressing your relativist approach to historical research: There is one reality and there is one truth. The historians that matter intellectually adhere to the school of historism as introduced by Ranke, Mommsen and Treitschke. The rest are merely political prostitutes in a shielded environment (acedemia).