h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Australian Aboriginal Behaviour. - A1079769
Author: Researcher 231219 - U231219

I happen, in fact, to be the guy in the wheelchair, and can testify to the charged atmosphere of the meeting described in the entry. Yet, the bushie smiled at me like an old friend. Odd doesn't quite sum it up entirely. Anyone able to shed any light on how they are so advanced whilst we, in the west, are still so touchy about disability?
btw - this is my first entry.
ta ta

An interesting entry, but the title seems to suggest a broader subject than it delivers. Instead of Australian Aboriginal Behaviour, perhaps a title more specific to wheelchairs would suit it better

Or, you can flesh it out and write more to make it more comprehensive.

Still a better first entry than many researchers write

cheers Jodan. I'll change the title a wee bit. (i may have a headstart in the writing game as I already write a column in the Independent On Sunday (a UK newspaper).
thanks again .

Hi Researcher 231219,

An interesting story. For Peer Review purposes, it will need to be amended somewhat to meet the Writing-Guidelines. You might find other Australian researchers who can shed light on your experience to add to this entry.

Or, if you're looking for comment on disability and our attitudes, you might want to put this in <./>Askh2g2</.> - I'm sure it would spark lively discussion.

As Jodan said, it needs a slight title change - maybe something like 'Australian Aboriginal attitudes to disability'.

It would be a good idea to get yourself a nickname, by the way - makes it easier for people to converse with you. Go to 'Preferences" and you can make amendments there.

in what regard what I have to amend the piece for peer review?

It may be as simple as changing the title to reflect the content of the entry better, as both Jodan and I have suggested, Beatles.

cheers for that. duly changed. will i be told if it gets in?
Beatles

Yes, two things will happen (well, three, if you count waiting).

Each entry must stay in Peer Review for a minimum of seven days before it is able to be picked, to allow discussion of the entry and for comments to be made and acted on.

Once an entry is picked (by a <./>scout</.>, the italics or 'powers that be' decide whether they agree or not. (Italics work for the BBC and can be identified by their names being in italics.) Once agreement is made that the entry is Edited Guide bound, the Researcher receives an e-mail and a message is posted in the relevant thread, so that anyone who has contributed will know it's been recommended.

Then it goes off to a sub-editor to be polished before appearing on the Front Page in due course.

Interesting.

Is there anything else you can add to the subject? A single piece of knowledge, which is essentially what this entry is, probably isn't as thorough as it needs to be

That was a funny simulpost. The thread was empty for a day and then a simulpost.

The two minute difference is the server

Hmm, I don't know what to say. Rather, I'm a little conflicted. I love the writing and love the topic, but there doesn't seen to be much factual info in the entry.

The entry is not so much an explaination and description of australian aboriginal thought and behavior, as it is a description of a single situation, then projected to assume a pattren of behavior.

On the other hand, isn't this what sociologits and anthropologists do regularly?

Hmm.

I think the problem I'm having is this:

"The explanation? It transpires that Aboriginals, as an entire race (all tribes), view people in wheelchairs (of whatever colour or place of birth) as being as downtrodden as they themselves are."

I think it may take more than one sentence to fully explain the behavior of a population.

Are there other people with whom the aboriginals behave similarly?

Is there any historic evidence of this behavior?

Is there any other writing or references for this behavior?

Is the behavior to those with a wheelchair also seen with amputees or the blind, etc.?

These aren't great questions. This information is not needed by the entry, but SOMETHING is needed. The event is well described, but the explaination is somehow lacking.

Friar

I felt rather uncomfortable with the opening statement:
>>Australian Aboriginals are wary of white people at the best of times, having had their country, how shall one phrase it, 'purloined' once already. There is, however, one section of people they do not seem to see as potential land- thieves; people in wheelchairs.<<

For me it's just too sweeping a generalisation. Not only that, but it isn't clear what is being claimed here. For example, why the quotes around 'purloined'? Are you trying to say that their country has indeed been purloined, or that the Aboriginals (all of them) think that their country has been purloined - or what? Do you mean stolen?

And if their country has already been 'purloined', what is the further potential? Is there more land that hasn't been purloined yet but might be by any (able-bodied) white person who happens along? Is that really an accurate reflection of the likely thoughts of any and every Aboriginal person? And how do you know?

I just find slightly disconcerting the suggestion that an individual's membership of a distinctive group (eg being an Aboriginal) in and of itself tells you anything about that person's mindset.

Bels

Did the man explain to you why he greeted you in the manner he did? If not, how do you know his motivations? There is always the possibility his life had been saved by a whitey in a wheelchair. Or his grandmother had a disability. Or he was simply deranged.

it is a single piece on a single incident. i could wax lyrical about what type of clouds were in the sky, what birds i could hear but no, sorry, i'm a journalist and i've been trained to report facts and, where appropriate, try to make sense of them in a wider world. what other angles do you suggest?

sorry you're disturbed, bels, life is disturbing. its not A SWEEPING GENERALISATION, but rather an accurate report of how the vast majority, NOT all, don't be absurd, but the vast majority of aboriginals feel after they were graced with whites in their country. purloined is in quotes as it is an opinion, and as such should be in quotes as is the law of the English language. I can't remember your other gripes with my piece but I'm sure they were as uneducated and petty as the ones I've explained here. hope that's not too disturbing.

Friar,

of course its a projection to attempt to explain a, perhaps, isolated but nevertheless interesting thing. I don't know about amputees, or the blind or deaf. The explanation was provided by a JP (judge) who has worked with tribes of SE Queensland for nearly 30 years and she told me that THEY told HER this was the state of affairs and how they react. I wish now I'd interrogated said Judge to save all this hoohah. In short, it was a spooky incident, and the explanation I relayed in my piece was the one people told me was the most likely. For the record, both black and white people.

no conversation took place - as described in my piece - but sometimes you don't one. read some of my other answers to questions on this page and it'll answer some of your concerns.

I think the question here is whether a single incident can be generalised. It would require a bit more research to find if this is a commonly held attitude. If it is, then the incident could be cited as an example.

Maybe these links will give some insights:

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/

http://www.arts.usyd.edu.au/departs/religion/staffpublications.shtml

http://www.usyd.edu.au/rcahi/Publications/Journals.html

http://sites.uws.edu.au/uws/policies/ppm/doc/000101.html

or not. Most are hard going and only the first seems to be from the Aboriginal viewpoint.

Simulpost!