Greetings to all again. (:
From what we have sourced from the Internet, the history of Australia began when people started to migrate to the northern part of Australia approximately 40,000 to 45,000 years ago. Australia was first sighted in the 17th century by the Europeans, which is probably why present-day Australia is inhabited by a large proportion of white people.
The pioneer immigrants to Australia settled themselves at the northern part of the continent and nearby islands, and they were the Indigenious Australians, or more commonly known as the Aborigines. About 2.4% of Australia's total population is made up of these people. They led fairly normal lives, which was disrupted very suddenly by the colonization of the British. Racism took place, as the white people believed themselves to be superior over the Aborigines in many ways. They also believed that the Aborigines were 'unclean', and devised many methods of wiping them out. This included violence, confiscation of land, disease outbreaks and poisoning of food and water, which reduced the total Aborigine population by about 90% over a century.
Also, as seen from the video 'Rabbit-Proof Fence', Aborigine children were removed from their families by the Europeans. This also constituted to the genocide of Aborigines.
Erm, sorry if this piece of information is really dry and boring and everything (because it kinds of reminds us of Mr Yang here and his SS lectures =X). My group and I will try to find another piece of interesting fact or figure about Australia sometime soon. Apologies again. Peace out.
(Oh, I almost forgot. Most of the imformation here is found from Wikipedia. Phew, nearly got penalised for plagiarism. (:)
Sharon
Xin Yue
Hsien Liang
Kelvin
Sheng Chow
Saturday, 19 May 2007
Friday, 18 May 2007
Identity.
I think that this is a very important factor that makes up each and everyone of us here; it is what makes us unique and different from others. I feel that identity is something that is very cool. It is controlled and determined by US. We decide whom we want to be, how we want to be and so on.
As everyone is different, learning to accept and adapt to others becomes part of the life skills that we have to pick up along the way. Only by accepting others for who they are, can synergy and effective working take place. I think the best way to be able to accept and acknowledge others is through dialogues. When we go through dialogue sessions, we get to know the culture and the character of the person. Also through dialogues, it is more personal as compared to introducing or getting to know someone via msn or phone. Face to face is always better.
However, when engaged in such dialogues, we have to do it with an open mind, and being open mind is something I think we have to possess when we are in Australia. It only through this can we learn more and adapt faster when we are there.
11 more days((:puen.
Tell us!
Okays, these were what you folks chose to discover & tell us:
Jun Han's group: Must-try food in Sydney
Poline's group: Must-see sights in Sydney
Pu En's group: What you can buy in Sydney with A$5
Grace's group: Must-buy items in Sydney
Hsien Liang's group: Must-know history of Sydney
Andrea's group: Less-known facts about Sydney
Have fun! =)
EL
Jun Han's group: Must-try food in Sydney
Poline's group: Must-see sights in Sydney
Pu En's group: What you can buy in Sydney with A$5
Grace's group: Must-buy items in Sydney
Hsien Liang's group: Must-know history of Sydney
Andrea's group: Less-known facts about Sydney
Have fun! =)
EL
Thursday, 17 May 2007
Conflict of Beliefs. What I Think.
Hmm... about the conflict of beliefs..
I personally think that it isn't right for anyone to remove someone or some party just because they don't fit in. But in a world now, where people here and there cross paths like... i dunno.. spiderwebs upon spiderwebs? it's very hard to fully acclimatise to one's surrounding people. People here and there doing things you know you don't believe in, but you can't exactly walk up to that person and say "Hey, I don't like what you're doing, so go away!" All you can do is to either avoid that person, ignore him or smth. Each person has an individual right to do what he/she wants, unless his actions compromises another person.
Like online. Anyone can be anyone and everyone. He/she can do whatever he wants. He can surf anyone's blog, post any comment he wants, make any website he wants. Noone has the right to stop him/her unless what he is doing causes actual harm to someone else..
For e.g. i can like whatever music i want. People can say i'm emo, rock, pop, lousy taste, anything. But i am entitled to the right to listen to my music either way. Similarly, i can defend the music i listen to, saying it rocks, its the best, etcetc. But i cannot force mine onto others. I can pass what i listen to to others so they can have a try, but its up to them whether they accept it, listen to it or delete it afterwards.
I guess when conflicts happen, the parties involved can only try and discuss to create a compromise that all can be happy with? It's the only way to prevent war from happening anyway..
But if conflicts do not get resolved (as shown in many, MANY cases today), i think the only way to solve things is to split these 2 groups up. Segregation is preferable rather than all out war, isn't it?
-Kevin
I personally think that it isn't right for anyone to remove someone or some party just because they don't fit in. But in a world now, where people here and there cross paths like... i dunno.. spiderwebs upon spiderwebs? it's very hard to fully acclimatise to one's surrounding people. People here and there doing things you know you don't believe in, but you can't exactly walk up to that person and say "Hey, I don't like what you're doing, so go away!" All you can do is to either avoid that person, ignore him or smth. Each person has an individual right to do what he/she wants, unless his actions compromises another person.
Like online. Anyone can be anyone and everyone. He/she can do whatever he wants. He can surf anyone's blog, post any comment he wants, make any website he wants. Noone has the right to stop him/her unless what he is doing causes actual harm to someone else..
For e.g. i can like whatever music i want. People can say i'm emo, rock, pop, lousy taste, anything. But i am entitled to the right to listen to my music either way. Similarly, i can defend the music i listen to, saying it rocks, its the best, etcetc. But i cannot force mine onto others. I can pass what i listen to to others so they can have a try, but its up to them whether they accept it, listen to it or delete it afterwards.
I guess when conflicts happen, the parties involved can only try and discuss to create a compromise that all can be happy with? It's the only way to prevent war from happening anyway..
But if conflicts do not get resolved (as shown in many, MANY cases today), i think the only way to solve things is to split these 2 groups up. Segregation is preferable rather than all out war, isn't it?
-Kevin
More is better?
Hi!
Y'noe, it's very easy to quote all the politically-correct propaganda about how cultural diversity is better, that one shouldn't discriminate against another's culture & beliefs... But what if your worldview/culture/beliefs are in direct opposition to someone else's?
What if the beliefs of a cultural group within a nation/country/society hinders the progress of the other groups?
Take for example the issue of the Jehovah Witnesses and their belief that their male believers should/must not go to war (or engage in national service). One reason why this group is outlawed in Singapore is because they forbid male believers to take part in national service.
Is the government wrong to outlaw the group then, since putting this policy into effect reduces the cultural & religious diversity of our society?
What about fundamentalists of certain religions who believe that it is a sin to work on the Sabbath? If it goes against the principles of an individual to work on a certain day of the week (for that matter, there could be other examples of infringement of beliefs/rights, not just this) and the employer insists that the individual has to contribute to the company's progress by going against the individual's principles, is the employer at fault? Is it not unfair on the majority or the others in the company if, by allowing the individual to stick to his principles, the rest of the company suffers? To pursue the example of working on a sabbath further: What if, by allowing the individual to rest on the sabbath, others have to work harder to cover the additional duties, or the profits of the company go down? Everyone in the company then has to face the consequences of this action, not just the individual.
This brings up the next question: Who has the right to decide which belief system or cultural worldview is "better"? In a case where the 2 belief systems/worldviews are in conflict (and there is no way to compromise), who chooses which is ascendant? Does the majority group always have the right to insist? Or should it be the older/indigenous people group?
What do you folks think? Post comments! =)
It would also be interesting to find out (both through preliminary research & by speaking with Australians during the trip) how much of the issues brought up here are relevant to the relations between white Australians and aborigines.
In other words, how do the worldviews of the aborigines & the white settlers of Australia differ? Are these still very different in modern Australians of aboriginal descent & the other people groups that make up Australian society?
We could also ponder over the causes for the racial riots that occurred within recent years in Australia (particularly, in Sydney!).
Cheerio!
Ms Low
Y'noe, it's very easy to quote all the politically-correct propaganda about how cultural diversity is better, that one shouldn't discriminate against another's culture & beliefs... But what if your worldview/culture/beliefs are in direct opposition to someone else's?
What if the beliefs of a cultural group within a nation/country/society hinders the progress of the other groups?
Take for example the issue of the Jehovah Witnesses and their belief that their male believers should/must not go to war (or engage in national service). One reason why this group is outlawed in Singapore is because they forbid male believers to take part in national service.
Is the government wrong to outlaw the group then, since putting this policy into effect reduces the cultural & religious diversity of our society?
What about fundamentalists of certain religions who believe that it is a sin to work on the Sabbath? If it goes against the principles of an individual to work on a certain day of the week (for that matter, there could be other examples of infringement of beliefs/rights, not just this) and the employer insists that the individual has to contribute to the company's progress by going against the individual's principles, is the employer at fault? Is it not unfair on the majority or the others in the company if, by allowing the individual to stick to his principles, the rest of the company suffers? To pursue the example of working on a sabbath further: What if, by allowing the individual to rest on the sabbath, others have to work harder to cover the additional duties, or the profits of the company go down? Everyone in the company then has to face the consequences of this action, not just the individual.
This brings up the next question: Who has the right to decide which belief system or cultural worldview is "better"? In a case where the 2 belief systems/worldviews are in conflict (and there is no way to compromise), who chooses which is ascendant? Does the majority group always have the right to insist? Or should it be the older/indigenous people group?
What do you folks think? Post comments! =)
It would also be interesting to find out (both through preliminary research & by speaking with Australians during the trip) how much of the issues brought up here are relevant to the relations between white Australians and aborigines.
In other words, how do the worldviews of the aborigines & the white settlers of Australia differ? Are these still very different in modern Australians of aboriginal descent & the other people groups that make up Australian society?
We could also ponder over the causes for the racial riots that occurred within recent years in Australia (particularly, in Sydney!).
Cheerio!
Ms Low
Our thoughts. Our beginning.
Greetings to all! Our group feels that the video 'Rabbit-Proof Fence' and the session on identity was enriching and inspiring, therefore we would like take these sessions as lessons crucial for the beginning of this new journey to a foreign place.
It is saddening to see racism being displayed in Australia many times ago, where the white Australians strutted around like lords while the Aborigines farmed and led hard times. This demonstrates the fact that people in ancient times did not care who other people were or how they felt. As long as their own needs are met, they are willing to do anything. This proves that respect for each other was not met, resulting in the racism as shown in the video.
As time passes, we have to accept people for who they are and what they do. We are unable to always have our way in doing things. Hopefully through this trip, we would better understand ourselves as individuals and of course, unite as one voice. Peace out.
Sharon
Xin Yue
Hsien Liang
Kelvin
Sheng Chow
It is saddening to see racism being displayed in Australia many times ago, where the white Australians strutted around like lords while the Aborigines farmed and led hard times. This demonstrates the fact that people in ancient times did not care who other people were or how they felt. As long as their own needs are met, they are willing to do anything. This proves that respect for each other was not met, resulting in the racism as shown in the video.
As time passes, we have to accept people for who they are and what they do. We are unable to always have our way in doing things. Hopefully through this trip, we would better understand ourselves as individuals and of course, unite as one voice. Peace out.
Sharon
Xin Yue
Hsien Liang
Kelvin
Sheng Chow
Reflections for 2nd pre-trip session
hi!
basically after watching the movie "Rabbit-proof fence", we felt that the white-Europeans in the movie were being racists towards the Aborigines, and that they shouldn't discriminate the native race and try to breed them out. By doing so, as time passes, the native Australian culture that originated from the native Aborgines will be lost forever. This is one of the consequences which other countries suffer when they undergo globalisation. We also began to realise that we're actually very lucky to be in a multi-racial society where people are respected and treated in the same way, regardless of race and religion, hence we should appreciate the society in which we live in.
12 days to go... can't wait...
kwanyongaudreyjillianjunhan
basically after watching the movie "Rabbit-proof fence", we felt that the white-Europeans in the movie were being racists towards the Aborigines, and that they shouldn't discriminate the native race and try to breed them out. By doing so, as time passes, the native Australian culture that originated from the native Aborgines will be lost forever. This is one of the consequences which other countries suffer when they undergo globalisation. We also began to realise that we're actually very lucky to be in a multi-racial society where people are respected and treated in the same way, regardless of race and religion, hence we should appreciate the society in which we live in.
12 days to go... can't wait...
kwanyongaudreyjillianjunhan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)