Shrimps On The Barbie
#241

Part of the Caribbean yes, but not North America. But Wikipedia suggests that everything down as low as Panama is North America - learnt something new (I would have considered south of Mexico to Panama as Central America - so I guess Cayman Islands would also fall into that region).
Food for thought
Last edited by old.sparkles; Jun 3rd 2023 at 3:37 am.
#242
BE Forum Addict









Thread Starter
Joined: May 2012
Location: Cayman Islands
Posts: 4,856












I would have never considered the Cayman Islands 'North America'
Part of the Caribbean yes, but not North America. But Wikipedia suggests that everything down as low as Panama is North America - learnt something new (I would have considered south of Mexico to Panama as Central America - so I guess Cayman Islands would also fall into that region). Food for thought
Part of the Caribbean yes, but not North America. But Wikipedia suggests that everything down as low as Panama is North America - learnt something new (I would have considered south of Mexico to Panama as Central America - so I guess Cayman Islands would also fall into that region). Food for thought
I have read that North America comprises Canada, USA and Mexico, because Mexicans don't like being lumped in with the smaller nations of Central America! Too bad, amigos: Central America is not a continent!
#243

They call it "virtue signalling" over in my part of the world (North America): it's showing-off that you know the latest rules of conversation and propriety. A lawyer friend of mine was chastised the other day for saying that a judge had "gone off the reservation" in making some courtroom comment that she should not have done. The chastisement came from a Canadian present, who complained that my friend's comment was "a bit racist"! Because many North American Indians live in their own communities on what are called reservations. He and I agreed that it was a foolish stretch to call his comment "racist" - and that the Canadian had been virtue-signalling.
Since we're all standing around our imaginary barbecue with no particular agenda, and since I haven't lived in Australia since 1971, I would like to know when it became "racist" to abbreviate the term "aboriginal" in Australia, and why. When I left, the abbreviation was both normal and common. It was in no way disparaging, and it seems to me that it is "virtue-signalling" to label it racist today. And, why? Did one or two or some or all of the aboriginal groups object, or was it some white man's sensitivity?
With the rediscovery of small groups of pygmies living in Australia (perhaps akin to the pygmies of Flores Island in Indonesia), it is being suggested by some professional historians that they might have been the first settlers in Australia. Perhaps, too, the earliest of them might have been killed off by the later immigrants whom we call the aboriginals. If that proves to be the case... well, what a conundrum! Would it suddenly be kosher to revive the abbreviation? Or should we somehow re-define the term "aboriginal"?
(I don't want to open a special thread for this topic. raising it around the barbie is fair enough, I think.)
Since we're all standing around our imaginary barbecue with no particular agenda, and since I haven't lived in Australia since 1971, I would like to know when it became "racist" to abbreviate the term "aboriginal" in Australia, and why. When I left, the abbreviation was both normal and common. It was in no way disparaging, and it seems to me that it is "virtue-signalling" to label it racist today. And, why? Did one or two or some or all of the aboriginal groups object, or was it some white man's sensitivity?
With the rediscovery of small groups of pygmies living in Australia (perhaps akin to the pygmies of Flores Island in Indonesia), it is being suggested by some professional historians that they might have been the first settlers in Australia. Perhaps, too, the earliest of them might have been killed off by the later immigrants whom we call the aboriginals. If that proves to be the case... well, what a conundrum! Would it suddenly be kosher to revive the abbreviation? Or should we somehow re-define the term "aboriginal"?
(I don't want to open a special thread for this topic. raising it around the barbie is fair enough, I think.)
Interesting, the Canadian term First Nations, is starting to be used quite often.
#244
BE Forum Addict









Thread Starter
Joined: May 2012
Location: Cayman Islands
Posts: 4,856












I live in a western NSW town with a large indigenous population. I’ve only heard ‘abo’ used exactly as you describe, disparagingly, and not at all by Aboriginal people themselves. It’s not a neutral term at all and is considered racist. Disclaimer: I’ve only lived in Australia for 15 years, so I’ve no idea when it sailed into oblivion, it hasn’t been contemporary in my time.
#245
BE Forum Addict









Thread Starter
Joined: May 2012
Location: Cayman Islands
Posts: 4,856












I don't know how anybody else feels, but I'm pleased to note the emergence of the newly coined word "blak", used by some light-brown Australians with aboriginal blood. I hope it catches on all over the world.
I live in a community where black is a colour, not a genetic factor; so the Australian change is not needed here. In conversation, we distinguish "black" from "very dark" and "pretty dark". Darkest of all is "black-black". When I first came to live in Cayman, a "pretty dark" member of my staff explained that one of her grandmothers from one of the eastern Islands had been a Carib, so it would be incorrect to call her (the daughter) "black". Caribs were or had been a South American race who inter-married with former slaves brought from Africa. She (the granddaughter) told me with a smile that she would describe herself as "dark chocolate". It was spot on, and a valuable lesson for me.
I live in a community where black is a colour, not a genetic factor; so the Australian change is not needed here. In conversation, we distinguish "black" from "very dark" and "pretty dark". Darkest of all is "black-black". When I first came to live in Cayman, a "pretty dark" member of my staff explained that one of her grandmothers from one of the eastern Islands had been a Carib, so it would be incorrect to call her (the daughter) "black". Caribs were or had been a South American race who inter-married with former slaves brought from Africa. She (the granddaughter) told me with a smile that she would describe herself as "dark chocolate". It was spot on, and a valuable lesson for me.
#246
BE Forum Addict









Thread Starter
Joined: May 2012
Location: Cayman Islands
Posts: 4,856












Since we're all gathered 'round our pretend-barbie, here's something for new immigrants to Oz...
You will all know that Australia was invaded and conquered by the British army and navy in the late 1700s, as a place to send Britain's criminals. But many of you may not know that voluntary settlers were welcomed, too, from the beginning. My own personal ancestors were among them, and were representative of that early population. Only one of my lot was a "doubtful" - a chap who may have been a criminal. His name was John Hickey, and there were four or five John Hickeys arriving in the same year in the mid-1800s, only one of them transported free of charge. I've not been able to tell which of them was mine. My man brought his family with him, but that was a common enough practice.
All my English immigrants paid their own way, for one reason or another. They were all either "straight" or at least smart enough to avoid being caught doing anything illegal. They were a typical bunch. Here's a quick list.
Godsall - a Herefordshire tenant-farmer, settled in Toowoomba, Queensland, and became a very successful builder. He married one of the Hickey girls, whose father had been a dirt-farmer in a no-account village in Tipperary.
Hancock - a wool-comber from Cornwall, who went as a strike-breaker to Leeds before emigrating to Queensland and did very well as a timber-merchant in Ipswich.
Hayne - a village blacksmith in Somerset who went blacksmithing in that same Ipswich; his daughter married the Hancock.
Millard - a Police Constable in Bath, Somerset, who applied for a "selection" (undeveloped acreage) in Mackay, Queensland, on which he planted sugar-cane. Well, not personally, you understand; the planting would have been done by Pacific Islanders who had been trafficked from their homes to eastern parts of Australia as indentured labourers.
Treloar - a tenant-farmer in Cornwall who settled outside Mackay and whose daughter married the Millard.
My Barlow line didn't reach Australia until the 1920s, when a sea-captain born in Bath married a Godsall daughter and lived off her money for the rest of his life. My mother (his daughter-in-law) hated him, and she was a good judge of character.
You will all know that Australia was invaded and conquered by the British army and navy in the late 1700s, as a place to send Britain's criminals. But many of you may not know that voluntary settlers were welcomed, too, from the beginning. My own personal ancestors were among them, and were representative of that early population. Only one of my lot was a "doubtful" - a chap who may have been a criminal. His name was John Hickey, and there were four or five John Hickeys arriving in the same year in the mid-1800s, only one of them transported free of charge. I've not been able to tell which of them was mine. My man brought his family with him, but that was a common enough practice.
All my English immigrants paid their own way, for one reason or another. They were all either "straight" or at least smart enough to avoid being caught doing anything illegal. They were a typical bunch. Here's a quick list.
Godsall - a Herefordshire tenant-farmer, settled in Toowoomba, Queensland, and became a very successful builder. He married one of the Hickey girls, whose father had been a dirt-farmer in a no-account village in Tipperary.
Hancock - a wool-comber from Cornwall, who went as a strike-breaker to Leeds before emigrating to Queensland and did very well as a timber-merchant in Ipswich.
Hayne - a village blacksmith in Somerset who went blacksmithing in that same Ipswich; his daughter married the Hancock.
Millard - a Police Constable in Bath, Somerset, who applied for a "selection" (undeveloped acreage) in Mackay, Queensland, on which he planted sugar-cane. Well, not personally, you understand; the planting would have been done by Pacific Islanders who had been trafficked from their homes to eastern parts of Australia as indentured labourers.
Treloar - a tenant-farmer in Cornwall who settled outside Mackay and whose daughter married the Millard.
My Barlow line didn't reach Australia until the 1920s, when a sea-captain born in Bath married a Godsall daughter and lived off her money for the rest of his life. My mother (his daughter-in-law) hated him, and she was a good judge of character.
#247

Well, my home State of Queensland has always been a bit slow in picking up new trends, so going Woke by abandoning the common abbreviation for the full five-syllable version probably took a while to catch on. What about other -o words - are they still acceptable? Garbo, rabbitoh, Nasho, sicko, homo, drongo...? In the bush, my Dad used to break off in the middle of a job for a smoko now and then. Would that be allowed these days? (It's okay: I'm only joking about that!)

#248
BE Forum Addict









Thread Starter
Joined: May 2012
Location: Cayman Islands
Posts: 4,856












The reason why I identified all my emigrant/immigrant ancestors was to tell BE members here, something about their predecessors. Except for the Barlow, none of mine had two cents to rub together; I've no idea how they afforded the fare. When they arrived, the British settlements were still expanding at the expense of the aboriginal clans and tribes (there were no aboriginal "nations"). The settlements were gradually growing into "colonies" - five of them began as convict open-air prisons; only South Australia never had convicts. In 1901 they were joined as a single Commonwealth of Australia.
My people all settled in Queensland, Linda's all in Victoria - all free settlers with the possible exception of my John Hickey. Some smartass English visitor a few decades ago was asked by a border official if he had a criminal record. He (the visitor) apologised, saying "I'm terribly sorry: I didn't know it was still compulsory." So it is said...
My people all settled in Queensland, Linda's all in Victoria - all free settlers with the possible exception of my John Hickey. Some smartass English visitor a few decades ago was asked by a border official if he had a criminal record. He (the visitor) apologised, saying "I'm terribly sorry: I didn't know it was still compulsory." So it is said...
#249
BE Forum Addict









Thread Starter
Joined: May 2012
Location: Cayman Islands
Posts: 4,856












The reason why I identified all my emigrant/immigrant ancestors was to tell BE members here, something about their predecessors... Except for the Barlow, none of mine had two cents to rub together; I've no idea how they afforded the fare. When they arrived, the British settlements were still expanding at the expense of the aboriginal clans and tribes (there were no aboriginal "nations").
There is no evidence that he was killed by aboriginals, but there were reports of other panners who had been killed in that vicinity, so it's a reasonable guess. The outsiders didn't respect any of the natives' sacred grounds.
#250
BE Forum Addict









Thread Starter
Joined: May 2012
Location: Cayman Islands
Posts: 4,856












Smoko is alive-o and well. My favourite shortform is firie. As well as arvo. I had a funny book years ago, a guide to Australia, which explained that words were shortened to expedite the time your mouth needed to be open. Because of bushies. I’m sure you remember bushies 

#251
BE Forum Addict









Thread Starter
Joined: May 2012
Location: Cayman Islands
Posts: 4,856












So. What's the sentiment around the barbie today, about the big referendum? If I were living there and entitled to vote, I would probably vote NO, because it seems to me that the aboriginal communities in Australia - all 200 of them or 2000 of them, whichever it is - are themselves divided on the topic of The Voice. Well, of course they are! Europe has only forty or so languages in an area not much bigger, and they've all been at war with one another for the past several thousand years, so it's only to be expected that the Australian natives will disagree among themselves.
Also, I see that the term "aboriginal" is applied to everybody with the merest trace of native blood. Does someone with one aboriginal great-great-grandparent have the same say as someone with eight of them? Will they both receive the same reparations, when that comes up on the agenda? What does the BE "team" think?
Is this a good subject for our gathering around the barbie this week, or what!
Also, I see that the term "aboriginal" is applied to everybody with the merest trace of native blood. Does someone with one aboriginal great-great-grandparent have the same say as someone with eight of them? Will they both receive the same reparations, when that comes up on the agenda? What does the BE "team" think?
Is this a good subject for our gathering around the barbie this week, or what!
#252

So. What's the sentiment around the barbie today, about the big referendum? If I were living there and entitled to vote, I would probably vote NO, because it seems to me that the aboriginal communities in Australia - all 200 of them or 2000 of them, whichever it is - are themselves divided on the topic of The Voice. Well, of course they are! Europe has only forty or so languages in an area not much bigger, and they've all been at war with one another for the past several thousand years, so it's only to be expected that the Australian natives will disagree among themselves.
Also, I see that the term "aboriginal" is applied to everybody with the merest trace of native blood. Does someone with one aboriginal great-great-grandparent have the same say as someone with eight of them? Will they both receive the same reparations, when that comes up on the agenda? What does the BE "team" think?
Is this a good subject for our gathering around the barbie this week, or what!
Also, I see that the term "aboriginal" is applied to everybody with the merest trace of native blood. Does someone with one aboriginal great-great-grandparent have the same say as someone with eight of them? Will they both receive the same reparations, when that comes up on the agenda? What does the BE "team" think?
Is this a good subject for our gathering around the barbie this week, or what!
#253

Gordon you have been a BE member for some time, surely you are aware of the site protocols. Rather than posting the above, please hit the report post tab if there is a problem with a post/thread. If moderators deem it in breach of site rules, it will be deleted, edited or left in situ.
Last edited by Jerseygirl; Jul 19th 2023 at 3:10 pm.
#254
Lost in BE Cyberspace










Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 14,010












So. What's the sentiment around the barbie today, about the big referendum? If I were living there and entitled to vote, I would probably vote NO, because it seems to me that the aboriginal communities in Australia - all 200 of them or 2000 of them, whichever it is - are themselves divided on the topic of The Voice. Well, of course they are! Europe has only forty or so languages in an area not much bigger, and they've all been at war with one another for the past several thousand years, so it's only to be expected that the Australian natives will disagree among themselves.
Also, I see that the term "aboriginal" is applied to everybody with the merest trace of native blood. Does someone with one aboriginal great-great-grandparent have the same say as someone with eight of them? Will they both receive the same reparations, when that comes up on the agenda? What does the BE "team" think?
Is this a good subject for our gathering around the barbie this week, or what!
Also, I see that the term "aboriginal" is applied to everybody with the merest trace of native blood. Does someone with one aboriginal great-great-grandparent have the same say as someone with eight of them? Will they both receive the same reparations, when that comes up on the agenda? What does the BE "team" think?
Is this a good subject for our gathering around the barbie this week, or what!
#255
BE Forum Addict









Thread Starter
Joined: May 2012
Location: Cayman Islands
Posts: 4,856












It's a bit of a taboo topic around the barbie, dinner parties, etc. Partly because no one is really informed and also because of fear of being called a racist if the policy is questioned. Quite frankly it's the most bizarre referendum. I wouldn't be surprised if it's cancelled.
Here below is a link to an article sent to me by a friend in Queensland. Very interesting. The same friend has sent me reports of a tribe of pygmies that used to live in the jungles there and now live in a reservation on the coast.
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/abor...d%20perception