It’s worth flagging that 1899 is extremely old and I wouldn’t expect European authors to do a good job providing an unbiased description of First Nations culture.
Indigenous Australians only received equal voting rights at all levels of government across the country in 1966.
It’s worth flagging that 1899 is extremely old and I wouldn’t expect European authors to do a good job providing an unbiased description of First Nations culture.
I explicitly read the book trying to be skeptical of the authors’ perspective, but was all-in-all positively surprised by their empiricism. As far as I can tell, they weren’t sensationalizing or exaggerating, and plainly describing what they were able to observe. (One would have to read the book on one’s own to form a proper opinion here). My general impression is that they were describing the Aboriginals like they would describe a group of sophisticated animals.
And the date cuts the other way too: Even during Spencers and Gillens time iron tools had already spread far & wide, so any later reports are afflicted by strong Western influence (of which Spencer wasn’t innocent, he advocated for a precursor policy that (afaiu) resulted in the Stolen Generations. I might also try to read (parts of) the Florentine Codex, not because of its scientific neutrality, but because of the closeness it had to the lived reality of the Aztecs.
Indigenous Australians only received equal voting rights at all levels of government across the country in 1966.
I don’t see how this is related to being able to faithfully observing and reporting on Aboriginal customs and behavior.
It’s worth flagging that 1899 is extremely old and I wouldn’t expect European authors to do a good job providing an unbiased description of First Nations culture.
Indigenous Australians only received equal voting rights at all levels of government across the country in 1966.
I explicitly read the book trying to be skeptical of the authors’ perspective, but was all-in-all positively surprised by their empiricism. As far as I can tell, they weren’t sensationalizing or exaggerating, and plainly describing what they were able to observe. (One would have to read the book on one’s own to form a proper opinion here). My general impression is that they were describing the Aboriginals like they would describe a group of sophisticated animals.
And the date cuts the other way too: Even during Spencers and Gillens time iron tools had already spread far & wide, so any later reports are afflicted by strong Western influence (of which Spencer wasn’t innocent, he advocated for a precursor policy that (afaiu) resulted in the Stolen Generations. I might also try to read (parts of) the Florentine Codex, not because of its scientific neutrality, but because of the closeness it had to the lived reality of the Aztecs.
I don’t see how this is related to being able to faithfully observing and reporting on Aboriginal customs and behavior.