I just read your comments, and you seem to be saying your subjective experience amounts to evidence (for you, which is fine)
But the argument was that this was an emotionally charged topic and you displayed that while appearing to argue the opposite.
As a fellow Australian, I understand the over sensitivity, especially due to the Voice crap that's going on atm.
As for generalizing racially, I agree, it makes no sense. Which is why the voice thing sounds stupid to me.
I feel like there are two groups of indigenous peoples growing in Australia. What I call the 'technically aboriginals' and 'actual aboriginals' and I realize this might marginalize those with partial ancestry.
I often wonder if the voice is just being pushed by super liberal very light skinned aboriginals (that to me probably never suffered real discrimination) or outback dark skinned tribal bush aboriginals (that are discriminated against on site). I feel like the more bush you go, the more conservative you get...idk
No, I'm not talking about subjective experience at all.
ALL that happened was that I made a generalization, and other people wanted to contest it because, well, they could. It's not more complicated than that.
It's basically if I said most action movies have a car chase or gun fight, and someone wanted to die on the hill claiming that that generalization is inaccurate and not all action movies have to have a gun fight or car chase.
I agree though that the discrimination of aboriginals is politicized though, and it shouldn't be.
Based on my (very) subjective experience, a lot of the noise around the Voice + Invasion Day is being created by people with extremely tenuous links to indigenous heritage - which I think is maybe shifting away from what could be much more positive outcomes for truly marginalised Aboriginals.
So just so I understand, your source is growing up in one of the several hundred separate Aboriginal nations of Australia, most of whom have completely different languages and are dispersed across a vast nation as big as the continental United States and he speaks for all of them. Got it.
Trying to map natural language statements to formal logic doesn't work well, unless you make a ton of assumptions as you have here...and then it still doesn't work well.
>He's talking about the fact that Aboriginals, not unlike Native Americans...
They presumably asked for a source for both claims, your only provided one says you lived among them. Either you grew up among both populations or have provided no source for one of your claims.
Just curious, but are you on the spectrum? Or an ESL speaker?
Context makes it clear which claim they were asking for.
In any case, I'm not providing a source. This is a somewhat commonly known thing, and I was speaking from personal experience. If you're still really unsure where I grew up, you can probably figure it out from my other comments.
Feel free to search for whatever you find sufficient to corroborate my claims, or continue to be skeptical (as you should). I don't mind either way.
