Yikes. You mean there is supposed to be a destination, as in goal??? I thought FlyerTalk was simply a fabulously entertaining diversion from the hard stuff in life. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/confused.gif Silly me.

OBTW, try to keep this thread from any descendants of Pedro Menendez de Aviles who happened to land somewhere in Florida and start some sort of settlement on St. Augustine's day in 1556, or else they'll really start a bunch of arguments. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Well the thread is about smilies, http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif and there are as many in this thread as I've seen for a while, so whatever the meandering, it looks like it worked! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

I would still side with Australia's claim over both the USA's and India's. I can't say that India isn't a major country, but my impression of the culture there is that it is still more that of the ethnic-Indians than that of the British. Thus, its cultural history continues to date back well beyond the British era there.

I'm not sure what cultural influence over the indigenous population of a colonized country has to do with the "shortest colonised European history." E.g., what does the cultural impact of European settlers on the "Native American" population in North America have to do with that question? For that matter, what does it matter what impact colonization had on the aboriginal peoples of Australia when discussing "shortest colonised European history?" What about the impact (or relative lack thereof) on native Poles when Germany "colonised" Poland? So I pose the question for academic purposes: What does the fact that the "culture there...is still more that of the ethnic-Indians than that of the British" really say about the colonial incursion of that geography by a European power?

All that statement means is that in India, the colonizing culture did a less effective job of subjugating, integrating, enslaving and/or obliterating the indigenous people and culture in India than they did in Australia, all of the Americas and others. But by no means is India unique in this sense! Most of the African colonies (including now even South Africa) retained much of the culture of the indigenous population, as did most of the European colonies in Asia (even including, although clearly to a lesser extend, Hong Kong).

OTOH, the indiginous cultures in Poland under Germany, Czechoslovakia under the Soviets, the Philippians under the United States (hey US may not be Europe, but it is NATO), etc, etc all culturally survived colonialization and all are "shorter" by either definition than Oz.

Of course this is a bit of an oversimplification, but the distinction is clear.

So while IMHO, all this has nothing to do with Ozstamps misstatement of fact (and even if Oz had mentioned "culture" it is still incorrect), as you can see, I am equally fascinated by this topic. So thanks for bringing it up!!!!!

Frankly, one of my favorite countries in the world is Thailand because they were one of the few countries able to resist colonization throughout modern history (even England was once a colony of Rome and the Normands).

Another fascinating petri dish are Caribbean countries like Jamaica and Haiti where one culture was obliterated by a second culture but the vacuum was filled by a third (sometimes hybrid) culture!

Well, fascinating to me, at least...


[This message has been edited by kokonutz (edited 08-01-2000).]

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif I am learning.

KokoRubs claims: Now who's incorrect here! We all know the real reason Thailand is one of your favorite countries! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Ok, Premex is right and I misstated the facts. I should have said "One of the reasons that Thailand is my favorite..."

Good catch. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

Now that we've gone TOTALLY omni, here's a "fun" game: Since the "culture" of recent (in the last 500 years) immigrants to Australia actually traces back to England and the Commonwealth, it is not a particularly "new" culture (just as the cultures of all colonial imports are not "new").

What is the "newest" culture on the earth? How would you define it? It seems to me that middle-eastern cultures are both the most ancient and the newest...Although I might jingoistically mention that since the American "melting pot" culture is constantly evolving it could be conceived as the "newest" (notwithstanding all evidence to the contrary...).

Again, I am fascinated.

Kokonutz. Seems like a LONG time (if ever?) since you've been to Australia if you say:

"Since the "culture" of recent (in the last 500 years) immigrants to Australia actually traces back to England and the Commonwealth, it is not a particularly "new" culture (just as the cultures of all colonial imports are not "new")."

As should be clear to you, there were NO European who settled Australia until 1788, so where your 500 years comes from I have no idea, or who taught you math. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif This country was not settled by Euopreans until 212 years back.

Next time you are here, check out a Sydney telephone book. The surname NG is followed by NGO, then NGA, then 8 pages of NGUYEN, then NHAM will politely remind you that if you think this country is NOT a cultural melting pot as much or MORE than the USA, you are VERY much mistaken.

There are entire sections of Sydney where not a word of English can be basically seen in signage, shop names and displays.

*

[This message has been edited by wingless5 (edited 08-02-2000).]

OZ! Nice to see you back in this tangent. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif I thought you had abandoned it!

In point of fact, I have never been to Australia (much to my chagrin). But I simply reject your implication that one must visit a place to be able to comment on it. I can tell you with certainty that the moon is not made of green cheese despite the fact that I've never been there...

Seems rather presumptuous on your part. How can you say with certainty that none of the Dutch explorers who landed in Australia at the beginning of the 17th century (and established many colonies in the region) left no failed colonies on the island? In fact, all we can say for certain is that England did not establish a colony on Terra Australis until 1788.

Actually, the 500-year mark was my safe delineation between the arrival of Europeans in the region and the far earlier arrival of the aboriginal inhabitants of the island (for the sake of discussing culture). But I can understand your getting confused over this point since I went from talking about European settlers to the English (or at least to Commonwealth) culture. I'm sorry for not being more clear.

Oh, and I was taught addition and subtraction by my first grade teacher Mrs. Betty Lowrey, who coincidentally later became my very first travel agent after she retired from teaching.

This description sounds more like segregation than a "melting pot." But I do accept that Australia and many other nations have seen the wisdom of allowing immigration and integration. After all, Homo Sapiens proved the superiority of mixing the gene pool and generalization over Neanderthals' specialization millions of years ago.

But that's another topic entirely... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif



[This message has been edited by kokonutz (edited 08-02-2000).]

Kokonutz:
Regarding segregation in Australia: I don't think so, just from a brief glance at the country. Not that I'd live there myself, but what I saw was a freer and more unself-conscious mingling of cultures and colo(u)rs than I do in the states. Most of my travel is with a black woman companion, and never in this situation did I feel an object of scrutiny in Australia the way I often do in places like Los Angeles or Washington, DC - or Boston, for that matter.

Cheers
Michael
mostly exogamous

Violist: You obviously never saw the Australian film Romper Stomper http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

I agree that when it comes to "race*" relations Americans are HUGE hypocrites. We claim to be a melting pot, but sometimes insist on english-only schooling and signage, de facto segregation, etc. etc. Sad but true.


*IMHO, we are all part of the same human race and, for that matter a part of the Terran Culture http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

Kokonutz - I really am not going to get into philosophical discussions about MY country and countrymen and culture with someone who now admits he has NEVER been here .. sorry. And you call MY comments above "presumptious". Chee! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

I've travelled to over 100 countries on vacation, and every continent, (including Antarctica,) many several times, and been to the USA about 40 times, and write detailed articles about all holidays - see my website. I restrict MY commentary to what I have seen or experienced - simply that. FACTS.

Me making sweeping comments about Gambia or Greenland without having ever been there would be pretty foolish, IMHO. To imply there is racial segregation here in Australia is simply stupid, and is insulting to me, and I cannot believe any sensible person would say that. Most especially one who has never been here!

And as to:

"How can you say with certainty that none of the Dutch explorers who landed in Australia at the beginning of the 17th century (and established many colonies in the region) left no failed colonies on the island?" .... you really must get real, and get some FACTS together PLEEEEZ.

The first Dutch explorers to visit this continent in the early 1600s (note, this is not an "island" as you so quaintly call us twice, but at 3 million square miles is similar in area to the 48 contiguous USA states) did so seeking new land to claim for the Crown and new riches to return with.

They then did these funny little things called "detailed reports of the voyages" for their Monarch, and even funnier, did them in WRITING. Inspect them next time you are in Holland.

If you have however stumbled upon the "Dead Sea Scrolls" pointing to failed Dutch settlements in Australasia, you will be flying paid First Class, for the rest of your days with the book, movie and government monies etc they will toss at you! And that connection seems to be the ONLY one here remotely connected to "Flying" in this entire discussion, so I will leave it at that. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

And I can see why Mrs Betty Lowrey quit teaching and went into travel, if she taught you Australia having its first European visitor in 1616 (Dirk Hartog) gives a 500 year time span. My math teacher told me it came to 384 years, but then, she never went into travel.

Get on a plane, come down and VISIT first .. and air your learned opinions THEN! Seems pretty sensible to me.




[This message has been edited by ozstamps (edited 08-02-2000).]

If I spend 30 minutes transferring flights at SYD, THEN can I comment on Australia? If I visit Sydney for 3 months but never visit western australia, am I allowed to comment on the Outback? If I spend 30 years covering the entirety of the country but never make it to Perth, am I not allowed to comment on that city?

I might make the point that YOU never visited pre-1788 Australia, so you should not comment on that place and time. But I would not because such logic is specious.

I apologize if I offended you by calling Australia an island rather than a continent.

And as for the segregation bit, as I said, if I were to judge Oz culture ONLY on "seeing that signs in parts of Sydney are not in English," then I might use that as evidence of segregation rather than integration. My point in doing so was to point out that your "evidence" did not make your case. I never passed such a judgement myself.

Finally, I am surprised that you are not aware of the academic debates about the extent of Dutch exploration/colonization in the south pacific.

Allow me to summarize: While the Dutch were the best sailers/explorers of their day, they did not have at their disposal chronometers of sufficient design to withstand sea voyages with any accuracy. As a result, no sailer knew with any great level of accuracy exactly where they were at any given time. There seems to be some consensus that the Duch made it to Tazmania, so logically many presume they also hit Australia.

Hope that helps rather than enflames...



[This message has been edited by kokonutz (edited 08-02-2000).]