like I'm sorry but I will keep posting about this until people stop being cunts and shitheads so I think we'll be here a good while. every time I talk about the colonial framing of australia and how colonialism is at work in modern day understandings of this country I only need to count to ten before every european and usamerican in sight starts spouting complete bullshit. why don't you all take a deep breath and examine why the fuck you're so wedded to the idea of australia you have in your head
"suggesting that Australia has uniquely hostile flora and fauna isn't wrong" FACT CHECK:
- what do you mean by "uniquely hostile"? is it based on amount of harm to humans? because I can tell you now. horses killed more people in 2023 than spiders did. how would you feel if I said that europe introduced the uniquely hostile horse to the australian environment?
- look at these stats: https://www.firstaidpro.com.au/blog/leading-causes-of-death-in-australia/#elementor-toc__heading-anchor-1
- now look at this: https://www.vice.com/en/article/cows-and-horses-are-australias-number-one-killers/
- can you please give me a list of examples of flora and fauna that you would place in this category?
"aboriginal tribes" FUCK OFF!
- if you can capitalise Australia you know how to capitalise Aboriginal
- "tribes" is not the right word here even remotely. try again next time. "Aboriginal people" would be a great start. being able to name even one country or language group would shock me to death. give it a go though
"marsupials reign supreme" don't make me laugh
- CHECK: why are you using language that inherently ascribes a particular morality to animals? what motivates you to frame Australia as uniquely 'ruled by animals'? what else might this imply and where might this framing have come from?
"most venomous and hostile" why are you putting those adjectives together?
- Australia's most venomous snake (the inland taipan) has not killed a single person in recorded history because of how rare it is for that snake to come anywhere near humans. again, refer to the stats above
- "hostility" is another example of ascribing negative moral values to an animal where it is not at all appropriate
"one of the less hospitable places on earth" colonialism check!
- hospitable to whom?
- you mean that pre-colonial Australia didn't follow western ideals of housing and agriculture don't you? (<- there very much was agricultural practices in First Nations groups for the record)
- you're implying that the land had to be tamed by colonisers, aren't you?
- come on. be so for real right now
I get the idea of colonialist implications of some word choices mentioned there, but I wonder if the animal reign comments are poetic license being taken literally
it absolutely wasnβt meant literally, but one still has to consider the word choice implications here, especially when they echo very old colonial sentiments. the imagery of a land ruled by animals is imagery but those images are so commonly appealed to because it maps onto preexisting ideas about Australia being an inherently wild and untameable landscape. metaphors are also choices that matter, regardless of their non-literal intentions
But if I call somebody a roaring dipshit then obviously I don't literally mean they're made of loud feces, it's poetic license and therefore can't be objected to /s
