When running was for weirdos
05 Feb 2018 Leave a comment
in economic history, health economics, sports economics Tags: jogging
When will Jamie Oliver show kids the best organic fertiliser? Applied direct for best effect!
04 Feb 2018 Leave a comment
Whose teenagers lie or boast the most about smoking dope?
03 Feb 2018 Leave a comment
in econometerics, economics of crime, health economics
How To Go Paleo – Ultra Spiritual Life episode 54
29 Jan 2018 Leave a comment
in economics of media and culture, health economics
Before the polio vaccine provided herd immunity
28 Jan 2018 Leave a comment
in health economics Tags: anti-vaccination movement, polio, vaccines
Steve Landsburg on why gays smoke more
27 Jan 2018 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, economics of love and marriage, health economics
What losing weight does to your body and brain
26 Jan 2018 Leave a comment
in health economics Tags: economics of obesity
Did banning alcohol in 1837 fit in with deliberate genocide?
25 Jan 2018 Leave a comment
in discrimination, health economics, politics - Australia, Public Choice
Laws banning the sale of alcohol to aboriginals were first passed in 1837. Later that century the ban was extended to opium. In time, all states and territories banned the sale of alcohol to aboriginals.
Australia figures prominently in the Journal of Genocide Research. The black armband theory of Australian history alleges genocidal intent towards Australian aboriginals by the state and territory protectors of aboriginals and their accomplices. Then why the ban on alcohol and the opium?
There were strong temperance movements in Australia in the first half of the 20th century. They achieved considerable political success. Their intention was to save their fellow Australians from the demon drink.
Why then was a policy of alcohol prohibition extended to aboriginals when the state protectors aboriginals were apparently according to the black armband theory of history practising genocide?
A credible theory must make risky predictions and strictly forbid certain things if its fundamental thesis is valid. Temperance movements were well-intentioned attempts to save their fellow man and, in particular, husbands and sons. The pubs closed at 6 for white Australians and were not open at all for aboriginals.
Why was this well-intentioned policy to save people from the demon drink extended to aboriginals in an era of genocide against aboriginals? Certainly, genocidal governments of that time would have known that binge drinking would have helped kill off the aboriginal people. Did they just miss a step? Keep missing that step from 1837 until 1972?
Something does not add up here? Drinking was seen as a serious social evil. The supposedly otherwise genocidal state and territory protectors of aboriginals sought to protect aboriginals from this serious social evil.
Genocidal state and territory protectors of aboriginals, if it is true they were intent on a genocide, must be expected to do little or nothing to promote aboriginal welfare. Yet they sought bans on alcohol and opium.
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Recent Comments