A little more Aboriginal history.

>>The National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families estimated that: ‘between one in three and one in ten Indigenous children were forcibly removed from their families and communities in the period from approximately 1910 until 1970.<<

https://healthinfonet.ecu.edu.au/learn/health-topics/healing/stolen-generations/

>>The forcible removal of Indigenous children from their families was part of the policy of Assimilation. Assimilation was based on the assumption of black inferiority and white superiority, which proposed that Indigenous people should be allowed to “die out” through a process of natural elimination, or, where possible, should be assimilated into the white community.

Children taken from their parents as part of the Stolen Generation were taught to reject their Indigenous heritage, and forced to adopt white culture. Their names were often changed, and they were forbidden to speak their traditional languages. Some children were adopted by white families, and many were placed in institutions where abuse and neglect were common.<<

>>Many were psychologically, physically, and sexually abused while living in state care or with their adoptive families.
Efforts to make stolen children reject their culture often caused them to feel ashamed of their Indigenous heritage.
Many children were wrongly told that their parents had died or abandoned them, and many never knew where they had been taken from or who their biological families were.
Living conditions in the institutions were highly controlled, and children were frequently punished harshly, were cold and hungry and received minimal if any affection.
The children generally received a very low level of education, as they were expected to work as manual labourers and domestic servants (see Unfinished Business).
Medical experts have noted a high incidence of depression, anxiety, post traumatic stress and suicide among the Stolen Generations <<

>>Many parents never recovered from the grief of having their children removed.
Some parents could not go on living without their children, while others turned to alcohol as a coping mechanism.
The removal of several generations of children severely disrupted Indigenous oral culture, and consequently much cultural knowledge was lost.
Many of the Stolen Generations never experienced living in a healthy family situation, and never learned parenting skills. In some instances, this has resulted in generations of children raised in state care. <<

https://www.australianstogether.org.au/discover/australian-history/stolen-generations

PermeateFree said:

A little more Aboriginal history.

>>The National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families estimated that: ‘between one in three and one in ten Indigenous children were forcibly removed from their families and communities in the period from approximately 1910 until 1970.<<

https://healthinfonet.ecu.edu.au/learn/health-topics/healing/stolen-generations/

>>The forcible removal of Indigenous children from their families was part of the policy of Assimilation. Assimilation was based on the assumption of black inferiority and white superiority, which proposed that Indigenous people should be allowed to “die out” through a process of natural elimination, or, where possible, should be assimilated into the white community.

Children taken from their parents as part of the Stolen Generation were taught to reject their Indigenous heritage, and forced to adopt white culture. Their names were often changed, and they were forbidden to speak their traditional languages. Some children were adopted by white families, and many were placed in institutions where abuse and neglect were common.<<

>>Many were psychologically, physically, and sexually abused while living in state care or with their adoptive families.
Efforts to make stolen children reject their culture often caused them to feel ashamed of their Indigenous heritage.
Many children were wrongly told that their parents had died or abandoned them, and many never knew where they had been taken from or who their biological families were.
Living conditions in the institutions were highly controlled, and children were frequently punished harshly, were cold and hungry and received minimal if any affection.
The children generally received a very low level of education, as they were expected to work as manual labourers and domestic servants (see Unfinished Business).
Medical experts have noted a high incidence of depression, anxiety, post traumatic stress and suicide among the Stolen Generations <<

>>Many parents never recovered from the grief of having their children removed.
Some parents could not go on living without their children, while others turned to alcohol as a coping mechanism.
The removal of several generations of children severely disrupted Indigenous oral culture, and consequently much cultural knowledge was lost.
Many of the Stolen Generations never experienced living in a healthy family situation, and never learned parenting skills. In some instances, this has resulted in generations of children raised in state care. <<

https://www.australianstogether.org.au/discover/australian-history/stolen-generations

As soon as this became political, nobody cared about the real facts any more.

For starters, not one of the children was stolen.

For starters, not one of the children was stolen.

——

Are we playing word games?

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

A little more Aboriginal history.

>>The National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families estimated that: ‘between one in three and one in ten Indigenous children were forcibly removed from their families and communities in the period from approximately 1910 until 1970.<<

https://healthinfonet.ecu.edu.au/learn/health-topics/healing/stolen-generations/

>>The forcible removal of Indigenous children from their families was part of the policy of Assimilation. Assimilation was based on the assumption of black inferiority and white superiority, which proposed that Indigenous people should be allowed to “die out” through a process of natural elimination, or, where possible, should be assimilated into the white community.

Children taken from their parents as part of the Stolen Generation were taught to reject their Indigenous heritage, and forced to adopt white culture. Their names were often changed, and they were forbidden to speak their traditional languages. Some children were adopted by white families, and many were placed in institutions where abuse and neglect were common.<<

>>Many were psychologically, physically, and sexually abused while living in state care or with their adoptive families.
Efforts to make stolen children reject their culture often caused them to feel ashamed of their Indigenous heritage.
Many children were wrongly told that their parents had died or abandoned them, and many never knew where they had been taken from or who their biological families were.
Living conditions in the institutions were highly controlled, and children were frequently punished harshly, were cold and hungry and received minimal if any affection.
The children generally received a very low level of education, as they were expected to work as manual labourers and domestic servants (see Unfinished Business).
Medical experts have noted a high incidence of depression, anxiety, post traumatic stress and suicide among the Stolen Generations <<

>>Many parents never recovered from the grief of having their children removed.
Some parents could not go on living without their children, while others turned to alcohol as a coping mechanism.
The removal of several generations of children severely disrupted Indigenous oral culture, and consequently much cultural knowledge was lost.
Many of the Stolen Generations never experienced living in a healthy family situation, and never learned parenting skills. In some instances, this has resulted in generations of children raised in state care. <<

https://www.australianstogether.org.au/discover/australian-history/stolen-generations

As soon as this became political, nobody cared about the real facts any more.

For starters, not one of the children was stolen.

They were stolen! A policeman or someone from Aboriginal Control and just turned up, grabbed the children without any explanation or opportunity for the parents to find out what had happened to them, or the children to know why their parents never came to claim them, then that is theft in anyone’s language. If I came around your house and took your most treasured possession and never brought it back, that is theft!

sarahs mum said:

For starters, not one of the children was stolen.

——

Are we playing word games?

No it is a fact. This is why I am posting this sort of stuff to hopefully inform.

PermeateFree said:

sarahs mum said:

For starters, not one of the children was stolen.

——

Are we playing word games?

No it is a fact. This is why I am posting this sort of stuff to hopefully inform.

I too was questioning. I think stolen is a good enough description.

There is something I really want to know about the stolen generation, because I’ve never heard it mentioned. I want to know what proportion of the children are full-blood and under what circumstances a full blood child would be taken – for example if both parents were dead.

To elicit a response, I’m going to propose a tentative hypothesis and leave it for you to disprove it. Now before you jump down my throat, remember that Cathy Freeman was one of the stolen generation and she has three white ancestors.

Tentative hypothesis:

• all of the children of the stolen generation are white.

To disprove it, all you have to do is find the name a single stolen child who has no white ancestry.

mollwollfumble said:

There is something I really want to know about the stolen generation, because I’ve never heard it mentioned. I want to know what proportion of the children are full-blood and under what circumstances a full blood child would be taken – for example if both parents were dead.

To elicit a response, I’m going to propose a tentative hypothesis and leave it for you to disprove it. Now before you jump down my throat, remember that Cathy Freeman was one of the stolen generation and she has three white ancestors.

Tentative hypothesis:

• all of the children of the stolen generation are white.

To disprove it, all you have to do is find the name a single stolen child who has no white ancestry.

You deserve to have someone jump down your throat on that one.

mollwollfumble said:

There is something I really want to know about the stolen generation, because I’ve never heard it mentioned. I want to know what proportion of the children are full-blood and under what circumstances a full blood child would be taken – for example if both parents were dead.

To elicit a response, I’m going to propose a tentative hypothesis and leave it for you to disprove it. Now before you jump down my throat, remember that Cathy Freeman was one of the stolen generation and she has three white ancestors.

Tentative hypothesis:

• all of the children of the stolen generation are white.

To disprove it, all you have to do is find the name a single stolen child who has no white ancestry.

Why is it OK to steal children with white ancestry?

Jack Charles – noted actor and elder – is Buyerong mother and Wiradjuri father.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Charles_(actor)

Full blood enough for you?

buffy said:

mollwollfumble said:

There is something I really want to know about the stolen generation, because I’ve never heard it mentioned. I want to know what proportion of the children are full-blood and under what circumstances a full blood child would be taken – for example if both parents were dead.

To elicit a response, I’m going to propose a tentative hypothesis and leave it for you to disprove it. Now before you jump down my throat, remember that Cathy Freeman was one of the stolen generation and she has three white ancestors.

Tentative hypothesis:

• all of the children of the stolen generation are white.

To disprove it, all you have to do is find the name a single stolen child who has no white ancestry.

Why is it OK to steal children with white ancestry?

well it is not okay but this did okay. Remember the children from the uk shipped to the Australian to work camps and abuse shelters?

This was under the guise of an adoption program for orphans. Not all of the children were orphans , nor were any of them shipped over under true humanitarian grounds by ant of their accounts of their treatment.

edits:

well it is not okay but this did occur

Yes ms, I was wondering why the ancestry mattered at all. Taking children is taking children.

And I didn’t have to think for more than a couple of seconds to come up with Jack Charles. I grew up a couple of miles from the Salvation Army home where he was abused. I didn’t know about what went on until a few years ago.

buffy said:

Yes ms, I was wondering why the ancestry mattered at all. Taking children is taking children.

And I didn’t have to think for more than a couple of seconds to come up with Jack Charles. I grew up a couple of miles from the Salvation Army home where he was abused. I didn’t know about what went on until a few years ago.

Unfornuately people whom are like that will often find vocations where they can have contact with children and that is why it is so…. important that the genuine people stand up and speak out about those people when you encounter them.

After the recent national enquiry findings for the nation will put better protections in place for enforcing the actions following the reporting of events. That is a big area of consistent failings generationally in Australia.

This lack of pressure to follow through on reports and how to report on after that has been the key to the lack of intervention, prosecution and safeguarding victims from perpetrators.

I like Jack Charles. We were talking about the word “rascal” on here recently. I think he is a rascal. I’ve seen some of his acting work, but also the documentary about his life, Bastardy.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1310363/?ref_=nm_flmg_slf_6

I admire him.

buffy said:

I like Jack Charles. We were talking about the word “rascal” on here recently. I think he is a rascal. I’ve seen some of his acting work, but also the documentary about his life, Bastardy.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1310363/?ref_=nm_flmg_slf_6

I admire him.

I think the statistics suggested to me once was something like this 8 out of 10 people affected by drug and alcohol addictions were subjected to child abuse.

Society creating damaged people and then wanting to discard them when they later on fall into the too hard basket.

I do understand that people can be affected by addictions coming from great families too and sometimes these things just happen.

However the greater proportion of those affected can have long-lasting affects in their personal lives.

mollwollfumble said:

There is something I really want to know about the stolen generation, because I’ve never heard it mentioned. I want to know what proportion of the children are full-blood and under what circumstances a full blood child would be taken – for example if both parents were dead.

To elicit a response, I’m going to propose a tentative hypothesis and leave it for you to disprove it. Now before you jump down my throat, remember that Cathy Freeman was one of the stolen generation and she has three white ancestors.

Tentative hypothesis:

• all of the children of the stolen generation are white.

To disprove it, all you have to do is find the name a single stolen child who has no white ancestry.

What is the point of this question?

The implication seems to be that it’s OK to remove children from their parents for no good reason if one of the parents is not aboriginal.

But that’s so stupid I must have it wrong, so what is the point?

Taking children from their parents is never a good thing. Help the parentss do the job right is a far better thing.

mollwollfumble said:

Now before you jump down my throat, remember that Cathy Freeman was one of the stolen generation and she has three white ancestors.

And your point about that?

Here in the “greatest country” the government is stealing children from parents who are at the border trying to seek asylum. Then the orange fuckwad is using the children as bargaining chips to get his wall built.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

There is something I really want to know about the stolen generation, because I’ve never heard it mentioned. I want to know what proportion of the children are full-blood and under what circumstances a full blood child would be taken – for example if both parents were dead.

To elicit a response, I’m going to propose a tentative hypothesis and leave it for you to disprove it. Now before you jump down my throat, remember that Cathy Freeman was one of the stolen generation and she has three white ancestors.

Tentative hypothesis:

• all of the children of the stolen generation are white.

To disprove it, all you have to do is find the name a single stolen child who has no white ancestry.

The stolen generation was about removing bi-racial children. That shared indigenous heritage and European heritage.

The alleged premise was to save these children from less privilege by providing them with more privilege and western advantage, education, structure , clothing etc.

but like most and probably all institutional care systems they suck and rely on good people being there to safeguard the children. This didn’t happen that way.

Some children were adopted into loving families though. Having your culture taken from the children old enough to remember their families was devastating. As most of us could imagine.

roughbarked said:

Taking children from their parents is never a good thing. Help the parentss do the job right is a far better thing.

Except when the kids end up dead as a result of course. That’s probably not an optimal outcome.

It does seem though that dealing with kids in dysfunctional families remains a huge problem, which politicians don’t want to talk about.

I suppose it’s just not as important as hiding the real cost of electricity generation, or lowering business taxes.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Taking children from their parents is never a good thing. Help the parentss do the job right is a far better thing.

Except when the kids end up dead as a result of course. That’s probably not an optimal outcome.

It does seem though that dealing with kids in dysfunctional families remains a huge problem, which politicians don’t want to talk about.

I suppose it’s just not as important as hiding the real cost of electricity generation, or lowering business taxes.

Children end up dead from all walks of families.
The word dysfunctional can actually apply to a large number of families fromn different socio-economic demographics.
Peter Dutton has to be the result of a dysfuntional family.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Taking children from their parents is never a good thing. Help the parentss do the job right is a far better thing.

Except when the kids end up dead as a result of course. That’s probably not an optimal outcome.

It does seem though that dealing with kids in dysfunctional families remains a huge problem, which politicians don’t want to talk about.

I suppose it’s just not as important as hiding the real cost of electricity generation, or lowering business taxes.

Children end up dead from all walks of families.

That doesn’t make it OK though, does it?

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Except when the kids end up dead as a result of course. That’s probably not an optimal outcome.

It does seem though that dealing with kids in dysfunctional families remains a huge problem, which politicians don’t want to talk about.

I suppose it’s just not as important as hiding the real cost of electricity generation, or lowering business taxes.

Children end up dead from all walks of families.

That doesn’t make it OK though, does it?

Of course not.

The Assimilation Policy

https://aiatsis.gov.au/sites/default/files/catalogue_resources/18801.pdf

And an SBS explainer. It was by no means only kids with some white ancestry. Being aboriginal was sufficient reason for removal.

https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/explainer/explainer-stolen-generations

I’ve been trying to track down who invented the phrase “stolen generation”. Was the invention made by a concerned individual, a political barrow pusher, someone what wanted to make a quick buck from sensationalism, or other?

I haven’t correctly tracked it down yet, but one possibility is that it was coined by the poet and aboriginal activist Kevin Gilbert in 1983.

The next reference I’ve found is an article called “The stolen generation” in the University of NSW magazine by Glenn Hennessey in 1984. The University of NSW, I wasn’t expecting that!

I quote the article here in full.

THE STOLEN
GENERATION
Frances Peters, a student at Tranby
College for Aboriginals in Glebe
recently spoke to a gathering of people
at a forum for the Socialist Workers
Party youth group in Chippendale
about the search for Aboriginal
identity.
The topic of her talk was the policy
of successive governments in all states
to remove children from their
Aboriginal parents in order to speed
their assimilation, but also to raise them
up as a source of cheap labour.
She told how hre grandmother used
to describe her life and how angry she
was at white teachers and people
telling her that they were all family
exaggerations. At the age of ten she
was removed from school and sent to
work for white station owners. This was
the family that Dame Margaret
Guilfoyle came from
Her duties included milking the cow
at four in the morning, cooking and
cleaning, doing the laundry, washing
the windoes, scrubbing the floors and
walls for one shilling sixpence a week.
One shilling went to the Aboriginal
Protection Board and sixpence went to
her. Most people never saw the money
that the APB received again.
This policy came about as a result of
the Governments intention “to smooth
the pillow of a dying race”. In the late
eighteen hundreds Aboriginal people
were dying by the thousands in both an
active and a passive sense. Some whites
had bad consciences about the
starvation and deprivation, the
massacres at MyallCreek, Conniston,
Hospital Creek, Brewarrina and other
places too numerous to mention, so
that they pressured the Government to
do something..
The Native Welfare Department was
set up in NSW to deal with the
“problem”. With the influence of the
Christian missionaires and the
reinforcement of the police, Aboriginal
people were forcibly transported from
their own countries, were split up into
groups and dispersed across the state so
that one family could not understand
the languages of the other families on
teh missions and their ceremonies and
religious beliefs were banned.
Some people came to the missions
to escape ‘punitive expeditions’ or to
obtain food as the ecology was
wrecked by pastoralism. Once on the
mission, permission was required to
leave, to marry, or to obtain work. The
missions effectively controlled the
peoples movements, ensured their
unemployment (this with the
connivance of trade unions) making
closer control possible, kept the people
away from townships (out of sight, out
of mind) and ensured their
dependence on Government handouts.
It also destroyed at large part of the
peoples culture and self-respect in a
short space of time.
Fair children were forcibly removed
from their parents in order to ‘save’
them from their Aboriginally and to
inculcate white values. Girls and boys
were sent to places like the
Cootamundra Girls Home and Kinchella
where they were taight domestic duties
and agarian labour under strict
Christian control.
A lot of the girls would return to the
mission or to Cootamundra pregnant
and have fair children who would in
turn be stolen. Many of the girls in
Cootamundra home died because they
were too young in childbirth and didn’t
receive proper medical aid.
This slavery was enforced under the
so-called “Aboriginal Protection Act”.
The legal pretext for it was that the
children had no visible means of
support or place of fixed abode in the
very missions they were forced to
remain. If people left the mission to
keep their children, the no-fixed abode
clause would be empoyed.
There are many thousands of people
who still do not know their identity.
One women on campus in the
Aboriginal student group only last year
found her mother. After the years of
the Protection Board, children
continued to be stolen for adoption as
a result of the assimilation policy of the
sixties.
Frances’ talk was videotaped and
replayed at Tranby. Many Aboriginals
to this day still do not know where
their families are and many chance
meetings between membres of family
have occurred there.
GLENN HENNESSY

mollwollfumble said:

I’ve been trying to track down who invented the phrase “stolen generation”. Was the invention made by a concerned individual, a political barrow pusher, someone what wanted to make a quick buck from sensationalism, or other?

I haven’t correctly tracked it down yet, but one possibility is that it was coined by the poet and aboriginal activist Kevin Gilbert in 1983.

The next reference I’ve found is an article called “The stolen generation” in the University of NSW magazine by Glenn Hennessey in 1984. The University of NSW, I wasn’t expecting that!

I quote the article here in full.

THE STOLEN
GENERATION
Frances Peters, a student at Tranby
College for Aboriginals in Glebe
recently spoke to a gathering of people
at a forum for the Socialist Workers
Party youth group in Chippendale
about the search for Aboriginal
identity.
The topic of her talk was the policy
of successive governments in all states
to remove children from their
Aboriginal parents in order to speed
their assimilation, but also to raise them
up as a source of cheap labour.
She told how hre grandmother used
to describe her life and how angry she
was at white teachers and people
telling her that they were all family
exaggerations. At the age of ten she
was removed from school and sent to
work for white station owners. This was
the family that Dame Margaret
Guilfoyle came from
Her duties included milking the cow
at four in the morning, cooking and
cleaning, doing the laundry, washing
the windoes, scrubbing the floors and
walls for one shilling sixpence a week.
One shilling went to the Aboriginal
Protection Board and sixpence went to
her. Most people never saw the money
that the APB received again.
This policy came about as a result of
the Governments intention “to smooth
the pillow of a dying race”. In the late
eighteen hundreds Aboriginal people
were dying by the thousands in both an
active and a passive sense. Some whites
had bad consciences about the
starvation and deprivation, the
massacres at MyallCreek, Conniston,
Hospital Creek, Brewarrina and other
places too numerous to mention, so
that they pressured the Government to
do something..
The Native Welfare Department was
set up in NSW to deal with the
“problem”. With the influence of the
Christian missionaires and the
reinforcement of the police, Aboriginal
people were forcibly transported from
their own countries, were split up into
groups and dispersed across the state so
that one family could not understand
the languages of the other families on
teh missions and their ceremonies and
religious beliefs were banned.
Some people came to the missions
to escape ‘punitive expeditions’ or to
obtain food as the ecology was
wrecked by pastoralism. Once on the
mission, permission was required to
leave, to marry, or to obtain work. The
missions effectively controlled the
peoples movements, ensured their
unemployment (this with the
connivance of trade unions) making
closer control possible, kept the people
away from townships (out of sight, out
of mind) and ensured their
dependence on Government handouts.
It also destroyed at large part of the
peoples culture and self-respect in a
short space of time.
Fair children were forcibly removed
from their parents in order to ‘save’
them from their Aboriginally and to
inculcate white values. Girls and boys
were sent to places like the
Cootamundra Girls Home and Kinchella
where they were taight domestic duties
and agarian labour under strict
Christian control.
A lot of the girls would return to the
mission or to Cootamundra pregnant
and have fair children who would in
turn be stolen. Many of the girls in
Cootamundra home died because they
were too young in childbirth and didn’t
receive proper medical aid.
This slavery was enforced under the
so-called “Aboriginal Protection Act”.
The legal pretext for it was that the
children had no visible means of
support or place of fixed abode in the
very missions they were forced to
remain. If people left the mission to
keep their children, the no-fixed abode
clause would be empoyed.
There are many thousands of people
who still do not know their identity.
One women on campus in the
Aboriginal student group only last year
found her mother. After the years of
the Protection Board, children
continued to be stolen for adoption as
a result of the assimilation policy of the
sixties.
Frances’ talk was videotaped and
replayed at Tranby. Many Aboriginals
to this day still do not know where
their families are and many chance
meetings between membres of family
have occurred there.
GLENN HENNESSY

See the terminology section of the SBS Explainer:

“The use of the term ‘stolen’ to refer to the policy of removing Aboriginal children may originate as early as 1915. Patrick McGarry, a member of the Parliament of NSW objected to the Aborigines Protection Amending Act 1915 describing the policy of removing children from their parents without having to establish a cause as giving the Board the power `to steal the child away from its parents.’

The phrase ‘Stolen Generations’ was first coined by Peter Read, Professor of History at the Australian National University in a paper ‘The Stolen Generations: The removal of Aboriginal children in New South Wales 1883 to 1969’ published in 1981.”

mollwollfumble said:

I’ve been trying to track down who invented the phrase “stolen generation”. Was the invention made by a concerned individual, a political barrow pusher, someone what wanted to make a quick buck from sensationalism, or other?

I haven’t correctly tracked it down yet, but one possibility is that it was coined by the poet and aboriginal activist Kevin Gilbert in 1983.

The next reference I’ve found is an article called “The stolen generation” in the University of NSW magazine by Glenn Hennessey in 1984. The University of NSW, I wasn’t expecting that!

I quote the article here in full.

THE STOLEN
GENERATION
…

Well that seems like a reasonable justification for the term.

Are you going to tell us why you object to it?

i’ll read the linked story properly later

have to say, I take issue with any framing of alcohol use as follows..

“…./cut/….while others turned to alcohol as a coping mechanism…”

that, in my opinion, absolutely is one of the nastiest inducements ever, disguised, and says something about our culture.

transition said:

i’ll read the linked story properly later

have to say, I take issue with any framing of alcohol use as follows..

“…./cut/….while others turned to alcohol as a coping mechanism…”

that, in my opinion, absolutely is one of the nastiest inducements ever, disguised, and says something about our culture.

What words would you use in their place?

I hadn’t hard the term stolen generation before the 80’s.

Looking into the Cox family history bcause that’s Mrs rb’s family history. Found Diana Mudgee

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

i’ll read the linked story properly later

have to say, I take issue with any framing of alcohol use as follows..

“…./cut/….while others turned to alcohol as a coping mechanism…”

that, in my opinion, absolutely is one of the nastiest inducements ever, disguised, and says something about our culture.

What words would you use in their place?

it’s not the words, the wording, it’s what the statement licenses, and hides.

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

i’ll read the linked story properly later

have to say, I take issue with any framing of alcohol use as follows..

“…./cut/….while others turned to alcohol as a coping mechanism…”

that, in my opinion, absolutely is one of the nastiest inducements ever, disguised, and says something about our culture.

What words would you use in their place?

it’s not the words, the wording, it’s what the statement licenses, and hides.

OK, what wording would you use in its place?

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

What words would you use in their place?

it’s not the words, the wording, it’s what the statement licenses, and hides.

OK, what wording would you use in its place?

I simply would never say that, any words that did that.

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

it’s not the words, the wording, it’s what the statement licenses, and hides.

OK, what wording would you use in its place?

I simply would never say that, any words that did that.

I didn’t ask what words you would use to say the same thing.

I’m asking what words you would use to describe the same situation, that don’t do whatever it is that you object to.

Or are you saying that if excessive alcohol use in parents is associated with removal of their children, we just shouldn’t talk about it?

Diana’s story

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’ve been trying to track down who invented the phrase “stolen generation”. Was the invention made by a concerned individual, a political barrow pusher, someone what wanted to make a quick buck from sensationalism, or other?

I haven’t correctly tracked it down yet, but one possibility is that it was coined by the poet and aboriginal activist Kevin Gilbert in 1983.

The next reference I’ve found is an article called “The stolen generation” in the University of NSW magazine by Glenn Hennessey in 1984. The University of NSW, I wasn’t expecting that!

I quote the article here in full.

THE STOLEN
GENERATION
…

Well that seems like a reasonable justification for the term.

Are you going to tell us why you object to it?

No.

Not 1983, that 1983 reference just leads back to 1982. But I can’t find the original coining of “Stolen Generation”. It is supposed to have appeared somewhere in the book:

“All that Dirt: Aborigines 1938 …”, eds. Bill Gammage, Andrew Markus, 1982.

History Project, Incorporated, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, 1982 – Aboriginal Australians – 109 pages.

“Social conditions under discriminatory laws using evidence from oral histories to supplement documentary sources; chapters by C. Edwards, P. Read, J. Carter, A. Haebich, A. McGrath and A. Markus”.

Unfortunately, I found no copy of this book or the relevant chapter on the internet.

Has anyone here seen it? It exists in several libraries, including the Monash Uni Library, Matheson Library call no:994.0049915 G193A. I think I’ll search it out.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’ve been trying to track down who invented the phrase “stolen generation”. Was the invention made by a concerned individual, a political barrow pusher, someone what wanted to make a quick buck from sensationalism, or other?

I haven’t correctly tracked it down yet, but one possibility is that it was coined by the poet and aboriginal activist Kevin Gilbert in 1983.

The next reference I’ve found is an article called “The stolen generation” in the University of NSW magazine by Glenn Hennessey in 1984. The University of NSW, I wasn’t expecting that!

I quote the article here in full.

THE STOLEN
GENERATION
…

Well that seems like a reasonable justification for the term.

Are you going to tell us why you object to it?

No.

Not 1983, that 1983 reference just leads back to 1982. But I can’t find the original coining of “Stolen Generation”. It is supposed to have appeared somewhere in the book:

“All that Dirt: Aborigines 1938 …”, eds. Bill Gammage, Andrew Markus, 1982.

History Project, Incorporated, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, 1982 – Aboriginal Australians – 109 pages.

“Social conditions under discriminatory laws using evidence from oral histories to supplement documentary sources; chapters by C. Edwards, P. Read, J. Carter, A. Haebich, A. McGrath and A. Markus”.

Unfortunately, I found no copy of this book or the relevant chapter on the internet.

Has anyone here seen it? It exists in several libraries, including the Monash Uni Library, Matheson Library call no:994.0049915 G193A. I think I’ll search it out.

https://tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/posts/1240853/

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, what wording would you use in its place?

I simply would never say that, any words that did that.

I didn’t ask what words you would use to say the same thing.

I’m asking what words you would use to describe the same situation, that don’t do whatever it is that you object to.

Or are you saying that if excessive alcohol use in parents is associated with removal of their children, we just shouldn’t talk about it?

it’s not a statement that is restricted to anything to do with indigenous Australians, it’s seen elsewhere, and involves dubious propositions.

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Well that seems like a reasonable justification for the term.

Are you going to tell us why you object to it?

No.

Not 1983, that 1983 reference just leads back to 1982. But I can’t find the original coining of “Stolen Generation”. It is supposed to have appeared somewhere in the book:

“All that Dirt: Aborigines 1938 …”, eds. Bill Gammage, Andrew Markus, 1982.

History Project, Incorporated, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, 1982 – Aboriginal Australians – 109 pages.

“Social conditions under discriminatory laws using evidence from oral histories to supplement documentary sources; chapters by C. Edwards, P. Read, J. Carter, A. Haebich, A. McGrath and A. Markus”.

Unfortunately, I found no copy of this book or the relevant chapter on the internet.

Has anyone here seen it? It exists in several libraries, including the Monash Uni Library, Matheson Library call no:994.0049915 G193A. I think I’ll search it out.

https://tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/posts/1240853/

buffy said:

See the terminology section of the SBS Explainer:

“The use of the term ‘stolen’ to refer to the policy of removing Aboriginal children may originate as early as 1915. Patrick McGarry, a member of the Parliament of NSW objected to the Aborigines Protection Amending Act 1915 describing the policy of removing children from their parents without having to establish a cause as giving the Board the power `to steal the child away from its parents.’

The phrase ‘Stolen Generations’ was first coined by Peter Read, Professor of History at the Australian National University in a paper ‘The Stolen Generations: The removal of Aboriginal children in New South Wales 1883 to 1969’ published in 1981.”

Ah, thank you. So I was a year out.

buffy said:

See the terminology section of the SBS Explainer:

“The use of the term ‘stolen’ to refer to the policy of removing Aboriginal children may originate as early as 1915. Patrick McGarry, a member of the Parliament of NSW objected to the Aborigines Protection Amending Act 1915 describing the policy of removing children from their parents without having to establish a cause as giving the Board the power `to steal the child away from its parents.’

The phrase ‘Stolen Generations’ was first coined by Peter Read, Professor of History at the Australian National University in a paper ‘The Stolen Generations: The removal of Aboriginal children in New South Wales 1883 to 1969’ published in 1981.”

Ah, thank you. So I was a year out.

And is on the web. At https://daa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Reading-7_StolenGenerations.pdf

Some light reading for me. I’ll bookmark it.

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

I simply would never say that, any words that did that.

I didn’t ask what words you would use to say the same thing.

I’m asking what words you would use to describe the same situation, that don’t do whatever it is that you object to.

Or are you saying that if excessive alcohol use in parents is associated with removal of their children, we just shouldn’t talk about it?

it’s not a statement that is restricted to anything to do with indigenous Australians, it’s seen elsewhere, and involves dubious propositions.

Yes, it’s used all over the place.

So what would you say in these situations that doesn’t involve dubious propositions?

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’ve been trying to track down who invented the phrase “stolen generation”. Was the invention made by a concerned individual, a political barrow pusher, someone what wanted to make a quick buck from sensationalism, or other?

I haven’t correctly tracked it down yet, but one possibility is that it was coined by the poet and aboriginal activist Kevin Gilbert in 1983.

The next reference I’ve found is an article called “The stolen generation” in the University of NSW magazine by Glenn Hennessey in 1984. The University of NSW, I wasn’t expecting that!

I quote the article here in full.

THE STOLEN
GENERATION
…

Well that seems like a reasonable justification for the term.

Are you going to tell us why you object to it?

No.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make then.

Does it actually matter who invented the term?

I would have thought the meaning behind it was quite well understood.

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

I simply would never say that, any words that did that.

I didn’t ask what words you would use to say the same thing.

I’m asking what words you would use to describe the same situation, that don’t do whatever it is that you object to.

Or are you saying that if excessive alcohol use in parents is associated with removal of their children, we just shouldn’t talk about it?

it’s not a statement that is restricted to anything to do with indigenous Australians, it’s seen elsewhere, and involves dubious propositions.

I mean if you took everyone out there that might be said to have turned to alcohol as a coping mechanism, you see what a fucken joke the idea is. It has a lot less meaning than the statement white men turned to alcoholic beverage production to make money, and glorified alcohol to do so.

any teenager could, for recreational enhancement, turn to the idea that turning to alcohol to cope is a coping mechanism.

transition said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I didn’t ask what words you would use to say the same thing.

I’m asking what words you would use to describe the same situation, that don’t do whatever it is that you object to.

Or are you saying that if excessive alcohol use in parents is associated with removal of their children, we just shouldn’t talk about it?

it’s not a statement that is restricted to anything to do with indigenous Australians, it’s seen elsewhere, and involves dubious propositions.

I mean if you took everyone out there that might be said to have turned to alcohol as a coping mechanism, you see what a fucken joke the idea is. It has a lot less meaning than the statement white men turned to alcoholic beverage production to make money, and glorified alcohol to do so.

any teenager could, for recreational enhancement, turn to the idea that turning to alcohol to cope is a coping mechanism.

indeed.

mollwollfumble said:

buffy said:

See the terminology section of the SBS Explainer:

“The use of the term ‘stolen’ to refer to the policy of removing Aboriginal children may originate as early as 1915. Patrick McGarry, a member of the Parliament of NSW objected to the Aborigines Protection Amending Act 1915 describing the policy of removing children from their parents without having to establish a cause as giving the Board the power `to steal the child away from its parents.’

The phrase ‘Stolen Generations’ was first coined by Peter Read, Professor of History at the Australian National University in a paper ‘The Stolen Generations: The removal of Aboriginal children in New South Wales 1883 to 1969’ published in 1981.”

Ah, thank you. So I was a year out.

And is on the web. At https://daa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Reading-7_StolenGenerations.pdf

Some light reading for me. I’ll bookmark it.

I’ve barely started reading it. I don’t want to comment yet, but I have noticed that Peter Read hasn’t been entirely objective, understandably.

Read wrote “The following unthinking, racist assumptions were contained in a letter by a woman a few days after she had taken control of a ward. This preposterous nonsense contained the seeds of incalculable harm.”

And just what is this “preposterous racist nonsense”? I quote: “She is a charming child and we are already much attached. I took her to the shop and bought jodhpurs, lemon cardigan, shoes, hair-ribbon, gloves and many things I thought she would like. Her eyes fairly sparkled. I think she looks best of all in the school uniform, and we are to buy a navy and white hat with a badge. She also has a hair styling and is a very obedient and affectionate child. Here I must say that Lillian from henceforth would like to be known as Mary Rose, and it is just what I will call her … I was very pleased to notice how modest she is about her person. She is saying her prayers also.”

Peter, Peter, just a trifle excessive, don’t you think.

transition said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I didn’t ask what words you would use to say the same thing.

I’m asking what words you would use to describe the same situation, that don’t do whatever it is that you object to.

Or are you saying that if excessive alcohol use in parents is associated with removal of their children, we just shouldn’t talk about it?

it’s not a statement that is restricted to anything to do with indigenous Australians, it’s seen elsewhere, and involves dubious propositions.

I mean if you took everyone out there that might be said to have turned to alcohol as a coping mechanism, you see what a fucken joke the idea is. It has a lot less meaning than the statement white men turned to alcoholic beverage production to make money, and glorified alcohol to do so.

any teenager could, for recreational enhancement, turn to the idea that turning to alcohol to cope is a coping mechanism.

OK, I’ve got a better idea where you are coming from now.

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

I simply would never say that, any words that did that.

I didn’t ask what words you would use to say the same thing.

I’m asking what words you would use to describe the same situation, that don’t do whatever it is that you object to.

Or are you saying that if excessive alcohol use in parents is associated with removal of their children, we just shouldn’t talk about it?

it’s not a statement that is restricted to anything to do with indigenous Australians, it’s seen elsewhere, and involves dubious propositions.

Obfuscation.

Michael V said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I didn’t ask what words you would use to say the same thing.

I’m asking what words you would use to describe the same situation, that don’t do whatever it is that you object to.

Or are you saying that if excessive alcohol use in parents is associated with removal of their children, we just shouldn’t talk about it?

it’s not a statement that is restricted to anything to do with indigenous Australians, it’s seen elsewhere, and involves dubious propositions.

Obfuscation

Deviation

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/rearvision/canada%E2%80%99s-stolen-generations/6598518

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

transition said:

it’s not a statement that is restricted to anything to do with indigenous Australians, it’s seen elsewhere, and involves dubious propositions.

I mean if you took everyone out there that might be said to have turned to alcohol as a coping mechanism, you see what a fucken joke the idea is. It has a lot less meaning than the statement white men turned to alcoholic beverage production to make money, and glorified alcohol to do so.

any teenager could, for recreational enhancement, turn to the idea that turning to alcohol to cope is a coping mechanism.

OK, I’ve got a better idea where you are coming from now.

that people at different times seek oblivion, or anesthetize the organ that is the most local source of pain (mental discomfort) is understandable, perfectly understandable. White people with their English though have an apparently highly creative capacity to use that English to dominate, and frame things to serve their prevailing ways. White people don’t mind that it’s contagious too.

that an expression of dyscoping might be elevated to coping mechanism ought raise questions. White man has ways of dressing things up with the most casual misrepresentations, often. No-thought-required is more communicable.

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

I mean if you took everyone out there that might be said to have turned to alcohol as a coping mechanism, you see what a fucken joke the idea is. It has a lot less meaning than the statement white men turned to alcoholic beverage production to make money, and glorified alcohol to do so.

any teenager could, for recreational enhancement, turn to the idea that turning to alcohol to cope is a coping mechanism.

OK, I’ve got a better idea where you are coming from now.

that people at different times seek oblivion, or anesthetize the organ that is the most local source of pain (mental discomfort) is understandable, perfectly understandable. White people with their English though have an apparently highly creative capacity to use that English to dominate, and frame things to serve their prevailing ways. White people don’t mind that it’s contagious too.

that an expression of dyscoping might be elevated to coping mechanism ought raise questions. White man has ways of dressing things up with the most casual misrepresentations, often. No-thought-required is more communicable.

I’m not convinced there is any relationship between this sort of language and colour of skin.

In fact I very much doubt that is the case.

Anyway, here’s a song about a different sort of “coping mechanism”:

Needle of Death

Fire in the cave. Electric lighting turned on.

1901. 1 January: Federation – The Commonwealth Constitution states “in reckoning the numbers of people… Aboriginal natives shall not be counted”. It also states that the Commonwealth would legislate for any race except Aboriginal people. This leaves the power over Aboriginal Affairs with the states.

Aboriginal people are excluded from the vote, pensions, employment in post offices, enlistment in armed forces and maternity allowance.

1905. The Western Australia Aborigines Act is passed, making the Chief Protector the legal guardian of every Aboriginal and ‘half-caste’ child under 16 years old. Reserves are established, a local protector is appointed and rules governing Aboriginal employment are laid down.

1909. The NSW Aborigines Protection Act is introduced following crises in public schools.

Aboriginal schools are established in NSW. Exclusion of Aboriginal children from public schools followed requests by the white community. In NSW there are 22 Aboriginal schools in 1910, 35 in 1920 and 40 in 1940. The syllabus stresses manual activities and the teacher is usually the reserve manager’s untrained wife.

The Act also made it illegal for ‘half-castes’ to live on reserves. In 1915 and 1918 amendments to the Act give the NSW Aborigines Protection Board greater powers to remove children from their families for training as domestic servants.

Source: https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/history/aboriginal-history-timeline-1900-1969#ixzz5IefrCj4T

These are the official legal status of Aborigines and abuse of the system is easy to see. White-mans laws taking rights away from Aborigines goes on and on, only depending on the views of the State.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Anyway, here’s a song about a different sort of “coping mechanism”:

Needle of Death

listened to that

here’s savoy brown’s needle and spoon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDw3nDV5tV8

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, I’ve got a better idea where you are coming from now.

that people at different times seek oblivion, or anesthetize the organ that is the most local source of pain (mental discomfort) is understandable, perfectly understandable. White people with their English though have an apparently highly creative capacity to use that English to dominate, and frame things to serve their prevailing ways. White people don’t mind that it’s contagious too.

that an expression of dyscoping might be elevated to coping mechanism ought raise questions. White man has ways of dressing things up with the most casual misrepresentations, often. No-thought-required is more communicable.

I’m not convinced there is any relationship between this sort of language and colour of skin.

In fact I very much doubt that is the case.

I don’t think there is either, other than white’s dominate English and its use, from which we all borrow the off-the-shelf explanations.

What else did Peter Read write, before 1982?

There’s “The Northern Territory: An Aboriginal View of the Past
P Read, J Read – The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 1977
In 1975 we were preparing a source book of the Northern Territory for the Northern Territory
Curriculum Branch. There was a thick book at the end of it, but it was evident to us that only
one section of the population was represented. That was the European, and only the literate …”

There’s “The price of tobacco: the journey of the Warlmala to Wave Hill, 1928
P Read, EJ Japaljarri – Aboriginal History, 1978
Engineer Jack Japaljarri is a Warlmala Warlpiri (Walbiri) whose country lies between
Winnecke Creek and Hooker Creek in the Northern Territory. In about 1910 he was born in
the desert. For some eighteen years he lived the life of his Warlpiri ancestors, interrupted by …”

There’s “Fathers and sons: a study of five men of 1900
P Read – Aboriginal History, 1980
This paper is concerned with the lives of five men who had a close connection with Erambie
Aboriginal Station, West Cowra, New South Wales. In the course of recorded conversations
during 1979 they told me of their lives, attitudes and opinions. Their names are Frank …”

The first one of these is probably a very interesting read.

mollwollfumble said:

What else did Peter Read write, before 1982?

There’s “The Northern Territory: An Aboriginal View of the Past
P Read, J Read – The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 1977
In 1975 we were preparing a source book of the Northern Territory for the Northern Territory
Curriculum Branch. There was a thick book at the end of it, but it was evident to us that only
one section of the population was represented. That was the European, and only the literate …”

There’s “The price of tobacco: the journey of the Warlmala to Wave Hill, 1928
P Read, EJ Japaljarri – Aboriginal History, 1978
Engineer Jack Japaljarri is a Warlmala Warlpiri (Walbiri) whose country lies between
Winnecke Creek and Hooker Creek in the Northern Territory. In about 1910 he was born in
the desert. For some eighteen years he lived the life of his Warlpiri ancestors, interrupted by …”

There’s “Fathers and sons: a study of five men of 1900
P Read – Aboriginal History, 1980
This paper is concerned with the lives of five men who had a close connection with Erambie
Aboriginal Station, West Cowra, New South Wales. In the course of recorded conversations
during 1979 they told me of their lives, attitudes and opinions. Their names are Frank …”

The first one of these is probably a very interesting read.

What is your interpretation of the above moll?

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

that people at different times seek oblivion, or anesthetize the organ that is the most local source of pain (mental discomfort) is understandable, perfectly understandable. White people with their English though have an apparently highly creative capacity to use that English to dominate, and frame things to serve their prevailing ways. White people don’t mind that it’s contagious too.

that an expression of dyscoping might be elevated to coping mechanism ought raise questions. White man has ways of dressing things up with the most casual misrepresentations, often. No-thought-required is more communicable.

I’m not convinced there is any relationship between this sort of language and colour of skin.

In fact I very much doubt that is the case.

I don’t think there is either, other than white’s dominate English and its use, from which we all borrow the off-the-shelf explanations.

OK, there is that.

PermeateFree said:

What is your interpretation of the above moll?

I’m still reading, so not ready to give an interpretation. I thank you for asking.
I also want to read through what the aboriginal activist Pearl Gibbs was saying about this in the 1970s.
Most of it is highly emotionally charged stuff, which makes it difficult to interpret what they are actually saying.

roughbarked said:

Diana’s story

ThanQ 4 PK :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4ovZecmk-Q

I’m reading a bit more.

I’ve now come to the conclusion that what is loosely called the “Aboriginal problem” can be summed up in a single word …

Sanitation.

Contemporary complaints about maltreatment of aborigines, and there are literally nearly a thousand accessible on the web, are overwhelmingly dominated by horrified complaints by people (white and black) about the abysmal living conditions of the aborigines.

That’s the problem that couldn’t be solved, no matter how much effort was taken to fix it.

Peter Read highlights the Aborigines Protection Board, which became the Aborigines Welfare Board, as the number one baddie in his Stolen Generations paper. So I went looking for contemporary newspaper accounts that mention the two.

—————————————-

The earliest extended historical summary of the treatment of Aborigines since the start of the Aborigines that I’ve found so far is “New Deal Advocated for Aborigines” by Leo Austen. Dip. Anthrop.; FRAI. It’s a good article. Reproduced below (with spelling corrections).

Most people think of the Australian aborigine …. He is classified in a special
group of his own, the Australoid, which seems to include also the
Sakai of Malaya, the Veddas of Ceylon, and some hill tribes of south
ern India.

It is believed that the original
home of the Australian aborigine
was southern India, whence he mi-
grated over a period to Australia.
…
In 1788, when the white man first
settled in Australia, there were
some 350,000 full-blooded Australian
aborigines throughout the Com
monwealth. To-day this number
has decreased to about 50,000. The
decrease has been due to many
causes, such as the disruption of
their physical and spiritual life;
the killing off of many who attack
ed the whites when the latter came
to steal their lands, or who were
killed by parties which went cut
hunting the aborigines as “a
sport.”

These unlawful killings have not
always been consistent with the
ethics of British justice. It is
known, and even quoted in a lead
ing authority on criminal law, that
poison baits were laid by early set-
tlers in Queensland to get rid of
the blacks, who were more often
than not considered only a nuis-
ance when they were not helping
to make the fortunes of the white
man.

The white man also introduced
many diseases previously unknown
among the aborigines. For all this,
civilised man did not mind having
affairs with full-blooded aborig-
ine women. In New South Wales
to-day, although there are only ap
proximately 600 full-bloods, there
are some 10,000 half-castes and
mixed bloods.

Truly the white man has little
to be proud of in his contact with
the Australian aborigine!

Finances

As far back as 1881 a Protector
of Aborigines was appointed in
New South Wales, but he had at
his disposal only a few hundred
pounds to be spent in the protec-
tion of the Australian blacks. In
1883 the Government appointed a
Board of Protection for the Aborig
ines, but it had no statutory pow-
ers.

In 1909 the Aborigines’ Protection
Act was passed. An Aborigines’
Protection Board was formed un
der the Act. This functioned until
June. 1940, when the Board was
reconstituted, and an entirely new
Aborigines’ Welfare Board estab
lished.

The old Protection Board had
done a lot of good in its way. Many
of the mixed-bloods who had been
brought up on the board’s stations
eventually became independent of
the board to a certain extent. How
ever, its basic policy did not get
at the root of the main problems.
The policy of the new Welfare
Board is very different from that
of the previous one. Some of the
guiding principles are:

• Eventual assimilation of lighter
  caste aborigines
• Inculcation of habits of self
  help.
• Encouragement of domestic
  cleanliness, and pride in the
  home, and in gardening
• Investigation of problems con-
  nected with youths.
• Technical training of youths
  with promising intelligence.
• Organisation of the employ
  ment of aborigines and mixed
  bloods.
• Maintenance of a system of
  juvenile employment of boys
  and girls after leaving school
  until they reach the age of I8.

This policy is having its effect
to-day. although much handicap-
ped owing to the war. There are
also research workers who are in-
vestigating the main problems, so
the board’s policy can be given
greater effect as time goes on. In
the post-war era much more can
be done if all realise that there is
an important duty due to these des-
cendants of the aboriginal inhabi-
tants, who are in their present
state of primitiveness and segre-
gation from ordinary European life
purely or account of the haphazard
policy of the early days.

(mollwollfumble disagree with the word “purely”, above).

When Commodore Erskine pro-
claimed a protectorate over British
New Guinea in 1884 he was most
careful to inform the natives they
would be secure in their lands.
This has formed the basis of the
Commonwealth’s policy ever since.
But 96 years before, when Britain
sent out her first settlements to Aus-
tralia, no thought was taken of the
possessions and the welfare of the
aboriginal inhabitants here.

Again, when Sir William Mac-
gregor became Administrator of
Britsh Hew Guinea in 1888, his
policy was “to deal justly and
righteously with the native inhabi-
tants.” Can we say the same of
Australian policy towards the
aborigines since the same date?

Black Geniuses\

What of the savage mind …

If the more “primitive” children
are started early enough, they can
be taught the ways of civilisation,
and succeed at school. Certainly
there are morons among the less
civilised, but the percentage is not
considered to be greater than
among ordinary civilised men and
women.

Many scientists to-day hold that
“on the average” civilised man has
no better inherited equipment than
the savage. The chief difference
lies on the cultural side. The
civilised man, having scientific aids
such as the printed page and vari-
ous other developments, is able to
hand on his accumulated know-
ledge to succeeding generations.
Undoubtedly there are civilised peo-
ple of a much higher intelligence
than that found among the sav-
ages. but the foregoing remarks ap
ply to the average.

If a civilised child is brought up
in surroundings where he is starv-
ed, or does not get the right diet,
and where often in his early child-
hood he may receive a great deal
of abuse, it is more than possible
he would appear thoroughly
stupid, even if he were really
bright child. So with the aborig-
ine and the mixed-blood. In ad-
dition these may suffer from some
disease that would dull their men-
tality temporarily.

It has been recognised that most
of the geniuses of the world had
security, affection and under-
standing in their early childhood
We know, of course, that high in
telligence is more often due to
heredity, but personality and char-
acter are due mostly to environ-
ment, and particularly to the en-
vironmental conditions of infancy
and childhood.

In those early days the child
imitates his elders. He either re-
ceives disciplne or is allowed to
become uncontrollable. He makes
attachments among various persons
in his vicinity. or else feels a re-
pulsion towards them.

It will be seen how important it
is to inculcate into the Australian
coloured people the necessity for
better home-training.

Segregation Vital

Every endeavour should be made
to have the mixed-bloods who are
free of disease placed in schools
where contact is made with white
children. Otherwise the coloured
child will grow up feeling himself
ostracised from the white commun-
ity, and suffering from an infer-
iority complex. He will then not
attempt to raise himself above the
level of his more primitive parents.
In schools where mixed-blood
children are allowed to attend with
white children, it is found that
there is usually no attempt on the
part of the white children to ostra-
cise the mixed blood, especially if
his skin is not of too dark a col-
our. For there are other child
ren also attending the school with
a skin colour not much lighter
than a mixed-blood, who have no
aborigine blood in them at all.

Science places the greatest stress
on the fact that nobody’s final
status in life should depend upon
the poverty or wealth of his par-
ents. If the aborigine and the
mixed-blood of the North Coast,
who is detribalised more so than
elsewhere, is given a chance to
rise above his frustration and feel-
ing of being thwarted – due partly
to the present attitude of many of
our “civilised” men and women to
wards him – it is possible that the
succeeding generations will be more
easily assimilated into the com-
munity.

There are many white people in
the community who for years have
been giving a helping hand in this
direction. Nothing but admiration is
due to them. But we must all,
more or less, break down the ideas
of our grandparents, who looked
at the problem from only one
angle. That was that the aborig-
ine and the half-caste were never
born to be raised out their lowly
status.

Problem of Disease

One of the first problems of the
post-war era will be the eradica-
tion of disease among the coloured
people. At the present time it is
not considered that a large per-
centage suffer from disease. The
mere fact that some do, must give
us pause.

We must see that sufficient doc-
tors are available to have a State
wide research made into the mat-
ter, so power may be given to seg-
regate, if necessary, for some per-
iod those suffering from any con
tagious disease, if the patient fails
to attend for treatment.

Once the community at large
knows that its coloured fraternity
are all as healthy as itself, many
of the present generation of whites
will probably offer greater help to
their distant cousins, and even al-
low them to partake of equal op-
portunities of pursuing life, liberty,
and happiness, and the chance of
raising themselves to a higher
stage of development

The neople of the North Coast, es
pecially around Lismore, have sev-
eral problems that still require a
large amount of research work.
They can see to-day with their
own eyes, at Tuncester, that the
coloured people have taken a fal-
tering step forward, rather than
stand where they were, or be push
ed backward. The development go-
ing on there and in other places
may, if handled in the right way,
have great effects on the people’s
future efforts. In the blood of
these Tuncester coloured people
runs some of the blood of their
British ancestors. We have to ad-
mit this, whether we like it or not,
and even though we would bury
our heads in the sand.

In Lismore, Casino, Coffs Har-
bour and other towns in Australia
there are to be seen coloured peo-
ple who have been honourably dis-
charged from the Army after hav-
ing fought in the Middle East,
Greece, Crete or New Guinea
Other coloured men are still in
the A.I.F. Others, still, are in pris-
on camps in Malaya and elsewhere,
living and working with our own
pure-white Australian brothers
and relations. Yet some of the
children of these self-same colour
ed Australian soldiers are denied
the right in some towns of attend-
ing a public school, even though
they may be free of all disease.

In the sight of the State all ab-
origines and all people having any
admixture of aborigine blood have
the same rights as any other Brit-
ish citizens in New South Wales,
except that they are not allowed
to be supplied with intoxicating
liquor.

Post-war Policy

It is too early to lay down the
finer details of a post-war policy
for the full and the mixed-bloods,
but as problems arise the officers
of the Aborigines’ Welfare Board
are doing their best to solve them,
and help the Australian native and
his descendants all they can.
Material is also being collected
that must eventually make for a
policy that will be wholly “wel
fare,’‘ and not just “protection”.

Even so, whatever is the final
post-war policy, it will need the
help of every citizen in small and
large ways, if the descendants of
those aborigines, who lived in Aus-
tralia in 1788. are to be led to a
fuller life where greater happiness
and higher development will be
their portion.

So shall we be able to live down
the stigma of the past. The abor-
igine and the mixed-blood owe us
little for our past treatment; but
each white Australian owes them
far more than he really thinks.

(mollwolllfumble would appreciate forum feedback on the above).

mollwollfumble said:

So shall we be able to live down
the stigma of the past. The abor-
igine and the mixed-blood owe us
little for our past treatment; but
each white Australian owes them
far more than he really thinks.

(mollwolllfumble would appreciate forum feedback on the above).

The entrenched attitudes among whites are not easy to change.

mollwollfumble said:

I’m reading a bit more.

I’ve now come to the conclusion that what is loosely called the “Aboriginal problem” can be summed up in a single word …

Sanitation.

Contemporary complaints about maltreatment of aborigines, and there are literally nearly a thousand accessible on the web, are overwhelmingly dominated by horrified complaints by people (white and black) about the abysmal living conditions of the aborigines.

That’s the problem that couldn’t be solved, no matter how much effort was taken to fix it.

Peter Read highlights the Aborigines Protection Board, which became the Aborigines Welfare Board, as the number one baddie in his Stolen Generations paper. So I went looking for contemporary newspaper accounts that mention the two.

—————————————-

The earliest extended historical summary of the treatment of Aborigines since the start of the Aborigines that I’ve found so far is “New Deal Advocated for Aborigines” by Leo Austen. Dip. Anthrop.; FRAI. It’s a good article. Reproduced below (with spelling corrections).

Most people think of the Australian aborigine …. He is classified in a special
group of his own, the Australoid, which seems to include also the
Sakai of Malaya, the Veddas of Ceylon, and some hill tribes of south
ern India.

It is believed that the original
home of the Australian aborigine
was southern India, whence he mi-
grated over a period to Australia.
…
In 1788, when the white man first
settled in Australia, there were
some 350,000 full-blooded Australian
aborigines throughout the Com
monwealth. To-day this number
has decreased to about 50,000. The
decrease has been due to many
causes, such as the disruption of
their physical and spiritual life;
the killing off of many who attack
ed the whites when the latter came
to steal their lands, or who were
killed by parties which went cut
hunting the aborigines as “a
sport.”

These unlawful killings have not
always been consistent with the
ethics of British justice. It is
known, and even quoted in a lead
ing authority on criminal law, that
poison baits were laid by early set-
tlers in Queensland to get rid of
the blacks, who were more often
than not considered only a nuis-
ance when they were not helping
to make the fortunes of the white
man.

The white man also introduced
many diseases previously unknown
among the aborigines. For all this,
civilised man did not mind having
affairs with full-blooded aborig-
ine women. In New South Wales
to-day, although there are only ap
proximately 600 full-bloods, there
are some 10,000 half-castes and
mixed bloods.

Truly the white man has little
to be proud of in his contact with
the Australian aborigine!

Finances

As far back as 1881 a Protector
of Aborigines was appointed in
New South Wales, but he had at
his disposal only a few hundred
pounds to be spent in the protec-
tion of the Australian blacks. In
1883 the Government appointed a
Board of Protection for the Aborig
ines, but it had no statutory pow-
ers.

In 1909 the Aborigines’ Protection
Act was passed. An Aborigines’
Protection Board was formed un
der the Act. This functioned until
June. 1940, when the Board was
reconstituted, and an entirely new
Aborigines’ Welfare Board estab
lished.

The old Protection Board had
done a lot of good in its way. Many
of the mixed-bloods who had been
brought up on the board’s stations
eventually became independent of
the board to a certain extent. How
ever, its basic policy did not get
at the root of the main problems.
The policy of the new Welfare
Board is very different from that
of the previous one. Some of the
guiding principles are:

• Eventual assimilation of lighter
  caste aborigines
• Inculcation of habits of self
  help.
• Encouragement of domestic
  cleanliness, and pride in the
  home, and in gardening
• Investigation of problems con-
  nected with youths.
• Technical training of youths
  with promising intelligence.
• Organisation of the employ
  ment of aborigines and mixed
  bloods.
• Maintenance of a system of
  juvenile employment of boys
  and girls after leaving school
  until they reach the age of I8.

This policy is having its effect
to-day. although much handicap-
ped owing to the war. There are
also research workers who are in-
vestigating the main problems, so
the board’s policy can be given
greater effect as time goes on. In
the post-war era much more can
be done if all realise that there is
an important duty due to these des-
cendants of the aboriginal inhabi-
tants, who are in their present
state of primitiveness and segre-
gation from ordinary European life
purely or account of the haphazard
policy of the early days.

(mollwollfumble disagree with the word “purely”, above).

When Commodore Erskine pro-
claimed a protectorate over British
New Guinea in 1884 he was most
careful to inform the natives they
would be secure in their lands.
This has formed the basis of the
Commonwealth’s policy ever since.
But 96 years before, when Britain
sent out her first settlements to Aus-
tralia, no thought was taken of the
possessions and the welfare of the
aboriginal inhabitants here.

Again, when Sir William Mac-
gregor became Administrator of
Britsh Hew Guinea in 1888, his
policy was “to deal justly and
righteously with the native inhabi-
tants.” Can we say the same of
Australian policy towards the
aborigines since the same date?

Black Geniuses\

What of the savage mind …

If the more “primitive” children
are started early enough, they can
be taught the ways of civilisation,
and succeed at school. Certainly
there are morons among the less
civilised, but the percentage is not
considered to be greater than
among ordinary civilised men and
women.

Many scientists to-day hold that
“on the average” civilised man has
no better inherited equipment than
the savage. The chief difference
lies on the cultural side. The
civilised man, having scientific aids
such as the printed page and vari-
ous other developments, is able to
hand on his accumulated know-
ledge to succeeding generations.
Undoubtedly there are civilised peo-
ple of a much higher intelligence
than that found among the sav-
ages. but the foregoing remarks ap
ply to the average.

If a civilised child is brought up
in surroundings where he is starv-
ed, or does not get the right diet,
and where often in his early child-
hood he may receive a great deal
of abuse, it is more than possible
he would appear thoroughly
stupid, even if he were really
bright child. So with the aborig-
ine and the mixed-blood. In ad-
dition these may suffer from some
disease that would dull their men-
tality temporarily.

It has been recognised that most
of the geniuses of the world had
security, affection and under-
standing in their early childhood
We know, of course, that high in
telligence is more often due to
heredity, but personality and char-
acter are due mostly to environ-
ment, and particularly to the en-
vironmental conditions of infancy
and childhood.

In those early days the child
imitates his elders. He either re-
ceives disciplne or is allowed to
become uncontrollable. He makes
attachments among various persons
in his vicinity. or else feels a re-
pulsion towards them.

It will be seen how important it
is to inculcate into the Australian
coloured people the necessity for
better home-training.

Segregation Vital

Every endeavour should be made
to have the mixed-bloods who are
free of disease placed in schools
where contact is made with white
children. Otherwise the coloured
child will grow up feeling himself
ostracised from the white commun-
ity, and suffering from an infer-
iority complex. He will then not
attempt to raise himself above the
level of his more primitive parents.
In schools where mixed-blood
children are allowed to attend with
white children, it is found that
there is usually no attempt on the
part of the white children to ostra-
cise the mixed blood, especially if
his skin is not of too dark a col-
our. For there are other child
ren also attending the school with
a skin colour not much lighter
than a mixed-blood, who have no
aborigine blood in them at all.

Science places the greatest stress
on the fact that nobody’s final
status in life should depend upon
the poverty or wealth of his par-
ents. If the aborigine and the
mixed-blood of the North Coast,
who is detribalised more so than
elsewhere, is given a chance to
rise above his frustration and feel-
ing of being thwarted – due partly
to the present attitude of many of
our “civilised” men and women to
wards him – it is possible that the
succeeding generations will be more
easily assimilated into the com-
munity.

There are many white people in
the community who for years have
been giving a helping hand in this
direction. Nothing but admiration is
due to them. But we must all,
more or less, break down the ideas
of our grandparents, who looked
at the problem from only one
angle. That was that the aborig-
ine and the half-caste were never
born to be raised out their lowly
status.

Problem of Disease

One of the first problems of the
post-war era will be the eradica-
tion of disease among the coloured
people. At the present time it is
not considered that a large per-
centage suffer from disease. The
mere fact that some do, must give
us pause.

We must see that sufficient doc-
tors are available to have a State
wide research made into the mat-
ter, so power may be given to seg-
regate, if necessary, for some per-
iod those suffering from any con
tagious disease, if the patient fails
to attend for treatment.

Once the community at large
knows that its coloured fraternity
are all as healthy as itself, many
of the present generation of whites
will probably offer greater help to
their distant cousins, and even al-
low them to partake of equal op-
portunities of pursuing life, liberty,
and happiness, and the chance of
raising themselves to a higher
stage of development

The neople of the North Coast, es
pecially around Lismore, have sev-
eral problems that still require a
large amount of research work.
They can see to-day with their
own eyes, at Tuncester, that the
coloured people have taken a fal-
tering step forward, rather than
stand where they were, or be push
ed backward. The development go-
ing on there and in other places
may, if handled in the right way,
have great effects on the people’s
future efforts. In the blood of
these Tuncester coloured people
runs some of the blood of their
British ancestors. We have to ad-
mit this, whether we like it or not,
and even though we would bury
our heads in the sand.

In Lismore, Casino, Coffs Har-
bour and other towns in Australia
there are to be seen coloured peo-
ple who have been honourably dis-
charged from the Army after hav-
ing fought in the Middle East,
Greece, Crete or New Guinea
Other coloured men are still in
the A.I.F. Others, still, are in pris-
on camps in Malaya and elsewhere,
living and working with our own
pure-white Australian brothers
and relations. Yet some of the
children of these self-same colour
ed Australian soldiers are denied
the right in some towns of attend-
ing a public school, even though
they may be free of all disease.

In the sight of the State all ab-
origines and all people having any
admixture of aborigine blood have
the same rights as any other Brit-
ish citizens in New South Wales,
except that they are not allowed
to be supplied with intoxicating
liquor.

Post-war Policy

It is too early to lay down the
finer details of a post-war policy
for the full and the mixed-bloods,
but as problems arise the officers
of the Aborigines’ Welfare Board
are doing their best to solve them,
and help the Australian native and
his descendants all they can.
Material is also being collected
that must eventually make for a
policy that will be wholly “wel
fare,’‘ and not just “protection”.

Even so, whatever is the final
post-war policy, it will need the
help of every citizen in small and
large ways, if the descendants of
those aborigines, who lived in Aus-
tralia in 1788. are to be led to a
fuller life where greater happiness
and higher development will be
their portion.

So shall we be able to live down
the stigma of the past. The abor-
igine and the mixed-blood owe us
little for our past treatment; but
each white Australian owes them
far more than he really thinks.

(mollwolllfumble would appreciate forum feedback on the above).

So that’s the entire problem going back to Federation in 1901. Thanks for that moll, I had no idea.

>It is believed that the original home of the Australian aborigine was southern India, whence he migrated over a period to Australia”

funny isn’t it how the state (power of, + invisible workings of ideology in peoples minds), declares the continent Australia with some retrospective hoodoo. A special sort of magic that becomes habit.

I quoted the article in full, to see if you would pick up on the fact that it seems to be the exact origin of the policy that later became known as “Stolen Generations”.

To recap. The first article I quoted in full referred to the policy of “Stolen Generations” as:

The topic of her talk was the policy
of successive governments in all states
to remove children from their
Aboriginal parents in order to speed
their assimilation.

The second article I quoted seems to be the exact origin of this specific version of the policy, where it is stated as:

Some of the guiding principles are:

• Eventual assimilation of lighter caste aborigines
  …
  If a civilised child is brought up
  in surroundings where he is starv-
  ed, or does not get the right diet,
  and where often in his early child-
  hood he may receive a great deal
  of abuse, it is more than possible
  he would appear thoroughly
  stupid, even if he were really
  bright child. So with the aborig-
  ine and the mixed-blood. In ad-
  dition these may suffer from some
  disease that would dull their men-
  tality temporarily.

etc.

The Peter Read document refers to this as “Children of light caste committed to the Child Welfare Department as wards, placed in non-Aboriginal homes, foster homes” where the number of children is about 800. It’s been confirmed in numerous court cases recently that none of these children was “stolen”

This is not the whole story. It barely scratches the surface. I know that for a fact because it is dated 1944 and most children became wards prior to 1940. In addition, the Aboriginal Welfare Board was not purely made of whites. It had two aboriginals on the board, both elected by aboriginals, and one of those was full blood.

As an aside, it was difficult for the Aboriginal Welfare Board to find that full blood because by 1942 there were only 570 full bloods in the whole of NSW, as against a total aboriginal population there of 10,000.

But that barely scratches the surface because 5100 children are quoted by Peter Read to have become wards of the state for other reasons. I still don’t know what most of those reasons are. Some reasons are known:

• Taken to hospital for reasons of malnutrition or disease.
• Taken to prison for violent crime (approximately 400 children).
• Pregnant in early teens (approximately 400 children).

The first two of the above may be what Pearl Gibbs is referring to as children taken from their mothers by police.

I still don’t have a handle yet on the bulk of what Peter is referring to a “stolen generations”. All of the remainder were prior to 1940. I need to read more documents prior to 1940, prior to the sacking of the Aboriginal Protection Board.

“The Peter Read document refers to this as “Children of light caste committed to the Child Welfare Department as wards, placed in non-Aboriginal homes, foster homes” where the number of children is about 800. It’s been confirmed in numerous court cases recently that none of these children was “stolen””

Has it?

References?

What would have to happen the justify the term “stolen”?

The Rev Dodgson said:

“The Peter Read document refers to this as “Children of light caste committed to the Child Welfare Department as wards, placed in non-Aboriginal homes, foster homes” where the number of children is about 800. It’s been confirmed in numerous court cases recently that none of these children was “stolen””

Has it?

References?

What would have to happen the justify the term “stolen”?

That they were thought to belong to real parents?

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

“The Peter Read document refers to this as “Children of light caste committed to the Child Welfare Department as wards, placed in non-Aboriginal homes, foster homes” where the number of children is about 800. It’s been confirmed in numerous court cases recently that none of these children was “stolen””

Has it?

References?

What would have to happen the justify the term “stolen”?

That they were thought to belong to real parents?

Well yes, removing children from the care of their parents without consent, purely on the grounds that at least one parent was aboriginal, seems like a reasonable justification to use the word “stolen” to me, but it seems that mollwoll disagrees, so I’m interested in what he thinks.

The big baddie, so far as Peter Read is concerned, is the Aboriginal Protection Board in NSW.

This board was sacked in 1940 and the organisation disbanded. The government decision to do a major reform was made in 1938. A select committee to look into the board’s mismanagement was formed in 1937. Why?

I’ve been reading as much as I can about claims of mismanagement and mistreatment of aborigines by the board in the years 1936 to 1940. Claims of mistreatment are common, there must have been several thousand over the life of the board.

To put things in perspective, I have to go back 50 years to the origins of the board. The Aborigines Protection Board was set up, as its title suggests, to protect aborigines. Once it had succeeded as much as possible in protecting aborigines from whites, its only roles were in providing free housing, water, free education, food, employment and medical care for aborigines and taking the aborigines side in disputes between aborigines and whites. By far the greatest part of its work was in building the free housing.

It was a far from easy task. In the early days the aborigines didn’t want housing, water, education, employment or medical care. Townsfolk didn’t want slums on the outskirts and were often very afraid of diseases carried by aborigines.

Medical care was particularly difficult because most aborigines throughout Australia didn’t initially recognise the existence of death by disease. The only accepted causes of death were violence (the most common), accident, and witchcraft. (Refer to Ion Idriess for Northern Australia and Massola for South East Australia).

Anyway, that’s beside the point. The dominant complaints against the Aborigines Protection Board throughout its life were that it provided insufficient free housing, water, free education, food, employment and medical care for aborigines. That’s a totally expected reaction, and a totally unjust one.

Shortly before its demise, there were also other claims. Some of these were also false. I’ll just highlight a couple. Ion Idriess addressed the Select Committee into the mismanagement of the NSW Aborigines Protection Board by talking about his experience with aborigines of the Northern Territory. He claimed that tribal aborigines mustn’t be taken to court because they don’t understand white laws. He claimed that aborigines were dropping like flies (his words) from tropical diseases such as malaria. Both claims are perfectly correct, but neither apply to the NSW Aborigines Protection Board because tropical diseases weren’t a problem in NSW and because the tribal system in NSW had already degenerated to the point where there were no tribal aborigines in the whole state.

Other claims against the Aborigines Protection Board came from the Union movement. The political press from the unions is much as one would expect: “Support the 300 brave aboriginal fighters in their struggle for justice and survival against a brutal authoritarian government. Government cover-up” refers to an event that consisted of an estimated 70 aboriginals paddling across the Murray. But the Unions also have a more selfish motive – stop aboriginal employment because it takes jobs away from the Australian Workers Union.

There were complaints about the lack of aboriginal representation in the armed forces, but they were soon resolved.

There were also more individual claims. Mr Danvers raised a storm of protest of unfair dismissal after being dismissed from the Aborigines Protection Board after complaints from the Menindee aborigines.

It was claims like the above that led to the sacking of the Aborigines Protection Board. Nothing to do with taking children from their families.

In direct political opposition to the Aborigines Protection Board was the Aborigines Progressive Association, an organisation that only had Aborigines as members. The prime movers of the Aborigines Progressive Association were Michael Sawtell, Patton and Ferguson. Their biographies would make interesting reading.

I was rather shocked by an account of an “Aborigines Conference”, attended almost solely by members of the the Aborigines Progressive Association in Jul 1938. I was shocked by the high rate of absenteeism and by the bitter political infighting, claims and counter claims, between the aborigines present. This was not an organisation that I would choose to run aboriginal welfare.

The number one aim of the Aborigines Progressive Association was full citizenship for all aborigines (except full bloods). The second aim was the abolition of the Aborigines Protection Board or, failing that, the election by aborigines of members of the Aborigines Protection Board.

The failure of the Aborigines Protection Board to have aborigines on the board was a huge mistake. But there was also one huge fundamental flaw in the legislation that the Aborigines Protection Board had to administer. You recall that I said “The Aborigines Protection Board was set up, as its title suggests, to protect aborigines.” The huge flaw was in the definition of that word “aborigines”.

When the Board was founded, about 50% of the aborigines in NSW were pure blood and 50% were of mixed blood. The legislation counted anyone who had aboriginal ancestry as aboriginal. While justifiable at the time, that was completely wrong 50 years later when NSW had only 570 pure-blood aborigines and 10000 mixed blood. By 1938, most of the people with mixed blood were educated and neither wanted nor needed protection, and they resented it. They wanted to be treated as whites and have exactly the same privileges as whites.

In 1940, the new Aborigines Welfare Board allowed any Aboriginal person who wanted to – to opt out of the protection scheme, and most did. Among other things, this greatly eased to burden of setting up free housing for these people. They had gained their freedom. By 1942, the new Aborigines Welfare Board had a mixed blood and a full blood aborigine on its board.

But what of citizenship? Why weren’t aborigines given citizenship earlier? The simple answer is alcohol, citizenship includes the right to buy unlimited quantities of alcohol. The more difficult it was for aborigines to get alcohol, less severe the problems of fetal alcohol syndrome. I haven’t yet seen it written about, but fetal alcohol syndrome must have been a massive problem for aborigines in older times.

So, there you have it. Why the Aborigines Protection Board was sacked. Two great mistakes, political pressure, unjust accusations, and because of shifting demographics it was no longer necessary or desirable.

But this still doesn’t get at the question of the pre-1940 Stolen Generations, which is the bulk of them according to Peter Read.

Found it. This may be the first public reference to the initial policy that led to “Stolen Generations”.

Tue 2 Aug 1881.

Mr. Richard Hill said the blacks were much
more clever than people as a rule imagined. About
three years ago Sir Henry Parkes had assisted
tliem largely; but they wanted a grant of land at
Botany. As matters now stood the blacks were
miserably housed, which could be obviated if the
Government came forward and assisted them. He
should like to see the Government introduce a Bill,
and remove the children from the mothers, that
they might he out of the way of vice, better in-
structed, and better cared for. It might seem a
harsh proceeding, but the result would be highly
beneficial to the children, and such a work would
abundantly repay itself.

mollwollfumble said:

Found it. This may be the first public reference to the initial policy that led to “Stolen Generations”.

Tue 2 Aug 1881.

Mr. Richard Hill said the blacks were much
more clever than people as a rule imagined. About
three years ago Sir Henry Parkes had assisted
tliem largely; but they wanted a grant of land at
Botany. As matters now stood the blacks were
miserably housed, which could be obviated if the
Government came forward and assisted them. He
should like to see the Government introduce a Bill,
and remove the children from the mothers, that
they might he out of the way of vice, better in-
structed, and better cared for. It might seem a
harsh proceeding, but the result would be highly
beneficial to the children, and such a work would
abundantly repay itself.

good work.

things continue to progress, won’t be long and whitey’s offspring will all be in childcare not long after birth

>>The New South Wales Board for the Protection of Aborigines was established in 1883, gaining legal power under the Aborigines Protection Act (1909) with wide ranging control over the lives of Aboriginal people, including the power to remove children from families because their parents were Aboriginal, as was written on many of the files, and the power to dictate where Aboriginal people lived to ensure protection from violent colonialists and provide education in the face of European opposition (McCallum, 2008). It also controlled their freedom of movement and personal finances. In particular, Aboriginal children could be removed from their homes and families and taken into care to be raised like white children, thus starting the stolen generation. The 1911 amendment to the Aboriginal Protection Act established Kinchela Boys Home and Cootamundra Domestic Training Home for Aboriginal Girls. Aboriginal children were removed from their homes for various welfare reasons and transported to Kinchela and Cootamundra, where they were often abused and neglected while being taught farm labouring and domestic work, many of them ending up as servants in the homes of wealthy Sydney residents.

The Board was renamed the Aborigines Welfare Board in 1940 under the Aborigines Protection (Amendment) Act (1940), which stipulated that Aboriginal people should be assimilated into mainstream white society. The Board consisted of 11 members, including two Aboriginal people, one full-blood and one having a mixture of Aboriginal blood. This essentially meant that Aboriginal culture should evaporate, and Aboriginal people should eventually become indistinguishable from Europeans. The Aborigines Welfare Board was abolished under the Aborigines Act (NSW) 1969.<<

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_Protection_Board

Peter Read is a historian and what he states as fact are correct, but you must look behind the legislation to see what actually occurred to actual people and the paternal and uncaring attitude of these legal identities. Great wrongs were done in the name of Aboriginal Welfare and many considered these organisations were formed to hide the Aboriginal problem and to keep them under control to enable exploitation by the white property owners, who I might add originally stole the land from these people.

>>1934. Under the Aborigines Act, Aboriginal people can apply to ‘cease being Aboriginal’ and have access to the same rights as ‘whites’.<<

Source: https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/history/aboriginal-history-timeline-1900-1969#ixzz5IqU7v1DO

Sounds like progressive legislation, but it meant that those who choose to become “cease being Aboriginal” that they could no longer mix with other Aborigines, including their family, friends, culture, etc. In fact it totally isolated these people.

Assimilation policy 1937

21-23 April: Aboriginal Welfare – Conference of Commonwealth and State Authorities called by the federal government, decides that the official policy for some Aboriginal people is assimilation policy. Aboriginal people of mixed descent are to be assimilated into white society whether they want to be or not, those not living tribally are to be educated and all others are to stay on reserves.

Title page of Aboriginal Welfare Conference paper The minutes of the meeting say:

“The destiny of the natives of aboriginal origin, but not of the full blood, lies in their ultimate absorption… with a view to their taking their place in the white community on an equal footing with the whites.”

In practice, assimilation policies lead to the destruction of Aboriginal identity and culture, justification of dispossession and the removal of Aboriginal children.

Source: https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/history/aboriginal-history-timeline-1900-1969#ixzz5IqVy9Rkf

Peter Read claims that the first dumping ground for stolen children was Warangesda Mission with 300 children before 1909.

Warangesda Mission was set up by Rev. J. B. Gribble in about 1880.

The question then is whether Gribble was a good guy or a bad guy.

The first blacks at the mission included mothers and a few fathers as well as children. Most if not all of the mothers had been abandoned by the father, so would otherwise have been completely without protection. No problem there.

We also have a record that Gribble had collected 19 abused and neglected blacks from Cootamundra, most young. Which doesn’t say whether he was good or bad in this context.

By 19 Jul 1882 we find that Gribble is a good guy. He would not separate a mother from her child, for example to allow the child to employment, unless there was no objection form the mother.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Augustus_Robinson

mollwollfumble said:

Peter Read claims that the first dumping ground for stolen children was Warangesda Mission with 300 children before 1909.

Warangesda Mission was set up by Rev. J. B. Gribble in about 1880.

The question then is whether Gribble was a good guy or a bad guy.

The first blacks at the mission included mothers and a few fathers as well as children. Most if not all of the mothers had been abandoned by the father, so would otherwise have been completely without protection. No problem there.

We also have a record that Gribble had collected 19 abused and neglected blacks from Cootamundra, most young. Which doesn’t say whether he was good or bad in this context.

By 19 Jul 1882 we find that Gribble is a good guy. He would not separate a mother from her child, for example to allow the child to employment, unless there was no objection form the mother.

Moll these people at this time were being killed by whites, partly to remove them and partly for fun. That was the situation! The lack of fathers in the circumstances would not be unusual, because they were the first to be targeted. The whites also destroyed their way of life and their culture was obliterated and you make out that a single white people who did the right thing is representative of white attitude at the time.

Also many of these missions would not let the fathers stay with their families and even on visits were forced to camp some way from the mission. These people were being hunted and killed, these missions saved the lives of many, but with their total control where the Aborigines could do nothing without permission. This level of control lead to many abuses including pedophilia.

DCP or its equivalent outside of WA still have custody of a number of Aboriginal children.

Is it good or bad to remove them from dysfunctional substance abusing parents, this isn’t my bias but what I read through work.
Huge numbers of children from all backgrounds in DCP care due to drug abuse, grandparents often looking after them.

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Peter Read claims that the first dumping ground for stolen children was Warangesda Mission with 300 children before 1909.

Warangesda Mission was set up by Rev. J. B. Gribble in about 1880.

The question then is whether Gribble was a good guy or a bad guy.

The first blacks at the mission included mothers and a few fathers as well as children. Most if not all of the mothers had been abandoned by the father, so would otherwise have been completely without protection. No problem there.

We also have a record that Gribble had collected 19 abused and neglected blacks from Cootamundra, most young. Which doesn’t say whether he was good or bad in this context.

By 19 Jul 1882 we find that Gribble is a good guy. He would not separate a mother from her child, for example to allow the child to employment, unless there was no objection form the mother.

Moll these people at this time were being killed by whites, partly to remove them and partly for fun. That was the situation! The lack of fathers in the circumstances would not be unusual, because they were the first to be targeted. The whites also destroyed their way of life and their culture was obliterated and you make out that a single white people who did the right thing is representative of white attitude at the time.

Also many of these missions would not let the fathers stay with their families and even on visits were forced to camp some way from the mission. These people were being hunted and killed, these missions saved the lives of many, but with their total control where the Aborigines could do nothing without permission. This level of control lead to many abuses including pedophilia.

Quite a bit of white men using women wasn’t their and then when they were pregnant it wasn’t even acknowledged let alone support given.
Mixed race children all over the world seem to get a rough deal from both cultures, don’t fit into either

Cymek said:

DCP or its equivalent outside of WA still have custody of a number of Aboriginal children.

Is it good or bad to remove them from dysfunctional substance abusing parents, this isn’t my bias but what I read through work.
Huge numbers of children from all backgrounds in DCP care due to drug abuse, grandparents often looking after them.

Yes in many instances today it is shocking and totally dysfunctional, but it was our actions that brought them to this situation. The lives of these people have been completely turned upside down and they have lost so much, yet now you expect them to behave like well bred and educated whites.

I’m not trying to say there are not many problems, but you must be aware of their passage in time to that situation, it may not be the answer, but it will give some understanding that is more likely to lead to better solutions.

PermeateFree said:

Assimilation policy 1937

21-23 April: Aboriginal Welfare – Conference of Commonwealth and State Authorities called by the federal government, decides that the official policy for some Aboriginal people is assimilation policy. Aboriginal people of mixed descent are to be assimilated into white society whether they want to be or not, those not living tribally are to be educated and all others are to stay on reserves.

Title page of Aboriginal Welfare Conference paper The minutes of the meeting say:

“The destiny of the natives of aboriginal origin, but not of the full blood, lies in their ultimate absorption… with a view to their taking their place in the white community on an equal footing with the whites.”

In practice, assimilation policies lead to the destruction of Aboriginal identity and culture, justification of dispossession and the removal of Aboriginal children.

Source: https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/history/aboriginal-history-timeline-1900-1969#ixzz5IqVy9Rkf

Pretty much that is what assimilation means in practice.

Cultural assimilation was the policy if the time for new immigrants too, right up until the 1960s. It is still a matter of some political debate today. I am not sure we have resolved the question satisfactorily either.

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

Assimilation policy 1937

21-23 April: Aboriginal Welfare – Conference of Commonwealth and State Authorities called by the federal government, decides that the official policy for some Aboriginal people is assimilation policy. Aboriginal people of mixed descent are to be assimilated into white society whether they want to be or not, those not living tribally are to be educated and all others are to stay on reserves.

Title page of Aboriginal Welfare Conference paper The minutes of the meeting say:

“The destiny of the natives of aboriginal origin, but not of the full blood, lies in their ultimate absorption… with a view to their taking their place in the white community on an equal footing with the whites.”

In practice, assimilation policies lead to the destruction of Aboriginal identity and culture, justification of dispossession and the removal of Aboriginal children.

Source: https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/history/aboriginal-history-timeline-1900-1969#ixzz5IqVy9Rkf

Pretty much that is what assimilation means in practice.

Cultural assimilation was the policy if the time for new immigrants too, right up until the 1960s. It is still a matter of some political debate today. I am not sure we have resolved the question satisfactorily either.

>>In practice, assimilation policies lead to the destruction of Aboriginal identity and culture, justification of dispossession and the removal of Aboriginal children.<<

It was FORCED assimilation that is quite a bit different to what migrants were ENCOURAGED to do.

I find this one surprising. Surprising because it is considered newsworthy. Shouldn’t this be what every Aboriginal is like? From 1902.

A REMARKABLE ABORIGINAL.

At the last meeting of the Aborigines Pro-
tection Board an account was received of the
death of a rather remarkable aboriginal woman,
and one whose counterpart among white people
is by no means so frequent as to pass unnoticed.

The aborigine referred to was known as Lucy
Larrigo. and she had resided at the Grafton
station from the time of its foundation until a
few days before her death, recently, in the
Grafton Hospital. During ail her long life,
Lucy Larrigo had been the guide, philosopher,
and friend, of her race, in the best sense.

She was singular among
her people in the fact that her
sympathies were not confined to her own tribe,
but extended to all of her colour. Her mission
in life seemed to be to help her people, and
the homeless and neglected young aborigines
were her special care. At Grafton station she
had a house to herself, and thither went all
aborigines of every age, who wanted counsel
or advice. Lucy spoke two tribal
languages, as well as good English,
and these advantages greatly helped her
in her efforts.

It is well known that, through
the influence she had over her people, she was
able to prevent a great many tribal fights, and
on numerous occasions put an end to serious dis-
sensions among the blacks. The Aborigines
Board will miss her very much.

mollwollfumble said:

I find this one surprising. Surprising because it is considered newsworthy. Shouldn’t this be what every Aboriginal is like? From 1902.

A REMARKABLE ABORIGINAL.

At the last meeting of the Aborigines Pro-
tection Board an account was received of the
death of a rather remarkable aboriginal woman,
and one whose counterpart among white people
is by no means so frequent as to pass unnoticed.

The aborigine referred to was known as Lucy
Larrigo. and she had resided at the Grafton
station from the time of its foundation until a
few days before her death, recently, in the
Grafton Hospital. During ail her long life,
Lucy Larrigo had been the guide, philosopher,
and friend, of her race, in the best sense.

She was singular among
her people in the fact that her
sympathies were not confined to her own tribe,
but extended to all of her colour. Her mission
in life seemed to be to help her people, and
the homeless and neglected young aborigines
were her special care. At Grafton station she
had a house to herself, and thither went all
aborigines of every age, who wanted counsel
or advice. Lucy spoke two tribal
languages, as well as good English,
and these advantages greatly helped her
in her efforts.

It is well known that, through
the influence she had over her people, she was
able to prevent a great many tribal fights, and
on numerous occasions put an end to serious dis-
sensions among the blacks. The Aborigines
Board will miss her very much.

You just don’t understand moll, not even close.

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

Assimilation policy 1937

21-23 April: Aboriginal Welfare – Conference of Commonwealth and State Authorities called by the federal government, decides that the official policy for some Aboriginal people is assimilation policy. Aboriginal people of mixed descent are to be assimilated into white society whether they want to be or not, those not living tribally are to be educated and all others are to stay on reserves.

Title page of Aboriginal Welfare Conference paper The minutes of the meeting say:

“The destiny of the natives of aboriginal origin, but not of the full blood, lies in their ultimate absorption… with a view to their taking their place in the white community on an equal footing with the whites.”

In practice, assimilation policies lead to the destruction of Aboriginal identity and culture, justification of dispossession and the removal of Aboriginal children.

Source: https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/history/aboriginal-history-timeline-1900-1969#ixzz5IqVy9Rkf

Pretty much that is what assimilation means in practice.

Cultural assimilation was the policy if the time for new immigrants too, right up until the 1960s. It is still a matter of some political debate today. I am not sure we have resolved the question satisfactorily either.

>>In practice, assimilation policies lead to the destruction of Aboriginal identity and culture, justification of dispossession and the removal of Aboriginal children.<<

It was FORCED assimilation that is quite a bit different to what migrants were ENCOURAGED to do.

Yes, quite likely. There can be no empire without suffering. No matter how enlightened or benign the imperialists think they are.

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

Pretty much that is what assimilation means in practice.

Cultural assimilation was the policy if the time for new immigrants too, right up until the 1960s. It is still a matter of some political debate today. I am not sure we have resolved the question satisfactorily either.

>>In practice, assimilation policies lead to the destruction of Aboriginal identity and culture, justification of dispossession and the removal of Aboriginal children.<<

It was FORCED assimilation that is quite a bit different to what migrants were ENCOURAGED to do.

Yes, quite likely. There can be no empire without suffering. No matter how enlightened or benign the imperialists think they are.

The trouble with your statement is the imperialists did not care a damn then and neither do most care today. This lack of understanding and the brushing over of gross injustices as just one of those things, is what Aborigines have had to put up with since first settlement. We have really not come far.

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

>>In practice, assimilation policies lead to the destruction of Aboriginal identity and culture, justification of dispossession and the removal of Aboriginal children.<<

It was FORCED assimilation that is quite a bit different to what migrants were ENCOURAGED to do.

Yes, quite likely. There can be no empire without suffering. No matter how enlightened or benign the imperialists think they are.

The trouble with your statement is the imperialists did not care a damn then and neither do most care today. This lack of understanding and the brushing over of gross injustices as just one of those things, is what Aborigines have had to put up with since first settlement. We have really not come far.

I am agreeing with you.

And yet the king of the time intended that they should be better treated. Saw a documentary recently about some aboriginal people who went as far as the High Court to prove it.

The King’s Seal.

http://www.kingsseal.com.au/stories.html

Obviously something happened in the interpretation way back when…

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

>>In practice, assimilation policies lead to the destruction of Aboriginal identity and culture, justification of dispossession and the removal of Aboriginal children.<<

It was FORCED assimilation that is quite a bit different to what migrants were ENCOURAGED to do.

Yes, quite likely. There can be no empire without suffering. No matter how enlightened or benign the imperialists think they are.

The trouble with your statement is the imperialists did not care a damn then and neither do most care today. This lack of understanding and the brushing over of gross injustices as just one of those things, is what Aborigines have had to put up with since first settlement. We have really not come far.

The human race hasn’t come very far at all in the regards, bit more accepting of difference, most people are reasonably safe from war and genocide but we still exploit each other including slavery

buffy said:

And yet the king of the time intended that they should be better treated. Saw a documentary recently about some aboriginal people who went as far as the High Court to prove it.

The King’s Seal.

http://www.kingsseal.com.au/stories.html

Obviously something happened in the interpretation way back when…

All very true, but that was in England and this was Australia with a 6 month sail trip between.

buffy said:

And yet the king of the time intended that they should be better treated. Saw a documentary recently about some aboriginal people who went as far as the High Court to prove it.

The King’s Seal.

http://www.kingsseal.com.au/stories.html

Obviously something happened in the interpretation way back when…

That is the paradox at the heart of the British Empire, not just in Australia but pretty much everywhere else they set up too. High-minded ideals about doing good and spreading civilisation (as they narrowly defined it), but the empire was also a tool for economic exploitation. On the ground at the fringes of empire the latter most often outweighed the former. You see exactly the same sort of attitude in the story of the British in India – started out as trade, which became exploitation, outrage lead to a civilising mission for the greater good, which ended in up increasing the harm done (along with some good).

One in six Indigenous children born in Queensland have no birth certificates, leaving them “largely invisible” and preventing them from fully taking part in society, an investigation by the state’s ombudsman has found.

Phil Clarke found that the Queensland birth registration process had an “unintended, yet potentially discriminatory” effect on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Clarke was tasked with investigating why the births of so many Indigenous children in Queensland were not registered. He cited 2014 figures that estimated 15% to 18% of Indigenous births were not registered. The flow-on effect was that children could not enrol in school, and adults could not access government benefits, vote or obtain driver’s licences.

Debbie Kilroy, whose organisation Sisters Inside advocates for women in the criminal justice system, said the flow-on effects could continue. She was aware of several women in prison for driving offences that stemmed from an inability to obtain a licence.

“Obviously those babies , when they get older, if they don’t have a birth certificate, how do they then get a learner’s permit or a driver’s licence? You can end up with terms of imprisonment for driving while disqualified. It’s an accumulation of penalties to the point where you start getting sentenced to terms of imprisonment and it stems from not having a birth certificate.”

Kilroy said many people from the stolen generations experienced difficulties because of a lack of documentation but the current rates of under-reporting of Indigenous births was shocking.

“That’s just outrageous,” she said. “We’re in 2018. That shouldn’t be happening.”

Clarke’s report was based on information supplied by government agencies and community organisations. He said he couldn’t interview people whose births were not registered – because they weren’t registered.

“In gathering information, it was apparent that it would be difficult to identify and interview individuals directly impacted by not having their birth registered, as these individuals are in one sense largely invisible to the state,” the report said.

Indigenous groups in north Queensland told Guardian Australia one significant problem was that both parents were required to submit the registration documents.

Many women from remote communities and the Torres Strait travel alone, without the child’s father, to centres such as Cairns to give birth. This practice means a mother might not be able to register a child until they returned to their community, and then were unable to easily lodge the paperwork.

Clarke’s report identified a lack of coordination between government agencies: “This is undoubtedly having an impact on the accessibility of birth registration and birth certification processes for Indigenous Queenslanders.”

He called for an integrated approach between departments and a review of fees that might include waiving the cost of a birth certificate.

“The impacts on Indigenous Queenslanders as a group are arguably of more concern as the under-registration of Indigenous births is higher than that of non-Indigenous births,” he said.

“It is well established that there is a gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians in outcomes of child mortality, life expectancy, education, literacy, numeracy and employment. The presence of barriers to easily accessing the above services due to a lack of birth registration or birth certification will, at best, perpetuate and, at worst, exacerbate issues faced by a group of people statistically vulnerable to disadvantage in our society.”

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jun/19/queensland-indigenous-children-no-birth-certificate?CMP=soc_567

For every topic, especially those with an emotive or political overtone, you must always go back to the original sources.

I have not yet found any first-hand evidence that the “Stolen Generation”, involving the separation of children from their mothers, ever happened. I’ve found two people who thought it was a good idea, but that’s not evidence that it ever happened.

This article from 1909, seems to be pro-“stolen generation” and even goes so far as to claim that not enough is being done to separate aboriginal children from their relatives. The author doesn’t seem to be anyone of importance, so isn’t an official government policy in any way. Even so, such an attitude makes me sick.

The last census of 1908 gives 3186 aboriginal
children, of which 648 are full-bloods and 2538
are half-caste …
929 attend school, leaving 2257 without any
means of education whatever. The Government,
through the administration of the Aborigines
Protection Board, has done much to better tho
condition of these people, entailing last year an
expenditure of £27,255. All Is done that is neces-
sary In the interests of the adults. We
have to-day 3200 children growing up In our
midst, with no pros-
pects ahead of the great majority, under the
present system, but lives of idleness and vice.
Taking, for example, the more fortunate of
them, who were horn In the homes, who have
the benefits of Government supervision, who are
educated by painstaking teachers, we find that
they almost invariably drift Into an
aimless, useless Ilfe of idleness and immorality.

All who come in contact with these childron
agree that they are capable of better things if
they are only given the opportunity. Consider-
ing tho great disadvantages they labor under,
they make wonderful progress at school; they
attend regularly, and take keen lnterest In their
lessons. By the time they reach tho
age of puberty, had they been taken away to
training homes, the great majority of them
would have become respectable and useful mem
bers of the community. Instead of that they are
allowed to live In the camps, they quickly lose
the good effects of the teachers training.

The children require our gravest con-
sideration; every one of them who drifts into a
life of idleness, of vice and immorality Is a
reproach and a disgrace The only
solution of this great problem is
the removal of the children and their complete
isolation from the camps.

Training schools for the girls can be formed
away from the camps; to them the orphan and
neglected children could be removed without
difficulty. Above
all things they should never be allowed to re-
turn to the camps.

The delicate and difficult part of the question
is the removal of the children at the age of nine
or ten years from their mother’s homes; there
will be great opposition to that, for many of
the mothers are almost white, and they look
after their children as well as their surrounding
will allow; but still It is fair to assume that
they can be reasoned with.

… children whose only hope
is removal and complete isolation
from their evil surroundings. The sentiment of
their parents, and their desire to retain control of
their children for a few years longor, must not
be allowed to weigh in the balance …

The question ot the disposal of the boys is a
much easier one; if It is found politic and de-
sirable, they could be edu-
cated at the existing schools on the camps up to
14 years of age; then those who show an apti-
tude or desire for trades could be removed to an
industrial home,
…
Under no circumstances whatever
should the boys or girls be allowed to return to
the camps. The parents of the girls could be
allowed once a year or so to visit
at the training schools.

mollwollfumble said:

For every topic, especially those with an emotive or political overtone, you must always go back to the original sources.

I have not yet found any first-hand evidence that the “Stolen Generation”, involving the separation of children from their mothers, ever happened. I’ve found two people who thought it was a good idea, but that’s not evidence that it ever happened.

This article from 1909, seems to be pro-“stolen generation” and even goes so far as to claim that not enough is being done to separate aboriginal children from their relatives. The author doesn’t seem to be anyone of importance, so isn’t an official government policy in any way. Even so, such an attitude makes me sick.

The last census of 1908 gives 3186 aboriginal
children, of which 648 are full-bloods and 2538
are half-caste …
929 attend school, leaving 2257 without any
means of education whatever. The Government,
through the administration of the Aborigines
Protection Board, has done much to better tho
condition of these people, entailing last year an
expenditure of £27,255. All Is done that is neces-
sary In the interests of the adults. We
have to-day 3200 children growing up In our
midst, with no pros-
pects ahead of the great majority, under the
present system, but lives of idleness and vice.
Taking, for example, the more fortunate of
them, who were horn In the homes, who have
the benefits of Government supervision, who are
educated by painstaking teachers, we find that
they almost invariably drift Into an
aimless, useless Ilfe of idleness and immorality.

All who come in contact with these childron
agree that they are capable of better things if
they are only given the opportunity. Consider-
ing tho great disadvantages they labor under,
they make wonderful progress at school; they
attend regularly, and take keen lnterest In their
lessons. By the time they reach tho
age of puberty, had they been taken away to
training homes, the great majority of them
would have become respectable and useful mem
bers of the community. Instead of that they are
allowed to live In the camps, they quickly lose
the good effects of the teachers training.

The children require our gravest con-
sideration; every one of them who drifts into a
life of idleness, of vice and immorality Is a
reproach and a disgrace The only
solution of this great problem is
the removal of the children and their complete
isolation from the camps.

Training schools for the girls can be formed
away from the camps; to them the orphan and
neglected children could be removed without
difficulty. Above
all things they should never be allowed to re-
turn to the camps.

The delicate and difficult part of the question
is the removal of the children at the age of nine
or ten years from their mother’s homes; there
will be great opposition to that, for many of
the mothers are almost white, and they look
after their children as well as their surrounding
will allow; but still It is fair to assume that
they can be reasoned with.

… children whose only hope
is removal and complete isolation
from their evil surroundings. The sentiment of
their parents, and their desire to retain control of
their children for a few years longor, must not
be allowed to weigh in the balance …

The question ot the disposal of the boys is a
much easier one; if It is found politic and de-
sirable, they could be edu-
cated at the existing schools on the camps up to
14 years of age; then those who show an apti-
tude or desire for trades could be removed to an
industrial home,
…
Under no circumstances whatever
should the boys or girls be allowed to return to
the camps. The parents of the girls could be
allowed once a year or so to visit
at the training schools.

I suggest you do some more reading, especially with your very limited understanding. Personally I have given up trying to explain anything to you, as you seem to be operating somewhere else where I cannot reach.

Now that I’ve read through about half the original documentation on the Warangesda Mission and the Aboriginal Protection Board between 1880 and 1910,

…

I’m inclined to think that Peter Read’s first figure – about 300 stolen children placed in Warangesda Mission between 1883 and 1909, estimated,

…

is pure bullshit.

mollwollfumble said:

Now that I’ve read through about half the original documentation on the Warangesda Mission and the Aboriginal Protection Board between 1880 and 1910,

…

I’m inclined to think that Peter Read’s first figure – about 300 stolen children placed in Warangesda Mission between 1883 and 1909, estimated,

…

is pure bullshit.

>>BRINGING Them Home, the landmark report that found indigenous children were systematically taken from their parents to “breed out” Aboriginality, was built on the “misrepresentations and misinterpretations” of professional historians, according to Keith Windschuttle.

In a preliminary extract from his forthcoming book, published today in The Weekend Australian, Mr Windschuttle questions the existence of the Stolen Generations and claims the policies involved were largely benevolent and contained elements that should be revived today.

His arguments have already been dismissed by some leading academic historians as absurd and blinkered.<<

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/aboriginal-genocide-claim-denied/news-story/b362cf0eb20ac03aa4c248b0b825f225?sv=380d2391fc20fcfdceb1c195c5a6503f

I see where you are coming from.

Even more:

https://ozleft.wordpress.com/2000/11/23/windschuttlemcguinness/

Keith Windschuttle

“In gathering information, it was apparent that it would be difficult to identify and interview individuals directly impacted by not having their birth registered, as these individuals are in one sense largely invisible to the state,” the report said”

a dark humor just crossed my mind, the thought that some of the original inhabitants don’t want to be Australians.

of course yours and my enthusiasm for it, is in part the shared experience of having no choice and forcing that on others.

something tells me though the original inhabitants (descendants of) do have a choice.

if no easy procedure has been put in place to issue identity papers for the original inhabitants, then i’d suggest there’s a silent war going on.

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Now that I’ve read through about half the original documentation on the Warangesda Mission and the Aboriginal Protection Board between 1880 and 1910,

…

I’m inclined to think that Peter Read’s first figure – about 300 stolen children placed in Warangesda Mission between 1883 and 1909, estimated,

…

is pure bullshit.

>>BRINGING Them Home, the landmark report that found indigenous children were systematically taken from their parents to “breed out” Aboriginality, was built on the “misrepresentations and misinterpretations” of professional historians, according to Keith Windschuttle.

In a preliminary extract from his forthcoming book, published today in The Weekend Australian, Mr Windschuttle questions the existence of the Stolen Generations and claims the policies involved were largely benevolent and contained elements that should be revived today.

His arguments have already been dismissed by some leading academic historians as absurd and blinkered.<<

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/aboriginal-genocide-claim-denied/news-story/b362cf0eb20ac03aa4c248b0b825f225?sv=380d2391fc20fcfdceb1c195c5a6503f

I see where you are coming from.

Even more:

https://ozleft.wordpress.com/2000/11/23/windschuttlemcguinness/

Keith Windschuttle

I think Peter Read is like me. On the borderline between stupidity and genius. He has admitted that 4 years before the document he knew absolutely nothing about Australian Aborigines. He learnt about these people in the Northern Territory, and the Northern Territory when he was there is a very different place to NSW 50 to 100 years before.

For starters the numbers. Warangesda Mission could only a maximum of 60 children. That figure of 300 can only be an estimate of the total number of aboriginal children who were ever there, for whatever reason. There were more adult aborigines than children at the mission, so the children were certainly not brought up in isolation. The obtaining of employment for the children after they left school required the approval of both the child itself and, if she was present, the mother. There was also a nearby aboriginal camp for anyone who didn’t want to live in the mission itself.

The only children who ever went there were those who were either abandoned or neglected, all would have already been abandoned by their fathers. The mother, if she hadn’t completely abandoned her children, would come to the mission with the children.

Any that could even conceivably be classed as stolen could only be a small fraction of 300, if any.

I totally disagree about reviving such practices today. That would be completely wrong, the method was one that fit the times. Anything done today would have to be completely non-racist. And be carried out by the Australian Institute for Health and Welfare.

Let’s have a look at how whites handle things in Australia right now. There were 315 adoptions in Australia in 2016–17. Some 69 of these are inter-country adoptions from Asia. In 205 cases the child was known before adoption by the parents. Only 41 adoptions in the whole of Australia were of Australian children unknown to the parents. That’s a startlingly small number.

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Now that I’ve read through about half the original documentation on the Warangesda Mission and the Aboriginal Protection Board between 1880 and 1910,

…

I’m inclined to think that Peter Read’s first figure – about 300 stolen children placed in Warangesda Mission between 1883 and 1909, estimated,

…

is pure bullshit.

>>BRINGING Them Home, the landmark report that found indigenous children were systematically taken from their parents to “breed out” Aboriginality, was built on the “misrepresentations and misinterpretations” of professional historians, according to Keith Windschuttle.

In a preliminary extract from his forthcoming book, published today in The Weekend Australian, Mr Windschuttle questions the existence of the Stolen Generations and claims the policies involved were largely benevolent and contained elements that should be revived today.

His arguments have already been dismissed by some leading academic historians as absurd and blinkered.<<

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/aboriginal-genocide-claim-denied/news-story/b362cf0eb20ac03aa4c248b0b825f225?sv=380d2391fc20fcfdceb1c195c5a6503f

I see where you are coming from.

Even more:

https://ozleft.wordpress.com/2000/11/23/windschuttlemcguinness/

Keith Windschuttle

I think Peter Read is like me. On the borderline between stupidity and genius. He has admitted that 4 years before the document he knew absolutely nothing about Australian Aborigines. He learnt about these people in the Northern Territory, and the Northern Territory when he was there is a very different place to NSW 50 to 100 years before.

For starters the numbers. Warangesda Mission could only a maximum of 60 children. That figure of 300 can only be an estimate of the total number of aboriginal children who were ever there, for whatever reason. There were more adult aborigines than children at the mission, so the children were certainly not brought up in isolation. The obtaining of employment for the children after they left school required the approval of both the child itself and, if she was present, the mother. There was also a nearby aboriginal camp for anyone who didn’t want to live in the mission itself.

The only children who ever went there were those who were either abandoned or neglected, all would have already been abandoned by their fathers. The mother, if she hadn’t completely abandoned her children, would come to the mission with the children.

Any that could even conceivably be classed as stolen could only be a small fraction of 300, if any.

I totally disagree about reviving such practices today. That would be completely wrong, the method was one that fit the times. Anything done today would have to be completely non-racist. And be carried out by the Australian Institute for Health and Welfare.

Let’s have a look at how whites handle things in Australia right now. There were 315 adoptions in Australia in 2016–17. Some 69 of these are inter-country adoptions from Asia. In 205 cases the child was known before adoption by the parents. Only 41 adoptions in the whole of Australia were of Australian children unknown to the parents. That’s a startlingly small number.

There were many missions throughout Australia, each sponsored by the State they were in. There were a few missions that looked after the children well and did their best for them, on the other hand many more were poorly run where the children were abused and mothers only given occasional permission to visit, which could be withdrawn without notice, the mothers did not live with their children as was the case on most missions. Later homes were specially built for some Aborigines children where they were generally treated very harshly with physical and sexual abuse common.

Why you should place so much emphasis on one small mission and consider it represents the true situation of mission life and then bring adoption rates of Aboriginal children into the scenario escapes me completely. This thread is about the stolen generation, which you deny ever happened, how you can ignore so many documented facts, I find more than alarming. I think if you wish to retain any credibility that you reexamine the evidence again and try to approach the subject objectively and in a logical manner.

I looked up Pearl Gibbs because I’d seen a reference in her obituary to something resembling a child being forcibly taken away from its mother.

But every statement I can find from her and from other very vocal aboriginal activists of the period (1938 to 1945) says nothing whatever about taking a child from its mother – forcibly or not. Pearl Gibbs was one of the two aboriginal representatives on the NSW Aboriginal Welfare Board for about 25 years, starting in 1942, so would not have allowed any such thing.

The closest I can find, and it’s an extremely common complaint by the aboriginal activists of the time, I’ve seen it mentioned at least ten times, is that children sent off to their first jobs, separated from their extended families at the mission station for the first time at the age of 14, sometimes (but far from always) had bad employers. There’s nothing aboriginal-related in this – it’s an indictment of child labour.

buffy said:

Jack Charles – noted actor and elder – is Buyerong mother and Wiradjuri father.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Charles_(actor)

Full blood enough for you?

No.

In 1944, the total number of full-blood aborigines in the whole of the state of Victoria was twenty-nine (29).

Jack Charles was not one of them.

First time I saw him in a movie, I wondered why they had chosen a white boy to play the part of an aborigine. Perhaps it was the make-up.

“Taken from his mother (a Yorta Yorta woman) when he was ten months old …”, that’s worth looking into in more detail.

roughbarked said:

Taking children from their parents is never a good thing. Help the parents do the job right is a far better thing.

Far better, absolutely. I wouldn’t say “never”, some parents are toxic.

buffy said:

The Assimilation Policy

https://aiatsis.gov.au/sites/default/files/catalogue_resources/18801.pdf

I find it shocking and confronting.

But on the other hand there is nothing remotely like “stolen generation” in it.

buffy said:

And an SBS explainer. It was by no means only kids with some white ancestry. Being aboriginal was sufficient reason for removal.

https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/explainer/explainer-stolen-generations

How reliable is this? Need to go back to original sources.

I take umbrage at the statement: “The removal of Aboriginal children from their families was an official government policy in Australia until 1969, and in some states it continued on into the 1970s”. It’s false. Hitler spoke of the big lie, a lie so “colossal” that no one would believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.”

“Many of the children who were removed as part of the Stolen Generations understandably suffered from psychological and emotional trauma as a result of their experiences.”
The word “subsequent” should be added before “experiences”. True, but a far greater proportion of those who stayed behind suffered physical as well as psychological and emotional trauma.

Now to start reading this, the original source for the SBS Explainer. Thank you, buffy, I really appreciate how much knowledge you have on this subject.
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/pdf/social_justice/bringing_them_home_report.pdf

Is there a list somewhere of aboriginal people in Victoria in 1944?

You might find these references useful moll

https://prov.vic.gov.au/walata-tyamateetj-research-guide

https://prov.vic.gov.au/koorie-services/finding-your-story

Those ones are for Victoria. You can go to other states also, if you want.

https://prov.vic.gov.au/koorie-services/finding-your-story

That lot should keep you reading for a while. All government and official stuff.

Oh, and from that link:

“The fact that a person was Aboriginal was not often recorded in official welfare records”

This complicates things considerably.

buffy said:

Oh, and from that link:

“The fact that a person was Aboriginal was not often recorded in official welfare records”

This complicates things considerably.

It sure does.

The story of Jack Charles, as in “Taken from his mother (a Yorta Yorta woman) when he was ten months old …”, had me crying in the night. How would such a thing be possible?

In my moral system, it would only be acceptable if he had a medical condition that was life threatening: malnutrition, life-threatening disease, fractures, burns or had been speared. Or if his mother had wanted him to have a better life than she could provide.

Anything else would not be acceptable in my moral system, even if the mother was mentally retarded, or even if she had a life-threatening medical condition.

Theft is totally out of the question in my moral code. Caste doesn’t matter.

buffy said:

You might find these references useful moll

https://prov.vic.gov.au/walata-tyamateetj-research-guide
https://prov.vic.gov.au/koorie-services/finding-your-story

Those ones are for Victoria. You can go to other states also, if you want.

https://prov.vic.gov.au/koorie-services/finding-your-story

That lot should keep you reading for a while. All government and official stuff.

Whew. Yes, it should keep me reading for a while. I’m trying as hard as I can to avoid “confirmation bias” the tendency to cherry pick the data to find data that fits preconceptions – it’s not always an easy thing to do.

Off topic, but people may be interested, numbers of aboriginal full bloods from NSW & Vic, and number of half casts in NSW. Selected years from the ABS yearbooks (chapter “population”, on the last page of each)

Year NSWfull Vicfull Vichalf
1933 1229 86 510
1935 909 47 582
1937 849 53 646
1939 794 81 719
1941 594 32 687
1944 594 29 954
1947 953 208
1954 1403 141
1961 1488 253

That’s startlingly small numbers for Victoria, fewer than 600 in total in 1933, only 29 full blood in 1944.

Even from this, you can see why people (even as early as 1880) thought that the decline of full-bloods in NSW and Vic was so rapid that the race would soon die out there.

The ABS also records the number of tribal full-bloods. In NSW we had:
105 in 1935
40 in 1944
Not many.

Is fullblood and/or keeping you race/culture pure (regardless of race/culture) an acceptable way of thinking, it comes across as you are superior everyone else isn’t worth breeding with. It may have worked centuries ago but in a multicultural world its archaic and from a genetic point of view the more diversity the greater the chances of survival from disease and illness. Over specialisation breeds in weakness

I had suspected this, but now I have proof.

The policy of assimilation in NSW comes from aboriginal activists. It was proposed by aboriginal activists, and administered by aboriginal activists.

Let’s first go back to the Aborigines Progress Association, the initial organisation of aboriginal activists way back into the 1930s. Their stated aims boil down to assimilation (including full citizenship) and the destruction of the Aborigines Protection Board.

When the Aborigines Protection Board (an all-white organisation) was sacked and replaced by the Aborigines Welfare Board, two places on the board were reserved for Aborigines, etc etc.

First on the Aborigines Welfare Board was William Ferguson in 1941, aboriginal activist and chairman of the Aborigines Progress Association. He was replaced by Pearl Gibbs in 1954, also an aboriginal activist and a founding member of the Aborigines Progress Association. This is what Pearl Gibbs had to say on her election to the Aborigines Welfare Board, the governing body of Australian aborigines in NSW.

“The main task is to help abo-
rigines to leave segregated
stations and settle in ordin-
ary mixed communities.
That way their kids will
go to standard public schools
and get the same education
as white children, which a lot
of them aren’t getting now. It
will cure the inferiority com-
plex that comes from enforced
isolation, teach them to walk
upright and fend for them
selves as citizens – not as
wards of the Government.
The old tribal groupings
have gone, anyway.”

Dang it. 1952 not 1954.

I absolutely will not mention that the alternative to assimilation is apartheid, which I’m not fond of.

If you are crying with the reading, you’d better not watch Rabbit Proof Fence then. The depiction of the removal of children is harrowing.

1905: The Western Australia Aborigines Act is passed, making the Chief Protector the legal guardian of every Aboriginal and ‘half-caste’ child under 16 years old. Reserves are established, a local protector is appointed and rules governing Aboriginal employment are laid down.

Source: https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/history/aboriginal-history-timeline-1900-1969#ixzz5IvkuN4ZO

Do you understand what the above means moll? This type of law was passed in every State and gave the right of the Chief Protector to do what they liked with Aboriginal children as they were their legal guardian. The biological parents had NO say in the matter!

My tablet phone number must be very similar to someone mobile number in NSW as I just got a message for an Andrew to met before the NSW community sports award, had a number of messages for the number which no one besides me actually knows.

Cymek said:

My tablet phone number must be very similar to someone mobile number in NSW as I just got a message for an Andrew to met before the NSW community sports award, had a number of messages for the number which no one besides me actually knows.

sorry wrong thread

And if you want to know some of the other stuff that went on, I can recommend Jan Critchett’s book.

https://www.mup.com.au/books/9780522845273-a-distant-field-of-murder

It’s not specifically about the stolen generation stuff, more about the frontier stuff. I’ve done quite a bit of reading about this area that I live in particularly. I am very careful about the authors.

What do Aboriginal people think of the term half-caste, quarter-caste, etc.
It seems to be used as an insult to less Aboriginalise them, ie at some point you are too white to be an Aboriginal.

Cymek said:

What do Aboriginal people think of the term half-caste, quarter-caste, etc.
It seems to be used as an insult to less Aboriginalise them, ie at some point you are too white to be an Aboriginal.

I don’t think it has been used for years – by anyone, really. Identifying as aboriginal is done differently. As far as I know, the Victorians are Koori, NSW people are Murri and WA people are Noongar. I don’t know any others. But it was a country of many nations.

Cymek said:

What do Aboriginal people think of the term half-caste, quarter-caste, etc.
It seems to be used as an insult to less Aboriginalise them, ie at some point you are too white to be an Aboriginal.

I don’t think it gets used any more.

mollwollfumble said:

Dang it. 1952 not 1954.

I absolutely will not mention that the alternative to assimilation is apartheid, which I’m not fond of.

And I won’t mention that suggesting “the alternative to assimilation is apartheid” operates on the same logical basis as the proposal that the alternative to homosexual activity between adults being illegal is legalising paedophilia.

>I absolutely will not mention that the alternative to assimilation is apartheid…”

you can get around the problem with a simple name, the persons name.

like you could call me transition.

someone came up with the idea way back, one of my Gog ancestors had to communicate of or to one of his Gog offspring, and rather than grabbing whoever by the hair, turning their head in the direction, thought what if I could make a grunt point, to this and that, and so pleased with himself and noticing everyone else was getting the gist then proceeded with more of it, followed by increasingly nuanced grunts, it became something of a contagion, eventually they even had a grunt to describe the grunts, roughly translated it meant words.

I’m slowly working through from the 1880s to the present day. Up to about the 1950s and no evidence for it yet. I have still not looked through all of buffy’s links.

But let’s reverse direction for a moment and look at court cases. It was these that prompted my initial reaction to this thread.

From 2013,
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/how-many-more-failed-court-cases-before-we-accept-there-were-no-stolen-generations/news-story/b78e059b128c0e61559740061e517499

From 2011,
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UTasLawRw/2011/2.html

From 2013,
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/bennelong-papers/2013/12/one-blow-stolen-generation/

From 2015,
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-09/stolen-generation-family-must-pay-court-costs/6457256

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruger_v_Commonwealth

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nulyarimma_v_Thompson

mollwollfumble said:

I’m slowly working through from the 1880s to the present day. Up to about the 1950s and no evidence for it yet. I have still not looked through all of buffy’s links.

But let’s reverse direction for a moment and look at court cases. It was these that prompted my initial reaction to this thread.

From 2013,
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/how-many-more-failed-court-cases-before-we-accept-there-were-no-stolen-generations/news-story/b78e059b128c0e61559740061e517499

From 2011,
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UTasLawRw/2011/2.html

From 2013,
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/bennelong-papers/2013/12/one-blow-stolen-generation/

From 2015,
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-09/stolen-generation-family-must-pay-court-costs/6457256

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruger_v_Commonwealth

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nulyarimma_v_Thompson

I would be surprised if you have actually read those references, because three of them are about the same case. Even so, it was not that the children were taken (stolen), but they lost the case as to why they were taken. In other words what was recorded in the records of the time, would of course ensure there were no come back to them. Fraudulent records are very common concerning the control and welfare of Aboriginals by those that were charged to look after them. But regardless of this case, what makes you think less than a handful of court cases represents the real situation. You reach these conclusions on the flimsiness of evidence.

I’m up the the 18 Oct 1961 conference of NSW Aboriginal activists.
As might be expected, they used phrases like “shocking denial of human rights”.
Their demands were:

• Stop police from entering aboriginal premises without a warrant to make arrests.
• Repeal of the Aborigines protection act.
• Assist aborigines to become full members of the general community.
• Relationship between aboriginal people and the governing Board to be on a volumtary basis.
• Funding for aboriginal housing to increase by a factor of ten.
• Good housing for all aboriginal people within ten years.
• Intensification of campaigns against hookworm, roundworm and malnutrtition.
• Support of all unions in their recent wages demands.
• Committee of enquiry into the priveleges and rights of aboriginal workers.
• Involvement of a council representative in the decision-making process.
• All officers of the Aborigines Welfare Board to receive more social welfare training.
• Hostels in major centres of employment to house aboriginal school leavers of both sexes.

Issues demanding immediate attention were:

• Hookworm and roundworm in North coastal areas – better health facilities and welfare worker training.
• Lack of full-time employment, police harassment of youths, low salary of women.
• Youths had to travel from Kempsey to Sydney to find work.
• Lack of hotel accommodation for Aboriginal people. Need a hostel in Dubbo.
• The eviction from near Wollongong now blocked and houses being built for them.
• Enquiry into aboriginal schools. Work towards ending all segregation in education.
• Lack of employment in Nowra. Aboriginal people excluded from a picture show.

Still no whisper of a suggestion that aboriginal children were or had been removed wrongly from their mothers. I keep thinking that if this was happening at this time in NSW, as Peter Read claimed, surely it would have at least been mentioned. Increasing the government support for the policy of assimilation is right near the top of the list of aboriginal demands.

Keep in mind that two of the ten people of the governing Aborigines Welfare Board were aborigines, one of those a leading aboriginal activist with carte blanche powers to visit every aboriginal community and investigate every complaint. And at least a further two board members were extremely pro-aborigine.

Much further back in time, there were occasional references to collecting aboriginal “waifs and strays”. I found an official definition of the term, though not in an aboriginal context.

waifs and strays, without
friends to sustain or direct them, and who, from
the helpless sickness or imprisonment, or deser-
tion of their parents, are practically homeless,
destitute, and neglected.

The object of this society shall be to re-
move these children (without regard to creed or
color) from their surroundings, and to train
them in the fear of God, and in the principles of
obedience, honesty, and industry.

By 1964, complaints against the Aborigines Welfare Board are starting to get petty. An example is:

“Such cruel neglect of Abo-
rigine mothers and their
children is yet another indict-
ment of Governments that make
a pretence of opposition to
racism while doing little or
nothing to combat it or its
effects.”

And the event that triggered this outburst:

An aboriginal mother arrived at a train station and there was no-one to meet her, so she had to take a taxi.

I’m now up to date. 1969 and the end of the Aborigines Welfare Board in NSW.

Just a few more historical documents to view until I can do a proper review of the original “Stolen Generations” claim by Peter Read in 1981 (as updated in 2006).

Still to review:
Pearl Gibbs obituaries. She said at least two disturbing things that relate to the Stolen Generations.
Histories of the Kinchela and Cootamundra Homes. – Peter Read claims 825 stolen children from 1939 to 1969.
If possible, police records of arrests of aborigines. – Peter Read claims 400 stolen children after 1939 under child welfare legislation.

mollwollfumble said:

I’m up the the 18 Oct 1961 conference of NSW Aboriginal activists.
As might be expected, they used phrases like “shocking denial of human rights”.
Their demands were:

• Stop police from entering aboriginal premises without a warrant to make arrests.
• Repeal of the Aborigines protection act.
• Assist aborigines to become full members of the general community.
• Relationship between aboriginal people and the governing Board to be on a volumtary basis.
• Funding for aboriginal housing to increase by a factor of ten.
• Good housing for all aboriginal people within ten years.
• Intensification of campaigns against hookworm, roundworm and malnutrtition.
• Support of all unions in their recent wages demands.
• Committee of enquiry into the priveleges and rights of aboriginal workers.
• Involvement of a council representative in the decision-making process.
• All officers of the Aborigines Welfare Board to receive more social welfare training.
• Hostels in major centres of employment to house aboriginal school leavers of both sexes.

Issues demanding immediate attention were:

• Hookworm and roundworm in North coastal areas – better health facilities and welfare worker training.
• Lack of full-time employment, police harassment of youths, low salary of women.
• Youths had to travel from Kempsey to Sydney to find work.
• Lack of hotel accommodation for Aboriginal people. Need a hostel in Dubbo.
• The eviction from near Wollongong now blocked and houses being built for them.
• Enquiry into aboriginal schools. Work towards ending all segregation in education.
• Lack of employment in Nowra. Aboriginal people excluded from a picture show.

Still no whisper of a suggestion that aboriginal children were or had been removed wrongly from their mothers. I keep thinking that if this was happening at this time in NSW, as Peter Read claimed, surely it would have at least been mentioned. Increasing the government support for the policy of assimilation is right near the top of the list of aboriginal demands.

Keep in mind that two of the ten people of the governing Aborigines Welfare Board were aborigines, one of those a leading aboriginal activist with carte blanche powers to visit every aboriginal community and investigate every complaint. And at least a further two board members were extremely pro-aborigine.

Much further back in time, there were occasional references to collecting aboriginal “waifs and strays”. I found an official definition of the term, though not in an aboriginal context.

waifs and strays, without
friends to sustain or direct them, and who, from
the helpless sickness or imprisonment, or deser-
tion of their parents, are practically homeless,
destitute, and neglected.

The object of this society shall be to re-
move these children (without regard to creed or
color) from their surroundings, and to train
them in the fear of God, and in the principles of
obedience, honesty, and industry.

You can continue to deny the facts and the vast amount of evidence, but just because you say stolen generations did not happen, well sorry but they did! You are looking like those people who say the Holocaust did not happen, regardless of the amount of evidence to the contrary.

mollwollfumble said:

By 1964, complaints against the Aborigines Welfare Board are starting to get petty. An example is:

“Such cruel neglect of Abo-
rigine mothers and their
children is yet another indict-
ment of Governments that make
a pretence of opposition to
racism while doing little or
nothing to combat it or its
effects.”

And the event that triggered this outburst:

An aboriginal mother arrived at a train station and there was no-one to meet her, so she had to take a taxi.

I am sure you could find many such examples as you could with white people on welfare. But you fail to acknowledge that many, many Aboriginal children were being abused both physically and sexually in government run homes. For Fu*k sake man get bloody real!

mollwollfumble said:

I’m now up to date. 1969 and the end of the Aborigines Welfare Board in NSW.

Just a few more historical documents to view until I can do a proper review of the original “Stolen Generations” claim by Peter Read in 1981 (as updated in 2006).

Still to review:
Pearl Gibbs obituaries. She said at least two disturbing things that relate to the Stolen Generations.
Histories of the Kinchela and Cootamundra Homes. – Peter Read claims 825 stolen children from 1939 to 1969.
If possible, police records of arrests of aborigines. – Peter Read claims 400 stolen children after 1939 under child welfare legislation.

1967: In the Commonwealth 1967 Referendum more than 90% vote to empower the Commonwealth to legislate for all Aboriginal people and open means for them to be counted in the census. Hopes fly high that constitutional discrimination will end. It also empowers the federal government to legislate for Aboriginal people in the states and share responsibility for Aboriginal affairs with state governments. All states except Queensland abandon laws and policies that discriminate against Aboriginal people. The first census fully including Aboriginal people is in 1971.

Source: https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/history/aboriginal-history-timeline-1900-1969#ixzz5J27ccs2s

Do you think Aboriginal communities work PermeateFree ?
As you mentioned I see all the negative aspects of them so assume they are not the greatest places to live.
Are they trying to recapture a past way of living that just doesn’t work anymore or do they give Aboriginal people a connection to culture

Cymek said:

Do you think Aboriginal communities work PermeateFree ?
As you mentioned I see all the negative aspects of them so assume they are not the greatest places to live.
Are they trying to recapture a past way of living that just doesn’t work anymore or do they give Aboriginal people a connection to culture

Only the small outer communities do, but which the government is currently trying to close down. Aboriginal people from all over are placed together in the larger communities; these people often carry a lot of baggage and animosity towards each other, so are not going to get along. This in turn leads to lawlessness and chaos that sums up most of the larger communities today.

maybe try using the original inhabitants names, individual names, or if they don’t mind use their community or tribal names if you feel compelled to group them.

it’s a nasty theft (of identity) to fail to do so. And way too fucken casual.

> The first census fully including Aboriginal people is in 1971.

The first national census. There had been a State census of aboriginal people in all states since about 1901. The national census was the first census that didn’t record full-bloods and half-castes separately, it was also the first census in which whether a person was called “aboriginal” depended on the whim of the respondent. In other words, what the national census recorded was useless, and has remained useless ever since.

Let’s see if I can find some quotes from Pearl Gibbs (aboriginal name Gambanyi), that support the idea that there was a stolen generation. Pearl Gibbs was the undisputed leader of aboriginal activism for women in NSW from 1937 to 1957. There are some very serious charges in what she wrote, quoted below, but stealing of children from their mothers is not one of them. There are two ways to view the following: one is as a feisty (I say feisty because while at school she had on average ten fights a day) young woman who screams “starvation” when her parents deny her sweets, screams “slavery” when told to bring the food from the kitchen, screams “police brutality” when police keep libidinous white men away. The more serious view is to look at it as a product of its times, the Aboriginal Protection Board was set up in the 1880s and by the late 1930s the value of the food, clothing and housing supplies it was providing had been eroded by inflation, and was completely out of date because of the growing number of white people with aboriginal heritage. The year 1936 was the first year of Aboriginal activism, and coincided with the start of the downfall of the Aboriginal Protection Board. There was an official enquiry starting 1937, legislation to disband it in 1938, it was disbanded in 1940, and the replacement Aboriginal Welfare Board had two aboriginal members in its total of ten people starting in 1942. Pearl Gibbs herself was part of the Board starting 1954.

From 1937,
One of the main things was the hiring out of girls: this was a tragedy, one of the tragedies that broke up the relationship between the Aboriginal people. The girls were told not to mix with Aboriginal people, sent to strange places, separated from all their relations. And they wholly and solely belonged to whoever employed them — and I call that slavery.

From 1937,
As one who knows— not of the actual massacres — but the hopeless and heart-breaking degradation and slow starvation and generally ghastly treatment that has been meted out to their children by the so-called ‘Protection’ Board of N.S.W. which is and always has been a great poisonous ‘fungus’ which has lived and is still living upon the very life-blood of the Aboriginals and half-castes in this State, I feel that I must say here, a little of what I intended to say in evidence, at the late ‘deceased’ Enquiry into the Board’s administration of the affairs and funds of the ‘pampered’ Aborigines!

From 1938,
At Brewarrina the children are taught by a man who is not a qualified teacher. Two old men on that station, one blind, the other a cripple, are left by themselves in a half-starved state. The manager of the Station and others get milk from five cows, but the old men get only condensed milk. I spoke to these old men, and when they told me how badly they were treated it made me cry, and pray that this movement will be a success.

From 1940,
I also know Brewarrina very well. The bad housing, water supply, appalling sanitary conditions, lack of proper education, lack of food, along with unsympathetic managers, make life not worth living for my unfortunate race.

http://www.crossart.com.au/images/stories/exhibitions/xap99_ffaReport/article011.pdf

From 1941,
Our girls and boys are exploited ruthlessly. They are apprenticed out by the Aborigines Welfare Board at the shocking wage of a shilling to three and six per week pocket money and from two and six to six shillings per week is paid into a trust fund at the end of four years. This is done from fourteen years to the age of eighteen. At the end of four years a girl would, with pocket money and money from the trust, have earned £60 and a boy £90. Many girls have great difficulty getting their trust money. Others say they have never been paid. Girls arrive home with white babies. I do not know of one case where the Aborigines Welfare Board has taken steps to compel the white father to support his child. The child has to grow up as an unwanted member of an apparently unwanted race. Aboriginal girls are no less human than my white sisters. The pitiful small wage encourages immorality. Women living on the stations do not handle endowment money, but the managers write out orders. The orders are made payable to one store in the nearest town — in most cases a mixed drapery and grocery store. So you will see that in most cases the mother cannot buy extra meat, fruit, or vegetables. When rations and blankets are issued to the children, the value is taken from the endowment money. The men work sixteen hours a week for rations worth five and sixpence. The bad housing, poor water supply, appalling sanitary conditions and the lack of right food, together with unsympathetic managers, make life not worth living for my unfortunate people.

Aboriginal girls are no less human than their white sisters and a wage of a shilling a week encourages immorality. Frequently the young girls who are hired out as helps from a government compound become the mothers of “half-caste” babies and are returned to the compound.

From 1949,
We are taking an equal part in the community life and are thoroughly welcomed, accepted, and liked by the white residents. It seems that someone has suddenly decided that weare to be treated different from, and inferior to, our white brothers, as persons having no rights whatever. We realize that the State and Federal Governments’ policy of assimilation is biologically sound, but we fail to see how it can be a success if we who have assimilated ourselves into the social and economic life are to be deprived of civil rights. Those of us who have acquired education have been taught that democracy has a Christian basis, on moral standards of honesty, unselfishness, and love. We claim that these standards of democracy do not apply where we Aborigines are concerned. Signed Pearl Gibbs, Secretary, Aborigines’ Advancement Association.

From 1950,
Pearl started, ‘it’s all your fault you know’, she said, ‘it’s you whites who are to blame’ … She hammered ‘you whites’ for the whole half hour and I just had to sit there and take it. It seemed a bit tough that I was the only white in Sydney who had come along.

From 1983,
Pearl believes land rights for Aborigines is one of the answers to the problems facing the black and white communities.‘Something must be done,’ she said. ‘There’s no good saying:“Give Australia back to the Aborigines.” That’s not the answer. Certain portions of land should be returned to Aborigines. It will be many years before we get land rights and for states like NSW there will be a tough time ahead.

I flatter myself that I now know as much about the aborigines of NSW from 1883 fo 1969 as Peter Read did when he wrote his 1981 article that introduced us to “stolen generations”.

Not that I know much, but Peter himself says that he knew nothing at all about them in 1977.

mollwollfumble said:

I flatter myself that I now know as much about the aborigines of NSW from 1883 fo 1969 as Peter Read did when he wrote his 1981 article that introduced us to “stolen generations”.

Not that I know much, but Peter himself says that he knew nothing at all about them in 1977.

Sorry moll, but you know very little and what you do know has been distorted by your obsession of making the facts suit your uneducated opinion.

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

I flatter myself that I now know as much about the aborigines of NSW from 1883 fo 1969 as Peter Read did when he wrote his 1981 article that introduced us to “stolen generations”.

Not that I know much, but Peter himself says that he knew nothing at all about them in 1977.

Sorry moll, but you know very little and what you do know has been distorted by your obsession of making the facts suit your uneducated opinion.

Thank you. I was hoping you’d say that. It helps me stay humble, seriously.

I have now read a sizable proportion of the public documentation on NSW aborigines between 1880 and 1980. I have not read anything since 1981 yet, deliberately, because historical documents after 1981 rely on either earlier historical documents, or individual memories.

Before a thorough analysis of the Peter Read seminal “Stolen Generations” paper though, I want to say something about aboriginal activism in NSW from 1937 to 1957. The value of this aboriginal activism lies not in what they said, but in what they did. Whites tend to group aboriginals into classes. The most uneducated into classes such as “alcoholics” or “half-castes”. The more educated into classes such “Aboriginal girls employed as domestic servants between ages of 14 and 18” or “Aboriginal families living on Port Kembla’s Hill 60 in the 1940s”. Aboriginal activists on the other hand treated individual aboriginal people as individual people, each with individual problems, lifestyles, hopes, aspirations and opinions. They sought out individual people with individual problems and fixed them – they had the power to fix problems after 1942. The fix may involve arresting the white person responsible, having them sacked, changing legislation, getting pressure applied from above, or education. And they were indefatigable in tracking down complaints, wherever they occurred, no matter how minor, even going undercover if necessary. The aboriginal activists in NSW made a lot of mistakes from 1937 to 1941, but none that I can discern between 1942 and 1957, during which time they were much better informed.

mollwollfumble said:

I flatter myself that I now know as much about the aborigines of NSW from 1883 fo 1969 as Peter Read did when he wrote his 1981 article that introduced us to “stolen generations”.

Not that I know much, but Peter himself says that he knew nothing at all about them in 1977.

Communication. It isn’t that difficult but somehow it doesn’t seem to have been prominent on the list of things to do.

PermeateFree said:

Sorry moll, but you know very little and what you do know has been distorted by your obsession of making the facts suit your uneducated opinion.

You’ve asked about my uneducated opinion. Here it is, two of my preconceptions. Neither is supported by any direct factual evidence that I’ve found.

Now to my semi-educated opinion.

Introduction of review of Peter Read’s “Stolen Generations”. In doing this review, all I’m going to do is remove emotive language, sarcasm and demonstratably wrong statements, without romoving either any statements not demonstrably false (no matter how outrageous) or replacing emotive language with language that is emotionally opposite. For example, although there is a temptation to replace the word “stolen” with “saved”, I will not do it, because not all the children were saved. Instead, Peter Read’s collection of stolen children is a collage, incorporating a wide range of unrelated types. These types include, but are not limited to:

• Saving of orphans and homeless outcasts
• Saving victims of violence, malnutrition and disease
• Saving girls from a life of prostitution
• Children put up for adoption by parents who want them to have a better life
• Education of children still living with their mother
• Finding employment for school-leavers
• Children in protective custody for theft and assault

In summary, the category classed stolen children is extremely diverse. The only one of these that contemporary aboriginal activists had any problem with is “Finding employment for school-leavers”. They complained continually and vociferously about that one.

In reviewing the original historical literature from NSW in the time period covered by Read, I found only one case which could genuinely be called stolen children, and only three people whose opinions included taking aboriginal children from their families. The genuine case of stolen children caused a minor stink in the newspapers and involved taking three children from a mentally retarded mother. Even the worst opinion advocating taking children from their parents insisted that it be done with the parents permission.

So instead of saying stolen or changing it to saved, I will use Peter Read’s own word: removed; which is emotionally neutral.

>You’ve asked about my uneducated opinion.

You’re doing alright

Australians can be seriously lousy of anything amateur, in fact the concept is too often territory of disparagement.

As a culture we’re un/fairly dumb that way.

A question, if an Aboriginal child is in danger from dysfunctional drug abusing parents should they be removed or left with the parents as removing them is considered un-PC. Or is the Aboriginality irrelevant when a childs safety is at risk

Cymek said:

A question, if an Aboriginal child is in danger from dysfunctional drug abusing parents should they be removed or left with the parents as removing them is considered un-PC. Or is the Aboriginality irrelevant when a childs safety is at risk

> Aboriginality irrelevant

This one, in my moral system.

mollwollfumble said:

Cymek said:

A question, if an Aboriginal child is in danger from dysfunctional drug abusing parents should they be removed or left with the parents as removing them is considered un-PC. Or is the Aboriginality irrelevant when a childs safety is at risk

> Aboriginality irrelevant

This one, in my moral system.

All should be done to keep children with parents, but with modern drug abuse especially substances like methyamphetamines it turns what was once functional people into nasty individuals. Something I think that should be done is to support grandparents who shoulder the huge responsibility of grandchild rearing probably with little resources

Cymek said:

A question, if an Aboriginal child is in danger from dysfunctional drug abusing parents should they be removed or left with the parents as removing them is considered un-PC. Or is the Aboriginality irrelevant when a childs safety is at risk

In an ideal world, but we don’t live in one of them. It can be traumatizing for a child to be removed even from really terrible parents, and there is no guarantee they will bond with their new foster parents.

party_pants said:

Cymek said:

A question, if an Aboriginal child is in danger from dysfunctional drug abusing parents should they be removed or left with the parents as removing them is considered un-PC. Or is the Aboriginality irrelevant when a childs safety is at risk

In an ideal world, but we don’t live in one of them. It can be traumatizing for a child to be removed even from really terrible parents, and there is no guarantee they will bond with their new foster parents.

I just wonder if sometimes Aboriginal people get a more lenient sentence due to issues of guilt and past treatment and the victims are put at risk. I’m not talking petty stuff like stealing and fraud but physical violence. Should an Aboriginal women expect her partner to be locked up for an attack on her or he gets given another chance to change when if he was white he’d be locked up. She could be at risk on the hope he changes

I’ll just leave his here FYI

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-20/this-is-the-first-indigenous-run-police-station-in-australia/9861778

Cymek said:

party_pants said:

Cymek said:

A question, if an Aboriginal child is in danger from dysfunctional drug abusing parents should they be removed or left with the parents as removing them is considered un-PC. Or is the Aboriginality irrelevant when a childs safety is at risk

In an ideal world, but we don’t live in one of them. It can be traumatizing for a child to be removed even from really terrible parents, and there is no guarantee they will bond with their new foster parents.

I just wonder if sometimes Aboriginal people get a more lenient sentence due to issues of guilt and past treatment and the victims are put at risk. I’m not talking petty stuff like stealing and fraud but physical violence. Should an Aboriginal women expect her partner to be locked up for an attack on her or he gets given another chance to change when if he was white he’d be locked up. She could be at risk on the hope he changes

from what i have read, aboriginal people are over represented in the CJS and get harsher sentencing.

Cymek said:

A question, if an Aboriginal child is in danger from dysfunctional drug abusing parents should they be removed or left with the parents as removing them is considered un-PC. Or is the Aboriginality irrelevant when a childs safety is at risk

I believe Aboriginality is highly relevant, unless we intend to extinguish a culture different to our own.
Personally I don’t know why more of us don’t value the oldest continuing culture in the world, now that we are starting to learn more about it. When I was young (many many moons ago), we were taught some pretty wrong things about their culture.

Arts said:

Cymek said:

party_pants said:

In an ideal world, but we don’t live in one of them. It can be traumatizing for a child to be removed even from really terrible parents, and there is no guarantee they will bond with their new foster parents.

I just wonder if sometimes Aboriginal people get a more lenient sentence due to issues of guilt and past treatment and the victims are put at risk. I’m not talking petty stuff like stealing and fraud but physical violence. Should an Aboriginal women expect her partner to be locked up for an attack on her or he gets given another chance to change when if he was white he’d be locked up. She could be at risk on the hope he changes

from what i have read, aboriginal people are over represented in the CJS and get harsher sentencing.

My grandfather was a country magistrate, I heard his opinions on the way the world was back then. Looking at what happens now, and the discussion here, I believe we are still a very long way from a fair and just system.

ruby said:

Cymek said:

A question, if an Aboriginal child is in danger from dysfunctional drug abusing parents should they be removed or left with the parents as removing them is considered un-PC. Or is the Aboriginality irrelevant when a childs safety is at risk

I believe Aboriginality is highly relevant, unless we intend to extinguish a culture different to our own.
Personally I don’t know why more of us don’t value the oldest continuing culture in the world, now that we are starting to learn more about it. When I was young (many many moons ago), we were taught some pretty wrong things about their culture.

That is true but it does seem from what I have read that sometimes the offender is put ahead of the victim and the risk still exists for further assaults. I am just wondering if a form of racism exists and are the Aboriginal victims considered less important than if they were anyone else. Especially say with DV were emotional bonds exist and the victim may not want to perpetrator locked up due to all sorts of emotional manipulation but they many need to be protected even from themselves.

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

Cymek said:

A question, if an Aboriginal child is in danger from dysfunctional drug abusing parents should they be removed or left with the parents as removing them is considered un-PC. Or is the Aboriginality irrelevant when a childs safety is at risk

> Aboriginality irrelevant

This one, in my moral system.

All should be done to keep children with parents, but with modern drug abuse especially substances like methyamphetamines it turns what was once functional people into nasty individuals. Something I think that should be done is to support grandparents who shoulder the huge responsibility of grandchild rearing probably with little resources

I’ve had experience with this awful situation with one of my grandkids and her half siblings, who were removed from her mother (not my daughter) and stepfather, after their involvement with methamphetamines. There was quite a large community of white people there who were also abusing drugs, unemployment was rampant, much reoffending after involvement with the law. Altogether a truly nasty situation. The trauma that the children went through, and still go through will probably last for generations. Maybe they should have been removed to be with foster parents of Chinese heritage, they seem to have far less problems.

And I hesitated to share this story, I really wouldn’t like our culture to be judged harshly.

ruby said:

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Aboriginality irrelevant

This one, in my moral system.

All should be done to keep children with parents, but with modern drug abuse especially substances like methyamphetamines it turns what was once functional people into nasty individuals. Something I think that should be done is to support grandparents who shoulder the huge responsibility of grandchild rearing probably with little resources

I’ve had experience with this awful situation with one of my grandkids and her half siblings, who were removed from her mother (not my daughter) and stepfather, after their involvement with methamphetamines. There was quite a large community of white people there who were also abusing drugs, unemployment was rampant, much reoffending after involvement with the law. Altogether a truly nasty situation. The trauma that the children went through, and still go through will probably last for generations. Maybe they should have been removed to be with foster parents of Chinese heritage, they seem to have far less problems.

And I hesitated to share this story, I really wouldn’t like our culture to be judged harshly.

:(

:(

ruby said:

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Aboriginality irrelevant

This one, in my moral system.

All should be done to keep children with parents, but with modern drug abuse especially substances like methyamphetamines it turns what was once functional people into nasty individuals. Something I think that should be done is to support grandparents who shoulder the huge responsibility of grandchild rearing probably with little resources

I’ve had experience with this awful situation with one of my grandkids and her half siblings, who were removed from her mother (not my daughter) and stepfather, after their involvement with methamphetamines. There was quite a large community of white people there who were also abusing drugs, unemployment was rampant, much reoffending after involvement with the law. Altogether a truly nasty situation. The trauma that the children went through, and still go through will probably last for generations. Maybe they should have been removed to be with foster parents of Chinese heritage, they seem to have far less problems.

And I hesitated to share this story, I really wouldn’t like our culture to be judged harshly.

Yeah not nice.
The cycle needs to be broken as what chance to kids have when they go through that.
Most offenders were once victims and nuture has taught them that’s how to behave

Michael V said:

ruby said:

Cymek said:

All should be done to keep children with parents, but with modern drug abuse especially substances like methyamphetamines it turns what was once functional people into nasty individuals. Something I think that should be done is to support grandparents who shoulder the huge responsibility of grandchild rearing probably with little resources

I’ve had experience with this awful situation with one of my grandkids and her half siblings, who were removed from her mother (not my daughter) and stepfather, after their involvement with methamphetamines. There was quite a large community of white people there who were also abusing drugs, unemployment was rampant, much reoffending after involvement with the law. Altogether a truly nasty situation. The trauma that the children went through, and still go through will probably last for generations. Maybe they should have been removed to be with foster parents of Chinese heritage, they seem to have far less problems.

And I hesitated to share this story, I really wouldn’t like our culture to be judged harshly.

:(

:(

Yes MV, there was a fair bit of those faces around the situation, and thanks for your understanding. There is a lot being done, but I hate to think how the situation would be now if we were all lumped into a group and judged by the actions of the worst.

I think it’s important to see that appropriate help at the right time is so important, I would love to see things done better for so many, parents, grandparents trying to pick up pieces, the under-resourced child protection and legal system. I’m a bit cranky at the moment that the libs are taking away child care unless people are working or in training. Having a well supported child care system for all is a good thing to help young minds have a chance to develop well. To make it just for the well adjusted is a backward step.

ruby said:

Michael V said:

ruby said:

I’ve had experience with this awful situation with one of my grandkids and her half siblings, who were removed from her mother (not my daughter) and stepfather, after their involvement with methamphetamines. There was quite a large community of white people there who were also abusing drugs, unemployment was rampant, much reoffending after involvement with the law. Altogether a truly nasty situation. The trauma that the children went through, and still go through will probably last for generations. Maybe they should have been removed to be with foster parents of Chinese heritage, they seem to have far less problems.

And I hesitated to share this story, I really wouldn’t like our culture to be judged harshly.

:(

:(

Yes MV, there was a fair bit of those faces around the situation, and thanks for your understanding. There is a lot being done, but I hate to think how the situation would be now if we were all lumped into a group and judged by the actions of the worst.

I think it’s important to see that appropriate help at the right time is so important, I would love to see things done better for so many, parents, grandparents trying to pick up pieces, the under-resourced child protection and legal system. I’m a bit cranky at the moment that the libs are taking away child care unless people are working or in training. Having a well supported child care system for all is a good thing to help young minds have a chance to develop well. To make it just for the well adjusted is a backward step.

I don’t judge Aboriginal people by the bad ones, I admit I see a lot of the bad ones, but even then I treat them fairly and with respect.
What I don’t agree with is what I perceive to be a strange form of racism were you don’t want to be see as racist so do nothing and let the suffering continue. Aboriginal 50D workers are a good idea as they can call people out on their bullshit and say hey that not acceptable by our culture, you can do better

Cymek said:

ruby said:

Michael V said:

:(

:(

Yes MV, there was a fair bit of those faces around the situation, and thanks for your understanding. There is a lot being done, but I hate to think how the situation would be now if we were all lumped into a group and judged by the actions of the worst.

I think it’s important to see that appropriate help at the right time is so important, I would love to see things done better for so many, parents, grandparents trying to pick up pieces, the under-resourced child protection and legal system. I’m a bit cranky at the moment that the libs are taking away child care unless people are working or in training. Having a well supported child care system for all is a good thing to help young minds have a chance to develop well. To make it just for the well adjusted is a backward step.

I don’t judge Aboriginal people by the bad ones, I admit I see a lot of the bad ones, but even then I treat them fairly and with respect.
What I don’t agree with is what I perceive to be a strange form of racism were you don’t want to be see as racist so do nothing and let the suffering continue. Aboriginal 50D workers are a good idea as they can call people out on their bullshit and say hey that not acceptable by our culture, you can do better

Good on you Cymek, fairness and respect is a really good aim. We need more of it!
I also agree that doing nothing and letting suffering continue is not good.
What I disagree with is ignoring the past, and just looking at the immediate situation. I also disagree with lumping all people together and treating them as one. I also disagree with willfully misrepresenting a culture so as to continue being able to profit from stolen things. (there, I hope the use of ‘stolen’ may get this discussion back on the track that Moll is taking. I’m interested to see his conclusion)

Cymek said:

A question, if an Aboriginal child is in danger from dysfunctional drug abusing parents should they be removed or left with the parents as removing them is considered un-PC. Or is the Aboriginality irrelevant when a childs safety is at risk

Best option is they get fostered by other Aboriginal people. Family members is ideal.

It’s incredible how many screamingly obvious errors there are in the Read paper. It would never have passed peer review.

eg. “Suppose that, in 1950, a family containing seven children was living on a reserve, when it was learned that an Inspector of the Aborigines Protection Board was to pay a visit.”

The Aborigines Protection Board was disbanded in 1940.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

A question, if an Aboriginal child is in danger from dysfunctional drug abusing parents should they be removed or left with the parents as removing them is considered un-PC. Or is the Aboriginality irrelevant when a childs safety is at risk

Best option is they get fostered by other Aboriginal people. Family members is ideal.

Yes a women I worked with does this

What you could do is try and create a court run by trained/qualified Aboriginal elders from that specific area/community and they give out the sentence, problem I suppose is impartiality and actual logistics of arranging such a setup. If the offender respects the people handing out the sentence it would be more effective. Could include tribal justice within reason obviously

Someone really needs to do the sums about a mediocre education and an eventual life of crime and jail. And for all low socioeconomic groups, not just struggling Aboriginals. A meaningful education tailored to suit each child and family would probably save a lot of money in the long term

mollwollfumble said:

It’s incredible how many screamingly obvious errors there are in the Read paper. It would never have passed peer review.

eg. “Suppose that, in 1950, a family containing seven children was living on a reserve, when it was learned that an Inspector of the Aborigines Protection Board was to pay a visit.”

The Aborigines Protection Board was disbanded in 1940.

Each state was different, and while the same thing, they just changed names and lasted a lot longer than 1940.

Similar to Medicare changing to The Dept. of Human Services. Same shit, different name.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Someone really needs to do the sums about a mediocre education and an eventual life of crime and jail. And for all low socioeconomic groups, not just struggling Aboriginals. A meaningful education tailored to suit each child and family would probably save a lot of money in the long term

Yes no child left behind, worlds only getting harsher, no job or education not much chance of a decent life

Cymek said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Someone really needs to do the sums about a mediocre education and an eventual life of crime and jail. And for all low socioeconomic groups, not just struggling Aboriginals. A meaningful education tailored to suit each child and family would probably save a lot of money in the long term

Yes no child left behind, worlds only getting harsher, no job or education not much chance of a decent life

No child left behind

poikilotherm said:

Cymek said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Someone really needs to do the sums about a mediocre education and an eventual life of crime and jail. And for all low socioeconomic groups, not just struggling Aboriginals. A meaningful education tailored to suit each child and family would probably save a lot of money in the long term

Yes no child left behind, worlds only getting harsher, no job or education not much chance of a decent life

No child left behind

Can’t look at that at work, check it later

I bet that Peter Read has been influenced by his previous experience in writing a report of the history the Northern Territory. Nothing to do with NSW, but I just ran across this incredibly racist rant by Territories Minister Hasluck as recently as 1958. My first comment is “Bloody Menzies”. Quoted here in full.

Elimination of the Aborigines as
a separate people with a culture and nationality
separate from other Australians is forecast by
Territories Minister Hasluck.

He not only expects it; he advocates it. He says people
who, like the Communist Party, demand the development
of the Aborigines as a people, are “romantic.”

Hasluck’s ideas are set down in
a paper he read at last month’s
conference of the Australian and N.Z.
Association for the Advancement of
Science, held in Adelaide.

He says there are now 75,000 Aus
tralian Aborigines. Only a third are
still “living a life predominantly the
life of an Australian Aboriginal” as
distinct from other groups.

Since there used to be hundreds of
thousands of Aborigines living that
way, today’s small numbers might sug-
gest the white exploiters have some
thing to be ashamed of.

Not according to the Minister. He.
attributes it to white “vigor” and
“strength.”

“The numbers of the immigrant
race,” he says, “and the vigor of the
alien culture which now dominate the
Australian continent are so strong that
it is very doubtful to my mind whether
the Aborigines can survive either as
Aboriginal men and women, or con-
sidered as a separate culture.”

“Certain”, he says
He says that the Aborigines’ loss of
“any valid and distinctive Aboriginal
culture is certain in course of time.”
The Minister does not think they
should suffer “shame” oyer their racial
origin “but this , does not necessarily
mean that they have to retain their
distinctiveness as Aborigines.”

Because of these views he doesn’t like
talk about “integration” when it is
used to convey “an idea of preserving’
something of the separate cultural
identity of the two races.” He questions
whether this is anything more than a
“romantic notion.”

Hasluck’s views don’t harmonise
with the experience of Socialist coun
tries.
…
But Hasluck’s views do harmonise
with the Menzies Government policy
of allowing its monopolist friends to
break into the Aboriginal reservations
in search of minerals and destroy the
ordered life of the people there.

Hasluck even attacked critics who,
by themselves going to the spot and
taking pictures, revealed what whites
have been doing to Aborigines in the
Warburton Ranges of W.A.

The critics assume that “the condi-
tion” arose because “someone did not
provide enough money or take enough
action.”

How wrong of them, says the Minis-
ter. How foolish of them not to see
the real reason in “conditions which
are inherent in the situation.”
The Minister doesn’t specify what
“conditions.” But others will see in
Hasluck himself one of the “condi-
tions” that “inherent in” anything to
do with the Aborigines.

He says the Aborigines “constitute a
social problem.” They are nothing like
the problem to him that he is to them
— he and his policy and the Govern-
ment he represents.

The Minister has doomed an ancient
people and their culture. But Aus-
tralians won’t ratify the sentence.
They will reply by asserting, and
enforcing, the original Australians’
right to live and grow, physically and
intellectually, both individuals and
as a people.

We can’t do anything about the
squatters that exterminated most of the
Aborigines.

We can do what obviously needs to
be done with a Government bent on
finishing the job.

I am truly amazed at this complete whitewash of the facts, substituting pre 1967 with the dysfunction situation we have today.

Aborigines were hunted, yes hunted and killed, their land taken from them along with their children. The survivors were taken to missions were they were offered protection providing they gave their culture and language away. The children often did not receive any education, except to be trained for farm work for boys and domestic work for girls and in their teens were sent out to employers who often did not pay them and many were physically and sexually abused. They could not run away and were at the complete discretion of the Aboriginal Protectorate. These people decided if they could marry or given money to buy cloths, etc, that had been given to the Protectorate by the employers, they also had to get permission to travel anywhere off the mission.

Government run homes were established where physical and sexual abuse was the norm, again they could not go anywhere else and few if any people cared about what happened to them as long as they were out of sight. In 1901: 1 January: Federation – The Commonwealth Constitution states “in reckoning the numbers of people… Aboriginal natives shall not be counted”. It also states that the Commonwealth would legislate for any race except Aboriginal people. This leaves the power over Aboriginal Affairs with the states. This effectively took away ALL their rights, which were handed over to the States.

As an example of the above, the Western Australia Aborigines Act is passed, making the Chief Protector the legal guardian of every Aboriginal and ‘half-caste’ child under 16 years old. Reserves are established, a local protector is appointed and rules governing Aboriginal employment are laid down. Similar legislation was adopted in the other States, which took away any rights the biological parents had over their children. And many children in Aboriginal communities were not in any danger, but were just taken from their parents simply because of their colour. And you bloody well say they were not stolen. How fu*king blind can you be?

What can be done, autonomy perhaps but you also need to be able to pay for it as good will alone can’t help that much in a world that works on money.

What do you think of mining companies approaching the Aboriginal communities themselves PermeateFree ?
Is it more exploitation or genuine

Cymek said:

What can be done, autonomy perhaps but you also need to be able to pay for it as good will alone can’t help that much in a world that works on money.

What do you think of mining companies approaching the Aboriginal communities themselves PermeateFree ?
Is it more exploitation or genuine

This is all post Stolen Generations, things have changed and to get involved with your question just muddies the water and whitewashes the true situation.

What about the Apology? didn’t do anything?

Peak Warming Man said:

What about the Apology? didn’t do anything?

Considering the Aboriginal people who experienced this blot on our moral values pre 1967, they would now be pretty old or have died. As per usual too little, too late!

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

What can be done, autonomy perhaps but you also need to be able to pay for it as good will alone can’t help that much in a world that works on money.

What do you think of mining companies approaching the Aboriginal communities themselves PermeateFree ?
Is it more exploitation or genuine

This is all post Stolen Generations, things have changed and to get involved with your question just muddies the water and whitewashes the true situation.

Yes but you can’t change the past only try to repair it

Peak Warming Man said:

What about the Apology? didn’t do anything?

they took away more children.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

What can be done, autonomy perhaps but you also need to be able to pay for it as good will alone can’t help that much in a world that works on money.

What do you think of mining companies approaching the Aboriginal communities themselves PermeateFree ?
Is it more exploitation or genuine

This is all post Stolen Generations, things have changed and to get involved with your question just muddies the water and whitewashes the true situation.

Yes but you can’t change the past only try to repair it

For fu*k sake, this thread is not about changing or repairing anything, it is about history Aboriginal History and we should own up to it. The most that can be expected for is a little understanding of what these people have been through, so can not only see where they are today, but devise better policies to rectify their problems.

mollwollfumble said:

I bet that Peter Read has been influenced by his previous experience in writing a report of the history the Northern Territory. Nothing to do with NSW, but I just ran across this incredibly racist rant by Territories Minister Hasluck as recently as 1958. My first comment is “Bloody Menzies”. Quoted here in full.

(snip)

It reads like the typical Colonialist sense of racial, cultural and religious superiority. Unfortunately it is people like Hasluck who held positions of power at the time.

sarahs mum said:

Peak Warming Man said:

What about the Apology? didn’t do anything?

they took away more children.

Aside from that the conversation was shut down again. It was going well imo..I think we were getting somewhere.. until Abbott decided to wind back and close down and victimise.

sarahs mum said:

sarahs mum said:

Peak Warming Man said:

What about the Apology? didn’t do anything?

they took away more children.

Aside from that the conversation was shut down again. It was going well imo..I think we were getting somewhere.. until Abbott decided to wind back and close down and victimise.

Though I’d be happy to, none of us can blame Abbott entirely. Rmember that th voters put him there.

sarahs mum said:

sarahs mum said:

Peak Warming Man said:

What about the Apology? didn’t do anything?

they took away more children.

Aside from that the conversation was shut down again. It was going well imo..I think we were getting somewhere.. until Abbott decided to wind back and close down and victimise.

Half the problem is politicisation of the issue, that’s why I advocate for the department of Aboriginal Affairs to be a bipartisan portfolio.
The first nation people have been a political football for too long.

roughbarked said:

sarahs mum said:

sarahs mum said:

they took away more children.

Aside from that the conversation was shut down again. It was going well imo..I think we were getting somewhere.. until Abbott decided to wind back and close down and victimise.

Though I’d be happy to, none of us can blame Abbott entirely. Remember that th voters put him there.

Beligerent racists all of them.

Peak Warming Man said:

sarahs mum said:

sarahs mum said:

they took away more children.

Aside from that the conversation was shut down again. It was going well imo..I think we were getting somewhere.. until Abbott decided to wind back and close down and victimise.

Half the problem is politicisation of the issue, that’s why I advocate for the department of Aboriginal Affairs to be a bipartisan portfolio.
The first nation people have been a political football for too long.

Hear hear.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

This is all post Stolen Generations, things have changed and to get involved with your question just muddies the water and whitewashes the true situation.

Yes but you can’t change the past only try to repair it

For fu*k sake, this thread is not about changing or repairing anything, it is about history Aboriginal History and we should own up to it. The most that can be expected for is a little understanding of what these people have been through, so can not only see where they are today, but devise better policies to rectify their our problems.

fixed

diddly-squat said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

Yes but you can’t change the past only try to repair it

For fu*k sake, this thread is not about changing or repairing anything, it is about history Aboriginal History and we should own up to it. The most that can be expected for is a little understanding of what these people have been through, so can not only see where they are today, but devise better policies education to rectify their our problems.

fixed

fixed better.

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

sarahs mum said:

Aside from that the conversation was shut down again. It was going well imo..I think we were getting somewhere.. until Abbott decided to wind back and close down and victimise.

Though I’d be happy to, none of us can blame Abbott entirely. Remember that th voters put him there.

Beligerent racists all of them.

My sister voted for him. She rang me up out of the blue once and promised never to do it again.

Untangling Read’s collage in his “The following story is a composite one, the details taken from the case histories of a number of families.” is something of a headache. The first case occurred in the 1930s, or possibly earlier. The second case occurred in the 1950s, or possibly later. The third case occurred in 1950, we know that.

The fourth case … is the fourth case actually a collection of 6 separate isolated recent cases that have been crudely glued together. No reliable timescale is given for any of this.

mollwollfumble said:

Untangling Read’s collage in his “The following story is a composite one, the details taken from the case histories of a number of families.” is something of a headache. The first case occurred in the 1930s, or possibly earlier. The second case occurred in the 1950s, or possibly later. The third case occurred in 1950, we know that.

The fourth case … is the fourth case actually a collection of 6 separate isolated recent cases that have been crudely glued together. No reliable timescale is given for any of this.

I’ve now added corrections to the first two chapters of Peter Read’s Stolen Generations, and am onto the third. In Chapter 1, the accusation of genocide comes completely out of the blue, with no evidence for it presented at all.

In Chapter 2, Read had combined 9 different case studies into a single story, making the situation look 9 times as bad as it really was. I’ve separated them out into their original 9 separate components, which together perfectly illustrate the six or so separate individual reasons why Aboriginal children left home: marriage, to go to a job, hospitalisation, boarding school, arrest for violent crime, etc.

In Chapter 3, about legislation and aboriginal missions, he’s missed at least 80% of the relevant changes of legislation.

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

Untangling Read’s collage in his “The following story is a composite one, the details taken from the case histories of a number of families.” is something of a headache. The first case occurred in the 1930s, or possibly earlier. The second case occurred in the 1950s, or possibly later. The third case occurred in 1950, we know that.

The fourth case … is the fourth case actually a collection of 6 separate isolated recent cases that have been crudely glued together. No reliable timescale is given for any of this.

I’ve now added corrections to the first two chapters of Peter Read’s Stolen Generations, and am onto the third. In Chapter 1, the accusation of genocide comes completely out of the blue, with no evidence for it presented at all.

In Chapter 2, Read had combined 9 different case studies into a single story, making the situation look 9 times as bad as it really was. I’ve separated them out into their original 9 separate components, which together perfectly illustrate the six or so separate individual reasons why Aboriginal children left home: marriage, to go to a job, hospitalisation, boarding school, arrest for violent crime, etc.

In Chapter 3, about legislation and aboriginal missions, he’s missed at least 80% of the relevant changes of legislation.

That’s the wonderful thing about truth: you can hammer into any shape that fits the hole you’ve made for it.

And Peter Read’s handiwork has the ultimate guarantee – criticism of it can be quickly skewered by simply uttering the word ‘racism’. Discussion over. The end.

captain_spalding said:

And Peter Read’s handiwork has the ultimate guarantee – criticism of it can be quickly skewered by simply uttering the word ‘racism’. Discussion over. The end.

To be fair you can skewer conversations about anything by applying a label to the other.

poikilotherm said:

captain_spalding said:

And Peter Read’s handiwork has the ultimate guarantee – criticism of it can be quickly skewered by simply uttering the word ‘racism’. Discussion over. The end.

To be fair you can skewer conversations about anything by applying a label to the other.

Yes. Then, the argument shifts from the criticised to the critic. The critic is obliged to demonstrate that their assessment does not warrant the label, and the subject of their criticism is let off the hook until and unless the critic’s innocence can be proven.

captain_spalding said:

poikilotherm said:

captain_spalding said:

And Peter Read’s handiwork has the ultimate guarantee – criticism of it can be quickly skewered by simply uttering the word ‘racism’. Discussion over. The end.

To be fair you can skewer conversations about anything by applying a label to the other.

Yes. Then, the argument shifts from the criticised to the critic. The critic is obliged to demonstrate that their assessment does not warrant the label, and the subject of their criticism is let off the hook until and unless the critic’s innocence can be proven.

Ah, you are tyalking about Boris?

captain_spalding said:

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

Untangling Read’s collage in his “The following story is a composite one, the details taken from the case histories of a number of families.” is something of a headache. The first case occurred in the 1930s, or possibly earlier. The second case occurred in the 1950s, or possibly later. The third case occurred in 1950, we know that.

The fourth case … is the fourth case actually a collection of 6 separate isolated recent cases that have been crudely glued together. No reliable timescale is given for any of this.

I’ve now added corrections to the first two chapters of Peter Read’s Stolen Generations, and am onto the third. In Chapter 1, the accusation of genocide comes completely out of the blue, with no evidence for it presented at all.

In Chapter 2, Read had combined 9 different case studies into a single story, making the situation look 9 times as bad as it really was. I’ve separated them out into their original 9 separate components, which together perfectly illustrate the six or so separate individual reasons why Aboriginal children left home: marriage, to go to a job, hospitalisation, boarding school, arrest for violent crime, etc.

In Chapter 3, about legislation and aboriginal missions, he’s missed at least 80% of the relevant changes of legislation.

That’s the wonderful thing about truth: you can hammer into any shape that fits the hole you’ve made for it.

The question is, who is doing the hammering, the original author, or the reviewer, or both?

In this case, when mollwoll was actually quoting his source material his comments were so utterly divorced from what the quote actually said I suspect that there is a large component of the latter.

roughbarked said:

captain_spalding said:

poikilotherm said:

To be fair you can skewer conversations about anything by applying a label to the other.

Yes. Then, the argument shifts from the criticised to the critic. The critic is obliged to demonstrate that their assessment does not warrant the label, and the subject of their criticism is let off the hook until and unless the critic’s innocence can be proven.

Ah, you are tyalking about Boris?

No, not any particular person.

captain_spalding said:

poikilotherm said:

captain_spalding said:

And Peter Read’s handiwork has the ultimate guarantee – criticism of it can be quickly skewered by simply uttering the word ‘racism’. Discussion over. The end.

To be fair you can skewer conversations about anything by applying a label to the other.

Yes. Then, the argument shifts from the criticised to the critic. The critic is obliged to demonstrate that their assessment does not warrant the label, and the subject of their criticism is let off the hook until and unless the critic’s innocence can be proven.

In the case where the critic is criticising a history of the treatment of an undeniably disadvantaged racial group, that approach is entirely appropriate.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The question is, who is doing the hammering, the original author, or the reviewer, or both?

In this case, when mollwoll was actually quoting his source material his comments were so utterly divorced from what the quote actually said I suspect that there is a large component of the latter.

Well, both can do it, of course.

Peter Read seems to have soldered together some the bits of information on record, and moulded the result into an object that suits his purpose.

On the other hand, as someone described in the pages a few days ago, critics/reviewers can be selected and/or shape their reviews to reflect vested interests, to the detriment of the author of the reviewed material.

The Rev Dodgson said:

captain_spalding said:

poikilotherm said:

To be fair you can skewer conversations about anything by applying a label to the other.

Yes. Then, the argument shifts from the criticised to the critic. The critic is obliged to demonstrate that their assessment does not warrant the label, and the subject of their criticism is let off the hook until and unless the critic’s innocence can be proven.

In the case where the critic is criticising a history of the treatment of an undeniably disadvantaged racial group, that approach is entirely appropriate.

So, does Mr. Read’s choice of subject entitle him to amalgamate portions of the record so as to present a more persuasive case for his viewpoint?

captain_spalding said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The question is, who is doing the hammering, the original author, or the reviewer, or both?

In this case, when mollwoll was actually quoting his source material his comments were so utterly divorced from what the quote actually said I suspect that there is a large component of the latter.

Well, both can do it, of course.

Peter Read seems to have soldered together some the bits of information on record, and moulded the result into an object that suits his purpose.

On the other hand, as someone described in the pages a few days ago, critics/reviewers can be selected and/or shape their reviews to reflect vested interests, to the detriment of the author of the reviewed material.

yeah. We all know that history can be manipulated.

roughbarked said:

yeah. We all know that history can be manipulated.

The questions here seem to be – if a subject is politically correct, is it beyond criticism? Does the end justify the means? Where do the burdens of proof and accuracy lie?

captain_spalding said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

captain_spalding said:

Yes. Then, the argument shifts from the criticised to the critic. The critic is obliged to demonstrate that their assessment does not warrant the label, and the subject of their criticism is let off the hook until and unless the critic’s innocence can be proven.

In the case where the critic is criticising a history of the treatment of an undeniably disadvantaged racial group, that approach is entirely appropriate.

So, does Mr. Read’s choice of subject entitle him to amalgamate portions of the record so as to present a more persuasive case for his viewpoint?

I’m pretty sure what I said doesn’t imply that. The original author in these cases should take particular care to ensure that their facts are correct and that they are not presented in a misleading way.

But the same standards should apply to the reviewer. When the reviewer makes repeated comments on quoted extracts that bear no relation to what the quote actually said, then I think it is quite reasonable to dismiss his later comments on summarised material.

captain_spalding said:

roughbarked said:

yeah. We all know that history can be manipulated.

The questions here seem to be – if a subject is politically correct, is it beyond criticism? Does the end justify the means? Where do the burdens of proof and accuracy lie?

I don’t see any arguable question there; of course anything claiming to be a record of historical fact should be open to criticism.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m pretty sure what I said doesn’t imply that. The original author in these cases should take particular care to ensure that their facts are correct and that they are not presented in a misleading way.

But the same standards should apply to the reviewer. When the reviewer makes repeated comments on quoted extracts that bear no relation to what the quote actually said, then I think it is quite reasonable to dismiss his later comments on summarised material.

Agreed. The original author should do his/her best to present a case that stands on its merits, without avoidable distortion.

Reviewers should try to ensure that their criticisms address actual flaws in that case. However, it’s often the sum of the destruction of elements of the structure of the case that lead to the collapse of the whole edifice. Just as the author constructs their case, so is it reasonable to dismantle it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

captain_spalding said:

roughbarked said:

yeah. We all know that history can be manipulated.

The questions here seem to be – if a subject is politically correct, is it beyond criticism? Does the end justify the means? Where do the burdens of proof and accuracy lie?

I don’t see any arguable question there; of course anything claiming to be a record of historical fact should be open to criticism.

And there’s the hub of Moll’s assessment of Read’s chapter 2. Read, says Moll, presents a sizeable amalgamation of cases (acknowledged as such by Read) to make a single persuasive story.

The combination of elements of a number of actual events is a technique widely used by writers of fiction. At what point should we stop considering Mr. Read’s amalgamations as history, and categorise them as fiction?

captain_spalding said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

captain_spalding said:

The questions here seem to be – if a subject is politically correct, is it beyond criticism? Does the end justify the means? Where do the burdens of proof and accuracy lie?

I don’t see any arguable question there; of course anything claiming to be a record of historical fact should be open to criticism.

And there’s the hub of Moll’s assessment of Read’s chapter 2. Read, says Moll, presents a sizeable amalgamation of cases (acknowledged as such by Read) to make a single persuasive story.

The combination of elements of a number of actual events is a technique widely used by writers of fiction. At what point should we stop considering Mr. Read’s amalgamations as history, and categorise them as fiction?

When we compare Mr Read’s works with th way the Bibe was constructed?

captain_spalding said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

captain_spalding said:

The questions here seem to be – if a subject is politically correct, is it beyond criticism? Does the end justify the means? Where do the burdens of proof and accuracy lie?

I don’t see any arguable question there; of course anything claiming to be a record of historical fact should be open to criticism.

And there’s the hub of Moll’s assessment of Read’s chapter 2. Read, says Moll, presents a sizeable amalgamation of cases (acknowledged as such by Read) to make a single persuasive story.

The combination of elements of a number of actual events is a technique widely used by writers of fiction. At what point should we stop considering Mr. Read’s amalgamations as history, and categorise them as fiction?

It doesn’t go straight from history to fiction. All history contains elements of fiction, or interpretation if you prefer. The question is, does the fictional element become so large as to make the history worthless?

That would require reading the whole thing in detail, and research of the source material, or trust in someone else who has done that research without a pre-existing intention to find evidence for a particular conclusion.

In this particular thread I haven’t read a single thing that would suggest either of those courses were warranted.

captain_spalding said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

captain_spalding said:

The questions here seem to be – if a subject is politically correct, is it beyond criticism? Does the end justify the means? Where do the burdens of proof and accuracy lie?

I don’t see any arguable question there; of course anything claiming to be a record of historical fact should be open to criticism.

And there’s the hub of Moll’s assessment of Read’s chapter 2. Read, says Moll, presents a sizeable amalgamation of cases (acknowledged as such by Read) to make a single persuasive story.

The combination of elements of a number of actual events is a technique widely used by writers of fiction. At what point should we stop considering Mr. Read’s amalgamations as history, and categorise them as fiction?

Law can do same thing too, take an off-the-shelf angle, then work the evidence and story to suit. Anything that’s a liability to that angle recedes into oblivion, obliviated.

If you want to read what Peter Read actually thinks, as to what moll thinks he means, then I would suggest you read this short article where he refutes the finding of Keith Winshuttle who’s claims the stolen generation was a myth.

The myth of the Stolen Generations – a rebuttal

It concludes:

>>Windschuttle adopts his common tactic of singling out a particular historian for attention. But Parry, Goodall and Read are only three of a host of historians who have worked much more closely in the records than Windschuttle.

How insulting to the stolen generations and their descendants to be told that their history has been created by these ‘recent academic historians’.

Windschuttle should try walking into the throng of stolen generations who gathered outside parliament this week and suggest that to them. He may be surprised.<<

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-02-15/37108

So many people want to rewrite history.

1984 types, the lot of them.

captain_spalding said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The question is, who is doing the hammering, the original author, or the reviewer, or both?

In this case, when mollwoll was actually quoting his source material his comments were so utterly divorced from what the quote actually said I suspect that there is a large component of the latter.

Well, both can do it, of course.

Peter Read seems to have soldered together some the bits of information on record, and moulded the result into an object that suits his purpose.

On the other hand, as someone described in the pages a few days ago, critics/reviewers can be selected and/or shape their reviews to reflect vested interests, to the detriment of the author of the reviewed material.

If you chose to believe a historian who has devoted much of his life to understanding and documenting Aboriginal history, against moll who has yet to grasp any understanding at all. Then I question your sanity.

PermeateFree said:

If you chose to believe a historian who has devoted much of his life to understanding and documenting Aboriginal history, against moll who has yet to grasp any understanding at all. Then I question your sanity.

There’s this bloke in the shaving mirror who regularly questions my sanity – but, that’s not important right now.

Moll claims that elements of disparate events have been amalgamated to present a single, convincingly-negative narrative.

I’m not questioning the subject matter, or the research that’s gone into it – i’m questioning the technique.

Counter-claims have been made that unless a criticism entirely demolishes the whole construct at one blow, then criticisms should be disregarded. If you can’t refute the whole, the refutation or identification of its parts is to be disregarded.

I’ve questioned the technique of using amalgamations like that to present a particular social and/or political viewpoint of a contemporary situation as valid historical interpretations.

There’s also the question of whether refutations of those presentations (whether they counter the whole, or whether they counter their parts) are ‘permitted’ if the subject matter something where political correctness is a crucial consideration.

captain_spalding said:

PermeateFree said:

If you chose to believe a historian who has devoted much of his life to understanding and documenting Aboriginal history, against moll who has yet to grasp any understanding at all. Then I question your sanity.

There’s this bloke in the shaving mirror who regularly questions my sanity – but, that’s not important right now.

Moll claims that elements of disparate events have been amalgamated to present a single, convincingly-negative narrative.

I’m not questioning the subject matter, or the research that’s gone into it – i’m questioning the technique.

Counter-claims have been made that unless a criticism entirely demolishes the whole construct at one blow, then criticisms should be disregarded. If you can’t refute the whole, the refutation or identification of its parts is to be disregarded.

I’ve questioned the technique of using amalgamations like that to present a particular social and/or political viewpoint of a contemporary situation as valid historical interpretations.

There’s also the question of whether refutations of those presentations (whether they counter the whole, or whether they counter their parts) are ‘permitted’ if the subject matter something where political correctness is a crucial consideration.

What a load of bollocks! Have you personally read what moll is critical of? This is not political correctness but the denial of documented history over decades. If you want to go around taking what any uneducated persons rant as gospel, then pity you.

The Stolen Generations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations

The Stolen Generations (also known as Stolen Children) were the children of Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent who were removed from their families by the Australian Federal and State government agencies and church missions, under acts of their respective parliaments. The removals of those referred to as “half-caste” children were conducted in the period between approximately 1905 and 1967, although in some places mixed-race children were still being taken into the 1970s.

Official government estimates are that between one in ten and one in three indigenous Australian children were forcibly taken from their families and communities between 1910, and 1970, affecting all regions of the country.

==

40 years of kidnapping by lawful abiding government officials.

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Stolen Generations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations

The Stolen Generations (also known as Stolen Children) were the children of Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent who were removed from their families by the Australian Federal and State government agencies and church missions, under acts of their respective parliaments. The removals of those referred to as “half-caste” children were conducted in the period between approximately 1905 and 1967, although in some places mixed-race children were still being taken into the 1970s.

Official government estimates are that between one in ten and one in three indigenous Australian children were forcibly taken from their families and communities between 1910, and 1970, affecting all regions of the country.

==

40 years of kidnapping by lawful abiding government officials.

Better than 200 years of catholic christian pedophile priests.

There would be abused aboriginal children as well as white children.

PermeateFree said:

captain_spalding said:

PermeateFree said:

If you chose to believe a historian who has devoted much of his life to understanding and documenting Aboriginal history, against moll who has yet to grasp any understanding at all. Then I question your sanity.

There’s this bloke in the shaving mirror who regularly questions my sanity – but, that’s not important right now.

Moll claims that elements of disparate events have been amalgamated to present a single, convincingly-negative narrative.

I’m not questioning the subject matter, or the research that’s gone into it – i’m questioning the technique.

Counter-claims have been made that unless a criticism entirely demolishes the whole construct at one blow, then criticisms should be disregarded. If you can’t refute the whole, the refutation or identification of its parts is to be disregarded.

I’ve questioned the technique of using amalgamations like that to present a particular social and/or political viewpoint of a contemporary situation as valid historical interpretations.

There’s also the question of whether refutations of those presentations (whether they counter the whole, or whether they counter their parts) are ‘permitted’ if the subject matter something where political correctness is a crucial consideration.

What a load of bollocks! Have you personally read what moll is critical of? This is not political correctness but the denial of documented history over decades. If you want to go around taking what any uneducated persons rant as gospel, then pity you.

I was responding to an description of technique, without regard to content

The technique that was described is something that authors in both fiction and non-fiction fields employ. The questions which i raised are valid, regardless of subject or content.

If you’re unable to see past the subject and content of a particular work, then i may not be the only one in need of pity. An additional question might be – how much of your outrage is derived from your opinion of the subject of that particular work, and your stance on that issue?

http://www.stolengenerationstestimonies.com/

I just watched the testimony of Debra Hocking.

It does make me wonder why if the governments State and Federal have said sorry for systemic abuse and child theft…then…what is this thread about?

captain_spalding said:

PermeateFree said:

captain_spalding said:

There’s this bloke in the shaving mirror who regularly questions my sanity – but, that’s not important right now.

Moll claims that elements of disparate events have been amalgamated to present a single, convincingly-negative narrative.

I’m not questioning the subject matter, or the research that’s gone into it – i’m questioning the technique.

Counter-claims have been made that unless a criticism entirely demolishes the whole construct at one blow, then criticisms should be disregarded. If you can’t refute the whole, the refutation or identification of its parts is to be disregarded.

I’ve questioned the technique of using amalgamations like that to present a particular social and/or political viewpoint of a contemporary situation as valid historical interpretations.

There’s also the question of whether refutations of those presentations (whether they counter the whole, or whether they counter their parts) are ‘permitted’ if the subject matter something where political correctness is a crucial consideration.

What a load of bollocks! Have you personally read what moll is critical of? This is not political correctness but the denial of documented history over decades. If you want to go around taking what any uneducated persons rant as gospel, then pity you.

I was responding to an description of technique, without regard to content

The technique that was described is something that authors in both fiction and non-fiction fields employ. The questions which i raised are valid, regardless of subject or content.

If you’re unable to see past the subject and content of a particular work, then i may not be the only one in need of pity. An additional question might be – how much of your outrage is derived from your opinion of the subject of that particular work, and your stance on that issue?

The problem is you accept the criticism by moll without question. I think you should ask question, because I don’t think his analysis of this subject is at all objective and at times ridiculous.

>The problem is you accept the criticism by moll without question. I think you should ask question, because I don’t think his analysis of this subject is at all objective and at times ridiculous.

no, moll asserts an idea, somewhat counter to Right Thinking , goes about assembling information, deconstructs and reconstructs it, which is quite clearly a work in progress, and unconcluded.

transition said:

>The problem is you accept the criticism by moll without question. I think you should ask question, because I don’t think his analysis of this subject is at all objective and at times ridiculous.

no, moll asserts an idea, somewhat counter to Right Thinking , goes about assembling information, deconstructs and reconstructs it, which is quite clearly a work in progress, and unconcluded.

He does no such thing. He cherry picks material to suit his purpose and from scapes of information he formulates entire concepts, which are not only wrong, but often totally stupid. Were it not that he continues to post this sort of garbage unabated I would ignore him, but his claims are so preposterous that they simply cannot go unanswered.

PermeateFree said:

The problem is you accept the criticism by moll without question. I think you should ask question, because I don’t think his analysis of this subject is at all objective and at times ridiculous.

I accept his criticism of the technique/method employed.

There are times when it can be very helpful and illustrative. On the other hand, it carries risks. You’ve said that moll ‘cherry-picks’ and the method of combining elements of several instances into one narrative (as moll declares the author has done) can itself be tantamount to that very thing.

By doing that, it risks presenting a distorted, even exaggerated, narrative – error piled on error, evil piled on evil, consequence piled on consequence. I

If an author isn’t careful with the method (which certainly does save time and effort both author and reader) then they can lead readers into accepting the ‘worst possible’ scenarios as established facts.

captain_spalding said:

PermeateFree said:

The problem is you accept the criticism by moll without question. I think you should ask question, because I don’t think his analysis of this subject is at all objective and at times ridiculous.

I accept his criticism of the technique/method employed.

There are times when it can be very helpful and illustrative. On the other hand, it carries risks. You’ve said that moll ‘cherry-picks’ and the method of combining elements of several instances into one narrative (as moll declares the author has done) can itself be tantamount to that very thing.

By doing that, it risks presenting a distorted, even exaggerated, narrative – error piled on error, evil piled on evil, consequence piled on consequence. I

If an author isn’t careful with the method (which certainly does save time and effort both author and reader) then they can lead readers into accepting the ‘worst possible’ scenarios as established facts.

If one is going to pull apart the works of Peter Read then cherry picking is necessary to find anything actually factual.

roughbarked said:

If one is going to pull apart the works of Peter Read then cherry picking is necessary to find anything actually factual.

And that hearkens back to a question i raised earlier: if critics aren’t allowed to dismantle an argument piece by piece, then many arguments will be beyond review. If an argument/position/statement can be constructed out of many elements, why is it a sin to review each element in turn, and see if the structure can survive?

captain_spalding said:

roughbarked said:

If one is going to pull apart the works of Peter Read then cherry picking is necessary to find anything actually factual.

And that hearkens back to a question i raised earlier: if critics aren’t allowed to dismantle an argument piece by piece, then many arguments will be beyond review. If an argument/position/statement can be constructed out of many elements, why is it a sin to review each element in turn, and see if the structure can survive?

No argument here.

captain_spalding said:

PermeateFree said:

The problem is you accept the criticism by moll without question. I think you should ask question, because I don’t think his analysis of this subject is at all objective and at times ridiculous.

I accept his criticism of the technique/method employed.

There are times when it can be very helpful and illustrative. On the other hand, it carries risks. You’ve said that moll ‘cherry-picks’ and the method of combining elements of several instances into one narrative (as moll declares the author has done) can itself be tantamount to that very thing.

By doing that, it risks presenting a distorted, even exaggerated, narrative – error piled on error, evil piled on evil, consequence piled on consequence. I

If an author isn’t careful with the method (which certainly does save time and effort both author and reader) then they can lead readers into accepting the ‘worst possible’ scenarios as established facts.

You are still accepting molls assertion that Read has indeed used that technique. Considering his expertise, experience and knowledge of the subject I would doubt he would offer himself to such criticism from others in his field. These are not amateurs, but professional people who study Aboriginal history. There is absolutely no need for him to exaggerate or distort anything as the facts are so horrific in their own right. And frankly why the opinion of anyone with zero knowledge or background on the subject, should be taken seriously when compared to the professionals who have devoted much of their lives to the subject is staggering.

PermeateFree said:

captain_spalding said:

PermeateFree said:

The problem is you accept the criticism by moll without question. I think you should ask question, because I don’t think his analysis of this subject is at all objective and at times ridiculous.

I accept his criticism of the technique/method employed.

There are times when it can be very helpful and illustrative. On the other hand, it carries risks. You’ve said that moll ‘cherry-picks’ and the method of combining elements of several instances into one narrative (as moll declares the author has done) can itself be tantamount to that very thing.

By doing that, it risks presenting a distorted, even exaggerated, narrative – error piled on error, evil piled on evil, consequence piled on consequence. I

If an author isn’t careful with the method (which certainly does save time and effort both author and reader) then they can lead readers into accepting the ‘worst possible’ scenarios as established facts.

You are still accepting molls assertion that Read has indeed used that technique. Considering his expertise, experience and knowledge of the subject I would doubt he would offer himself to such criticism from others in his field. These are not amateurs, but professional people who study Aboriginal history. There is absolutely no need for him to exaggerate or distort anything as the facts are so horrific in their own right. And frankly why the opinion of anyone with zero knowledge or background on the subject, should be taken seriously when compared to the professionals who have devoted much of their lives to the subject is staggering.

Yes we know.

Read may well have not distorted or exaggerated anything. I point out that there’s a risk inherent in the method that moll has said that he used. I’m presuming here that moll has read the work in question, just as i’m presuming that you have.

I haven’t read it. I didn’t know it existed until today – today is the first day that i’ve looked at anything in this thread.

I’m not arguing with Read’s work – but, i might have issues with the method i’ve been told that he uses when i do read it.

Really, i don’t care what it’s about. I’ve read accounts of the Holocaust and of pogroms in Russia, and of denunciations of PKI sympathisers in Indonesia in 1965, and other situations which employed this technique, and it’s risks are always something to keep in mind.

captain_spalding said:

Read may well have not distorted or exaggerated anything. I point out that there’s a risk inherent in the method that moll has said that he used. I’m presuming here that moll has read the work in question, just as i’m presuming that you have.

I haven’t read it. I didn’t know it existed until today – today is the first day that i’ve looked at anything in this thread.

I’m not arguing with Read’s work – but, i might have issues with the method i’ve been told that he uses when i do read it.

Really, i don’t care what it’s about. I’ve read accounts of the Holocaust and of pogroms in Russia, and of denunciations of PKI sympathisers in Indonesia in 1965, and other situations which employed this technique, and it’s risks are always something to keep in mind.

You are ONLY taking the word of moll that it was written in the technique you describe, but that is purely his opinion, it does not mean that it actually was written that way. And going on the facts of the matter and the people involved I very much doubt that it was.

PermeateFree said:

captain_spalding said:

Read may well have not distorted or exaggerated anything. I point out that there’s a risk inherent in the method that moll has said that he used. I’m presuming here that moll has read the work in question, just as i’m presuming that you have.

I haven’t read it. I didn’t know it existed until today – today is the first day that i’ve looked at anything in this thread.

I’m not arguing with Read’s work – but, i might have issues with the method i’ve been told that he uses when i do read it.

Really, i don’t care what it’s about. I’ve read accounts of the Holocaust and of pogroms in Russia, and of denunciations of PKI sympathisers in Indonesia in 1965, and other situations which employed this technique, and it’s risks are always something to keep in mind.

You are ONLY taking the word of moll that it was written in the technique you describe, but that is purely his opinion, it does not mean that it actually was written that way. And going on the facts of the matter and the people involved I very much doubt that it was.

Jeez, comprehension issues much.

captain_spalding said:

Counter-claims have been made that unless a criticism entirely demolishes the whole construct at one blow, then criticisms should be disregarded. If you can’t refute the whole, the refutation or identification of its parts is to be disregarded.

Have they?

Can you post a link to them?

sibeen said:

Jeez, comprehension issues much.

Are you saying PF’s strident criticism is ill-informed? Well i never…

PermeateFree said:

captain_spalding said:

Read may well have not distorted or exaggerated anything. I point out that there’s a risk inherent in the method that moll has said that he used. I’m presuming here that moll has read the work in question, just as i’m presuming that you have.

I haven’t read it. I didn’t know it existed until today – today is the first day that i’ve looked at anything in this thread.

I’m not arguing with Read’s work – but, i might have issues with the method i’ve been told that he uses when i do read it.

Really, i don’t care what it’s about. I’ve read accounts of the Holocaust and of pogroms in Russia, and of denunciations of PKI sympathisers in Indonesia in 1965, and other situations which employed this technique, and it’s risks are always something to keep in mind.

You are ONLY taking the word of moll that it was written in the technique you describe, but that is purely his opinion, it does not mean that it actually was written that way. And going on the facts of the matter and the people involved I very much doubt that it was.

this is also true.

Witty Rejoinder said:

sibeen said:

Jeez, comprehension issues much.

Are you saying PF’s strident criticism is ill-informed? Well i never…

It’s as if he never actually read what c_s posted.

sibeen said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

sibeen said:

Jeez, comprehension issues much.

Are you saying PF’s strident criticism is ill-informed? Well i never…

It’s as if he never actually read what c_s posted.

To be fair, the same could be said of what several other people have posted in this thread, including c_s.

sibeen said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

sibeen said:

Jeez, comprehension issues much.

Are you saying PF’s strident criticism is ill-informed? Well i never…

It’s as if he never actually read what c_s posted.

I don’t read all posts sibeen, not even yours, so probably not. Was he referring to you or Witty?

So, i haven’t read the book in question.

PF asked me if i had, but i haven’t – yet.

PF indicates that he hasn’t read the book.

The only one who seems to suggest that they’ve even seen the book is moll.

moll informs us that a particular technique is used in a chapter of the book.

I say that i think that using that technique runs a risk of distorting a narrative.

But, my opinions on the risks of that technique are described by someone who hasn’t read the book (and who therefore can’t verify that it has or hasn’t been used) as being of no value because i haven’t yet read the book either, and can’t verify that it has or hasn’t.

Did i miss something?

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

. And going on the facts of the matter and the people involved I very much doubt that it was.

this is also true.

I had access to books that weren’t in the school curriculum because my mother was a teacher. In regard to the history of our interactions with the aborigine, it was clear to me that we were being taught fake facts.

captain_spalding said:

So, i haven’t read the book in question.

PF asked me if i had, but i haven’t – yet.

PF indicates that he hasn’t read the book.

The only one who seems to suggest that they’ve even seen the book is moll.

moll informs us that a particular technique is used in a chapter of the book.

I say that i think that using that technique runs a risk of distorting a narrative.

But, my opinions on the risks of that technique are described by someone who hasn’t read the book (and who therefore can’t verify that it has or hasn’t been used) as being of no value because i haven’t yet read the book either, and can’t verify that it has or hasn’t.

Did i miss something?

Yes you proceed with caution as we are both relying on what moll said, which if you think his opinion on these matters are valid then they will carry far more weight than I would place on them. Either way, you were accepting what he said as being the situation, whereas the most credence you should place upon it is to say it was an opinion. It is NOT fact.

PermeateFree said:

Yes you proceed with caution as we are both relying on what moll said, which if you think his opinion on these matters are valid then they will carry far more weight than I would place on them. Either way, you were accepting what he said as being the situation, whereas the most credence you should place upon it is to say it was an opinion. It is NOT fact.

If moll says that a particular narrative technique was used, then i have no reason to disbelieve him. I don’t care about his opinions on what was said in the course of that narrative. Whether the technique was used or not IS a matter of fact, and, as i say, i have no reason to doubt moll on that.

My opinions are on the technique, and the risks that its use can raise.

captain_spalding said:

PermeateFree said:

Yes you proceed with caution as we are both relying on what moll said, which if you think his opinion on these matters are valid then they will carry far more weight than I would place on them. Either way, you were accepting what he said as being the situation, whereas the most credence you should place upon it is to say it was an opinion. It is NOT fact.

If moll says that a particular narrative technique was used, then i have no reason to disbelieve him. I don’t care about his opinions on what was said in the course of that narrative. Whether the technique was used or not IS a matter of fact, and, as i say, i have no reason to doubt moll on that.

My opinions are on the technique, and the risks that its use can raise.

You stated: Date: 24/06/2018 09:26:00 From: captain_spalding
ID: 1243642

>>So, does Mr. Read’s choice of subject entitle him to amalgamate portions of the record so as to present a more persuasive case for his viewpoint?<<

You have distorted the facts by this statement as it is purely molls opinion. You have no pertinent information yourself, except a blind faith in molls opinion.

I’m done with this.

It seems that there can be no differentiation between an ‘opinion’ and a ‘concept’.

If someone whose opinions appear to be anathema says that a concept/method was employed, then that concept/method seems to become indistinguishable from opinion. Any discussion of that concept/method is interpreted as support for the ‘heretic’s’ opinion.

If the difference can’t be comprehended, then there’s no point in saying it again.

captain_spalding said:

I’m done with this.

It seems that there can be no differentiation between an ‘opinion’ and a ‘concept’.

If someone whose opinions appear to be anathema says that a concept/method was employed, then that concept/method seems to become indistinguishable from opinion. Any discussion of that concept/method is interpreted as support for the ‘heretic’s’ opinion.

If the difference can’t be comprehended, then there’s no point in saying it again.

Sounds like something sibeen would write, no logic and up the creek. I can’t be bothered either. The sort of crap experienced here concerning Aborigines is the same shit they have always had to put up with.

PermeateFree said:

captain_spalding said:

I’m done with this.

It seems that there can be no differentiation between an ‘opinion’ and a ‘concept’.

If someone whose opinions appear to be anathema says that a concept/method was employed, then that concept/method seems to become indistinguishable from opinion. Any discussion of that concept/method is interpreted as support for the ‘heretic’s’ opinion.

If the difference can’t be comprehended, then there’s no point in saying it again.

Sounds like something sibeen would write, no logic and up the creek. I can’t be bothered either. The sort of crap experienced here concerning Aborigines is the same shit they have always had to put up with.

I could never be so erudite.

PermeateFree said:

captain_spalding said:

I’m done with this.

It seems that there can be no differentiation between an ‘opinion’ and a ‘concept’.

If someone whose opinions appear to be anathema says that a concept/method was employed, then that concept/method seems to become indistinguishable from opinion. Any discussion of that concept/method is interpreted as support for the ‘heretic’s’ opinion.

If the difference can’t be comprehended, then there’s no point in saying it again.

Sounds like something sibeen would write, no logic and up the creek. I can’t be bothered either. The sort of crap experienced here concerning Aborigines is the same shit they have always had to put up with.

FYI PF it may surprise you that there are people of Aboriginal heritage on the forum who have chosen not to engage you on this subject. I volunteer this info only as an indication that perhaps your opinions are not as representative of Aboriginal opinion as you might think. I won’t volunteer who i’m referring too, nor do i expect to be taken at my word. I only hope to encourage conversation.

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

captain_spalding said:

I’m done with this.

It seems that there can be no differentiation between an ‘opinion’ and a ‘concept’.

If someone whose opinions appear to be anathema says that a concept/method was employed, then that concept/method seems to become indistinguishable from opinion. Any discussion of that concept/method is interpreted as support for the ‘heretic’s’ opinion.

If the difference can’t be comprehended, then there’s no point in saying it again.

Sounds like something sibeen would write, no logic and up the creek. I can’t be bothered either. The sort of crap experienced here concerning Aborigines is the same shit they have always had to put up with.

FYI PF it may surprise you that there are people of Aboriginal heritage on the forum who have chosen not to engage you on this subject. I volunteer this info only as an indication that perhaps your opinions are not as representative of Aboriginal opinion as you might think. I won’t volunteer who i’m referring too, nor do i expect to be taken at my word. I only hope to encourage conversation.

There is a great deal different opinion within the Aborigine community, but NONE deny that the stolen generation happened. You are the worst of the worst Witty, real low.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

Sounds like something sibeen would write, no logic and up the creek. I can’t be bothered either. The sort of crap experienced here concerning Aborigines is the same shit they have always had to put up with.

FYI PF it may surprise you that there are people of Aboriginal heritage on the forum who have chosen not to engage you on this subject. I volunteer this info only as an indication that perhaps your opinions are not as representative of Aboriginal opinion as you might think. I won’t volunteer who i’m referring too, nor do i expect to be taken at my word. I only hope to encourage conversation.

There is a great deal different opinion within the Aborigine community, but NONE deny that the stolen generation happened. You are the worst of the worst Witty, real low.

You are right i am not contesting the legitimacy of opinion on the stolen generation. Rather i am advocating that not all of the solutions rest solely on a simple metric that advocates Aboriginal good, western culture bad.

sibeen said:

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Go back to your beer and football sibeen. I have never for one moment thought that you might understand. You and Witty make a good team.

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

FYI PF it may surprise you that there are people of Aboriginal heritage on the forum who have chosen not to engage you on this subject. I volunteer this info only as an indication that perhaps your opinions are not as representative of Aboriginal opinion as you might think. I won’t volunteer who i’m referring too, nor do i expect to be taken at my word. I only hope to encourage conversation.

There is a great deal different opinion within the Aborigine community, but NONE deny that the stolen generation happened. You are the worst of the worst Witty, real low.

You are right i am not contesting the legitimacy of opinion on the stolen generation. Rather i am advocating that not all of the solutions rest solely on a simple metric that advocates Aboriginal good, western culture bad.

Who is saying that?

PermeateFree said:

captain_spalding said:

I’m done with this.

It seems that there can be no differentiation between an ‘opinion’ and a ‘concept’.

If someone whose opinions appear to be anathema says that a concept/method was employed, then that concept/method seems to become indistinguishable from opinion. Any discussion of that concept/method is interpreted as support for the ‘heretic’s’ opinion.

If the difference can’t be comprehended, then there’s no point in saying it again.

Sounds like something sibeen would write, no logic and up the creek. I can’t be bothered either. The sort of crap experienced here concerning Aborigines is the same shit they have always had to put up with.

Yet you haven’t read the book, you have no idea of what it says, how it says it, or even whether you agree with any, part, or all of it, and you feel qualified to say that any comment on narrative techniques that may, or may not, have been employed in that particular book, and which have certainly been employed in other books on other subjects, can be lumped in with what you consider the the ‘same shit’ that Aborigines ‘have always had to put up with’

I don’t give a flaming flying fuck what the book is about. I don’t care whether it says all aborigines are saints who’ve all been grieviously wronged since the beginning of time until the present day, or that they should all be put up against a wall and shot.

I don’t care about the book. Can you get that through your thick i’m-always-better-than-everyone-else, holier-than-thou, safe-in-my-ivory-tower, don’t-threaten-my-opinions-of-a-book-i-haven’t-read skull?

What i’m talking about is a literary technique – is pros, its cons, and whether some subjects are better suited to using or not using that method/style/technique. That’s all. It has nothing to do with Aborigines. It’s a literary device that i’m talking about.

Savez-vous?

Capice?

Got it?

captain_spalding said:

PermeateFree said:

captain_spalding said:

I’m done with this.

It seems that there can be no differentiation between an ‘opinion’ and a ‘concept’.

If someone whose opinions appear to be anathema says that a concept/method was employed, then that concept/method seems to become indistinguishable from opinion. Any discussion of that concept/method is interpreted as support for the ‘heretic’s’ opinion.

If the difference can’t be comprehended, then there’s no point in saying it again.

Sounds like something sibeen would write, no logic and up the creek. I can’t be bothered either. The sort of crap experienced here concerning Aborigines is the same shit they have always had to put up with.

Yet you haven’t read the book, you have no idea of what it says, how it says it, or even whether you agree with any, part, or all of it, and you feel qualified to say that any comment on narrative techniques that may, or may not, have been employed in that particular book, and which have certainly been employed in other books on other subjects, can be lumped in with what you consider the the ‘same shit’ that Aborigines ‘have always had to put up with’

I don’t give a flaming flying fuck what the book is about. I don’t care whether it says all aborigines are saints who’ve all been grieviously wronged since the beginning of time until the present day, or that they should all be put up against a wall and shot.

I don’t care about the book. Can you get that through your thick i’m-always-better-than-everyone-else, holier-than-thou, safe-in-my-ivory-tower, don’t-threaten-my-opinions-of-a-book-i-haven’t-read skull?

What i’m talking about is a literary technique – is pros, its cons, and whether some subjects are better suited to using or not using that method/style/technique. That’s all. It has nothing to do with Aborigines. It’s a literary device that i’m talking about.

Savez-vous?

Capice?

Got it?

You ascribed that Read was using the technique you describe, yet you don’t know if that is right or wrong. You attempted to degrade what Read had written in his book, simply because a clown told you. That is not being honest Capt. Got It!

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

There is a great deal different opinion within the Aborigine community, but NONE deny that the stolen generation happened. You are the worst of the worst Witty, real low.

You are right i am not contesting the legitimacy of opinion on the stolen generation. Rather i am advocating that not all of the solutions rest solely on a simple metric that advocates Aboriginal good, western culture bad.

Who is saying that?

You have been quick to defend the advocacy that by better realizing aboriginal culture we could better rectify the current harms inflicted on Aboriginal Ausrtralians.

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

You are right i am not contesting the legitimacy of opinion on the stolen generation. Rather i am advocating that not all of the solutions rest solely on a simple metric that advocates Aboriginal good, western culture bad.

Who is saying that?

You have been quick to defend the advocacy that by better realizing aboriginal culture we could better rectify the current harms inflicted on Aboriginal Ausrtralians.

I have said that by knowing the Aboriginal history it would lead to a better understanding, which might lead to better policies to overcome existing problems.

A few questions for you Witty.
1. Do you publicly identify yourself as Aboriginal?
2. Are you a member of an Aboriginal community?
3. Do Aboriginal people recognise you as being Aboriginal?

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

Who is saying that?

You have been quick to defend the advocacy that by better realizing aboriginal culture we could better rectify the current harms inflicted on Aboriginal Ausrtralians.

I have said that by knowing the Aboriginal history it would lead to a better understanding, which might lead to better policies to overcome existing problems.

A few questions for you Witty.
1. Do you publicly identify yourself as Aboriginal?
2. Are you a member of an Aboriginal community?
3. Do Aboriginal people recognise you as being Aboriginal?

No. no and no. You?

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

You have been quick to defend the advocacy that by better realizing aboriginal culture we could better rectify the current harms inflicted on Aboriginal Ausrtralians.

I have said that by knowing the Aboriginal history it would lead to a better understanding, which might lead to better policies to overcome existing problems.

A few questions for you Witty.
1. Do you publicly identify yourself as Aboriginal?
2. Are you a member of an Aboriginal community?
3. Do Aboriginal people recognise you as being Aboriginal?

No. no and no. You?

Well you are no Aborigine then. I have Neanderthal blood in me, but that does not make me Neanderthal. I’m not Aboriginal either, just read a great deal, spent time in the bush investigating Aboriginal sites, plus listened and read with respect those who know more than me.

>>Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples do not define their Aboriginality by skin colour or percentage of blood. Our identities are complex and diverse across Australia, and encompass many aspects and contexts that ultimately make up who we are. This may include connections to place/country, language groups, family relationships, cultural beliefs, value systems and Indigenous ways of knowing and being.

Indigenous Australians developed a working definition which was then adopted by the Australian Government, to define an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person as:

A person who has Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander descent; who also
Identifies as an Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander person; and
Is accepted as such by the Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander community in which they live (or come from).<<

https://australianmuseum.net.au/aboriginal-indigenous-australians

> I have Neanderthal blood in me, but that does not make me Neanderthal.

that’s quite interesting, briefly, I won’t make a hobby out of analyzing it.

transition said:

> I have Neanderthal blood in me, but that does not make me Neanderthal.

that’s quite interesting, briefly, I won’t make a hobby out of analyzing it.

means nothing apart from he is not sub-Saharan African, everyone else has a small amount of Neanderthal DNA.

transition said:

> I have Neanderthal blood in me, but that does not make me Neanderthal.

that’s quite interesting, briefly, I won’t make a hobby out of analyzing it.

You would have some too.