The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Lest we forget: The Coniston Massacre > Comments

Lest we forget: The Coniston Massacre : Comments

By Amanda Midlam, published 11/11/2010

What was the Coniston massacre? Lest We Forget became Best We Forget as Australia developed amnesia.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All
This may not be directly "on point" but I am constantly hearing the preface to TV and other media that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander may be caused distress seeing images or hearing names of deceased persons. Is this phenomena a universal thing amongst all indigenous groups? Or is it just a habit that has been formed amongst people who feel obliged to say it? I only ask because if it is the former then isn't this proof positive that there was once a homogeneous indigenous society across all of Australia.
Posted by bitey, Thursday, 11 November 2010 10:10:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bitey,

Thirty five-odd years ago, I was living in a community here in southern SA. Funerals were very common: I think I must have gone to fifty at least, in four years, in fact, helped to dig some of the graves. I was very careful in conversation not to mention the names of anybody who had died, but the local people, young and old, did not seem to have any such reservation. Old ladies would talk about their deceased husbands, children about their parents and uncles and aunts, using their names and nick-names with no hesitation.

But even now, I would avoid using people's names, Black or White, until it is very clear that their relations don't mind.

Sometimes however, I wonder if white people perpetuate myths about traditional Aboriginal cultural practices, which in turn Aboriginal people pick up on and propagate, and so on.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 11 November 2010 10:57:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'd never heard of this before.
Thanks Amanda
Posted by Ozymandias, Thursday, 11 November 2010 11:12:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article needs to be read in order to get a balanced view of history.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Gs71zqTbeEcJ:www.sydneyline.com/UNSW%2520debate.htm+%22historians+are+always+making&hl=en&gl=au&ct=clnk&cd=2
Posted by runner, Thursday, 11 November 2010 11:44:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good article, and history lessons should indeed include some of our more deplorable historical events.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Thursday, 11 November 2010 1:21:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Joe ("Loudmouth" seems so impolite).
Posted by bitey, Thursday, 11 November 2010 1:40:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thankyou Amanda for bringing this to our attention- I am alarmed I had never heard of this before- although, sadly, not surprised reflecting on it.
Many people from Japan are shocked to discover some of the attrocities their country had committed in World War 2- having never even heard of it before; and considering, in our unique case- the extreme defensiveness and hostility shared by our own countrymen towards our history (particularly for Aboriginal relations), I can possibly understand why.

To your suggestion that this case be re-opened, I would consider a fair demand; had this been a European country the courts would have done this long ago on principle for reconciliation; we on the other hand seem so riddled with anger and guilt we cannot bring ourselves to simply do the right thing regardless.

Also Joe, the answer to the "speaking of the dead" issue in question would apply only to a few Indigenous cultures (remember that there are 400+ Aboriginal nations with completely different religions and cultures);
The warning advice would only apply to them- but to merely state "aboriginal" is to the benefit of the audience who would likely not understand who the target audience actually is.
Posted by King Hazza, Thursday, 11 November 2010 3:03:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lovely article - beautifully written and very timely publication date.

The Coniston Massacre is notable in that it is a relatively well-known and documented instance of atrocities against Aboriginal people, yet - as Amanda Midlam so eloquently expresses - it scarcely registers in the popular National memory. There are many other well-documented examples, including the Bluff Rock Massacre closer to where I now live, they Myall Creek and Hornet Bank Massacres, the "Leap" north of Mackay, the Bloomfield Massacre just north of there etc etc.

The recency of the Coniston Massacre is not all that exceptional, although its documentation is. I lived for 20 years or so in North Queensland, and heard various stories from both sides about "black shoots" in the Burdekin in the 1930s. As a former anthropologist, I've found that memories of such practices aren't very hard to uncover in just about any part of rural and regional Australia of you care to dig a bit. You won't find too many official records, but talk to some of the old-timers and their offspring and you can discover all sorts of cultural memories. Revisionist history warriors like Windschuttle would conveniently discount such evidence, of course.

I think that Windschuttle quite deliberately set out to obscure the truly murderous history of Aboriginal-Settler relations in this country, which is of course the root cause of contemporary Aboriginal disadvantage. As I said at the time of Rudd's belated Apology to the Stolen Generations, the Apology was insufficient and should have extended to the near-destruction of Indigenous societies and cultures, and the expropriation of Indigenous land and resources.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 11 November 2010 3:45:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AMANDA thankyou for reminding us of the utter dismal failure of MultiCulturalism.

The issues surrounding the lead up and action of this massacre show with crystal clarity how 'difference' leads to misunderstanding, prejudgement, irrational actions and outright brutality.

This has always been the problem with 'difference' of race and tribe and color, and it always will be.

So...I am looking forward to your next piece which scuttles MultiCulturalism completely.

Thankyou for your support.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Friday, 12 November 2010 7:21:48 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi ALGOREisRICH, the problem is an imbalance of male power not multiculturalism. Achieve equality between women and men with governance conducted by agreement between women's and men's legislatures, courts and corporate committees and equality is achieved between demographics comprised of women and men.
Posted by whistler, Friday, 12 November 2010 10:38:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It truly is heartwarming to see some people swoop on criminal tragedies to push their separate agendas.
Posted by King Hazza, Friday, 12 November 2010 10:42:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
King Hazza, not nearly as heartwarming as swooping on the cause and prevention of tragedy.
Posted by whistler, Friday, 12 November 2010 11:41:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Except that the cause had nothing to do with nor have any substantial likelyhood of difference, from gender allocation to government boards- but from conflicting cultural and legal norms between two different civilizations, and gross legal shortcomings of our own.
Posted by King Hazza, Friday, 12 November 2010 12:05:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whistler, are you suggesting that separate men's and women's legislative bodies might have reduced the incidence of massacres in the nineteenth century, on both sides ?

Perhaps this could fix global warming in this century as well ? And world poverty ? Saving the whales ?

Perhaps you need to flesh out the idea a bit :)

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 12 November 2010 12:32:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let's also not forget the brutal bashing of a white male only just a few years ago by up to 20 Aboringines in WA. They surrounded him and his family and bashed him to death. The media tried not to report it and almost refused to mention that all those involved in the brutal killing were Blacks. It's unbelievable to think that only 2 years after the event nearly every person you meet is unaware that such brutality by blacks on whites still occurs. Most news reports just mentioned a bashing by a group of youths, never any mention of their colour.
Posted by ozzie, Friday, 12 November 2010 12:33:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi King Hazza, an imbalance of male power is at cause, same with dispossession, alienation and irreparable harm to the environment.
Posted by whistler, Friday, 12 November 2010 12:39:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you for the article. Coniston, while not widely-known, is getting coverage. I wonder how many other instances like this in Australia alone have been lost to history. Quite sad to realise that probably every country in the world has similar tales.

And to those who blame multiculturalism or males for Coniston, please take a reality check: the world in 1928 does not equal the world in 2010.
Posted by jorge, Friday, 12 November 2010 3:34:16 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whistler,

Would you mind elaborating on your concept of separate men's and women's legislatures? Perhaps in a new thread, maybe in General Discussion, so we don't derail this very worthy discussion.

Over the years, you have presented it as a sort of 'miracle elixir' that will cure inequitable treatment of aborigines, rampant capitalist exploitation, constitutional quandaries, economic woes and all manner of issues.

The trouble is, you haven't explained in any detail how such segregated legislatures would work. Would the same laws apply to men and women? Would men preside over some portfolios and women over others? Would men only vote for men and women for women? Would we double our current legislature or have two half-legislatures? Would they have equal membership? Who would control the budget? How would this be managed in a way that would prevent the broader division of our society? How would it improve our situation? How would it prevent financial catastrophes and massacres?
Posted by Otokonoko, Friday, 12 November 2010 4:59:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are two basic attitudes that one can take to this kind of incident. Or two extremes, if you will.

You can burn it into your psyche, so that it colours everything you say and do for generation after generation.

Or you can accept that "the past is a foreign country: they do things differently there" (L P Hartley, opening sentence of "The Go-Between", for those trying to place that quote).

The first approach is typified by the Irish, where Protestants still talk of The Battle of the Boyne as if it were yesterday, instead of 320 years ago. The Scots have the same attitude, in their case towards Culloden, a mere 264 years ago. As indeed do the French, who insisted that Henry V be "tried" for war crimes at Agincourt, nearly 600 years later.

Now that's what I call carrying a grudge.

http://dctheatrescene.com/2010/03/18/high-court-rules-for-french-at-agincourt/

The second is a trait often exhibited by the British. There is no lingering resentment, for example, over the treatment of 64 prisoners in the 14ft by 18ft Black Hole of Calcutta, only 21 of whom survived. Nor over the systematic despatch of 12,000 civilians during the retreat from Kabul in 1842, including the massacre of the sick and wounded left behind in Kabul, despite a guarantee of their safety by Akbar Khan.

These are both "relatively well-known and documented instance(s) of atrocities", but I suspect that you wouldn't find too much residual emotion about either of them, even if you deliberately went out and tried to stir it up. And you would be pushing it uphill to build any kind of campaign on the back of them.

I have immense sympathy for those involved, and those directly affected. But I'm afraid the motivation of people who claim such personal affinity with random historical events, eludes me.

Can anyone out there put me straight?
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 12 November 2010 5:04:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whistler,

Would a men's and a women's legislature each deliberate over the same issues, or would some higher power designate issues as male and female ? Who ? A male and a female president or G-G ? Who would prevail ? What makes an issue a male or a female one ? What are the budget implications of two sets of deliberations, and decisions ? Should there be two Treasurers ? Two Treasuries ? Therefore two sets of taxes ?

Frankly, to get real, this is nothing more than Apartheid, Whistler. As citizens, we should deliberate together, or choose our delegates to do so. Anything less is a diminished society: how to make a fully functioning, fully-involved society work - that is the task for us all, not to fragment society and find yet more ways to differentiate it and set one part against another. Try to get that through your head.

Meanwhile, out here in the real world, and back to topic, yes, there must have been many, many massacres all over Australia. But we have all watched enough forensic crime shows on TV to know that where there is a major crime, there should be evidence: if thirty people are killed, no matter how long ago, there may well be tell-tale signs in the environment, or remains of bullets or casings or large bones. Family trees would have unexplained omissions, as might mission school enrolments, ration-station issues, etc.

For instance, to burn thirty bodies would take many tons of wood, which - in sparsely wooded parts of Australia - would denude many hectares, so a relatively young patch of bush all about the same age might be a clue. Hopefully, Indigenous archaeologists can turn their skills to investigating sites which are reputed to be massacre sites.

[TBC]
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 12 November 2010 5:17:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[contd.]

By definition, massacres are secret. But this does not necessarily mean that they occurred - the absence of evidence may well reflect the absence of a crime (after all, rumours and hearsay have lives of their own: people often believe what they want to believe, embroider it and pass it on: it's called oral history). Then again, it may not: it really would be up to proper investigations.

This should include the massacre of whites by Aboriginal people as well - for example, the Maria massacre of 28 people in 1841 along the coast of SA.

Then again, what constitutes a massacre ? Does a straight-out running battle, over many months, between hundreds of men, regardless of disparity of weaponry, constitute a massacre ? Just asking.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 12 November 2010 5:23:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Only ALGOREisRich could twist this sad event into some sort of case against multiculturalism.

There was no Multiculturalism poicy in existence in those days.

If anything this demonstrates the outcome of the cultural intolerance of one dominant group over another - quite a different thing and the opposite of what he claims.
Posted by wobbles, Friday, 12 November 2010 5:43:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Loudmouth, i've already discussed your concerns. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10320#169006. Gender apartheid is when there are only men's legislatures which admit women under supervision inclusive of leadership as with Australia. Perhaps you could start a new topic if you wish to press the matter.

hi jorge, the world in 1928 is very much equal to the world in 2010, there are no women's legislatures and so there is no treaty.

hi wobbles, ALGOREisRICH did have the chutzpa to swoop on cause over an enquiry. Rob Riley passed away over the misery of the Deaths in Custody inquiry.
Posted by whistler, Friday, 12 November 2010 8:57:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles, I believe if someone had a parent or grandparent who was a direct witness to the event, their emotional trauma may be felt by their kids and grandkids;
An extra half-century leaves a lot less people to be acquainted to direct witnesses, and heal more wounds.

Although I imagine the event itself, distant or otherwise, would stand between us and the communities in question with us as an occupying power; a differentiation between Scottish/Irish/English atrocities is that in Britain they are more an equal member of society as the other, and such events feel more like 'ancient history' between two tribes that their country descended from.
In our country, on the other hand, there is more a chasm of rights, equality and integration with most of our Aboriginal communities and the mainstream "Australian" civilization represented in the massacres (and subsequent trials).

Your point is quite reasonable, but there is a indeed good reason why this issue is still the way it is.
Posted by King Hazza, Friday, 12 November 2010 9:51:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I had never heard of the Coniston massacre, and it certainly sounds tragic. However, I don't see the reasoning behind comparing it to the horrors of Gallipoli?

Thousands of young men died fighting for their countries, and having to kill others to make our country safe from invaders.
I don't call that murder, I call it war.

Comparing this murderer to the deaths at Gallipoli is a bit offensive to me. He may well have been a racist thug even before he went to war and may have become even more mentally unbalanced after he returned home.

An inquiry into the killings may well help put the minds of descendents to rest, but I wouldn't imagine there would be many survivors around to tell the true story after all this time
Posted by suzeonline, Friday, 12 November 2010 10:14:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a matter of interest I went looking for more info on Aboriginal deaths during early white settlement in Australia.
The following website shows some even worse massacres of these poor people than that at Coniston.

http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/history/aboriginal-history-timeline-early-white.html

Most Aboriginal people in the last 2 centuries died horrible deaths from the diseases brought over from other countries, than were killed here by white settlers though.
Posted by suzeonline, Friday, 12 November 2010 10:25:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth, to quote you grom an earlier post this week " my dear, we have to get away from this 'tu quoque - you too' game: I've argued with people who play it all of my life: one raises a criticism of (a), someone else points out a similar act of corruption/incompetence/bastardry on the part of (b), as if that answers that. Well, it does, in the sense that if you shouldn't dedicate yourself to (b), then why the hell should you dedicate yourself to (a) either, if both are equally corrupt/incompetent/a pack of b@stards ? A pox on both of them.

suzeonline, how exactly did Galipoli "make our country safe from invaders" ? You say you can't see the reasoning behind comparing the Coniston massacre and Galipoli. Galipoli was Australians being part of an invading force in Turkey (a bit of a similarity there) under the command of the British (another common detail), but Coniston was on Australian soil - Australians were murdered. Can you now see the relevance?
Posted by Aka, Friday, 12 November 2010 10:54:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sad Event? absolutely it was.

There's a saying "Those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it"

Hence my 'rant'.

There are 2 ways of committing Genocide.

a) With guns, gas chambers and mass graves

b) By destroying peoples identity.

Separate agenda Hazza? No mate... the SAME agenda...protecting people from either physical or identity annihilation.

The Conniston event- What is to be made of it?

"Confusion, and entrenched cultural ideas, along with Greed lead to tragic loss of life among Aboriginals"

Nothing will bring those deceased back...BUT.. learning from it, and applying the lessons might SAVE others (us)from a similar fate!

That fate might be destruction of identity.... if you lose that, you lose it all...including the will to live. It can be a quick bullet or a slow psychological death, take your pick.

Pericles in good form suggests that to remember things of auld is to carry a huge grudge. *hmmmmm*.. I guess the Celts who lived in Britanny (French coast) who had been expelled/driven out by the Anglo Saxons, and then joined William the Conquerer to re-take England were just 'carrying a grudge' ? Every day of their LIVES reminded them of what the Anglo Saxons had done to them...

It's not about 'grudge' its about JUSTICE!

The Irish are wierd. They don't just 'remember' in their own areas they RAM the battle up the noses of the Catholics by deliberately marching through their areas. That is pure arrogance "Ner ner we won" and spite and unneccessary.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Saturday, 13 November 2010 7:16:34 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A very welcome article.

Diverging slightly from the central thesis it is certain our view of Gallipoli is manufactured. No doubt great acts of heroism occurred but it was in effect, a massacre, the celebration of which relies upon the same dynamics we just inflicted upon Iraqi soldiers, women, children, civilians.

Why is it not taught that of all the armies of all nations in all the world in WWI, Aussies were the greatest deserters, the most cowardly, the most ill disciplined, the least reliable, the most prone to commit crime - some unspeakably horrific - on other soil?

Why can we not face our cringing, selfish, barbaric, racist underbelly?

Why?
Posted by Firesnake, Saturday, 13 November 2010 7:28:05 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here is an example of how laws have changed regarding such actions as occurred in Coniston (though that was not 'genocide' as it was localized)

Canadian Criminal Code

Section 318: Advocating Genocide

The criminal act of "advocating genocide" is defined as supporting or arguing for the killing of members of an "identifiable group" — persons distinguished by their colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. The intention or motivation would be the destruction of members of the targeted group.

Would THIS be a crime in Canada?

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/041.smt.html#041.6985

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them.

I'd say YES it should be! BUT... how has MC/PC infected and diseased the Canadian Authorities ?

They will put a white man on trial for advocating 'White supremacy'
But will not even act against a Muslim saying, in public the following:

Al-Hayiti has written that Allah has taught that "If the Jews, Christians, and [Zoroastrians] refuse to answer the call of Islam, and will not pay the jizyah [tax], then it is obligatory for Muslims to fight them if they are able." Christianity, in particular, is denounced as a "religion of lies,"

...and some of you have the GAUL to even suggest that such things are not important or relevant to such historic incidents as Coniston?

Conniston pales into insignificance when you look at what's happening right now..today... to innocent Christians and others. (Anyone seen the recent events of Iraq ? bombing/killing Christians because they are Christians ?)
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/11/2010111081934395118.html
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Saturday, 13 November 2010 7:42:32 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Otokonoko, the concept of separate men's and women's legislatures has already been discussed at length on this forum http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3513&page=1. If you have anything further to add perhaps you could start a new thread.

hi bitey, the prohibition on using the name of a deceased usually refers to ceremonial or skin names, a strategy derived from small, intimate and independent family groups to assuage grieving and assist with recovery from loss. The tradition survives in modern law with the notification of a death to family members before public announcement and can assist the grieving process in the modern world. Missionaries, contractors, government workers and even anthropologists were only occasionally included in ceremonial or skin business so were largely unaware of the use of names which could no longer be used, which would appear to be Loudmouth's experience, and who'd share their private business with someone who calls themselves loudmouth anyway? The classic example is women's business. For the better part of two centuries scholars, occasionally accompanied by their wives, conducted ethnographies in first Australian communities, almost unanimously concluding decision-making was controlled entirely by men. It was not until the late 1970's and early 1980's that female anthropologists, independent of men, were introduced into women's business, decision-making controlled entirely by women complementary with men's business, Dianne Bell's 'Daughters of the Dreaming' the standout narrative. Male scholars had never been told about women's business because it was none of their business and their wives had never been told because they were dependent on a man. The use of ceremonial and skin names in public is more common nowadays with greater public interest thus the warning.

hi ALGOREisRICH, the problems of which an imbalance of male power are at cause are ubiquitous as you point out but hopefully none will pale into insignificance without remedy.
Posted by whistler, Saturday, 13 November 2010 11:43:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whistler,

Is it possible for you to write anything but rubbish ? Women's business indeed.

Incidentally, when we worked up at the settlement on the Murray, I was a laborer, mowing the lawns, collecting the garbage, pruning, picking, rounding up sheep, ploughing, the odd jobs. And I've always been an atheist, although I have had missionaries as very good friends.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 13 November 2010 11:50:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles: << But I'm afraid the motivation of people who claim such personal affinity with random historical events, eludes me. >>

The Coniston Massacre wasn't a "random historical event". Rather, it was well-documented mass murder that occurred in Australia less than a hundred years ago, for which nobody was ever held to account despite the perpetrators' identities being well known to the responsible authorities. I imagine that those whose grandparents and other kin were murdered would have little difficulty in having "personal affinity" with those appalling events.

I have to say that I think your historical analogies are spurious, not least because the English/British were colonial invaders in each case. While that was also the case in Australia prior to 1901, since that time Australian governments have had nominal sovereign authority over the semi-independent Australian State, including the responsibility to protect the legal residents thereof (including non-citizens, as Aborigines were until the 1960s).

Joe - are you seriously suggesting that massacres of Aborigines didn't occur, and that "women's business" didn't/doesn't exist? I'm hoping I've misunderstood you.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Saturday, 13 November 2010 12:51:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ,

No, of course not, there must have been many massacres across the country, it's a matter of corroborating rumour and oral history with evidence wherever possible.

As for women's business, I fear that there has been a great deal of confusion about what this means: of course people, including women, had obligations to particular sites and stretches of land - in the patriarchal areas on the Centre, by definition (and Diane Bell goes into this early in her book) women had to move away to marry, i.e. to live in their husbands' country for life, and usually never saw their own land again, but still had on-going obligations to carry out ceremonies to keep it in health.

So those women carried out private ( = secret) ceremonies (= business) at various times in relation to their own particular obligations. But a common ceremony which they all participated in ? I don't think so, since particular stretches and sites related to individual women, not to all women per se, who may have even come from different language-groups. A particular women-only ceremony ? Not even Diane Bell had the cheek to claim this in her 'Daughters of the Dreaming'.

Sisterly solidarity is a recent, fragile flower.

As for secrecy, in the sense of being known only to initiates, from memory, Diane Bell was told about 'secret' women's' 'business' on her first day in her study area.

And it certainly was a pity that there was no evidence of any such ceremony/site/legend amongst the Ngarrindjeri, who were NOT patriarchal (or strictly virilocal) - it would have been so convenient otherwise. Nor, in such permanently good country, was there any need for increase ceremonies like up in the drier country.

However, having imposed this bogus notion on the next generation, the task now should be to re-install some of the proper legends which the elders used to pass down. It's a pity also that almost none of the women involved in inventing this tradition of secret knowledge passed on from mother to daughter, had mothers or grandmothers or great-grandmothers who actually were Ngarrindjeri.
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 13 November 2010 6:05:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Loudmouth, the Federal Court recognised Ngarrindjerri women's business in 2001 and "[on] July 7th 2010, the Government of South Australia endorsed the finding that "Secret Women's Business" was genuine in a ceremony at the foot of the [Hindmarsh Island] bridge" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindmarsh_Island_bridge_controversy. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/05/2944724.htm
With Diane Bell it's best to let the reader decide. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=0MB-m2gjlWwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=daughters+of+the+dreaming&source=bl&ots=R1usv6xCC_&sig=Q5gEbZnTLtGgB-5CGPhccbafJSQ&hl=en&ei=6364S7qdGoqg6gOC3pyGCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=true
Posted by whistler, Saturday, 13 November 2010 10:48:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Come on ALGORE,
First it was about the failure of multiculturalism, now it's about the rantings of some discredited Canadian extremist and religious intolerance against Christians.

It's actually about the premediated murder of aborigines by Australians - apparently for economic reasons.
Posted by wobbles, Sunday, 14 November 2010 12:12:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think we need a new enquiry into the Coniston massacre.
Posted by Amanda Midlam, Sunday, 14 November 2010 8:59:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joe,

While it's peripheral to the main topic of the article, I think your rejection of "women's business" is misguided. Indeed, a quick glance at whistler's link to Bell's classic ethnography 'Daughters of the Dreaming' strongly supports a separate female ritual domain.

Like the proscription on speaking the names of deceased people, my understanding is that such practices varied among Aboriginal societies across Australia. Perhaps your experience as a European man of missionised Ngarrindjeri people isn't the whole picture, particularly as it applies to Central Australia?

Amanda Midlam,

What do you think would be achieved by a new enquiry into the Coniston Massacre? I was under the impression that the facts of the mass murder are quite well-documented.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 14 November 2010 9:54:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Amanda, thanks for your article. An enquiry conducted under governance which discriminates against women is counterproductive because governance which discriminates against women is at cause in the first place. An enquiry conducted under governance enabled by agreement between women's and men's legislatures, courts and corporate committees would be appropriate, fair and productive to all interests.
Posted by whistler, Sunday, 14 November 2010 10:00:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No, CJ, I'm saying that private land business undertaken by women in patriarchal/patrilineal/virilocal societies in Australia are, even now, probably still being carried out. Those people have land-healing/increase obligations, regardless of where they are, or of whether or not they are women.

In parts of Australia where increase ceremonies were unnecessary, and/or where societies were matriarchal/matrilineal, or bilineal, there was no basis for such activity.

One day, I am confident that at least one anthropologist in Australia will have the courage and integrity to risk his/her patronage links, and his/her career, and say so. But perhaps not in my lifetime.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 14 November 2010 10:04:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joe,

With the greatest respect, I'll go with the ethnography - which is clearly at odds with your theories, since "women's business" is frequently described as collective ritual activity engaged in by women, and from which men are excluded. Also, I'm not aware of any truly matriarchal (as opposed to matrineal) societies anywhere, including Australia.

But as I said, "women's business" is peripheral to the article, anyway.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 14 November 2010 11:02:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The facts of this series of murders are well-docmented (although little known). However the only enquiry was a travesty. And that's the situation that still remains today. The official finding was self-defence. Do we want to live with that in 2010? If we don't address this what does it say about us as a nation?
I really do think that unequivocably we have to say that the massacres and the enquiry were wrong. Cold-cases seem to be popular and this one left a lot of evidence. Let's deal with it.
Posted by Amanda Midlam, Sunday, 14 November 2010 11:25:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amanda,

I know nothing of forensic science, but if the exact site (or sites) of the Coniston massacres could be identified, and thorough examinations done of the sites, suppose babies' bones were uncovered ? Those of old men and women ? Bullet-casings but few signs of Aboriginal weapons ? What would constitute evidence of massacre rather than 'self-defence' on Murray's part ? Even after eighty years, it may be possible to find such evidence.

As well, given that ration-stations in the area would have kept lists of names of recipients, if those recipients suddenly disappeared, never claimed rations ever again, and included those of babies and old men and women, could this have inferred the possibility of massacres ?

CJ, I'm tired of scams. That's all there is to it. Give me the truth and I'll fight and die for it, but lies and fraud ? Never.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 14 November 2010 1:18:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amanda,
not much has changed in the justice stakes in Australia. Just consider the justice Mulrunji Doomagee recieved at the hands of qld policeman Chris Hurley. Chris remains a free man and poor Mulrunji is dead.

Also look a the tazering issue in WA recently.

It is funny how people solemly remember Gallipoli but claim that the dark deeds of Australia's past 'happened a long time ago' and suggest that Indigenous people should 'get over it' etc.

Unfortunately, I doubt you will get support to re-examine the Coniston massacre/s, particularly as some of the decendants of the perpetrators might get upset. Imagine for a moment if it was found there was some gain attained by the perpetrators of the massacres, would their decendants have to give back assets wrongfully gained by their fathers/grandfathers?

Imagine the repercussions that could flow on from reopening a case like this. I think non-indigenous Australians prefer to retain their selective amnesia of past events, and foster the myth that Australia is the land of the 'fair go'.
Posted by Aka, Sunday, 14 November 2010 1:54:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poor choice of words on my part, CJ.

>>The Coniston Massacre wasn't a "random historical event". Rather, it was well-documented mass murder...<<

But my point was not to diminish the act itself. Simply to illustrate what history tells us: that we can expect to commiserate over a never-ending stream of "well-documented mass murders", for many hundreds of years into the future.

The cult of the victim, once it takes hold, is highly resistant to appeasement, and extremely open to constant venting of emotions through the opening and re-opening of old wounds.

And this would appear, in context, to smack of special pleading...

>>I have to say that I think your historical analogies are spurious, not least because the English/British were colonial invaders in each case.<<

Your explanation as to how this does not apply to Australia, particularly given the nature of the crimes, the perpetrators of those crimes, and the cultural history of the victims, seems more than a trifle expedient.

There seems absolutely no possibility that we will ever arrive at a position where the past may be mutually and amicably put to rest. So we have to accept that we will be perpetually "in the naughty corner" in this country, and never be allowed to adopt it fully as our own.

As Boaz so lucidly put it - albeit probably accidentally...

>>...the Celts who lived in Britanny (French coast) who had been expelled/driven out by the Anglo Saxons... Every day of their LIVES reminded them of what the Anglo Saxons had done to them<<

It is clear that Aboriginal Australia too, reminds itself every day of their lives, of what the colonial invaders have done to them.

We will never be allowed to live guilt-free here in Australia, that's all there is to it.

How you react personally to that fact is your free choice, but entirely irrelevant.
Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 14 November 2010 4:41:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ..I can rejoice that your stint in rehab did wonders for your ability to analyse important issues :) well done! We agree.

You say:

Amanda Midlam,

What do you think would be achieved by a new enquiry into the Coniston Massacre? I was under the impression that the facts of the mass murder are quite well-documented.

YES.. absolutely so... but the 'wolf' under Amanda's sheep skin is this.

She is not interested in anything other than 'abolishing the white race'...by all means neccessary. (i.e..White Race as a "Social Construct" of course)

She says:

The official finding was self-defence. Do we want to live with that in 2010? If we don't address this what does it say about us as a nation?

Amanda...hey..let's go back to EVERY jolly bad thing which happened prior to the establishment of Australia.. in fact let's go back to CAIN and ABEL..... start there..and work your way through alllll the 'bad things' which ever happened...if you have the time!

The ONLY possible point in regurgitating this issue is to heap scorn and guilt on 'The White Race'....thus undermining majority Australia and eroding any self of self esteem or dignity which white people might have.

It's as though Amanda wants a 'new finding' which enables her to say "seeeeee....WHITE people did that..they MASSACRED those poor defenseless aboriginals"... and in so doing (even with it being true) she has effectivly LABELLED all White Australians with that genocidal brush. After all.. is anyone alive who can be 'convicted' of that incident?

Amanda... I'm sure you already work there..but hey.. here's a great organization for you.

Australian Critical Whiteness Studies Association

http://acrawsa.org.au/

You'll love it, it fits your script.

or.. here's a beaudy for you:

http://racetraitor.org/abolish.html

The author happens to be Jewish.. and a Marxist. (A HARVARD man no less)

OH SHOCK HORROR.. David Duke of the KKK has latched onto this.

http://www.davidduke.com/general/harvard-academic-abolish-the-white-race_5960.html

(can't figure out why ? ? ? )
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Sunday, 14 November 2010 5:03:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles....your last post deserves special mention....(you didn't do a bit in rehab with CJ did you ? :)

You are spot on in that post.

By the way... my 'by accident' thing ? Nope.. I know it applies and you should realize that it's for that same reason the Serb/Croat punch up occurs each year at the Tennis.

You have signalled a change in direction toward declaring MultiCulturalism (as understood and practiced, rather than how legislated) is doomed for the trashcan of history.

Thankyou and well done!
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Sunday, 14 November 2010 5:08:21 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In your dreams, Boaz.

>>You have signalled a change in direction toward declaring MultiCulturalism (as understood and practiced, rather than how legislated) is doomed for the trashcan of history.<<

Where, in your fevered imagination, is there even the faintest smidgeon of a link between the historical massacre of aborigines by colonialist invaders, and multiculturalism?

You are becoming embarrassingly one-track minded, I'm afraid.

>>Thankyou and well done!<<

If I believed for one instant that I had done or written anything to deserve these thanks, I would be mortified. The horror. It doesn't bear thinking about.

Fortunately, I don't suffer your monomaniacal insistence that everything is contextualized by "multiculturalism", and can therefore see that you are merely stirring the pot.

Sad, really.
Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 14 November 2010 5:44:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<It is the past that should be addressed because how can we move forward united if it is not addressed?”
It’s a good question. Isn’t it time we held a new enquiry and as a nation accept what happened and absorb it into our reality?>>

The grievance industry cannot move on or it wouldn't exist.
I wish the grievance mongerers would be absorbed into the reality of doing productive work so that we can all move forward.
Posted by Proxy, Sunday, 14 November 2010 5:51:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Substantial evidence from ethnography, the Courts and parliament supports an enquiry in recognition of a women's jurisdiction, so the matter appends a referendum to enable women's governance.
Posted by whistler, Sunday, 14 November 2010 8:40:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pericles... I guess you will duly mortify yourself this morning.

//The cult of the victim, once it takes hold, is highly resistant to appeasement, and extremely open to constant venting of emotions through the opening and re-opening of old wounds.//

That is essentially the problem with promoting 'division' through MC.

The 'pot' which you love to think I stir, is in fact those very grievances which are so hard to appease and which are exploited by specific interests (Socialist hardliners usually) for base political gain.

If you notice my words 'carefully'...you will observe that I refer to MC "as understood" by the various groups, rather than how it is legislated.

You might say this is a 'human problem' not a legislative one ? But I disagree.. any legislation which does NOT take human behaviour into consideration is both flawed and dangerous.

Multiculturalism is self defeating. My point about how society should function is simple "Promote and fund UNITY rather than diversity"
If you have spare funds...use them to facilitate and reward steps towards cultural and social unity rather than division.

How hard is that ? Unreasonable? Hardly.

You simply underlined and highlighted my very sound basis for this view. So...a-gain :) *thanks*
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Monday, 15 November 2010 4:44:40 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While I certainly wouldn't oppose a new inquiry into the Coniston Massacre, I'm not so sure that it would achieve much in practical or symbolic terms. While the massacre was relatively well-documented, it was only one of many that occurred in the process of subjugating Aboriginal people and expropriating their land. Assuming that such an inquiry were to reverse the risible 'self-defence' outcome of the original investigation, what would that actually achieve? Everybody who knows anything about the massacre knows that the original finding was rubbish anyway.

What about all the other murders amd massacres - are we to have a judicial inquiry into each one? To that extent I take Pericles' point, in the sense that we need to find a way of acknowledging the past injustices inherent in the establishment of Australia, without creating a perpetual 'guilt industry'. We need to be able to draw a line under unsavoury aspects of our history, rather than sweeping them under the carpet or fetishising them as evidence of the racist foundations upon which contemporary Australia was founded.

That's why I think that Rudd's Apology to the Stolen Generations, while representing a laudable effort to draw a line under that miserable chapter of our history, was inadequate because it said nothing about the deliberate effort to destroy Aboriginal culture, the widespread murder and mistreatment of Indigenous people, and the expropriation of Indigenous lands.

Gillard's preamble proposal could be one way of recognising these processes and of the State atoning for them. Another could be a formal Apology by the Head of the Australian State for all the illegal, unjust and inhumane processes that were integral to its creation. Another could be a formal Treaty, assuming that a suitable Indigenous representative entity can be established.

P.S. Boaz - as usual, you've managed to miscontrue and twist my meaning to push your own hateful agenda. This has nothing whatsoever to do with multiculturalism or your racist fantasies. Please don't misrepresent me any further, and do try and stay on topic.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 15 November 2010 7:57:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I guess, if you stand on your head and squint sideways through industrial strength dark glasses, while wearing an EDL "we're for peace" t-shirt and carrying a dog-eared copy of Ayn Rand between your teeth, it might just be possible to understand where you are coming from, Boaz.

>>You simply underlined and highlighted my very sound basis for this view. So...a-gain :) *thanks*<<

Those of us who live on planet Earth and walk upright on two legs see it somewhat differently. There is absolutely no connection between the various massacres perpetrated by colonial invaders from wherever, to the implementation and prosecution of multiculturalism.

>>My point about how society should function is simple "Promote and fund UNITY rather than diversity"<<

That's a motherhood statement. But what you really mean is that you want everyone to be like you - white, Christian and suburban.

In your mind, any mixing of cultures is dangerous. We know you feel that way, as you have asserted as much, many times.

While I do not agree for one moment that such mixing can be described as "multicuturalism", it is in any case a far, far cry from the process of i) invasion and ii) subjection of the local population that we are supposed to be discussing here.

>>The 'pot' which you love to think I stir, is in fact those very grievances which are so hard to appease and which are exploited by specific interests (Socialist hardliners usually) for base political gain.<<

Let's unpack that rather unlovely sentence for a moment.

You, as the immigrant to this land, have decided that the grievances of the indigenous folk are the result of exploitation by "Socialist hardliners".

Tell us, how does this compare to your stated position on the residents of Israel. How do you justify your support of the historical rights of the Jews to their territory on the one hand, and your denial of those same rights to Australia's indigenous people on the other.

I doubt very much whether you can do that without reference to your somewhat self-serving holy book.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 15 November 2010 7:59:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry, this is a bit OT

But whistler, I couldn't let this pass without comment.

>>Substantial evidence from ethnography, the Courts and parliament supports an enquiry in recognition of a women's jurisdiction, so the matter appends a referendum to enable women's governance.<<

There is not a single part of that sentence that makes any sense, as it stands.

1. What is the "substantial evidence" to which you refer? I will be particularly fascinated to view the "evidence from ethnography", starting with which particular "ethnos" you have in mind.

2. Given that you have so far been silent on the nature of the "women's jurisdiction", what assumptions have you made that underpin your contention that there is evidence supporting an enquiry into one?

3. How would a referendum to establish "women's governance" be conducted? And while it is logical that "women's jurisdiction" should be included in such a vote, where do you see a separation between the two? Surely they have one and the same end?

For the best part of two years on this Forum, you have concentrated on the slogans and dodged the substance. I was wondering, since you are still here and repeating the same mantra, whether you have actually given the matter any deeper thought.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 15 November 2010 8:21:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Absent...!

I always liked it better when he started all his sentences with absent.
Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 15 November 2010 10:31:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ALGOREisRICH,

You say that Amanda wants to "effectivly LABEL all White Australians with that genocidal brush" but you constantly do the same thing by using quotes from radical loonies to underline your (obvious) obsessive hatred of those who hold different religious beliefs from yourself.

You also want social unity rather than diversity - but I suspect that it's only as long as that unity is in harmony with your own beliefs

Are you willing to adapt yourself to a system in which you are the minority or demand that it changes to suit you? A world full of BOAZs?

Rather than come up with all sorts of solutions I think you should consider yourself part of the problem.

Why not accept that this massacre is part of the historical record and that we should be mature enough to acknowledge it in it's own right and move on instead of using the deaths of innocents to promote your own prejudices. Nobody ever raised a statue to a critic.
Posted by rache, Monday, 15 November 2010 11:30:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Patrick Dodson on Constitutional recognition for indigenous Australians, November 15, 2010:
"As with many indigenous people, I have no appetite to relive history, but I crave an honest dialogue in Australia" http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/genuine-attempt-to-write-first-peoples-into-nations-contract-20101114-17sm8.html.

hi Pericles, a minuscule portion of the evidence referred to in my eighth post on this thread is referenced in three links published in my sixth post, hope this helps. The concept of a women's jurisdiction has already been discussed at length on this forum http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3513&page=1. If you have anything further to add perhaps you could start a new thread.
Posted by whistler, Monday, 15 November 2010 12:18:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whistler,

I checked out that thread and still couldn't make any sense out of the idea of separate jurisdictions for men and women. You still don't specify what might be the subjects of deliberations of such a body (with surely the obvious implication that what isn't women's business is probably men's business, from which women are, in your model, to be excluded, or have I got that wrong too ?) Who decides what is men's, and women's, business ?

For most of us, we have spent most of our lives indirectly under the shadow of Apartheid in South Africa, and the tacit threat of its emulation in the US, Australia and other countries, where minorities could be hived off into the sticks, to leave the power and the richest pickings to the favoured majority. Colonialism is still fresh in the minds of some of us. Division, difference and inequality have been familiar evils. Equal rights is a very valuable, but fragile, creation, mostly of the post-war years.

Hence, the hostility of many, even on the Left, to the notion of large numbers of Indigenous people at universities, or living in the cities, and the devaluing of their efforts. Hence the approval of people, no matter in what dreadful conditions they may be forced to live, who 'wish' to go off into the remotest parts of the country and stay out of the way. Hence the easy assumption that Blacks should attend only to Black matters and Whites can attend to all the rest, which are by definition 'White' matters. Hence the easy assumptions about how fixed 'cultures' are, how wrong mixed marriages are, how alien modern living is for genuine Indigenous people, etc.

So if you want to win over anybody to your divisive notions, start going into details, give us something to get our teeth into. But don't expect 100 % support for what some believe is actually a quintessentially evil notion.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 16 November 2010 11:52:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Loudmouth, excellent candidate for a new thread!
Posted by whistler, Tuesday, 16 November 2010 9:11:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I feel a bit redundant. I have no need to identify racism and racists here. They do a perfectly good job of identifying and displaying examples of these two socio cultural phenomena themselves.
Posted by Rainier, Thursday, 18 November 2010 9:24:06 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy