blairbar,
I am not sure you are interested in finding the truth, or merely supporting your whinge about whether Torres Strait Island children were part of the 'Stolen Generations'.

I suggest that you have no idea how much knowledge I have, just as it is not possible for me to know how much you knowledge you have. I am confident in my knowledge and understanding of the topic, however, I can make an educated guess about your level of understanding from the comments you make

Amicus, you’re fooling noone, for now you’re attacking me after failing against the author of the article.

No I don’t assume you are a ‘white brit,’ intellectually brittle perhaps, and its spelt morOn, morn is a prosaic term referring to the early part of the day.

However, you are patently racist, anyone observing your posts on the thread, ‘Barack Obama: better never than late,’ cannot fail to observe your bigoted malice. Attempting to denigrate those targeted for incursion of such malice is a known racist tactic.

Further galling to you is obviously those current media reports which annihilate the bigoted contentions of yourself, and those of like minded proclivity. The passing of Health reform legislation introduced by Obama in the US, and the findings in SA for the Stolen Generation claimant, Mr Trevorrow, observe the brittle contentions of your ilk, requiring intensive care.

You berate posters continually for their failings, but are seldom observed addressing the subject of the issues pertaining to the article. Cunning tactic alleging failings of other posters which in fact are particularly attributed to yourself, but noone’s buying it, morOnic behaviour is always readily observable of what it is.
You may be oblivious to that observation, ignorance apparent as being bliss.

Similarly blairbar is the classic bigot who observes no conflict in speaking of peoples issues and concerns of which he retains absolutely no competence, nor integrity of purpose. His intent is simply to be destructive, to deny any claims that may impugn his arcane colonial view of history.

Hi Dr Raynes,

Of course SA legislation is not part of GRG 52/1, why do you think otherwise ? Why should it be ? Copies of the legislation are held in the SA State Records, as GRG 52/1 is, but not together of course. In any case, I always use the set of legislation held in the State Library which, by the way, also has a fair collection of Aboriginal material in its archives. And as you say, Windshuttle could have been banned from accessing much of GRG 52/1, they were tightening up even ten years ago.

As to your claim that Windshuttle's work is second-rate, as if it's all cut and dried, I respectfully beg to differ: if you can come up with a 600-page work replete with footnotes (which BBoy has found nothing wrong with so far: see the first posting), which comprehensively covers all states and Territories over 200 years, then perhaps you can match Windsuttle's scholarship. Can you ?

And if Windshuttle was grading you, Cameron, I wonder what you would get.

If you can get approval from the families you mentioned to send on material to my email address, we can get down to business :) What are you claiming happened to these families ? You're not claiming that their children were put into dormitories, are you ? Incidentally, my wife was a Reid: her great-grandmother Martha was George Reid's daughter, born about 1875, and her mother was Reba Angie, born about 1848 around Port Broughton.

Still waiting, Dr Raynes.

[continued]

[continued]

Cath, point taken, but such a tiny proportion of kids taken into care at Raukkan - almost all of whom returned in a short time - a similar proportion to white kids taken (3-4 %) tempts one to suspect that a similar proportion across the entire Aboriginal population might have been taken into care.

In my mind, being taken into care relates very directly to the conditions of life of a family, Black and White, so surely one would expect a higher proportion of children from working-class families, or families with no bread-winners, would be taken into care ? That a higher proportion of kids would be taken into care where mothers' health was worse, or fathers worked in more dangerous jobs ? That fasmilies tend to break down more often where the fathers have to go away for work than in families with bread-winners in nice, secure, 9-to-5 jobs ? That kids are more likely to be taken into care from families which break down than from nice, secure middle-class families ? Surely one does not even have to propose anything to do with neglect or abuse to understand why so many poorer kids, Black and White, would be taken into care than kids from the eastern suburbs ?

You write: "there have been several instances of exaggeration and embellishment by Indigenous advocates, but they don't negate the veracity of the majority of claims."

Well, yes, they do: how can you trust any claim if some have turned out to be dodgy ?

As for the Apology, fine, but it should have been matched by something much more substantial, not just fine words to make the white middle-class feel comfortable @ cost-free. And as you say, there is so much more that any Apology should have included, but perhaps that is for future generations :)

Joe

Thanks, Ngarmada, for showing us all (including your friends Dr Raynes and CJ) the infinite varieties of ad hominem arguments, from the crudest (moron, racist, denialist) to the less crude. Fortunately we don't need an infinity of ways to ignore you, unless and until you are willing to discuss civilly and stick to the issues.

Joe Lane
Adelaide

Loudmouth, you continue to demonstrate your ignorance of even the most fundamental of professional and scientific principles, yet you continue to attempt to claim your chow hound study as retaining some abstract authoritative value, if in fact your claims are not fabrications. Well it cannot possibly you moron, it has no basis in fact because its basis may be only observed entirely misconstrued and without foundation of any creditable benchmark.

For that is the test of any body of work, alike the extensive scientific work demonstrating the premise of current climate change, as opposed to relatively observed, minor infractions with no impact upon the central tenets of the work. However you are obviously unable to apply such fundamental practices of critical analysis, or you would not be demonstrating such blatant ignorance of them, on a par with your dysfunctional capacity to only nit pick substantial work that discredits your loony tunes racist dogma.

Forget your BS attitudes of getting a cheap education by picking brains with mindless taunts, if you are sincere in your determination to know and learn your subject, you will apply yourself appropriately to the rigour required for the work. You would not attempt to fly an aircraft without training would you [although you particularly may]? You are fooling noone.