Reversal blairbar? Is that a position reversal?

Cameron,

Congratulations on keeping your patience in the face of Joe aka Loudmouth's continuing personal attacks and obstinate refusal to recognise that many of his objections to your argument.Particularly his repeated hectoring demand that you name just one South Australian Aboriginal child who was stolen, followed by instant refusal to recognise that his demand has, in fact, been met.

Aka,
[continued]
What if instead, we see unjust, racist and discriminatory societies as, generation after generation, trying to keep people separate, to keep Indigenous people OUT and down, not forcing them IN ? Compare Australia back then to the apartheid times in south Africa or the dreadful conditions for African-Americans in the southern states of the USA before the sixties - segregation, separation, exclusion, control and discrimination there too. Can you even imagine the whites there plotting to make the Blacks into little whites ?

A policy of discrimination needs to keep people apart, under control - where on earth did this crazy idea come from that the policy was to try to make Black kids into white kids ? White fellas got jailed (or warned off) if they got too friendly to Black women. Here in SA, when I first got to know Maria, it was just two or three years since it would have been illegal, not that we knew that. Actually, we should have got permission to marry, and permission again to go to Victoria - and permission AGAIN when we went to New Zealand. Little did we know - and this is probably one way that policies fall apart, i.e. by being unenforceable.

And do you know of any Black kids who actually were turned into little white kids ? Any at all ? No, there were other, quite standard and tragically common, reasons for taking kids into care, we don't have to concoct some state government conspiracy.

Cameron - love your self-assessment ! Did you give yourself an A+ ? And is that quote about Penhall straight from Windshuttle ? It certainly sounds like something he would have been happy to include in his book: yes, it was illegal to take a child from his/her mother without cause, the same cause as would have applied to a white baby. Windshuttle would agree wholeheartedly. Do you disagree ? She was a lovely lady too

Cameron,

No, of course, you're not at anybody's beck and call, I can wait :) Did you get those names out of the phone book ? I suppose I'll have to buy your book to find out. What a dastardly clever marketing ploy !

Paul,

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by personal attacks on Dr Raynes. In fact I keep calling him Dr Raynes out of respect, although I think he is only a Mr. Suck it up, girls.

Ngarmada,

At last ! You say something comprehensible: but Leigh is right, I'm afraid, yes, Mr Trevorrow tragically passed away in mid-2008, just before my wife, and no, the State government is quite properly not pursuing his family, relations or estate for return of the compensation monies. You might have missed it, it was probably at the bottom of page 11 of the New Zealand Herald at the time.

Anyway, to repeat for your benefit:

* in democratic states, governments have the fiduciary duty of care for all citizens, particularly of children, as a 'parent of last resort';

* it was never legal in any state or territory to take children from their parents, Black or white, for no reason which could not stand up in court;

* to date, only one case has been found which breached any such law, that of Bruce Trevorrow. Dr Raynes has given a list of names which he claims are of children taken illegally into care without specifying in what way, where or when (sorry, Paul, is that a personal attack? Sorry, dear).

Apart from that, Ngarmada, I will give your comments the full attention they deserve, to the extent that I can understand them: ....................................

Joe Lane
Adelaide

Dr BBoy,
In the first posting on this thread, you suggested that Windshuttle's research was full of holes and I respectfully requested that you find one. Still waiting :)

Mr Raynes,
On your reliance on oral history: surely, if any oral account has validity, it can be backed up by written documentation, from State Records, the archives in the State Library, the national archives, mission archives, even police archives. As you say, there are 24 shelf-metres of documentation in the SA State Records alone, boxes and boxes of material, real gold mines of information. For example, suppose we take the oral account behind the Rabbit-Proof Fence story - surely there would be oodles of written material to back up the assertion that, between August and November 1931, three little girls walked a thousand miles in three months, over rugged terrain, without food or water ? For example:

* the West Australian newspaper would have been onto this subject from the word go, following every police or Rabbit Department (yes, there was one) movement of staff, looking for human interest stories, something to embarrass the conservative Mitchell government;
* police records would have detailed transfer of staff from onedistrict to another, and emergency budget allocations would have been documented;
* the Rabbit Department would likewise have documented transfer of staff along the fence from the south to the north, with perhaps requests for supplementary funding from the government;
* Mrs Mary Bennett, a thorn in Neville's side, a wonderful woman and a prolific writer, would have got into him and sent articles and pleas to her friends in Communist and British anti-colonial circles about these three little girls;
* the Mosely Commission, set up in 1934 by the incoming Collier Labor government, would have mentioned it, either in its 600-page evidence, or in its piddly 24-page Report; and the Labour papers would have been happy to get stuck into the Mitchell government, not to mention the 'yellow press', the Truth/Smith's Weekly, for example.

Oh, well, that's it for 24 hours.

[to be continued]

Joe

CJ Morgan,
Just so you know, a racist is someone who objects/dislikes another due to a different complexion. If someone acts offensively then the other person criticises an attitude not a complexion. You, have to learn that difference if you have any dreams of ever achieving harmony. If you're prepared to do wrong then you have to also be prepared to take responsibility. It appears from your denialist posts that you're lacking the integrity that is the base of rationality. We all know about the wrongs of the past & many of us work on rectifying & preventing these mistakes in the future. You on the other hand appear to dwell & even relish the perpetuation of misinterpretation, denial & non-acceptance of responsibility. C'mon prove that you're not beyond some integrity.