A trick you say Cameron, well there's my problem, when I read about a nine year old being abandoned and "stolen" generations I guess not knowing the "trick" and when to apply it, I've been outraged that saving the girl is then used to denote "stealing"

Interesting value system, though I do understand now, you need to apply the "trick"

yep, all done, you just turn back to the old chorus of "stolen"

No wonder the majority of Australians don't believe in the "stolen" generation, and believe they were the "saved" generation.

I can see now that if all were able to apply the "trick", they'd see it your way.

The story so far:

* Mr Windshuttle has written a 600-page book suggesting that there were no stolen generations;

* BBoy has devastatingly and exhaustively demolished Windshuttle's research, but is yet to provide any examples;

* Mr Raynes has written a thorough exposee of the SA government's (or at least one of its agencies) intention to wipe out the Aboriginal population but, at least in his article, does not provide examples;

* a request has been made for examples and he has thrown a few names into the ring of public assessment;

* CJ Morgan and Aka have passionately gone off in different tangents about screaming babies and slave labour for 2-year-olds;

* Blairbar, individual, Ozzie, Amicus and spindoc have raised queries about the validity of the data presented so far;

* Mr Raynes's friend Ngarmada has cursed all and sundry from his redoubt in the Ureweras as morons and maggots;

* Paul has complained about personal attacks, poor little darling;

* Mr Raynes has given an example (Mr Penhall, head of the SA Aborigines' Protection Board) demonstrating that it was not legal for Aboriginal children to be stolen, at least in SA;

* Mr Raynes has declared that he will no longer participate in the enquiry provoked by his article;

* Mr Raynes and Paul have commiserated with each other about the evils of an unbelieving world;

* Mr Raynes has then given a good example of a child taken into care for neglect;

* quite properly, Amicus has drawn a logical conclusion from this example, thus putting the myth of a stolen generation to rest, once and for all;

* Notwithstanding, Amicus, spindoc, Individual, Blairbar, Ozzie, Foxy and myself are almost crushed by the weight of Mr Raynes' case - but wait ! All is not lost !

[continued]

[continued]

* The American philosopher Charles Sanders Pierce comes to the villains' rescue with this:

'Upon this first, and in one sense this sole, rule of reason, that in order to learn you must desire to learn, and in so desiring not be satisfied with what you already incline to think, there follows one corollary, which itself deserves to be inscribed upon every wall of the city of philosophy:

'Do not block the way of inquiry.'

And Salman Rushdie adds, at some risk to his own life, that the right of free speech is nothing if it does not include the right to offend.

Well, clearly having offended, and not inclined to think as we should, what are we villains to do now ? I guess we wait, for evidence that we have sinned, that Mr Raynes has ample evidence of mass evil, and that Windshuttle has been effectively exposed as a master of fraudulent research (BBoy) and that the stolen generation myth is not actually a myth (C. Raynes).

We can wait :)

Loudmouth, blairbar, Amicus,
you make some interesting comments; you ask for information and then do not read or consider the information you are given even though you give the impression you have the capacity for rational thought. You appear to have a deeply twisted urge to talk as a knowledgable person on the stolen generations as you distort anything that anyone else says.

You promote Indigenous success in academia, and then berate those who have achieved it. You are a hypocrite of the highest order.

Joe,If you were really interested in learning you might have read some of the evidence relating to the political and quasi scientfic reasons for the policies of breeding out the colour. But you really couldn't be bothered, or aren't capapble.

Systematically you and your colleagues demand proof, but that is just a ploy to push your distorted and twisted views onto others.

I do hope you and your colleagues enjoy being such dour and twisted folk.

Dear Aka
"quasi scientfic reasons for the policies of breeding out the colour"
Aka if one was going to "breed out the colour" why would you send Torres Strait Islander children to Palm Island and other Aboriginal reserves? Doesn't make sense does it?
The information you have supplied and your references, where they do mention "Stolen" Torres Islander children, contain nothing but allegations and assertions.
"Systematically you and your colleagues demand proof, but that is just a ploy to push your distorted and twisted views onto others.”
Well Aka just supply some proof and voila no more pushing of distorted and twisted views. Easy. And why would others accept my views and not yours?
They could surely see through my argument so you should have nothing to worry about.

Hi Aka,

Thanks for your ad hominems - where would we be without a bit of invective and passion on OLO ?

To respond to your actual ad rem comments:

* I fully support Blairbar on this issue - where is there any actual evidence that any government (forget about their rat-bag agencies) passed laws to 'breed out the colour', in that hateful phrase ?

Lke Blairbar, my wife was Indigenous, from Raukkan (Point McLeay, lower lakes, SA). After 42 happy and wonderful years myself and two beautiful children, I fully support inter-marriage to the extent that Indigenous people themselves are comfortable with it. Currently, around 80 % of Indigenous people are marrying non-Indigenous people, most likely people with whom they work and socialise, i.e. 95-99 % of their work-mates. In the process, non-Indigenous people are taken out of circulation and incorporated into the Indigenous world, to a large extent: overwhelmingly, their children identify as Indigenous. Those non-Indigenous people have siblings and parents and other relations who are introduced to the Indigenous world, often for the first time. In that way, Indigenous people are enriching the experiences of non-Indigenous people in ways that they would never otherwise encounter.

Inter-marriage is helping to massively boost the Indigenous population: while only 2.2 % of the Australian population is Indigenous, around 4 % of children are Indigenous. And it doesn't take much maths to realise that in a generation, around 6-7 % of all children will be Indigenous. In a generation after that, 10-11 % of all children will be Indigenous, and so on.

Think about what that means: 10 % of children being Indigenous will mean that most non-Indigenous people by, say, 2050, will have Indigenous children or grand-children or cousins or nephews and nieces.

Won't it be a beautiful world by 2050 ?! But the thought alone will scare the daylights out of all those racists out there ;) They'll start talking about the evils and dangers of inter-marriage once they realise what's happening, so get ready for it.

Joe Lane