We are wasting our time with this thread, Cameron. Loudmouth is hoping that we will provide him with information - he is a lazy researcher, which is why he is so peeved at not having achieved a PhD.

Loudmouth is firmly attached to the Windschuttle side of politics and seems to be offended that even though he wrote one paper, he, with his right-wing super capitalist - born to rule concepts, is not accepted as an authority on Indigenous issues. Poor thing.

He is hurt that so many educated people don't buy into believing the sloppy research that his mate Windschuttle, and the others in the rightwing think tank that loudmouths'sole paper was published in.

He and his old buddy windy were probably sitting there conferring over Loudmouth's posts, giggling about stirring the pot, and hoping to turn up some information to advance their somewhat suspect research.

I suppose you are judged by the company you keep, eh.

Loudmouth, it is not too late to go for that PhD that you appear to envy so much, but you might have to open your mind a bit

A terrible story, Cameron, a terrible way to treat a child. But was he stolen ? By whom, from where - to the ACH ? Are all your stories this irrelevant to the SG myth ?

On the highest estimate, you are claiming, what ? that a dozen children were taken into care illegally, or without cause ? Over how long ? Fifty years ? Even if they were 'stolen', it does not quite make up the equivalent of a generation, wouldn't you agree ?

What is a 'generation' ? How many kids were in the 'Stolen Generation', all-up ? In the period between 1900 and, say, 1970 - let's say three generations - there would have been from three to seven thousand Aboriginal children born each year across Australia, totalling roughly 350,000 in that time.

Peter Read declares that between 10 and 30 % of those children were stolen. That amounts to between 35,000 and 105,000 children.

Aboriginal people in South Australia make up about 6 % of the national total, so around 21,000 Aboriginal people were born in South Australia during those three generations..

So extrapolating from Peter Read's Compendium of Fairy Tales, all things being equal, between 2,000 and 6,000 Aboriginal children in South Australia would have been stolen between 1900 and 1970, in addition to the children who were quite legally taken into care, as the state was obliged to do, in circumstances of deprivation and poverty.

2,000 to 6,000 Aboriginal stolen children in South Australia - and Dr Raynes has not been able to document a single one ? Just a few names plucked out of the air ? If you were a lawyer charged with bringing such a case, CJ, or Aka, and this was all you had, I would strongly advise you to check out getting a taxi license or set up your own lawn-mowing business, because this tinny ain't gonna float, not even in a backyard pool.


Gee, some of those disgruntled old f@rts know how to have a good time ;)

Drats ! Aka has unmasked me, so peeved at not getting a Ph.D. ! That explains everything ! Certainly saves any further analysis.

And yes, Aka, unmasked again ! I had a paper published in - horrors ! - Quadrant. [Actually, a couple of others published by the CIS as well, and an article in The Australian, that Murdochrity. And a few published a while ago in The Aboriginal Child at School, that right-wing rag. And a paper with Maria published by the Bennelong Society in 2008: check it out on Google.] Perhaps it shows that Quadrant is a broad church, not so right-wing, if it can publish a paper by a left-wing rat-bag like me ?

Is that your best shot, Aka ? Unrequited ambition ?

What really intrigues me about all this is: why come up with this SG story ? To justify a suspicion about assimilation, of turning Aboriginal kids into white kids ? [Which didn't happen, did it ? Not at Oodnadatta, not at Kinchela, not at Palm Island, not at Retta Dixon.] And why should racist goverments WANT to turn Black kids into white kids ? Has that really ever happened before, with racist governments in South Africa or the southern states of the US ?

But believers must keep believing the SG story, in order to keep believing in the turning-Black-into-white story. But if not one, then probably not the other either: if there was really no policy to turning-Black-into-white, then to a large extent, the SG story collapses. But if that happens, so much of the Victim Paradigm collapses as well. It's all a package, really.

The implications of NO stolen generation are fascinating ! And, I suspect, very wide-ranging, possibly paradigm-changing.

Aka,

You always know when someone does not have a case to argue, or a feather to fly with, when they resort to insult and ad hominem - in other words, grannie, they try to take the 'discussion' away from the issues and hope that everyone will get diverted by a sh!t-fight.

The issue: is there, or isn't there, any evidence of a Stolen Generation in South Australia and, by extension, in Australia, including the Torres Strait islands ? Yes/No

Evidence: None so far, apart from bare names, no details, no circumstances, let alone anything to justify the term 'generation'.

Spurious Rationale for an SG: that the racist system wanted to turn as many Aboriginal children as possible into white kids. Without this rationale, there was no particular reason for taking children illegally.

Evidence of a policy of wanting to turn Aboriginal children into white children: none.

Ergo, no need for 'stealing' children.

Ergo, no Stolen Generation: no evidence and no reason.

Pretty rock solid, I reckon.

The next question then becomes; why believe that any racist (exclusionist, separatist, segregationist, discriminatory) society would even want to turn Aboriginal kids into white kids ?

Racist societies and racist people are usually terrified of a 'mixing' of groups, of inter-marriage, of kids even going to the same school. True or not ?

Most racist societies ban inter-marriage, segregate schools and theatres, and ban people from the oppressed group from even being on the streets or in town after a certain time.

Evidence of racist governments wanting to mix up Black and white: none

Evidence of racist governments wanting inter-marriage: none

Ergo, evidence of any racist government wanting to turn Aboriginal kids into white kids: none, they are too exclusionist.

Exclusion and control is the rule in racist societies, that's how power is exercised by a particular group, Black or white, plus keeping people remote and poorly educated (now we're getting somewhere).

So why believe it in either an SG or in TLACIWC ? Who benefits and who loses from such a false belief ? Both Black and white ?

Stay tuned ;)

Good afternoon Everyone,

Here's another extract from The Last Protector:

The removal of Aboriginal children continued throughout the first few years of
the operation of the Act. In May 1913, South visited Bordertown at the request
of the Commissioner of Public Works to investigate the circumstances of several
‘light-skinned’ Aboriginal children. He wrote to the commissioner:

I have the honor to inform you that I visited the Native camps at Bordertown on
the 10th instant, but owing to the short time I could remain there, I was not able
to get full particulars of the names, ages and circumstances of two families of half-
caste and quadroon children living in the camps, but what I saw leads me to
think the children should be at once removed and placed under the State
Children’s Department. Two of the children are white, with blue eyes, and one has
auburn hair.

These children included the four children of Andrew Allan. In June 1913,
Mounted Constable Redpath reported that although the children’s mother had
died, two of their aunts lived with the family, the eldest two children attended the
state school and Andrew was in full-time employment:

They live in two rooms, the interior of same having a clean appearance. The chil-
dren are white and were neatly dressed, and evidently fairly well looked after.

Nevertheless, on 1 July 1913, the secretary of the SCC requested that the
Bordertown police charge the children as being ‘neglected [and under] unfit
guardianship’. Within three weeks, all four of Allan’s children had been sent to
the Industrial School at Magill, with three children from another family similarly
dealt with.

Thank you, Dr Raynes - talk about the Owl of Minerva :)

So there WERE Aboriginal children taken from their families, and with no cause. I'm happy to stand corrected. You also give details of another case on
http://inside.org.au/secret-history/

and this is useful too: http://www.adelaidereview.com.au/archives.php?subaction=showfull&id=1111110120&archive=1112321192&start_from=&ucat=1&

Given the secrecy involved, and the ban on any research using GRG 52/1, it would be very difficult to get an accurate idea of numbers of children taken in this way, but would you be able to make an estimate ?

It would be a criminal act for the SA government to destroy files, so unless they have already done that, those files and others would still be in existence. Would they be held in the Attorney-General's office or that of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs ? What steps could be taken to get access to them, or would there be an Executive Order to ban access ? There would have to be a minute of that Order somewhere ?

Thank you again, Dr Raynes, you have done us all a great service. I might even buy your book now ;)

Joe Lane