...Thanks Amanda for the very interesting history lesson. Your article prompted me to research further on the internet. Through small pox epidemics in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s, the aboriginal population was reduced from 11.000 to just a few hundred survivors in the south coast of NSW. Another interesting point in their history was the frequency of war between the highland natives and those from the coastal regions.

...The fact of a walking track connecting the Delegate camp to Lake Tyres, reinforces the history of tribal connection: A track that connected the highland tribe (allowed to live in freedom under the watchful eye of the local police), with the oppressed natives on the coast. The reason for the fretting of the old folk from Delegate; removed from their camp, would be obvious. It was sadly a welcome to the real world of oppression of the remnant native populations outside their very isolated circle in Delegate: And what was the purpose in the forced closure of the camp in 1957, just three years before Aboriginal recognition? The answer would have to be, the case was too obvious for another way that worked outside of total Government control, aimed at forced integration (genocide)

Thank you, Amanda, for this fascinating piece of Indigenous history. I'm particularly struck by Margaret Dixon's heartfelt and poignant witness to the grief of dispossession and separation that persists to this day. A really valuable contribution to the conversation in Reconciliation Week.

The article by Amanda Midlam, is typical of the sort totally biased left wing dribble, which caused me to turn from being a misinformed left winger to a realistic right winger.

The most significant aspect of Amandas tirade, is that nowhere does it concede that anything done by whites towards blacks was could have been done with good intentions. Nor could the actions of whites towards blacks be in any way considered humane. Amandas message is clear. Those dirty, disgusting white people have been oh, so horribly and intentionally cruel to aboriginal people, and white people must abase themselves to atone for their genocidal racism.

Could I remind readers that even the obviously humane program of removing aboriginal children who were at serious risk of sexual exploitaion, malnutrition, racist attacks by aboriginals resulting in physcical harm (even death) ,and complete neglect, has been redefined by the white hating self loathers such as Amanda as the "stolen generations." But Australia's own High Court has ruled that the removal of aboriginal people was a "humanitarian obligation."

Amanda even lets the word "genocide" drop, even hinting at "Concentration camps". The implication is clear. White Australians are Nazis. This hatred for their own race is an interesting sympton that afflicts people with Amandas mindset, and what environmental factors create this unfortunate condition is interesting to speculate upon.

As a young left winger, I had been educated by people like Amanda to detect the slightest scintilla of racism. But then I started reading stuff like Amanda has just posted. The thing which struck me was the pathological need of the left wing intelligensia, who's views I slavishly copied, to always portray the actions of white people in the worst possible light. Any act towards aboriginal people which any reasonable person could perceive as being beneficial to aboriginal welfare, could always be portrayed as an act of evil, with a little bit of pushing and shoving of the facts.

You can't train me to recognise racism, and then complain when I see it as plain as day in racist articles such as Amanda has just posted.

LEGO, couldn’t have put it better myself.

As I suggested in a response to Malcolm King on the Welcome to County issue, it is increasingly hard for most Australians to develop an understanding of indigenous issues when those who are indigenous (by any definition) cannot agree between themselves, nor can they agree on anything with those who seek to represent them.

This whole sorry mess has become an absolute festering disgrace to all Australians. And I’m sorry Diver Dan and DNB that you find this situation both “fascinating” or “interesting” because quite frankly, it is not, it is something we should all be deeply ashamed of.

It is self evident to much of the Australian public, that the indigenous communities do not agree amongst themselves, nor do they agree with some policies, some politicians, academia, much of the media, many Human Rights activists, the UNHRC and many of the so called educated urban elites who also claim to represent the same heritage.

I think the Australian public has developed a greater understanding and genuine compassion for our indigenous peoples than all the “Aboriginal Industry” players put together.

Amanda has not explained why her assignment was requested, by whom or what the objective was? Accordingly it is impossible to assess if it has met its objectives. Whilst there is much offered by way of historical content, the conclusions are woefully ineffective other than as an academic exercise in proselytizing.

If Amanda is comparing the three missions with three different policies, readers have a right to expect, given the volume of detail, that she should indeed draw some conclusions on the relative merits or effectiveness of each.

Without such conclusions we are just left with a meaningless exercise in academic futility with possibly a hidden agenda.

spindoc, I find it funny that you seem to expect all Indigenous Australians to agree on all things when it is obvious that mainstream Australians do not.

Gee whiz, just look at Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott, and they share a history of being British immigrants. Look also at the results of the last federal election for dissagreements etc, where Australia was divided down the middle on who was to be the leader of the country.

Why then do you make your judgment on Indigenous Australians on such a criteria?

LEGO, in your conversion from left to right you seem to have picked up a certain amount of vitriol. It is a pity really as it seems to divert you from making a meaningful input into this thread.

While there is no doubt that some of the actions of moving Aboriginal people onto reserves, missions and concentration camps (where Aboriginal people were concentrated except for those whose job it was to keep them there) were wellmeaning, the protection Aboriginal people need was primarily from exploitive and violent settlers. That is a documented fact.

You assert that children were removed to protect them from sexual abuse, but it was protection from the settler community that was given by G.A. Robertson, protector of Aborigines, when he proposed the first sanctuaries. The documentation of sexual slavery of Aboriginal children (boys and girls) and women by whalers in Tasmania is very clear.
The same reason was given - to protect Aboriginal people from murder, abuse and exploitation by white settlers - when missions were set up on Cape York.
Ted Eagan even wrote a song about it, The Drover's Boy, do you remember it? The song tells of a massacre and the ensuing enslavement of an Aboriginal woman (the boy).
There is a great deal of other documentation of Aboriginal people being enslaved by people in the settler society.

It is not a matter of left or right, LEGO, these actions by settlers could hardly be considered well intentioned. The issue is about being clear and honest about your history.

Aka, could I just ask you to read my post again as I think you might have picked up the wrong end of the stick?

I have absolutely no expectations of Indigenous Australians to reach consensus and I most certainly do not consider non indigenous Australians to be “mainstream”. We are all Australians. Nor have I expressed any “judgment” on indigenous Australians or expressed this as any criteria.

What I’ve said stands. There is absolutely NO consensus across Australia by Australians. As a result those who feel they have the answer have sought to impose it. Given the current status, it would seem reasonable to conclude that those who are in a position to impose their “will” have done so with terrible consequences.

Perhaps when you have re-read my post you could come back to us with something a little more in context. Thank you.

Lego:”Amanda even lets the word "genocide" drop, even hinting at "Concentration camps".”

Amanda said: “...this segregation was officially referred to as a Concentration Plan.”

That isn’t much of a hint. Where did you see “genocide”?

“The implication is clear. White Australians are Nazis. This hatred for their own race is an interesting sympton that afflicts people with Amandas mindset, and what environmental factors create this unfortunate condition is interesting to speculate upon.”

Lego that is just weird and then the insult. You really dislike anyone saying white people ever did anything wrong eh. So anyone who says that one race treated another race quite horribly is immediately labled racist – even if it is true? What if a race mostly thought it was for the other races good – this excuses all cruelties?

But then Spindoc agrees with you and then says we should all be deeply ashamed.

Lego:” The most significant aspect of Amandas tirade, is that nowhere does it concede that anything done by whites towards blacks was could have been done with good intentions.”

This was a tirade? She’s a bit crap at tirades then. And Spin wants a written out conclusion because without it information is meaningless but Amanda possibly has some hidden agenda... WEIRD.

Lego and Spin... please analyse this statement and tell me what emotion I am using, what my agenda is and please let me know if any word makes you think about Hitler:

“For a people, as for an individual, it is tragic to have ambitions and to lack both the means essential to their fulfillment and any hope of acquiring those means.”

FWIW Aka has also misrepresented LEGO's position.

As I read it, Lego was correcting the orthodoxy –which the articles writer uncritically panders to – that presents ALL white actions/policies as having malicious intent.

So what does Aka do? He spins it to make it sound that Lego is arguing there was NEVER ANY malicious deeds or intent .

Aka's effort might get five stars from ashes and sackcloth brigade -–but would hardly rate elsewhere.

…For those who doubt Australias has a history of genocide, why not try the enlightening path and google “genocide in Australia” and read with an open mind.

Below is a small extract:
...international legal definition of genocide, namely Article II (a) to (e) of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948:

…In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

…Of course the biggest killer of the group was small pox. The fact is hugly interesting to me that the south coast and Monaro tribes were reduced in numbers from 11.000 to a mere 600 by this pathogen.

…The history, viewed from left right or centre, is, humanly speaking, one of immense sadness even to this day. To remain impassive and even hostile to their plight, as some here attest, is heartless at the least

To Diver Dan.

Not only did Australia’s High Court rule that the removal of aboriginal children by the Federal government constituted a “humanitarian obligation”, it also ruled that this action did not fit any of the six definitions of the word “genocide” invented by the UNHCR. But I know that you don’t know that, because the sort of people who are putting anti white racist propaganda in your head were confident that you would never bother to check whether what they were saying was true.

If you ever got your brain to work properly, you might remember that there is only one definition of the word “genocide” in the English language. You could than ask yourself by what right the UNHCR (which includes such stalwarts of Human Rights as China, Cuba, Libya, Bolivia and Pakistan) have to change the English language so that the English word “genocide” better fits their anti western agendas.

To AKA

Yes, I am vitriolic in denouncing the outright lies made by people who consider the denigration of my people, my country, my culture and my people’s allies to be some sort of national sport.

And if state and federal governments set up reservations in order to protect aboriginal girls from the sexual exploitation of whalers, isn’t that a humane objective? The biggest gap in your logic, is that if it was the intention of successive state and federal governments to “breed out the colour”, then why didn’t they let the white men continue to screw the aboriginal girls?

The most notable aspect of the sort of anti white tirades by writers like Amanda, is that whatever the situation, white people can always be damned if they do, or damned if they don’t. Nowhere in her article did she give even a hint that the intentions of white governments could be anything but genocidal Nazi evil.

If you consider yourself to be an educated person, how is it that you can not instantly recognise pure propaganda?

“As I read it, Lego was correcting the orthodoxy –which the articles writer uncritically panders to – that presents ALL white actions/policies as having malicious intent.”

Maybe it wasn’t written with that intent or does this stuff only work one way?

So every time someone writes something about how the aboriginals have been handled there’s a group out there that would like it noted how SOME of it was done with the best of intentions and it was just this massive effort to help them that kept going all wrong because people just weren’t as smart back then as they are now.

What a bunch of silly duffers the indigenous must think to themselves.

Lego where is this word “Genocide” mentioned in the article?

@ Diver Dan,

For those who want to have FULL picture of genocide in Australia. I suggest you find some of the early accounts of aboriginal INTERTRIBAL WARS ---and read with an open mind.

Now you wont find much mention of such things on the myriad of websites ---most of whom are ultimately taxpayer funded and financially and emotionally committed to propagating the lie that only white men are capable of genocide and prior to white men arriving in OZ noble savages lived peacefully in a garden of Eden -- you will need do some research for yourself.

And a word of warning: it wont make you popular with many of those who consider themselves socially conscious. And you’re not likely to be invited to detail your findings on the ABC or SBS, and if your from academia you’d best make sure you have tenure before doing the research.

But I promise the exercise will be truly enlightening and worthwhile.

The history, viewed from a WIDE lens , is, humanly speaking, one of immense sadness even to this day. To remain
ignorant of the FULL picture or one eyed , as some here attest, is heartless at the least.

@ Jewely

/// So every time someone writes something about how the aboriginals have been handled there’s a group out there that would like it noted how SOME of it was done with the best of intentions ///

I seem recall that there was an proposition that was doing the rounds –and was bough big time by those left of centre – that by the continual portrayal of non-whites or women in negative ways we was damaging. And this was despite the predominance and positivity projected by such icons as Dame Edna , Nat King Cole & The West Indian Cricket Team .

In issues about black/white relations covered by OLO & ABC/SBS documentaries we are deluged by accounts that highlight the worst aspects of white behaviour .

Let’s have some balance, ay?

Jewely,

There is absolutely no reference to any historical events in any of my posts on this thread. I have emphasized only policies and consensus.

Amanda has written in detail about three communities and three different policies. If her conclusion is adequate then perhaps you could tell us the meaning? Without the conclusion it is just an interesting list of historical events, without purpose.

Jewely, the last time I looked we were in the third millennium. For a very long time our politicians and the indigenous advocacy bodies in Australia have tried to establish social equity and justice for indigenous Australians.

I matters not how, why or by whom the raft of policies were formulated or implemented, at this point in time, today, what we have achieved is very little. In fact it would be more accurate to say we have created Australian refugees in Australia.

I you do not feel deeply ashamed about where we are today, it would indicate that your emotional gabfest is more about attention seeking than any genuine compassion.

To Jewelry.

First page under Lake Tyler. “Lake Tyler was part of the process of genocide - an attempt to ‘soothe the pillow’ as Aboriginal people died out”.

And as for good white intentions going wrong. Could I submit that the biggest good intention that went wrong was the conviction that a stone age people should be given total equality with white people, on the grounds of “all men are created equal, with universal equal rights, blah, blah."

The biggest problem with aboriginal people is alcohol, which “racist” people like me once prevented them from accessing. But well meaning humanitarians demanded absolute equality of rights for blacks. When this was pointed out that this would mean that aboriginal people would now be allowed to drink alcohol, and that this would be catastrophic for aboriginal development, the humanitarians refused to consider the negative consequences of their ill conceived universal ideals. Nothing less than total equality of aboriginal rights with whites would do, and if that meant problems with aboriginal alcohol abuse, then gee, that was just too bad.

The stage was set for a tragedy of epic proportions, and all because the trendy lefties utterly refused to compromise on human equality and human rights. The easily foretold serious endemic problem of aboriginal drunkenness soon manifested itself, proving that the “racists” were right all along.

But you are not going to see any articles by Amanda Midlan about how her self loathing trendy lefty mates stuffed up big time and are primarily responsible for the near anarchy and extreme violence now prevalent on aboriginal reserves. The trick is to always keep implying that people like her are oh, so ferking intelligent and compassionate, while finding someway to blame the white Australians she despises for everything that ever went wrong with aboriginals, and portraying ordinary Australians and their governments as Nazis.

Aka,
Grandma, I agree with what you're saying & that Ted Egan song. I also agree with the other posters who draw attention to the other side of the coin. What does this mean ? It means that none of us nor none of our ancestors nor will any of our successors ever be so blameless of exploiting the weaker. When the first european explores penetrated the interior of the land which they called Australia & called the people Aborigines they found unusually healthy middle-aged tribes. It was only after more expeditions that they realised why they hardly saw any sick, old people. The reason being that as soon as a member of the tribe could no longer keep up with the constant wandering they were left behind to fend for themselves. This meant the end of their life. I often wonder if our western sense of compassion is actually not as right as we'd like to think. I certainly believe the Aborigines' law system far outweighed our conniving & unfair system of corruption always wins.

spindoc,in the earlier post you state that you "have absolutely no expectations of Indigenous Australians to reach consensus ... Nor have I expressed any “judgment” on indigenous Australians or expressed this as any criteria."

Yet in the one above that you state that 'it is increasingly hard for most Australians to develop an understanding of indigenous issues when those who are indigenous (by any definition) cannot agree between themselves, nor can they agree on anything with those who seek to represent them".

You use the same comment on the Malcolm King "Welcome to Country" story saying "It is increasingly hard to develop an understanding or respect for indigenous issues when those who are indigenous (by any definition) and those who seek to represent them, cannot agree on anything! It is self evident to much of the Australian public, that the indigenous communities do not agree amongst themselves, nor do they agree with some policies, some politicians, academia, much of the media, many Human Rights activists, the UNHRC and many of the so called educated urban elites who also claim to represent the same heritage. "

I believe my comments are fair as you clearly imply an expectation of some form of consensus from Indigenous Australians on 2 seperate threads.

I have reread your postings to see if I had erred but am confident I have not.
I suggest you reread your own postings.
My comments stand.

Lego:First page under Lake Tyler. “Lake Tyler was part of the process of genocide - an attempt to ‘soothe the pillow’ as Aboriginal people died out”.

Well that just proves I’m going blind. Umm.. it was someone elses opinion though. So they died and the aboriginals were the only race targeted for this treatment. So it is just coming down to whether or not it was intentional?

Lego:“Could I submit that the biggest good intention that went wrong was the conviction that a stone age people should be given total equality with white people, on the grounds of “all men are created equal, with universal equal rights, blah, blah."

Please give us your list of races not the equal of white people.

Lego:“...the trendy lefties utterly refused to compromise on human equality and human rights.”

B’stards. I have no idea what that means. The lefties believe all humans are equal and they will not compromise on this stance?

Spin:"Without the conclusion it is just an interesting list of historical events, without purpose.”

What’s wrong with that?

Spin:”If you do not feel deeply ashamed about where we are today, it would indicate that your emotional gabfest is more about attention seeking than any genuine compassion.”

Hmm... might be attention seeking, I’m not sure so wont discount it but I don't think I'm feeling much emotion. You've gone and added tone to my message that I did not intend is all. But yeah I am ashamed about where Aussie is today because I don’t see much has changed. I’m still hoping India or China will offer to come help us sort it out.

LEGO,
alcohol abuse in Australia began with the first fleet. Australia has made legends and heros out of grog runners like McArthur and his rum-corp rebellion. Can you remember the outrageous amount of money John Howard spent on fancy grog while he was PM? Bob Hawke, another PM was lauded for, and proud of, his record for drinking booze. There is a long list of such grog heros. It is pathetic that Joh Bjelke-Petersen insisted that canteens had to placed in places like Aurukun against the local Aboriginal community wishes - funny thing is he was definitely not a left-winger.

There is no doubt that the negative effects of alcohol continue in modern day non-Indigenous Australians as well as Indigenous Australians.

So why do you single out Indigenous Australians?
Is it possible your superiority complex is showing

It is sad to read the criticisms on what Amanda Midlam has disclosed in her two posts to this publication.

I am infuriated by what the so called democratic governments continue to do to the Aboriginal families right now, as can be shown by the following e-mail just received:

Some Comments by Adam Giles - Media Release 24th May 2011

“The Territory Government is receiving an additional $40m per year for 10 years from the $1.8 billion National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing to improve housing management services.

“During Estimates the Opposition will attempt to identify how much of that $40million annual commitment is spent where it is meant to be.

“Kicking people out of their homes as a political fix is a sure sign that the Government will stoop to unprecedented lows to try and lift its appalling reputation.

“Given that most hostels and temporary accommodation is full, if people are kicked out of public housing they will live in their cars, the bush, take to the hills or the long-grass or pile into someone else’s house, causing even more problems.

“How are kids supposed to then go to school if they are the victims of Labor’s cruel political games?

alcohol abuse in Australia began with the first fleet,
Aka,Not quite, Betel nut & tuba were used for ages in the land which later became known as Australia, long before the arrival of the europeans. the Maccassans, Papuans, Islanders & Aborigines in fact just about ALL people on this planet have produced concoctions to alter the state of mind.
The european method of brewing more in a shorter time simply meant more access & subsequent abuse. I recall many complaints from indigenous Australians about not being allowed in hotels. Since they were allowed they did nothing but complain about the europeans' grog ruining their lives. Many europeans going to communities for work get asked to bring a bottle of this'n that. You can't expect anyone to know what the right thing is to do in such circumstances.
Indigenous Australians just like any other group have to make up their mind what they want for the future but, unlike any other group they'd get assistance from all corners.
You may not like this on grounds of responsibility but the ball is in their court.
In this day & age I truly wish I could be indigenous to Australia.

Aka, if you remove from my text the inclusive references to non-indigenous Australians, some politicians, academia, much of the media, many Human Rights activists, the UNHRC and many of the so called educated urban elites who also claim to represent the same heritage”, you will indeed be left with only indigenous Australians.

I made these inclusions in order to avoid the laying of blame since I believe ALL are responsible for the lack of solutions.

If it suits your point to make such sweeping exclusions then I’m sure that makes you right, but what sort of person would wish do that?

Jewelry, Amanda Midlam wrote a racist article in which she accuses the white Australians of being absolutely beastly to aborigines. Short on facts, she resorts to implications. Her article quoted a black man’s assertion about white genocide of aboriginal people, as if this was a an established fact. She even hinted that aboriginal reserves equated to the sort of concentration camps the Nazis set up to exterminate the Jews.

This is exactly the sort of smear by innuendo that was used in the movie “Rabbit Proof Fence”, who’s credits claimed it was “A True Story”. This movie showed a scene of the three girls traveling South locked in a cage on a train. The implication was, that it was true that an Australian government transported aboriginal children the same way that the Nazis transported the Jews to the death camps. The only thing wrong with the “true story” was that it was a lie. If you ever bothered to read the book, you would discover that the girls were transported South in a ship, escorted by a nurse, who treated them very kindly.

When you have a problem which will not go away, then it is imperative that you dispasssionately examine all of the facts, however unpleasant, to find a solution. One of society’s biggest problems, is that some races and ethnicities are always in trouble, and can never create modern functioning societies. Socialist humanitarians claim that all races are equal; therefore the only possible explanation for black dysfunction is because the white race exploits and oppresses them. Hence we get the sort of nonsensical articles from the likes of Amanda Midlam.

As much as I would like to believe that all races are equal, what scientific evidence I have, and the evidence of my own eyes, tells me that this is not true. And anyone who tries to blame my race for the inabilities of another to prosper, is telling lies, and they have got a real problem with me.

Lego:”Her article quoted a black man’s assertion about white genocide of aboriginal people, as if this was an established fact.”

I’m just not seeing what you see, she quoted another dude saying it. I assume it was a fact that he said it. She said that the camps were officially called concentration camps but I guess they stopped calling them that after Hitler gave them a bad name. It didn’t seem “nonsensical” either, I thought it all made sense. A short rundown of three places and some stuff that happened. Do you reckon she told lies?

I read the article as written rather dispassionately. I was expecting some kind of blast but it never came.

Lego this equal thing, what do you mean by it?

I thought the book rabbit proof fence said they travelled by boat and I only saw the movie quite recently. I don’t know if anyone is going to such lengths to compare everything to what Nazi’s did to the Jews. I never thought Jewish children were transported in little cages. You sure you aren’t a little paranoid because maybe the Nazi’s got their ideas off the Aussies and not the other way round? But if they went by boat maybe they were trying to compare it to the slave traders of old? Or maybe transporting people who didn’t want to be transported was always done in less than pleasant ways?

Lego:”And anyone who tries to blame my race for the inabilities of another to prosper, is telling lies, and they have got a real problem with me.”

There might be a few million people who have a real problem with you then. Good luck with that.

Jewely,

I thought your response to LEGO and I was approaching some balance. There remains however one significant difference between the style of responses. Some read and comprehend what is written, others don’t read at all, they just “feel”.

The best example I can give you is Aka’s effort. Regardless of the exhaustive identification of “all” the entities who I believe share some responsibility for the current status of aboriginal Australians, there was one, and only one “ emotionally electric” word that registered. That was “indigenous”.

Sadly it is this type of “trigger word” response that attracts accusations of racism.

IMHO when this happens there are some ugly consequences. Firstly the debate gets diverted; secondly, it gets devalued, thirdly, the debate becomes tainted with labels and abuse, fourthly, the author is denied a voice and their opinion is suppressed and finally the trigger word brigade adopt “pack behavior”.

These attributes add up to only one thing, collective, heartfelt and genuine racism.

We Australian’s have much to be ashamed of in dealing with the absence of progress in indigenous affairs. It is not however, simply the lack of progress of which we must feel shamed. It is the absence of understanding our own responses that is inhibiting solutions, for this we feel guilt, and to compensate for or salve this guilt we hurl ourselves into morass of over cooked “compassion”.

I agree with LEGO’s racist accusations directed at Amanda Midlam, because her article is “explainable’ as a syndrome which is now prolific in our society.

Until and unless those who wish reengineer, obfuscate, reinterpret and deconstruct reality get out of the way, there will be no solutions, just guilt, bitterness and recrimination.

Don’t become part of the problem.

...I was a bit surprised that Amanda Midlam omitted the historic catastrophe that two small pox epidemics inflicted to Aboriginal populations, and their continuing culture. When nine tenths of a population are eliminated, as they were for the Aboriginal communities throughout Australia from those pandemics, the result was cultural devastation. The rest is history; probably the point at which Amanda Midlams article picks up the batten.

...I would imagine Aboriginal tribal reaction at the time would mirror the reactions of Europeans to the plague: An event which was vastly inferior in consequences to white civilisation than the small pox epidemic was to Aboriginals, as a cultural comparison.

...It does not appear to me to be any master stroke of intelligence to conclude that this event on its own was the real reason behind the cultural destruction of the Aboriginal way of life. The survivors at that point became the lost tribe in the desert, wandering aimlessly to this day

Human pathogens are rather creditably not racist at all, Diver Dan. They will kill anybody who is immunodeficient regardless of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. So implying that white Australians people are to blame for the effects that smallpox had on Australian aborigines, is like blaming the Africans for the existence of Ebola, Lassa Fever or AIDS.

Human pathogens are the enemies of the entire human race, Diver Dan. They were not invented by white people, even though there are many black people today who claim that white people invented AIDS to kill off the Africans. Knowing your mindset, perhaps you agree with them?

You might be interested to know, that AIDS is unique in that medial science knows exactly who “patient zero” was. He was a homosexual French Canadian airline steward who baffled medical science when he first exhibited unknown symptoms. Naturally, there are billboards up all over African with his picture on it with the caption “This is the white man who brought AIDS to Africa.”

AIDs in Africa is primarily spread by unprotected sexual promiscuity, but black Africans say that condoms are a plot by whites to stop blacks breeding, so they won’t use them. Real smart, huh? It is also spread by “injectionists” who use dirty needles when peddling snake oil remedies. One popular cure for AIDs in Africa is screwing virgins, and you wonder why I don't think that black Africans are real smart.

Are you considering blaming the white race for the recent earthquake in Japan as well?

diver dan,
I guess you are aware that the senior surgeon on the first fleet brought out vials of live smallpox. What is more interesting is that by that time ALL the British troops had been innoculated against smallpox using the smallpox itself. The cowpox vaccine came a little later.

Watkin Tench's journal of the first fleet make interesting reading but I do wonder why he made a real point about the live smallpox. Surely it was not released intentionally as a way of depopulating Australia like occurred in America?

Aka...

...The historical colonial position is to deny any implication in deliberate infection of Aboriginals with small pox. The implications of any act of deliberate intent would be considerable: But taking the conservative approach, contact with new settlers was very expensive in loss of life for Aboriginal tribes of Australia, and the “Devils playground” was to be their future lot, and remains so today, sadly.

I see that those two black hearted villains, Diver Dan and AKA, are trying to dream up another genocide conspiracy, this time implying that those dastardly English deliberately released smallpox to exterminate the aborigines. Well boys, it might work. After all the “stolen generations” BS grew like a fish story, and the people who dreamed up that Big Lie probably could not believe that they could get so much mileage out of it.

You could do the same with your new theory, this time calling it the “Infected Generations.” All you need if for some left wing “historians” to airbrush out the inconvenient facts so that history conforms to what the trendy lefties think that it should have been. But be careful, Keith Windshutte is still around, and I doubt if you will get away with it a second time.

I could not find any reference in Watkin Tench’s book about anybody importing smallpox, but I did read that the British Government was so concerned about plague breaking out in the new colony, that they screened every member of the first Fleet before embarkation.

When aborigines were found to be dying of plague, it caused extreme alarm in the colony. The colonists speculated that smallpox may be endemic to Australia, or that it had been inadvertently introduced by La Perouse’s crew.

Tench wrote that the colonists collected every sick aborigine and transported them to the Colonies hospital. You two should be able to dream up something apropriately sinister about that. Perhaps the British were sennding aborigines to hospital in order to harvest their organs for transplants?

Use your imaginations and don't let the facts get in the way of a good genocide theory. Amanda will be proud of you.

LEGO,
read Watkin Tench's journal perhaps the book was edited by Windschuttle!

Referring to Smallpox, Tench wrote:
"Did we give it birth here? No person among us had been afflicted with the disorder since we had quitted the Cape of Good Hope, seventeen months before. It is true, that our surgeons had brought out variolous [smallpox] matter in bottles; but to infer that it was produced from this cause were a supposition so wild as to be unworthy of consideration. (Tench, 1793, Ch 4)."

and

"An extraordinary calamity was now observed among the natives. Repeated accounts brought by our boats of finding bodies of the Indians in all the coves and inlets of the harbour, caused the gentlemen of our hospital to procure some of them for the purposes of examination and anatomy."
That is the bodies were taken back to be examined. Obviously the examiners were not frightened of contracting smallpox.

Intersting the way these things were documented so well, hey? More interesting is why Watkin mentioned it considering it seemed so unbelievable.

To AKA.

Thank you for providing that reference. It is nice to see that Watkins Tench considered it preposterous that the British could have been responsible for the outbreak of plague among the "indians" by way of the innoculating serum that their surgeons had brought with them. How you and Diver Dan can therefore imply something sinister from that is beyond me. But I suppose if you are really deturmined to find something, anything, with which to justify some rediculous genocide theory, then I suppose that it will have to do.

One imagines that the only reason why Robert Manne and his coven of history fabricating academics have not siezed upon Watkins Tench's book for a bit of left wing revision is that Tench's book is just too well known.

Did you like the bits in the book which described how the aborigines bodies were covered in filth, their noses running with rivers of geen snot, and their hair infested with vermin? How about the passages in which Tench described the extreme brutality that aboriginal men used on their women?

It was through reading books by Tench and Ion idriess, that made me realise that the left wing, black armband version of Australian history was a lie, and that the best thing that ever happened to these degraded people was the coming of the British. It did not come as a surprise to me when Windshuttle discovered that some socialist "historians" had deliberately falsified and misquoted the historical record to conform to their white hating prejudices.

I presume that you are reading Australian history in order to discover something that you can misquote yourself, and to find something you can misinterprete to conform to your batty worldview. But at least you are reading. That gives me hope that sooner or later, you will get sick and tired of trying to explain away the glaring differences between historical reality and socialist interpretations of it, and realise that you have been conned.

When that happens, I hope you will get angry at the caste of villains who are lying to you.

Apropos smallpox and aboriginal communities, the below might be somewhat enlightening –for those with “an open mind” :

http://www.bennelong.com.au/articles/bennelong-smallpox-1789.php

Aka:

...“Lego Vitriol” inadvertently described another classic killer of the natives, influenza. Maybe that virus blew in on the westerly winds as well! p.s. thanks to SPQR, very interesting.

[Deleted for abuse.]

LEGO,
your choice of language and turn of phrase is crude and offensive. It does not enhance your arguement or your intellectual image.

You appear to be getting progressively more teenager-behind-the-shed like as you grasp for points to raise in your arguement. It is pathetic that an adult, as I presume you are, needs to scour the gutter for such language.

Aka,
Judging by your name you're from an area where the indigenous have been colonised by your forebears yet nowadays the descendants of the perpetrators are claiming victim status. I think this is highly hypocritical & to base a whole chapter of one's history on a series of blatant mis-portrayal is only fooling yourself. Indigenous Australians have copped as much Ill treatment as they dished out even before the arrival of the european. There is absolutely no truth in the much hinted at myth that this land was a Nirvana before the european invasion.
Wide-eyed, open-mouthed ignorant academic historians are to blame for the perpetuation of this falsehood as it is purely for personal gain at the cost of a Nation's harmony.

Let's face it - The European invasion of any landmass for the purposes of colonisation was conducted with the utmost civilised Christian barbarism, whether it's shadow was cast in north America, south America, Africa. Australia or wherever, it was brutal and comprehensive in its impact.

Interestingly, if one is reading of the historical evidence lauding European superiority in overwhelming indigenous cultures with a supposedly advanced civilisation, many don't doubt a word of the flattering prose. However, when it comes to pointing our that European conduct may have fallen far short of the ideal, all of a sudden historians are labelled "ignorant academics".

SPQR, thank you for posting that link. It's really interesting. I wish this chicken pox theory - and anything else to do with our history - could be discussed without personal attacks. It certainly sounds feasible to me and I would be interested to hear what others think.

....civilised Christian barbarism,
Poirot,
Yes, that's why I used the term Invasion. The term ignorant academics (historians) was coined by me from personal experience when accompanying several such experts when talking with indigenous. For example land claims. When asked how they (academic bureaucrats) establish who in the clan owns what, the AB answered , well, I ask them. The other academic asked, how do you know they're telling you the truth. The AB replied why should they lie ? At stake was a $40000.- a year lease payment from the Government to the land claimant. Now why would they claim the land was theirs if it wasn't ?

Poirot,
Aboriginal cave paintings were discovered by a Main Roads gang in 1956. Comparing the pictures of then with those of now I was told that several more 40000 year old paintings have appeared. Another cave of which absolutely no mention can be found pre 1970 was visited by an academic historian & presto, suddenly there were cave paintings.

Poirot,
I am not denying that the invasion of Australia by outsiders, particularly the british, Irish & Germans was anything pleasant for the indigenous.
What I am denying is the attempt by academic Australians to make the indigenous look utterly innocent. They weren't. They had savage battles amongst themselves & lived an existence extremely removed from this nirvana myth.

individual,
it is a bit funny to think of how you think of where I am from. A bit of mystery is always fun :)

I would like to let you know that I am not stuck in one mindset of history but am intrigued and somewhat annoyed by the falshoods that are promoted by the colonisation/invasion-was-good and the white-superiority brigade. I am not a historian just very interested and have read widely on the topic of Australia's history. I do believe that I am opposite to Windschuttle especially as he has determined what he wants to find then makes things fit that worldview.

Similar to you perhaps, I do not like the heavily biased info that passes for history. You note that I present an alternative view of history but only because it is not heing heard and I must admit that I am somewhat critical of many authors of history as they interpret what they see from within their own life experiences and understanding. I do have an Indigenous Australian worldview and happily admit that.

A wise person once told me that 'there are 3 sides to every arguement- his, hers and the truth'. But without looking at both sides and critically analysing both the truth will be forever elusive.

Aka,
I had to wait 19 hrs to post again. Well, Aka is a term up north. Can you get that wise person to say a few more things ? It is very much on the nail. I suppose this is why we have difficulties in finding harmony because we all can & will exploit the underdog situation. Where I go frequently I only see Public Servants black & white doing zilch for very good conditions. The people have no say in anything except blaming everything on us even when their own leaders are known to be corrupt. The Public Servants can never do anything because of the system yet no-one has the jewels to recommend changing it. Years ago we made a very gradual progress but, as soon as Wayne Goss became Premier of Qld the graph started to tilt down & is still going down. Yes, beautiful infrastructure is provided but at what cost ? At both, financial & social & with every prospect for the future removed. It appears that Qld Labor wants indigenous communities to fail by removing all responsibility from them & making them utterly dependent. I recall Pat Killoran the Director of DAIA telling me that we must help the people in the communities to achieve self-management. He said that we're here to help them but no do things for them which they can do themselves. Well, Wayne Goss's policies put a stop to that & Beatty & Bligh are continuing this sad saga.

Sorry individual,
when you mentioned Pat Killoran, you lost me. I met the man and know the word-on-the-ground about him. I could not repeat it on a forum such as this for legal reasons. Put simply Pat did not enjoy a good reputation on the ground - in fact his reputation was downright alarming. For your sake I hope you are not related to him.

If Pat Killoran told you what you state, he was playing make believe as he did the exact opposite.

The experience of the Joh Bjelke-Petersen era was paternalistic in the extreme, it undermined any illusion of people doing things for themselves. I could tell you tales from 1981 that simply should not have been happening, I could name names etc about how draconian Joh's reign was. I lived it, I saw family and friends being negatively affected by it. I will never be able to agree that this was some era of good times for Indigenous Queenslanders.

So, as you have evoked Pat Killoran and his colleages Joh and co as role models, I think we are destined to disagree

Aka,
I ,as was Pat himself, am fully aware of his reputation. I, just as he did, could see the brainwashing of the remote communities by the then just emerging Labor hangers on. mind you, we didn't see them before DAIA put in airstrips & accommodation till they started to show up. I clearly recall Bob Scott promising the world but as soon as he realised he was going to be the new member he conveniently got too ill to continue thus not having to fulfill his promises. he then handed over to another incompetent who in turn handed over to the present incompetent. Bob however, wasn't too ill to be on the board of some energy outfit.
Under Killoran progress was very slow. This was due to the fact that he wanted the people to make progress at the pace that suited them & guess what, it actually worked. You'd be surprised how many of those who remember those days are saying how much more dignity they were afforded then. I recall standing at a school window when I heard the Principal say ,quote" tell your parents they must vote Labor" unquote. To prove to you that they're now sick of Labor & the lack of dignity just wait for the next election. Most of the communities now have no blue collar workers but plenty of bureaucrats. 99% of work done in communities is by outside contractors at huge cost to the taxpayer.

individual,
Your timeline is somewhat out regarding Bob Scott, so it slurs your other accounts.

From your response I don't think you are aware of the word-on-the-ground as I was. Perhaps you are not aware of his reputation as I know it, because you don't sound like you are. I didn't hear it from labor stooges, as you suggest, but from first hand accounts.

Poor Pat was a legend only in his own mind - in others minds he was notorious, feared and loathed.

@ Aka
Re : “ I present an alternative view of history but only because it is not being heard”

Are you serious ?
What century are you living in ?

---Did you not read Amanda’s article—it’s all one-eyed . And that’s the standard fare at the Drum, Punch and Crikey.
--- Did you not see the distortions –highlighted by Lego -- in Rabbit Proof Fence? The film & book were a set study for high school students.
And you will find similar in most other dramatisations of European Aboriginal interactions.
---Have you not ever watched SBSs Living Black or listened to the ABCs Message Sticks or read the Koori Mail?

Now, tell me, again -- with a straight face-- that the your view of history is not being heard!

Sorry to break the news to you but you are NOT presenting an alternative view.
And despite all your nice sounding axioms about multiple points of view.
You are simply rehashing the official, state sanctioned & funded version.

@ Poirot
“Let’s face it” every group of humanity has exhibited similar “barbarism” –even (blasphemy, blasphemy !) indigenous groups.
But then, “Let’s face it” , there are far more brownie points to be had in harping on about European barbarism.

SPQR,

My point being that Europeans considered their conquests to be a civilising influence - the contradictory proposition, of course, is that they behaved barbarically in order to achieve it.

Your timeline is somewhat out regarding Bob Scott, so it slurs your other accounts.
Aka,
??

that Europeans considered their conquests to be a civilising influence - the contradictory proposition, of course, is that they behaved barbarically in order to achieve it.
Poirot,
Smells similar to what another major religion is practising these days. It truly is wheel going round'n round, ain't it ?
Ah, I forgot. Two wrongs make a right.

As I read these posts, I started to wonder if any of you had come across any of the very early accounts of English settlement here. Watkin Tench wrote 2 short pieces, brought together by Tim Flannery under the title "1788" (not quite correct, as the second was from around 1793).
In it he describes a few aspects of the new European settlement which bear upon some of the discussion.
Firstly, the surprise and dismay at so many Aboriginal people dying from an illness which the settlers didn't recognise, but thought might be connected to smallpox, well known in the day.Tench points out that no-one on the first fleet suffered from it, and all wondered at how the Aboriginal people had contracted it. The settlers tried some measures to prevent Aboriginal deaths, but to no avail.
Secondly, that Aborignal people quickly demanded provisions from the settlers, even though their lifestyle has been disrupted very little. Life was pretty poor in the Sydney Cove region, and Tench describes how difficult it was for Aboriginal people to find enough to eat. So government rations looked pretty good.
Thirdly, on protection. Tench notes a few Aboriginal people killed by settlers, and has no good words for the perpetrators. (When asked to lead a reprisal party, Tench successfully pleads for reduced numbers of victims, and happily gives up the job when none are found.) Proclamations are made against killing any Aboriginal people. And domestic violence among Aboriginal people was rife, with the preferred method being the husband attacking the wife's head - made more dangerous when the men bought iron axes from the settlers. Protection indeed. And I'm not surprised to read of the warfare between Aboriginal groups - by one estimate, there were 27 such wars going on when the English arrived.