...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.