<<there is no factual basis for the false assertion of a “stolen generation”...Please relinquish your asserted belief in history devoid of facts>> [Leo Lane]

Whatever for?

Texts like "Rabbit Proof Fence" are all the go in our high-schools.And most of the modern (and some not so modern) texts chosen for English "studies" at university level seemed to be selected mainly because they in someway denigrate white Australians.

Why would any self respecting academic sabotage his/her own career prospects by bucking the trend.

God, what a load of Socialist hypocrisy by Max Atkinson.

To begin with, the idea that mainly half caste aboriginal children should either institutionalised or made to learn job skills was a socialist proposal fully supported by the Communist Party of Australia, and it was one of those rare proposals that had bipartisan support from the Right and the Left. The Socialists wanted to prove that aboriginal people were the equal of whites, and the Right wanted to make aboriginal people productive and accepted.

Please notice how Max pretends that this was all some sort of crime committed by white racists on poor oppressed aborigines? These people are amazing in their hypocrisy. First, they demand that a certain policy be implemented and when they get what they want, a hundred years later they claim it was a crime against humanity committed entirely by their political opponents.

The charge by the Left wing Max Atkinson clones, was that successive state and federal governments in Australia committed "genocide" by forcibly removing aboriginal children from their tribes to "breed out the black". With the threat of thousands of lawsuits by outraged aborigines pending , this charge was fully examined by the High Court of Australia and found to be completely false. One High Court judge even said that the removal of at risk (from malnutrition, sexual exploitation, and even the murder of half caste children by the extremely racist full blooded aborigines) was a "humanitarian obligation." Thousands of compo cases went out the window. One interesting aspect of this High Court judgement is how little is known of it by the public.

There was little diversity of opinion in the media at the time, and the judgement was almost completely unreported. The judgement occurred at the time of the Human Rights organisations 'Bringing Them Home" report which claimed that "50,000" aboriginal children had been "stolen". This bullshiit report was of course given blazing banner headlines in the press.

Continued.....

Continued.

That the removal of at risk, mainly part aboriginal children was absolutely the right thing to do, can be seen in hindsight by the fact that the Socialists later dropped the ball when they insisted that aboriginal people must be given the right to drink alcohol. It was the Socialist Left which insisted that aborigines must be given full equality with whites, and if that meant that they had drinking rights, then so be it. Socialist ideology trumps everything. If the aborigines got drunk then that was just too bad. The Peter Atkinson clones also demanded "self determination" of aborigines on their own apartheid communities, and they got that too.

It was the Socialists like Peter who set the scene for the social catastrophe that we see in the dysfunctional aboriginal communities of today. Very high incidences of domestic violence, sexual abuse of children, substance abuse, and endemic welfare dependency involving drunken "parties" every fortnight when the social security checks arrive. Ironically, the rate of removal of aboriginal children today is even greater than during the so called "stolen generations" period because people Peter made things worse.

The "Intervention" enacted by John Howard and even supported by the succeeding Labor Government's of Rudd and Gillard, showed that even within the fractious hall of Parliament that both sides had realised that things on aboriginal communities had gotten right out of hand. Unless state and federal governments once again put aboriginal communities under some sort of direct control, they would continue to deteriorate until there was toal anarchy.

This did not suite two types of people. First, there were the self appointed aboriginal "men in black hats" who saw the intervention as interfering in their vested self interests, that of being the distributors of government funds and largesse. Then there were the Max Atkinson clones who even today insist that aboriginal people are in every way the equal of whites, and that they can run their own communities without white help. The Intervention was unwelcome evidence that even the Labor governments do not believe that crap anymore.

Regarding Aristocrat's comment on moral revisionism, etc., this aspect is beside the point as to Howard's correctness. The invasion of Iraq was illegal per se as now amply demonstrated from the available legal literature. What was even worse however was the fact that Australian forces invaded Iraq even before the US deadline for the Iraqi government to comply with its 'demands' had expired. That is surely preemption-plus. Moral aspects might be relevant in relation to the conduct (modus operandi) of the invasion and subsequent follow up on the part of Coalition forces.

Your readers might be interested in having a link to the Campaign for an Iraq War Inquiry website at: http://iraqwarinquiry.org.au

Dear LEGO,

<<If the aborigines got drunk then that was just too bad.>>

That is only sensible: otherwise, if government is allowed to order people not to drink (for their own good), then the next government might order you not to pray and worship God, because in their view it's your type of booze, so it's for your own good - there were in fact governments like that and still is one, in North Korea (and if you are not religious, then consider that government just the same could order you not to pick your nose).

<<The Peter Atkinson clones also demanded "self determination" of aborigines on their own apartheid communities, and they got that too.>>

The only wrong thing about it is that they failed to grant the same autonomy to everyone else who so desires.

Dear Yuyutsu.

The time has come for me to once again explain the error of your ways. You are very polite, and that is indicative of superior upbringing, so I think I can deprogram you away from the Dark Side.

Your first premise, implies that a government which prevents it's citizens from drinking alcohol is a totalitarian government. Wrong, the Australian government once prevented aboriginal people from drinking alcohol because it was smart enough to know that giving aboriginals the right to drink alcohol would cause social catastrophe for them. At that time, Australia was not a totalitarian state nor anything resembling a totalitarian state. In addition, preventing young people under the age of 18 from drinking alcohol is routine in every liberal democracy.

I know that aboriginal people are sometimes legally considered "adults", but there are already a lot of state and federal laws which take it for granted that many aboriginal people are not emotionally mature enough to be treated equally. There are many laws which give aboriginal people rights which no other race has, and laws which give leniency in sentencing to aboriginals because they are aboriginals.

The point is, that if a nation insists on racial equality, then racial equality is supposed to mean just that. But it is a fact of life in Australia that we have racist laws which benefit aborigines only because it recognises their special problems, and is for their own good. But once we have admitted the need for these racist laws, we have crossed the Rubicon. We have admitted that it is morally justifiable to enact racist laws which both protect and give special status to one particular race.

Your second premise is a bit unclear. You seem to be suggesting that every social group in Australia should have self determination. I must be reading you wrong, because such a concept would mean that Australia was no longer a nation but something on its way to fragmenting into dozens of new nations states.