Hi Diver Dan,

On your assertion that "..I am positive in my thinking that Aboriginal communities will eventually restore themselves to strength, since these communities have been existing in their current or similar form for many thousands of years! There is cause for great hope",

I must respectfully suggest that in traditional life, pre-Invasion, there was nothing remotely like the present-day 'communities' - for one thing, people were mobile, nomadic, without electricity, running water, lifelong welfare payments, Toyotas, grog, ganja, Ice or fast-food outlets. i.e. traditional society was a totally different society from today.

Check out any remote 'community' on Google Earth - it will have running water. So, why no vegetable gardens, which is about the simplest project I can imagine ? A spade and some packets of seeds (= $ 20) should do it. But no, not in any 'community'. And if not that, then what ?

A couple of years ago, I went back to a community we had lived in across the seventies. Back in about 1982, they had ripped out their 40 ha of grapes and other crops, to put in 130 ha of almonds (with 4000 ha, they could have done both, but no: either/or). In 2012, there was one family living here, amidst a couple of dozen fairly new (8-10 years) houses. Clearly nobody else had lived there for about five years. Why ? Long story, involving CDEP.

Another 'community' in the Flinders seems to have been abandoned. Many if not most of the 'homelands', the piddly outstations, up in the North-West, have rarely been lived in. Not that it mattered, since people can get lifelong welfare wherever they are, and some government agency or other will rebuild and refurbish at great cost, if they ever feel like moving back to a homeland for a while.

Marx was right: society is built on economy. So no economy: very fragile 'society' and not really any 'community'.

Cheers,

Joe
www.firstsources.inf

How do we get Peter Read to read Joe's evidence? He was the author of the 21 page propaganda pamphlet "The Stolen Generations". Partly (largely?)on this, he went on to be a PROFESSOR! at Sydney University.

Hi Leslie,

Thank you for that. One reality is that many Aboriginal children were taken into care over the past century, and that many tens of thousands of non-Aboriginal children were also taken into care.

Family break-downs happen. Surely most of us know of examples, at least from our childhood. Until well after the War, mothers died frequently in child-birth, given the lack of birth control and poor health care for both Aboriginal people and 'lower-class' white people, leaving children mother-less. Many diseases, like TB, didn't have cures until well after the War - after all, George Orwell died of it in 1950.

For Aboriginal people, until well after the War, the only work was in low-paid rural labour, intermittent, dangerous, often at great distances from their families. Intermittent destitution was common. After all, how DO you raise a large family on bugger-all ? Men shot through, tempted by other attractions. Others hit the grog. Until 1971 or so, non-Aboriginal women who were abandoned, had to wait the mandatory two years before they could get maintenance, terrified that the bloke might come back just before the two years was up, sweet-talk them, and they would have to start all over again.

Fathers died, and mothers re-married, raising the question: what to do with the teenage daughters ?

But other factors worked as well. I don't know about other states but here in SA, there was a paradoxical process in relation to Aboriginal single and separated mothers: the Children's Welfare and Public Relief Board paid some to keep their children, at least from the late forties until the early seventies.

Those kids would have been counted as 'wards', and I think the payments for them continued until they were 21. Peter Read probably counted these kids, perhaps hundreds, as 'stolen', but clearly they were extremely 'un-stolen'.

Rumours are cheap and easy: Gypsies steal children to sell, Jews steal children to use their blood in matsohs. Nasty white governments 'therefore' are likely to - God knows why - steal children, they're such b@stards.

Evidence, not rumour, or suspicion, please.

Joe

Posts of Loudmouth and VK3AUU acknowledged:

...The future of Aboriginals as a collective will depend on random variables. There is never one single random variable in real life; there are many things moving together: The most destructive variable appears to be myopic (and chaotic) interventionist policies of various Governments. The inevitable outcome of these polices is to strip more power and responsibility from the individuals, compounding problems targeted.

...Maybe the correct question to ask is; How will the new face of the Aboriginal community look as the amalgam from modern influence eventually sets, and their own destiny is allowed to rest finally in their own hands?

...For too long, the future of the Aboriginal community has been under the direct influence of academics that operate interventionists polices based on theories and models. It is the kiss of death. Modelling no more succeeds in this case, any more than it succeeds in economics…(The GFC spring straight to mind as an example, where nothing has changed and nothing will, while the vested interests of academics are served who have no “skin in the game” )!

Pilger,

You claim a report into the removing of indigenous children: “as many 50,000 children and their mothers had endured “the humiliation, the degradation and sheer brutality of the act of forced separation ... the product of the deliberate, calculated policies of the state”. The report called this genocide”.

Fair enough. Even if I accept that the removals decades ago could have involved sinister reasons, regardless Pilger attempts to conflate these removals of a different era to the modern indigenous child removals, which is simply unfair and deceitful, since he knows that even if he believes the removals were wrong and not properly considered, he cannot deny that the motive usually instigating a removal is evidence of imminent danger of harm, abuse and maybe sexual abuse to the child. I notice that Pilger never engages with that problem.

I wonder if the Pilger and other white elitists can comprehend reality enough to apply those remarks Pilger makes about indigenous removals of some children, to the descriptions of what happened to thousands of the lowest class whites in the UK in the 17 hundreds when the United Kingdom set out to take thousands of young people from prison, most of whom were in for minor stealing crimes amidst a job and food shortage and used the fact of the conviction to ignore all their rights, to rip them from their homeland and force them to risk life by journeying on ships to a newly discovered land (Van Diemen’s Land) where they were subjected to forced indentured servitude for years and years until they could buy their freedom. There was no concern for how they felt about being stolen from ever seeing family again.

Effectively, these "convicts" and all their descendants (poor white class) had their naturally given right of being able to stay residing in the country of their birth and that their ethnic tribe was indigenous to (UK), so that one may attempt to prosper in these most favourable conditions to this native since family and friends (networks) were there.

. . . continue next post . . .

. . . continued . . .

This "native", this "indigenous" to UK Celtic-tribesman where his ancestors going back 50,000 or more years have lived on the same land, was forcibly RIPPED away from his land/home and stolen like property and made to travel harsh seas to a new land where they will be used as slave-labour to build a new nation from scratch.

This "slave" had no way to communicate with any family back home nor likely ever able to see them again, since even if after 10 years he may go free to purchase passage to go back home is a wealthy man's affair. Quite likely he was stuck in this foreign land eternally. Worst of all is the excuses the British government uses

Pilger, surely these people too deserve an apology and reparations.

Not only is the elitist class of whites pathetic and cruel when they dismiss any such appeals and simply state "the convicts were criminals, not slaves", which is common reply.

Furthermore, the clear connection between the poorest class of whites way back before being stolen from Britain (convicts) and all the abuses and oppressions they suffered over last 2 centuries, resulting in what we see today as poor white Housing Estates with endemic addictions and unemployment, widespread abuse and institutionalized behaviour. I believe this class of peoples have always suffered these madnesses but until the last 3 decades they all had jobs (which were abundant) in low-skill labour until the government deleted these jobs leaving them since unemployed and without purpose, much like indigenous Australians.

Next tome you speak openly about crimes against indigenous groups remember that I said here to consider the "convicts" and their descended "poorest-permanently unemployed-addicted Anglos" as also being "NATIVE" and "INDIGENOUS" peoples also to Britain, and who as native peoples had a natural right to be able to live on the land their ancestors thrived on and to prosper themselves. But one the elite just stole that all away from them, effectively committing genocide upon their very lives which by no choice were changed into something of a slave.