Hi Rodney,

As to Windschuttle's reliability as a historian, your citing of Robert Manne: as I understand it, Manne couldn't cite one inaccuracy in Windschuttle's work, anywhere. This baseless assertion has come up again and again on OLO, and usually the asserter has pissed off when challenged. Perhaps, with the passage of time since Manne, you may be able to find one.

No ?

As to Windschuttle's 'style', I suppose Manne could blow that one out of his arse. [Oops, sorry, that's the Bankstown coming out: that's my support for Winschuttle coming out too, since he grew up in neighbouring Canterbury]. 'Style', for god's sake.

Then let's move on.

'Personal polemic'. 'Lacking empathy'. Gosh, what a pity. Anything else ?

In response to your evidence-free assertions:

2. Perhaps you could provide just a smidgeon of evidence; where ? when ? What material evidence, rather than bar-fly blow-hard rumour and hearsay ?

3. Yes. As for purchasing, thirty billion a year might go some way. And if you want to get picky about 'purchasing', how much did Indigenous people pay for their fifty thousand years of free use ? Perhaps it would be better to leave this one alone.

4. No, you don't compare Gross Domestic product to government expenditure, that really is either incompetent (which I'm sure you are not) or dishonest. The thirty billion expended on Indigenous affairs each year is about 6 % of total expenditure.

BUT

(now that you've brought it up),

it doesn't go evenly to all Indigenous people, since about half are gainfully employed and get nothing (nor should they) from the government.

So the 6 % goes to about 1.4 % of the population, i.e. the welfare-oriented Indigenous population. That cracks out at about $ 120,000 per person in remote populations. There is no poverty in remote 'communities'. Squalor and waste, yes, expenditure on grog, drugs and casinos, yes. But not poverty. Not such a bad deal for Indigenous non-taxpayers.

[TBC]

[continued]

As you write,

"I consider it to be totally unrealistic to imagine that the 250 independent aboriginal nations at the time of colonisation could possibly survive in today’s aggressive world of thermonuclear weapons and technological warfare. It is not in Australia’s best interests and it is certainly not in their own people’s best interests for aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ sovereignty to be reinstated to its pre-colonisation status."

Yes, indeed. But 'unrealistic' doesn't mean un-dreamed-of. I agree: the serious demand for sovereignty is lunatic, infantile, preposterous, lazy thinking, thought bubbles. But it is all still thought. Worse - it is still planned. Worse still - 'assimilationist', i.e. equal-rights-oriented initiatives are crushed.

In the thrust towards sovereignty, there are still hankerings for separate Indigenous universities, separate Indigenous government services (well, okay, they already have those), and regional authorities over regions with majority non-Indigenous populations. Seriously. All to be funded from Canberra, of course. Right.

And frankly, I suspect that Indigenous elites actually don't want a Treaty, since that implies that each party has to give something away. I expect that the elites will go very quiet on a Treaty, and sidle towards 'sovereignty' instead. And 'separate statehood'. And 'complete takeover of Australia'. Yes, seriously.

But how much time do they have ? The remote settlements are in a death spiral, and have perhaps ten years before Ice, etc. destroys them. I suspect that their mortality rates are out-pacing their fertility rates, i.e. their populations are starting to crash. And urban working Indigenous people will continue to inter-marry at 90-95 %, so that their descendants will be that much less involved in any Indigenous affairs (except for the odd kangaroo dance or dot painting, i.e. 'culture', for those who want to make money out of their Aboriginality), unless they can be incorporated into the lower levels of the current system of nepotism and corruption.

[TBC]

[continued]

So I would give the Indigenous Cause maybe ten years to get real. When my wife and I were making Aboriginal Flags in the early seventies (and the elites were running a mile) I never dreamt that people could be so idiotic as to keep pursuing the old right-wing notion of a separate State, touted in the 1920s, i.e. Apartheid. That a thought-bubble could last more than a few minutes. Boy, did I get that wrong.

Cheers,

Joe

.

Dear Joe,

.

You wrote :

« As to Windschuttle's reliability as a historian, your citing of Robert Manne: as I understand it, Manne couldn't cite one inaccuracy in Windschuttle's work, anywhere »

You’ll find the link in my last post, Joe. If you have trouble reading it, let me know and I’ll post it again. Manne cites detailed examples of “inaccuracies”, “misrepresentations” and “cherry picking” of facts. There are too many for me to reproduce them all here, but here is one :

« Take the case of the numbers of removals, which Windschuttle regards as the most crucial question of all. In 1994 the Australian Bureau of Statistics conducted a survey among Indigenous Australians. It discovered that 1.6% of Aborigines under 14 years, 4.6% between the ages of 15 and 24, but more than 10% of those older than 25 had been taken away from their natural families … Because for very many of these removals records are not obtainable or do not exist, the ABS study remains the most reliable source of information on the number of removals. It suggests that between 1900 and 1970 approximately 20,000 to 25,000 Aboriginal children were separated from their natural families. By use of a methodology that is for the most part obscure, Keith Windschuttle calculates rather that only 8250 were placed “in care” »

You also wrote :

« In response to your evidence-free assertions:

2. Perhaps you could provide just a smidgeon of evidence; where ? when ? What material evidence, rather than bar-fly blow-hard rumour and hearsay ? »

This relates to point N°2 of my previous post on page 45 of this thread. Here is my source :

Reynolds, H. 2006, “The Other Side of the Frontier: Aboriginal Resistance to the European Invasion of Australia”, University of New South Wales Press LTD, Sydney, pp.126-127

This book was awarded the Ernest Scott Historical Prize which is awarded annually for the most distinguished contribution to the history of Australia or New Zealand.

You remark :

« 3. Yes. As for purchasing, ...

.

(Continued ...)

.

.

(Continued ...)

.

... thirty billion a year might go some way. And if you want to get picky about 'purchasing', how much did Indigenous people pay for their fifty thousand years of free use ? Perhaps it would be better to leave this one alone »

No, we should not “leave this one alone”. It is very important. The Aboriginal peoples were the first inhabitants of Australia. It was truly “terra nullius” when they arrived here some 60 000 years ago. They did not have to purchase it from anybody.

You then protest :

« 4. No, you don't compare Gross Domestic product to government expenditure, that really is either incompetent (which I'm sure you are not) or dishonest. The thirty billion expended on Indigenous affairs each year is about 6 % of total expenditure »

Well, I don’t know how you do it, Joe, but when I draw-up a budget I compare income to expenses. I figure that the annual income we earn from living in this country and exploiting its natural resources is the GDP of $1330 billion (in 2016) and that the annual expenses are the cost of expropriation of the country from the Aboriginal peoples, i.e., $30 billion (in 2016).

As I indicated in my previous post, that means that the cost of colonisation to Australian taxpayers represents 2.25% of GDP in 2016.

I may be wrong, Joe, but I don’t think we could get a better deal than that by expropriating somebody else’s country. Don’t forget, Australia is the world’s biggest island and its smallest continent and it’s not just one large land mass. It has a total of 8,222 islands within its maritime borders. It is also extremely rich in natural resources. The country is literally worth a fortune.

You presage :

« I expect that the elites will go very quiet on a Treaty, and sidle towards 'sovereignty' instead. And 'separate statehood'. And 'complete takeover of Australia'. Yes, seriously.

Believe me, Joe. I think you’d better stop reading Windschuttle’s book and take it easy for a while.

.

Hi Rodney,

I recall that Manne's 'discovery' errors was demolished a long time ago by Windschuttle and others. I have respect for both Manne and Reynolds, but until a proper forensic investigation has been carried out on at least ONE so-0called massacre site, I'll suspend my belief.

As for your excuse about children taken into care, that " ..... for very many of these removals records are not obtainable or do not exist ..... " while it is very likely complete rubbish, bureaucrats being bureaucratic, then how does anybody knows either way ? Of course, records are available. Christ, you wouldn't believe how many records are around.

Just by the way, between 1900 and 1970, I would estimate that between 600,000 and 800,000 Indigenous children were born (with a very high mortality rate, by the way). Given that Windschuttle actually scoured the records, rather than just make a guess like the ABS has done, the eight thousand-odd children taken into care is - I'll agree - remarkably low. When I was in primary school, there was usually a kid in every class who had been fostered or adopted. So one in a hundred seems quite low. But fortunately, the full records would still be available, if people dared to look.

Income and expenditure: Yes, GDP measures the total income of everybody in Australia etc., not the revenue accruing to governments. The main source of government revenue is income tax paid by earners. Earners don't pay all of their income to governments in tax. Of course government revenue is only a fraction of total GDP. So it is quite improper to compare expenditure on Indigenous people with GDP: government revenue is the measure you need. Surely you know that.

And yes, I'll stick by my suspicion that, for almost fifty years, Aboriginal ideology has tacitly eschewed equality, and aimed towards 'racial' separation, a separate Black State and superiority over non-Indigenous people in such an entity - a bit like dhimmis in Muslim countries, paying jizra.

For the 1920s' Black State Movement, see my web-site, www.firstsources.info, on the Twentieth-Century page.

Joe