Hi Minotaur,

Yeah, as a hack transcriber, what would I know ? It's easier to rely on someone who has got their information from an incredibly authoritative other source, which/who in turn has got his/her information from an even more authoritative source. Sort of daisy-chain research.

Anecdotally, of those families which left missions and settlements so that their husbands and fathers could find reliable work on infrastructure projects after the War, it may come as a surprise to you that not too many of those kids were ever put into care. From my incredibly limited experience, and access to dodgy records, it appears that the kids who WERE put into care tended to come from the more casual families left back on the Missions, and those who might have moved to country towns but whose fathers were in and out of work while hey grappled mightily with their grog problems.

From the School Roll at my wife's community, it appears that, apart from the families affected by the deaths of mothers or fathers, the 'bread-winners' (using the term broadly) of the families from which kids were put into care for a few months or so, tended to be indeed more 'casual' than average. One bloke who married twice (his first wife died of what used to be called St Vitus' Dance, Huntington's Chorea) and ultimately had around twenty kids, was a highly experienced 'casual' sort of bloke - around half of his kids were, at some time, put into care. As far as I can tell, they all either came back or married (i.e. Aboriginal partners) and went to country towns around southern SA. His second wife, a lovely woman, was also a bit of an imbiber, so some of her kids were put into care for weeks and even months at a time.

I aspired once to be a researcher like you, but I left it far too late, I'm only a transcriber now. If you can be kind enough to put me onto some of your voluminous research, i would be happy to learn from it.

Cheers,

Joe

Presenting a couple of anecdotal stories is not an argument for anything. It is deflection and distraction.

The fact remains that almost every state had laws specifically targeting Aboriginal people and imposed conditions upon them that white people would not have tolerated if they were subject to the same. Much of the legislation had terminology so vague that it was open to severe interpretation. 'Official reports', that you seem to rely so heavily upon, could be written up to suit any of the vague references in such legislation. There is a world of difference between a report and reality.

You may argue that the 'reports' are verifiable evidence. However, how reliable is that evidence if it was simply written to suit flawed legislation? To rely on such evidence without considering alternative situations is not something an inquisitive mind would do.

On a different note, it was interesting you mentioned Stan Grant in a previous post. Stan has been guilty of presenting fabrication as fact, such as when stating his father (and Aboriginal people in general) were classified as 'fauna'. I think one thing we can both agree on is that that is fabrication and even a basic bit of research establishes that.

Speaking of research, nowhere is it written that anyone who does research has to publish findings. There can be many different motivations for doing research on any topic. And one doesn't need to rely solely on primary sources when researching. However, a good researcher will follow up sources provided by a secondary source to see if they exist or are genuine.

That is how those such and Lyndall Ryan and even Keith Windschuttle (a fave of yours perhaps, given he is a fellow 'stolen generations' denier?) have been exposed as presenting fabricated and/or false information.

Hi Minotaur,

A bit circular: flawed policies (such as ?) covered up by vague legislation (such as ?) with only superficially verifiable evidence (such as ?). So ..... how do you know that any of that sort of thing happened at all, if you can't produce evidence for it ? I'm respectfully suggesting that, if a child was taken into care for any reason, it would be in his/her file, and all they have to do is look it up.

And i would also respectfully suggest that, since there hasn't been a flood of applications to courts, that the bogeyman didn't come in the night, perhaps nothing happened as you suggest, without evidence. The old Roman principle still stands: asserter gratis, negator gratis. So possibly no superficial evidence, no legislation and no policy. Still, it feels good to give governments a good kicking every so often. It feels good !

Belief and passion are wonderful things, but they can sometimes lead one astray, particularly when there is not a shred of evidence to back them up.

I wouldn't mind betting that, if he ever held such a view, Stan Grant has long abandoned the idiotic notion that Indigenous people were classified as flora and fauna. After all there is no such legislation in Australia, federal or state. In SA, there was (and perhaps still is) a Game Act, i.e. that specified that there will be closed seasons for the hunting of many species of bird and fish and even kangaroos, but that Aboriginal people were exempt from that Act, and were allowed to hunt and fish sufficient for their personal needs, using boats, guns, nets and other fishing and hunting gear provided by the Protector. Bastard ! Do you think that's what some idiot meant ? Oops, sorry, Linda.

How's your research going ? Is it evidence-based at all ?

Cheers,

Joe

You're wasting your time Joe.

You are talking to a "believer", who will only accept "evidence" that furthers their belief.

Evidence, Joe, as you should know comes in many forms. That includes personal testimony. You seem to ignore that though as it isn't the 'black and white' evidence of official record. And 'official records' are not infallible. Of course, neither is personal testimony.

Evidence is never cut and dried and can have many areas of grey. However, if you want to put more reliance and faith in official records written by whitefellas that is fine. It certainly puts you in the same category as Keith Windshcuttle.

Interesting though that you have never responded as to why various state governments had specific legislation, namely the 'Protection Acts'
that applied only to Aboriginal people...and made it far easier to remove Aboriginal children than white children.

Case in point (just one for example) being how the Aboriginal Protection Board (APB) in NSW lobbied for many years to have the 1909 legislation changed to allow them to bypass the court system when determining if an Aboriginal child was 'neglected'. They got their way when the 1915 amendments were made and gave them, or their proxy official (most often the local police constable), to make the decision to remove children from their families...and they didn't have to provide a legitimate court approved reason.

Unfettered power in the hands of those who would exercise it without restraint is not something desirable. Particularly when those exercising it may well be racist and looking for promotion from a rural area to an urban one. Do what it takes to please superiors in the 'city'.

Then a 21st century transcriber comes along and applies a definitive interpretation of 'yep, all good...it was official because the paper work says so.'

'Evidence, Joe, as you should know comes in many forms'

its hotter than it should be, its colder than it should be, there's a storm, there should be a storm, its snowing, there is flooding, there is drought, president Trump was elected, all proof of global warming.