I will set it out step by step, Mercurius.

1 The myth of the stolen generation, founded on the fact deficient, and anecdote padded, report “Bringing Them Home”.

2. Protection of aboriginal children ceased, so that there would be no more “stolen” (pc for “saved”) children.

3. The politically correct cover up of the abuse of aboriginal children.

4 Court cases run at taxpayer’s expense to prove the myth of stolen children, produced no factual basis.

5 After some years, media attention was finally given to the abuse of aboriginal children.

6 The trigger for the current Government action is the abuse of aboriginal children.

Nothing esoteric, just plain simple fact. The root cause of the trigger is the pernicious myth.

I shortened this by saying that the myth was the trigger. Not so hard to follow, but an opportunity for you to nit pick.

Why would the PM or Brough mention the stolen generations? The aboriginal people have been brainwashed to believe this nonsense, and educating them out of it is a problem for the future, and not the immediate emergency, which is child abuse.

I never said that you had read any history, it was Ranier who made the assertions about history. You say you have only looked at photos. Perhaps you should have attempted to ascertain the context of the photos. You do not say what they are supposed to mean. You, no doubt, do not know.

I did not say the people used in the stories were mythic, I said the stories about them being stolen are myths. They were saved, in the way that current children are not. They are not because of the effect of the myth, political correctness and the aboriginal industry, all of which work against the interests of the aboriginal people, and for the interests of the activists.

This is reality, not fantasy.

FrankGol, you are quite boring. Your performance was a failure the first time, and now you repeat it. At least the bulk of your post is readable, and sensible, being copied from mine.

I said it was a slim possibility, didn't I? Looks like I was being optimistic.

Leo, thank you for setting out an argument. I'm not nit-picking, I'm trying to understand your position.

Of your points, I think numbers 5 & 6 are true. But they do not follow from points 1-4, either consequentially or in logic. Here's why:

1. If you totally reject the findings of 'Bringing Them Home' because you believe parts are inaccurate, then I have news for you: every report ever written contains errors and omissions - but that is not a sufficient basis to reject them in their entirety. It is inevitable that errors and omissions will eventually be found in the 'Little Children are Sacred' report too - does that mean that child abuse in Aboriginal communities is a 'myth'?

2. The protection of Aboriginal children was degraded by a decade of cuts to the funding of protective services for Aboriginal children. After starving their essential protective services of funds, the government has now declared those communities to be failures and dysfunctional and in need of being taken over. Self-fulfilling prophecy if ever there was one.

3. What cover-up? Over the last decade, there have been major public reports published by almost every state and territory government detailing this problem. Since 1996, almost every nationally prominent Aboriginal leader has made public speeches about it. You have a very strange definition of the term 'cover-up'.

4. Vague assertion. Details please? Also a mis-direction of what courts are there for. Courts are not places where historical questions are 'proved' or 'disproved'. They are places where cases are tried. You will not find 'proof' or 'disproof' of the stolen generation in a court of law. It's an historical problem, not a scientific theory or a legal conundrum.

Leo, you made a statement that previous generations of Aboriginal children who were removed from their communities were "saved" from child abuse. The clear implication is that the current generation of Aboriginal children should now also be removed. I know you haven't (had the guts to have) said so explicitly, but it is implicit in your statement that "They were saved, in the way that current children are not". The logic of your statement is a prescription to remove children now.

Either come out and say it, or else please clarify your earlier remarks. Neither the PM nor Mal Brough nor Noel Pearson nor the authors of 'Little Children are Sacred' believe that removing children is the answer; do you?

You have made a convoluted and bizarre attempt to link the reaction to the stolen generation report to child abuse in Aboriginal communities. Everybody else in this debate understands that the problem's origins are complex and manifold, involve failures at state and federal levels, substance-abuse, leadership failures, funding failures, a lack of care by other Australians, and many other contributing factors. Your effort to pin it on something to do with the stolen generation seems obsessive, and does you no credit.

After all, every weekday in the suburban newspapers there are reports of child sex abuse and pornography committed by non-Aboriginal people in suburban homes. There is no 'stolen-generation myth' in suburbia that you can blame those tragedies on. So what gives?

Occam's razor alone will tell you that the "rivers of grog" probably have more to do with it – or are the liquor merchants all part of the great pc conspiracy and co-authors of the stolen-generation report too?

PS – regarding the photos of Aboriginal chain-gangs, you ask about the ‘context’ (apologetics for ‘spin’). I don’t know - they were out for a picnic or school reunion, perhaps?

Images of Aboriginal people wearing neck-irons don’t require much of a ‘context’ to explain them, any more than do photographs of mass graves around the world. Such pictures tend to speak a thousand words, except to apologists/denialists who don't listen.

Leo

According to you, I'm "boring" and "readable" and "sensible" all at the same time.

And that's all because I copied most of my post from you. It's really you who should take the credit Leo.

Who needs to use their own words to demonstrate the level of intelligence of other posters when their own words do the job perfectly?

Images of Aboriginal people wearing neck-irons DO require a ‘context’ to explain them, as do photographs of non-Aboriginal people wearing them, as do photograpsh of mass graves, burning children running down the roads, wounded laying in hospital beds, countless other scenes all around the world.

ALL good photographs, all good pictures, all good cartoons, speak a thousand words, generate emotional responses linking what is presented to be seen by viewers to their own memories, own knowledges, own understandings or versions as taught to them, whether true or not.

Such images stand alone art forms.

Images and Truth are two different things except to apologists / denialists who do not wish to listen, not wishing hear anything different.

Sadly many are so emotionally and intellectually blinkered yet thinking they know better than everyone else.