As journalist Niki Savva wrote recently: "While it is
not true to say that every Australian who votes no in the
voice referendum is a racist, you can bet your bottom dollar
that every racist will vote no."

This has been done before.
"THE FIRST PEOPLE — WERE NOT THE CURRENT ABORIGINALS
There has been a lot of claims about who was the oldest continuous race on earth, interestingly modern science has turned most upside down. Simple logic tells us wherever people came from then that was older than those who went to other countries and claimed such.
As current Australian Aboriginals are proven by mtDNA to have come in India about 4,230 years ago, then the people of India are older than they are, and where the Indians came from those folk are older still.
There are skulls of many different races that have lived in Australia, including endocast skullS that are skulls filled with volcanic ash and or minerals and turned to stone, one found by Rex Gilroy in volcanic ash, the NSW Department of Geophysical Survey advise the last volcano in that area was over 10 million years ago — thus dating the skull. That also changes the ‘known’ history of Hominids into the ‘unknown’ until a lot more study is done.
It also proves the balderdash of Australian Aboriginies being the original people to occupy Australia, they are not and never were — they fraudulently claim the artifacts and art of earlier races belonged to them. That bunkum falls over with the discovery of so many different skulls and Skelton’s, some totally unrelated, and one an unknown species of Hominid as yet with no proven ancestor?
Extracted from a soon to be released book, ‘The ‘UNKNOWN’ History of Australia’.

Many racists will vote YES for the Voice because they hate white skin British colonialism.

Dear mhaze,

Mate. Are you really back for more?

Just to be clear you found the name of the book in the link I gave because it quotes directly from it and lists the reference as: Colin Simpson, Adam in Ochre, Angus & Robertson, 1938.

http://www.heretical.com/cannibal/austral1.html

So no you didn't suddenly retrieve it from your notes at all did you.

To rehash, the author was the one who so deliberately re-engineered the original line in Howitt's work which had read: “In hard summers the new-born children were all eaten by the Kaura tribe in the neighbourhood of Adelaide ; this might be inferred from the remarkable gaps that appear in the ages of the children.”

Under his agenda driven penmanship it become "In hard summers, the new-born children were all eaten by the Kaura tribe in the neighbourhood of Adelaide, according to Dr McKinley."

As I said earlier at least Quadrant properly attributed the 'inference', but not your bloke. No mention of inferred, no mention of the correct 'inferrer' either (Howitt), just a preparedness to turn an inference into a bald assertion with a slip of the pen, and to top it off he misspells McKinlay.

How utterly scurrilous and unprofessional of him, yet this is someone you have held up as a reliable reference and one you have been prepared to defend despite all the proof I have put before you.

Racist tropes from racist people.

Shame.

To accept other people's experiences would make us all
a bit wiser.
Foxy,
Tell journalist Niki Savva that !

"So no you didn't suddenly retrieve it from your notes at all did you."

I'd mentioned the book loooong before you'd done you 30 minute research.

The author you've decide, for no valid reason mind you,(some might even say spurious reasons) is "agenda driven" was a well respected journalist who worked for the ABC among others. And we all know that ABC journalists never lie.

Dear mhaze,

Colin Simpson was a documentary writer for the ABC after writing for the tabloids.

His agenda later was to sell his books and as his Wikipedia entry spells out: "Those books sold very well. They were not "authoritative contributions to anthropology" but simply aimed to "interpret" these indigenous peoples "to the layman"."

But tell me, are you going to concede Simpson misquoted Howitt or not? Any reasonable assessment would indicate that he did and that his works form part of the Chinese whisper you lot engage in propagating mistruths.