For an authoritative review of the Dank Emu film:

"The Dark Emu Story is a recently released film produced by Blackfella Films for the ABC and directed by Allan Clarke.

I won’t call it a “documentary” because, although it starts pretty well, by the time it gets to the end, certain segments fail to reflect the values underlying a good documentary: balance, fairness and respect for reliable records as against unfounded speculation.

At the centre of the film is Bruce Pascoe’s 2014 book, Dark Emu.

In 2021, archaeologist Keryn Walshe and I published a detailed assessment of Pascoe’s claims as compared with the evidence (our book’s short title is Farmers or Hunter-gatherers?).

The film is biased towards one side of the debate, the side of Bruce Pascoe. At several points, it turns into propaganda. This is the opposite of the much-stressed independence and even-handedness Blackfella Films promised in our pre-filming discussions. It becomes a puff piece for Pascoe."

Early peoples lived in tribes and extended families, and in tough times, sacrificed their children for food and to appease the gods or in the aboriginal's case the spirit of the Earth.

When Boniface, OSB (Latin: Bonifatius; c. 675 – 5 June 754) an English Benedictine monk and leading figure in the Anglo-Saxon mission to the Germanic parts of Francia during the eighth century. He organized significant foundations of the church in Germany. He found the people sacrificing their children at the winter solstice [Christmas]. They would make a pudding and place a coin in it and the child who got the coin was the one to be sacrificed. He changed this custom to being the blest child and was spared from being sacrificed.

The sanctity of human life began in Mesopotamia with Abraham when he converted to animal sacrifice. Those around him were sacrificing their children to the Gods. He had received a promise in his son that he would be great nation, so he abandoned the practice to the gods and sacrificed a ram, which has followed Hebrew theology even to this day.

It has been the Jewish Christ that has changed the attitude to the sanctity of human life.

When Christian missionaries went to the aboriginal tribes in the Gulf country Doomadgee, they started taking in the abandoned aboriginal babies and built a children's home. To feed the home they grew gardens, established a cattle station, and employed the aboriginals to run it on their land. In the 1940s I met these retired missionaries who set up this mission they were in their 80+ years.

The anthropologists doing the study into pre settlement history have to request material from the National Library and demonstrate their use, because it is hidden from public reading.

It was the influence of Christianity that gave life sanctity, schooling, children's homes, hospitals, and nurses, the printing press, and adopted agriculture to feed the growing nations.

Stelle can scream all he likes as an atheist who supports the Marxist review of History. But The Truth telling must begin.

The Stolen generation was introduced to save aboriginal children, but it has become a guilt trip by those opposed.

This really is quite funny.

The NT government (Labor) were fully on-board with the intervention. The Federal opposition (Labor) were fully on-board with the intervention, supporting it in parliament and continuing it after they took power.

But no, no, no says SR. I don't want that to be true, therefore it isn't. SR just asserts that it was all done by one man, which is true, if, like SR, you ignore all the facts.

Should I say, he unilaterally ignored all the facts?

Then he asserts "I showed quite clearly that the reports did not have conflicting statistics as you had asserted," yet if you read back through the thread you'll find no such thing. And then he tells Josephus that "We have dealt with the Quadrant article already on this forum and shown just how full of holes". Well no such thing happened but, it seems, that in SR's mind, since he didn't want it to be true that's the same as proving it to be untrue.

Should I say, he unilaterally decided it was untrue?

Dear mhaze,

Lol. Still projection you poor sod. You dive into semantics then look up and accuse me of doing the same, and when you get called out you just can't let it go.

What part of "In political terms, the Howard government faced little opposition to the Intervention. Cabinet was not consulted, and the government was able to take advantage of its Senate majority to push through the legislation. With a federal election around the corner, Labor leader Kevin Rudd saw no electoral advantage in criticising the Intervention" doesn't speak to a unilateral act?

SR wrote: "What part of "In political terms, the Howard government faced little opposition to the Intervention. Cabinet was not consulted, and the government was able to take advantage of its Senate majority to push through the legislation. With a federal election around the corner, Labor leader Kevin Rudd saw no electoral advantage in criticising the Intervention" doesn't speak to a unilateral act?"

The part where the Rudd government after the election so utterly agreed with the intervention that it continued it for several years thereafter. Or the part where the NT (Labor) government thoroughly agreed with the intervention and joined in.

SR I appreciate that you've managed to find one other apologist who wants to skip over the fact that the intervention had bipartisan support but quoting from him doesn't make it so. If you found a quote from Rudd saying something like 'we don't agree with this but won't stand in the way' then you might be able to hang onto your failed hopes by a finger-nail. But alas....

The simple truth, (and I appreciate that that is something that eludes you), is that, at the time, the intervention was widely supported.