I see now that all this reopening of societal sores is to promote Windschuttle's latest book, curiously published as the third volume of his "Fabrication of Aboriginal History" series - curious because he hsn't come up with a second volume to date.

To balance the journalism on which stevenlmeyer apparently prefers to base his opinions about the Stolen Generations, there's been some interesting stuff in the MSM in the last day or two about the topic:

<< Historian's Aboriginal claims a distortion, says author
Nicolas Perpitch

The Australian December 15, 2009 12:00AM

DORIS Pilkington Garimara, author of Follow the Rabbit Proof Fence, says Keith Windschuttle is "distorting history" by claiming her mother and another girl were removed from their community because they were having sex with white men.

Pilkington, whose book was the basis for the acclaimed film Rabbit-Proof Fence, said her mother, Molly and another girl Gracie, were sent away because they and other mixed-race children were an embarrassment to whites. >>

http://tiny.cc/HO7Sv

[cont]

[cont]

And this:

<< Filmmakers dispatch historian to the fence over distorted history

The Australian December 15, 2009 12:00AM

THE makers of Rabbit-Proof Fence have rejected claims by historian Keith Windschuttle that the film lies about a government policy to "breed out" Aboriginality in the 1930s.

In the third volume of his The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, Windschuttle claims that two of the three girls the subject of the 2002 film were removed in 1931 for their own safety, because of alleged promiscuity with white station workers, not as part of a systematic breeding program.

Director Phillip Noyce and screenwriter Christine Olsen provided a letter from Western Australia's chief protector of Aborigines Auber Octavius Neville, which said one of the girls, Daisy Kadibill, 8, was removed to stop her from mating with an full-blood Aboriginal man.

"I agree with you that in this case it would be inadvisable to allow `Daisy' to mate with her tribal husband who is a full-blood, and as legal guardian of this child I desire it to be known that I disapprove of any such proposition and do not wish the matter to be further considered," Neville wrote to a Mrs Chellow, a farmer's wife from near Jigalong. >>

http://tiny.cc/wp6eF

[cont]

[cont]

Like I said, what I want to know is why some people want to reopen ugly old ulcers in our cultural fabric. The Stolen Generations were just one aspect of the many injustices wrought against Indigenous people in the annexation and colonisation in Australia over the last couple of hundred years. The 'Bringing them Home' report was the catalyst for the wider debate that culminated in Kevin Rudd's Apology.

Personally, while I think the Apology was a powerful act by an Australian government, like most of what Rudd does it didn't go nearly far enough. I've always thought that the Australian State should issue a general apology to Indigenous people for invading and expropriating their lands, and attempting to eliminate both them their culture for most of Australia's short history - and then when that didn't work, generally treating them like sh!t and relegating most Indigenous people to an underclass that still exists, to our collective shame.

Aboriginal people have lived here sustainably for many millennia, and we beneficiaries of the currently dominant culture have managed to stuff both them and the Australian environment up spectacularly badly in only a century or so of intense industrial activity.

I really wonder why some people expend so much of their efforts in trying to deny the historical realities that form part of our shared cultural heritage. We need to acknowledge and atone for our societal past, and move on. Windschuttle and his acolytes are classic denialists, and I'm using the term in its most pejorative sense.

Apologies for the extended post, but I find them and their project odious in the extreme.

Let me get this straight.

Daisy, THEN JUST EIGHT YEARS OLD, was removed to stop her "mating" with a "full blood".

Erk. Sorry about the links.

Something weird happened in the shrinking...

The first link should be http://tiny.cc/1unxD

The context steven needs is here:

http://tiny.cc/9qPAR

Steven should also read something about traditional Aboriginal (in this case Mardu) marriage before leaping to salacious conclusions. Tip: marriage - or more likely 'betrothal' - often happened long before sexual consummation. It most certainly doesn't mean "mating with" the husband at the time, as Neville so quaintly put it.

Now I've done my posts in this thread for 24 hours.

oh here we go again steven
let those in glass houses..know they stand on..in-firm ground's[by their deeds..will we know them]
from
http://www.biblestudysite.com/factsarefacts.htm
I apologize..for the'language'..which will appear'..here-UNDER'

from The official..unabridged..'Soncino'Edition of the'Talmud'..published in 1935..quotations..with footnotes from the Soncino Edition of the Talmud,(Book)

YEBAMOTH,60b."As R.Joshua,b.Levi related:`There was a certain town in the Land of Israel..the legitimacy of whose inhabitants disputed,
#
and Rabbi sent R.Ramanos..who conducted an inquiry and..'found'in it the daughter of a'proselyte..who was under the age of three years..and one day

,and Rabbi declared her eligible to live with a priest."

(footnotes).."(13)A proselyte..under the age of three years and one day may be married by a priest...(14)And was married to a priest.(15)i.e.,permitted to continue to live with her'husband'."

(Book)..SANHEDRIN,55b-55a:"What is meant by this?

Rab said:Pederasty..with a child below nine years of age..is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that.

Samuel said:Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that(2].....

55a)(he)who commits bestiality,whether naturally or unnaturally:...or a woman..who causes herself to be beastially abused,....whether naturally or unnaturally,..is liable to punishment(5)."

(footnotes)"(The reference is to..the passive..'subject'/victim..of sodomy.

As stated in supra..[54a,guilt is incurred by the active participant even if the former be a minor;..i.e.,less than thirteen years old...

2)Rab makes nine years the minimum;..but if one committed sodomy with a child of lesser age,..no guilt is incurred...Samuel makes three the minimum...(There are thus three distinct clauses in this Baraitha.

why single out pederasty:..in all crimes of incest,..the'passive'adult..does not incur'guilt'..unless the other'party'..is at least nine years and a day?

Hence the Baraitha..supports Rab's'contention'..that nine years(and a day)is the minimum age of the...passive partner..for the adult to be liable."(emphasis in original,Ed.)

Before giving any more verbatim quotations..from the"sort of book" from which..it is falsely alleged Jesus"drew the teachings''..

In'official-statement'made by Rabbi Morris N.Kertzer..that the Talmud"..IS THE LEGAL CODE..WHICH FORMS THE BASIS OF JEWISH RELIGIOUS LAW..AND IT IS THE TEXTBOOK USED IN THE TRAINING OF RABBIS".

Please bear this in mind as you read further.

http://www.biblestudysite.com/factsarefacts.htm

Is further proof needed..on that question?