We're told that some Indigenous people look
upon Australia Day as "Occupation Day."
To other Australians it is a day of barbeques,
fire-works. A public holiday, to be spent with
family and friends.

Traditionally we've come together on this day
to celebrate what's great about Australia
and being Australian. To reflect on what we've
achieved and also reflect to re-commit to making
Australia even better for the future.

It's a day driven by communities, and celebrations
held in each town, suburb or city.

There's commercials on television telling us - it's
a day when we're supposed to eat lamb.

But what does it really mean to us?
Any, or none of the above?

It is a national day - the day on the 26th January when the
First Fleet brought 11 convict ships from Great Britain raising
the Union Jack at Sydney Cove by the commander Captain
Arthur Phillip.

It also has modern significance of what has been achieved
since that time - a diverse country.

Your thoughts would be appreciated.

Other countries do not have the extreme leftist political correctness that consistently fails to recognise and is obliged to dump on and shame the Early Settlers and Explorers and those who have carried on their traditions.

Wouldn't it be good if this pioneer's life (among others) was celebrated on Australia Day, for example?

http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/kenny-elizabeth-6934

Those TV commercials are only partly right: it's a day we're supposed to eat LAMINGTONS!

As for Australia Day, to be a celebration for all Australians it really should be on January 1 (Federation Day) rather than on NSW Proclamation Day.

Lamingtons

A reminder as some here would realise, of the CWA that provided so much support to women in difficult times when they could only count on themselves.

"We aim to improve the conditions for women and children and make life better for families, especially those living in rural and remote Australia."

One of a number of voluntary organisations with noble aims and consistently met. Still working. Example from Qld,

"By staying in QCWA accommodation, you are assisting the Association to support women suffering through personal crisis or natural disaster.

So, when looking for somewhere to holiday, why not consider QCWA accommodation"

http://qcwa.org.au/accommodation.php

Something to remember and celebrate.

Dearest Foxy,

Almost all the Indigenous people I know couldn't give a toss about Australia Day, except that it's a holiday. Nor do they seem to care two hoots about 'Recognition' either. When I ask, they ask back, 'Recognition of what ?' Good question. What do you reckon, Foxy ?

On the other hand, I could be wrong but I think that this Australia Day marks the fiftieth anniversary of Eric Bogle's arrival in Australia (which he wrote about in his wonderful song 'Shelter': it should be our national anthem). He arrived on a blistering hot day in Melbourne (so another day in hell) and found himself in the middle of an anti-Vietnam-War demo. And promptly joined in, of course. Now, THAT's an introduction to Australia.

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

You'd know more about what Indigenous people feel
about Australia Day then I would. I know some are
very outspoken around this time on TV.

However,I know more about people
who've come from elsewhere.

Our neighbours who're from the UK have often stated
that had they stayed in the UK - their daughter
would have been pregnant at 16 and they all would
have been living in council high rise flats with no
job, no car, and a poor standard of living.
They claimed that coming to Australia was the best
thing they ever did, coming to this beautiful country.

Look at the beauty that is uniquely this country -
The Harbour Bridge, Manly Ferry, Kakadu, Kimberleys,
Olgas, Koalas, Kangaroos, and Uluru. All things unique.
That's what makes us,
us.

Take a holiday,

http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/travel/destinations/2013/08/top-10-outback-station-stays/

While some country kids enjoy the beach,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-20/outback-kids-swap-drought-for-seaside-holiday-fun-in-qld/7100738

What does Australia Day mean to you?

Barbecue, informal game of cricket, beer, sunburn and being glad you were born an Aussie and not a bloody Seppo/(insert own racial prejudice here). Oh, and this year eating lamb to spite sanctimonious vegans.

Lamb .... mmmmmmm

Or maybe bacon ........mmmmmmmm

Or pork chops ........ mmmmmmmm

Chicken ..... he/she who is tired of chicken is tired of life ....... mmmmmmm

Or beef patties, with onion, garlic, tomato, oregano ..... mmmmmmm

Or just on their own .... mmmmmmm

Meat is just so delicious ! Rabbit, camel, duck, horse, it all makes life worth living.

Good god, I'm actually drooling !

Joe

Being Australian - what does it mean?
We've come from a range of different origins
so it can't be reduced to a simple formula
as Greg Melleuish, Prof. of History and
Politics, points out.

It's about mateship and relationships, for some.
However, like everyone else on the planet
Australians are a mixture of good, bad, noble,
and shameful, exemplenary and slippery.
And each of us spend our National Day in a variety
of ways. Mine will be spent with family and friends.
And yes, eating lamb as well. I just may throw in some
lamingtons, scones, and a pavlova as well.

One of the best parts of Australia Day is welcoming migrants becoming citizens. These are the ones who have come here legally and who want to contribute to our nation. Its great to be able to share this great land with Africans, Asians, Kiwis and whoever else takes the oath. Many of them tell us how wonderful they have found this nation and can't understand why the Government is allowing it to be destroyed by people who hate us.

Jacqueline Maley writes in the Sydney Morning Herald:

"...On Australia Day we should celebrate our good
fortune - that we get to live in Australia rather
than Somalia, Iran, or Syria, whether we were born here
or immigrated."

"The fact that we are Australian is dumb luck, just as it
is to be beautiful or athletic. The only exceptions are
immigrants who worked hard to get here.
Australian-ness is not an accomplishment in of itself,
but what we do with it can be."

So the ultralightweight, self described 'Journalisticalist' (whatever that is) SMH's Jacqueline Maley thinks that Australians are lucky and didn't work for it, huh? So presumably it is fair enough to be giving citizenship away and be thankful that spillover from over-populated countries heads this way.

It is "only dumb luck that we are Australian" and we should be lauding instead the migrants who 'have had to work for it'.

-So easy to see why this Hipster excuse for a 'sketch-writer' journalist appeals to the easily smitten Fox, who is also prone to buffing up migrants and regards Australians as 'Nullarboring' and utterly devoid of culture, before migrants brought their culture with them.

It is not 'Progressive', not PC, and definitely NOT Hip, for there to be any recognition of the obvious, incontrovertible fact that Australians have worked very hard for what they have and in the process lost many souls defending Europe and other countries from dictators.

Shareholders of rags like the SMH are fleeing. Editors who let loose young airhead female reporters with uninformed, trendy opinions in lieu of facts are hastening the flight of readers to other sources on the Web.

Australia Day to me means more tedious online debates over the true meaning of a holiday which until recently meant nothing much to anyone, though it is funny to see the Left-Liberal types embracing patriotism for a day.
If the bourgeois hypocrites and Tumblr Lefties want Australia Day they can have it as far as I'm concerned.

Good Morning Folks,

Australia Day is a time of celebration.

It's a day that belongs to all of us.

It's a day that is celebrated in various ways
throughout the country with Citizenship ceremonies,
Australian of the Year Awards, barbeques, picnics
in parks, re-enactments of Australia Day, throughout
cities and towns. It's a day that can't be reduced
to a simple formula. The reason for that as stated
earlier is because Australians have come from a
range of different origins going back to
Indigenous Australians. That's what makes us,
us.

Have a Good Day.

otb,

Now really?

You've had your head stuck in the toilet again
have you?

Sad really!

With the greatest of regret, I no longer celebrate Australia Day. This once great country has been torn asunder by the endemic corruption to be found at all strata of the Nation's administration.

This scourge and stench of corruption, has pervaded throughout most of industry, the finance sector, legal profession, law and order and even throughtout our health services administration.

And to cap it off, each January 26th, we see an ever increasing parade of eager people getting a 'gong', in most instances for merely just doing their job. While a few others, already earning squillions on the sporting fields are awarded an 'Order' for something totally valueless?

Instead of the many faceless, dedicated, honourable self-sacrificing folk, who daily go about quietly, doing good works through volunteering for the benefit of others!

It's a great day for the House of Windsor and Tony Windsor is the man for New England .
" An amended Commission, dated 25 April 1787, designated George III's territory of New South Wales as including 'all the islands adjacent in the Pacific Ocean' and running westward to the 135th meridian," that is, about mid-way through the continent 400km east of Ayers Rock.
Out thoughts and prayers are with the happy couple , Sir Philip and his wife and may they have a cold beer with their Advancing Australian years

On 2nd thoughts, the Australia Day Committee needs a boost so sent this to Elizabeth ( Kelly . PM office).
Dear Elizabeth , ma'am

" An amended Commission, dated 25 April 1787,..as above..

No doubt New Zealand will be invited to share the day with a loyal toast even if Western Australia and Alice Springs are excluded. We're sorry about the bushfires and keep our lawns mowed as obedient tenants.

Any chance that one of the Family could look over their property next week ? It's sad that Tennis has come to such a condition, it's the republicans in Russia but the Romanovs are hopeful.

your servant.

X

Australia Day is more appropriate than 1st January 1901 as that later
date is just a rearrangement of political deck chairs.

Australia Day is also more significant for aboriginals.
On that day they were jerked into the 18th century from wherever they
were previously. It was a dawning of a new reality which had to happen
no matter what. It was not perfect of course but nothing ever is.

It was the start by a small group of men & women to build a nation
even if only a few realised it at that time.
They brought with them a tradition of law and rights which many of
them thought had been denied to themselves.
It left the people in the 19th century more determined to establish
a better society than they had left.

Do not deny to those earliest arrivals the acclaim for the efforts
they made over the following two centuries.

Dear Bazz,

Nobody should be denied any achievements to which they
have contributed - that
have made this nation great. Whether its been building
the Snowy Mountains Scheme, the Sydney Opera House,
roads, cutting sugar canes, building hsopitals,
and other things too numerous to mention. Including
serving in wars, past and present, governments,
raising the standard of education, and the list goes on.

We are a great country - and we should celebrate not only
all of our achievements, but we should re-commit to making
it even better for us all in the future!
With a new Prime Minister who has vision - it should not be
difficult if we're all on the same page.

Bazz
Indonesians knew Australia existed and traded with the people. So did Papua. Men came from the furthest side of the planet to fight with France about pirates' rights. Land theft is not legal. Strangely , this event is not remembered with pride :
" Construction on Darlinghurst Gaol wall began in 1822 and finished in 1824 using convict labour, but due to a lack of funds, the site sat empty for 12 years. "

I agree with O Sung Wu, Australia day for me is one of regret and Anzac Day is the same. Our pioneers and diggers would turn in their graves if they could see this country now.

We have so little good farmimg land and we have been busy covering that with concrete, bitumen and houses. Now farming is forced on to more marginal country that is prone to crop failure and erosion.

Man made disasters like the last Brisbane floods where most of the flooded homes were built below the 1974 flood level. Council approved this subdivisions and encouraged the building. How many young couples lost in a big way because of this 'error' by council but no one admitted fault.

The last lot of submarines were a complete disaster, by Beasley.

Each year hundreds of homes are destroyed by fire because of greenies influence on councils and poor town planning. It will continue.

In the last few years our Labor government allowed 50000 illegal immigrants to get residence with most remaining on welfare forever. They could not see the obvious and even 1200 drowning did not change their ideology and stupidity.

There are many issues and these are just a few that come to mind. One could be excused for thinking the politicians set out deliberately to stuff the place. I am thankful we do not have 'Merkels million muslims' yet but Turnbul will get his 12000 here, so look out girls. Turnbull was once going to save the world from global warming by changing our light bulbs, so he has form.

Not much to look forward too I am afraid, yep afraid for our grandkids. As they say 'poor fella my country'.

Dear Banjo,

I'm so sorry that you feel that way.

It is a dismal picture and I certainly hope that
you're wrong. We've had warnings in the past and
nothing bad came from them. Somehow our country
has managed not only to survive, but prosper.
Hopefully this will continue into the future, especially
if we have the right policies to implement. I have faith
in our new Prime Minister. He seems like a man who will
do the right thing by us all. He has a pretty good,
and intelligent team and with consultation - things
can only improve. Anyway, prior to the next election we
should learn more detail about their policies and then
be able to judge for ourselves.

I'm betting on us doing well. We have a good track record.

What's wrong FOXY, I've written two post's thus far, for topics which you've initiated, and you've completely ignored me? I must have upset you in some way - I'm sorry if I have.

Good evening to you BANJO...And I have to agree with you 100%, it's really upsetting to see this fantastic Nation of ours rapidly going down the 'gurgler '! Unfortunately it's my generation (pre-baby boomers), those born in the late 1930's and the war years, who are the catalyst for this decline? Not all of it, but it's us that saw it happening, and it's us who choose to ignore those early warning signs.

Your very last sentence says it all, '...Not much to look forward too I'm afraid, yep afraid for our grandkids. As they say poor fella my country...'?

Nick, the Indonesians only traded along the Nth Coast and the
aboriginals in the rest of Australia knew nothing of them.
That was corrected when Captain Cook sailed up the east coast and
aboriginals must have started to realise that there was a much wider
world out there than they imagined.
It is a pity that we do not seem to have any history of aboriginals'
contemplations of where these white men in their enormous canoes came
from and what sort of tribes they had. How do they get that very
hard wood that they dig the ground with.
Pity,but that is the result them not inventing writing.
They must have had a lot of interesting questions to ask.
That is why I said they were jerked into the 18th century.
Only some Melanesians had similar shocks during the war when the
planes came with the cargo cults.

However , Bazz , Indonesians knew about Australia and didn't take it. No-one had to. China doesn't have to take Tibet and England didn't have to take Scotland . Aboriginals it seems had a better diet than the British , 18th century.
'Lieutenant James Cook on 15 May 1770,... noted the presence of about 20 Bundjalung Nation Aboriginal people ….(north NSW). Sir Joseph Banks also noted these people and remarked that they completely ignored the presence of the HMS Endeavour. This would seem to indicate that the HMS Endeavour was not the first ship that they had seen.
Sir Joseph Banks also noted the same as Lieutenant James Cook FRS RN, .. that:
... not one was once observed to stop and look toward the ship; they pursued their way in all appearance entirely unmoved by the neighbourhood of so remarkable an object as a ship must necessarily be to people who have never seen one. _ Richmond River Historical Society {RRHS}, 1997.
This resembles Botany Bay in 1770 when people who were fishing in bark canoes ignored the British ship of James Cook. Maybe ships were familiar to people in east Australia.

Foxy,
I cannot share your faith in Turnbull, as I recall you had similar faith in Rudd and Gillard and they were a mitigating disaster.

After WW11 we recovered well and had a very high standard of living until the 1970s. The Whitlam government brought in Multiculturalism (without consultation) which started the rot for Australia. Fraser made it far worse by bringing all those muslims in (against advice) and it has been downhill ever since.

I cannot see any worthwhile achievements since then and the only thing that has grown has been our population and house prices. The standard of living has fallen and it takes longer to get to work and buy a house for most. Queues are longer, people work longer hours, shopping is a pain and we are not better off. Increased population has not provided any benefits. Immigrants are the only ones that have benefited from them coming here. Diversity has not given us anything except social problems that we do not need.

There is nothing to be proud about for a nation since the 1970s. Its time we stopped importing people, we owe the world nothing except our massive government debt for which we have nothing to show for it.

Nick, now that you mention it I do remember of reading about them
ignoring the ships. Some postulated it was because they were thought
to be from the "spirit world".
They could not have seen other ships often. It could have been a
hundred years since a Portuguese sailor had passed that way.
It would be so infrequent an event that there would be plenty of
younger men who had never seen a ship. Like young men everywhere they
would have been very curious.
Yet if they were so familiar with ships then at least several must
have made their way back to Europe.

No that theory just does not hold up.

It is not thought that Torres realised that he had passed by close
to Cape York. Torres Strait Islanders probably saw his ship as had
Papuans as he made his way along the coast of Papua. He mentions large
Islands in the area.
He went through and discovered the Strait in August 1606, 164 years
before Cook.
It was always the practise that detailed navigation reports are made.
It seems impossible that so many ships passed that way and never
returned to Europe, or the East Indies, or went on to Panama.

Banjo, "I am thankful we do not have 'Merkels million muslims' yet but Turnbull will get his 12000 here, so look out girls"

From that populist decision, millions of taxpayers' dollars will flow into the grasping hands of NGOs and professionals and to build and maintain anthills of federal bureaucrats.

It will not be just for one year either, it is a labour-intensive industry and their needs will go one forever.

Which explains why there are so many astroturfing NGOs and public bureaucrats involving themselves in political comment. It is the gravy train.

Dear O Sung Wu,

I must have been simply tired yesterday.

I'm not upset at you at all and nothing's wrong.

I enjoy reading different takes on issues.

If we all agreed - the forum would be a boring place.

So by all means keep up the good work.

You always tell it like it is - minus the insults
for which I'm grateful.

Sorry if I gave you the wrong impression.

Still luv you!

Bazz,
There's a sad circle that people are locked into. Can you explain logically why Aboriginals must be Christian Anglo-Saxons? Why are most in deep hostility and pain if it's good to be north-west European, like Adolf said?

The Bugi of north Indonesia sailed wherever the king sent them in SE Asia before Portuguese arrived , with claims they sailed to Madagascar Africa. ( The Forum blocks my ref quotes).
Aboriginals sailed back to Moluccas and married and Macassans had children in Oz. How do you define Democracy, Bazz?

but there's more...ships from the Roman port of Arikamedu in south India sailed to Bali 2100 years ago. India had big ships for the China trade which sent ceramics to Britain and these are found today in mud on the Thames river. Probably Greek Romans were involved as they were at Korkai port also in Tamil Nadu. Ships around Oz are old news.

Nick, what are you talking about ?
You said;
Can you explain logically why Aboriginals must be Christian Anglo-Saxons?

Where did that come from ?
The rest of it also seems disconnected.
You second post is not news, but it is one thing for there to be
frequent, seasonally, visits from Indonesia to Northern Australia
and quite something else to presume that Indonesians sailed out into
the Pacific and down the coast as far present NSW.

In the 1600s only the Dutch & Portuguese had ships capable of such
voyaging in the area. If such voyages did occur there would be many
such reports back to Lisbon and Amsterdam. Captain Cook 150 years
later would have known of it before he even left Britain.
All he knew was that there had to be an east coast somewhere around 150 deg east.

Dear Bazz
umm.. for years there were churches in Britain. Gov Philip was directed to promote religion in the colony. Generally , Aboriginals were forced into "missions" run by Churches. You say the new reality had to happen. Why?
Again, why did Aboriginals have to go to Europe? Do you think that Asian ships aren't real ships ? If Maoris paddled log canoes from the Equator to NZ why were Asian ships unable to reach eastern Oz? My point is that all the foreign countries in 2000 years didn't seize this land and so why do Aboriginals have to be forced into foreign ownership?

Hi Nick,

Where to start ?

Austronesian traders were taking goods from PNG and - probably - the north coast of Australia (especially sandalwood, which was used in Rome) across to the east coast (the Coromandel coast) of India perhaps thousands of years ago. They colonised coastal areas of South-East Asia - there is still a group in Vietnam which speaks an Autronesian language - and of course pushed out into the Pacific, and across to the African coast and Madagascar. Not on log canoes but bloody great double-hilled sailing ships. Check out Peter Bellwood's 'The Austronesians', brilliant.

The old myth of Aboriginal people being 'forced' onto missions needs to be scrapped once and for all: single missionaries had far too much to do to attempt forcing people anywhere. Most missions - at least in SA - were set up as ration stations and schools, both roles attracting people quite voluntarily. No SA mission ever had a fence around it. Didn't happen.

And quite a few Aboriginal people went to Europe even early on, half a dozen from SA before 1860, usually as boys and young men. Some went to school there.

The Austronesians and Indians were traders. Seizing land would have been pointless: that wouldn't have arisen until capitalism was well-developed and capitalist enterprise needed resources, and land to grow tradeable crops and raw materials like wool and cotton and sugar. The vast proportion of Australia has been used for pastoral purposes, which - in law - co-exist with traditional Aboriginal land-uses such as hunting and gathering.

And your comment that ' .... for years there were churches in Britain. Gov Philip was directed to promote religion in the colony' - are you suggesting that that has anything to do with anything ? Some of us out here in cyberspace are not too bright, Nick, we can't see the obvious connections that you make so easily.

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth
Clergy didn't organise killing parties , it was police and settlers who did that. Survivors were sent off-country to ...church missions. They exist today. One was on Fraser island , for example in 1870.
"Written in Sand'. F Williams p67. Aboriginal hunting rights on cattle stations ? ( cough splutter..)
Aboriginals travelling to Europe before 1788 was Bazz comment and seems irrelevant. He says that this colonisation had to happen . I ask why ? The q. seems baffling to you guys.
Put it this way : is it unthinkable for Aboriginals today to have been left alone to stay alive for another 2000 years? No English , no church , no computers , no grog.

Hi Nick,

You airily suggest: "Clergy didn't organise killing parties , it was police and settlers who did that."

Prove it. Get some evidence. Otherwise it's just blather.

Of course, you could talk about the Myall Creek massacre in 1839, for which nine whites were hanged in Darlinghurst Gaol.

And do you have the slightest evidence for this: "Survivors were sent off-country to ...church missions."

Do you mean Dunwich Mission, on Stradbroke Island, also called 'Moreton Bay' ? People could come and go as they pleased from there.

Aboriginal hunting rights on pastoral leases ? Yes. Now. Today: they just have to apply to a committee and show some ancestral link to the land - at least, here in SA.

Yeah, we will have to tackle this issue of 'should Aboriginal people have been left to hunt and gather forever ?' some time. I don't see anybody rushing back to live traditional lives anywhere in Australia, except by Toyota and for a weekend or so - and provided they could keep getting welfare payments, and access the fast food outlets.

And surely nobody seriously suggests that the outside world - the British, French, Russians, Chinese, Japanese, etc. - would have let Australia alone ? The bigger question is: are Indigenous people better off for it ? I think so, enormously so. Discuss.

As for grog, who is forcing Aboriginal people to drink ? In fact, for more than a hundred years, they weren't allowed to drink: suppliers could be fined or gaoled. Equal rights meant they could drink. Their choice.

Nice try :)

Joe

nicknamenick,

That Politically Correct version of an idyllic, land-caring life of Aborigines pre-settlement (and it was settlement, NOT invasion as you would have it), is absolute tosh.

You are part of the guilt industry, selling eternal victimhood and guvvy handouts forever. The public is not going to wear that. Especially with the enhanced information sources and changed demographics of recent years.

It is now possible to explore the past by means of
a large number of books, articles, films novels, songs,
paintings, primary sources, and archival records,
National and State Libraries have this information
on offer. We can know a great deal about the history
of Indigenous-Settler relations.

Of course as historian Henry Reynolds points out -
knowing brings burden which can be shirked by those
living in ignorance. With knowledge the question is no
longer what we know but what we are now to do, and that
is a much harder matter to deal with. It will continue to
perplex us in this country for many years to come.

Dearest Foxy,

I most respectfully disagree: " .... the question is no
longer what we know but what we are now to do .... "

The question most certainly is what we think we know: just because it all fits nicely into a narrative, doesn't mean that a single facet of that narrative is correct.

On my web-site I've typed up around fifteen thousand pages - pages - of material, and very little if any of it fits the narrative. I've been around long enough to have experienced the Hindmarsh Island Secret Women's Business scam, the Rabbit-Proof Fence scam, the Stolen Generation scam, the Self-Determination scam and various other scams.

I'm desperately searching all the time for anything that's genuine, but not much luck, I have to say. The university participation figures seem about the only things that are genuine (if anything, I suspect they are UNDER-estimates of success).

So, yes, we urgently do need to re-assess what we DO know, or think we know.

Love nevertheless,

Joe

Dear Joe,

Of course we have to re-assess but at the same time
we should not deride the evidence and look at the
evidence from all sides. It's never just a case
of "black" and "white." So much has been hidden
in the past and altered to suit the popular
version. I cannot deride people's actual experiences
and what they lived through.

Hi there FOXY...

Good to hear, all is well with you. I was concerned you may not have felt very well either? anyway take care please FOXY. There are far too few ladies on this forum, yourself, POIROT and SUSEONLINE, and one or two others, names I can't recall at this time?

Without your (collective) calming and conciliatory influence, many of us rowdy blokes would probable resort to slugging it out, and that would transmute Graham's Forum into a real dog's breakfast!

Nick said;
Aboriginals travelling to Europe before 1788 was Bazz comment and seems irrelevant.

I never said anything like that at all and I object to you writing
something and trying to say I said it.

The aborigines had been living a hunter gather existence and never
even built huts.
The arrival of the First Fleet pushed them into the 18th century
some 2 to 3 thousand years ahead of their then current state.
It had to happen sooner or later.

Loudmouth, I think there is something wrong with Nick, he does not
seem to be able to keep track of what is said.

Dearest Foxy,

As you say, " .... we should not deride the evidence .... "

But first we have to have evidence. We can't just run with plausible stories. There are so many of them around. But the Bible is full of plausible stories: does that make it 'gospel' truth ? I don't think so.

For example, the Stolen Generations story: Evidence ? One case, and even in that one, if I had been the social worker, I probably would have done something like Marj Angus did.

The rabbit-proof fence story ? Not the slightest written evidence from the times, from the West Australian newspaper, from Trove, from Neville, even from that wonderful communist Mary Bennett, always a thorn in Neville's side. Nothing at the 1934 Moseley Royal Commission. Nothing in Paul Hasluck's memoirs, and he was at the forefront of support for Aboriginal causes at the time, and worked with the Royal Commission. [The Royal Commission Evidence, nearly 900 pages, is on my web-site: www.firstsoures.info]]. Nothing.

Surely we should hinge what we believe to have happened from evidence, not from yarns, rumours, hearsay and stories. We can't just " .... alter [.. the truth] to suit the popular version."

Sorry, Foxy.

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

There's enough primary sources available - so that
we can verify what's true and what's not.
Go to any National or State Library and they will be
more than happy to help you. It's a question of
doing the research and taking the time to find out
if you're really interested. There's no need to be sorry.
Just take the time to do the research.

Foxy,

"Just take the time to do the research."

Thank you, Foxy.

What do you think I've been doing these last few years, sitting in the State Records and State Library here in Adelaide, bashing away on a faulty laptop ? And the many, many years before that ? Actually going back to the seventies ?

Do you have the slightest actual evidence of stories that you believe in, say, the rabbit-proof fence story ? Any at all ? So what do you base your 'evidence' on ? Hearsay ? An unwillingness to ever contradict or offend any Aboriginal people ?

The Stolen Generations yarn ? Don't be swayed by the sad, quavering voices of people who may honestly believe that they were 'stolen', as the only explanation for how their parents could ever, possibly, have been neglectful, or unable to look after them.

It happens. It certainly happened before single mothers could get any benefits before 1971 - thanks by the way, to the McMahon government, not the Whitlam government. How the hell my mum got by in the late forties and kept us kids together, I don't want to contemplate.

Evidence is what you need, not just a good heart :) We should never be afraid to search for the truth, even if it loses us friends. Although I would hate to lose you as a friend :)

Love always,

Joe

Dear Joe,

You won't lose me as a friend.

But it's best we leave it at that.
You believe what you believe - I heard too many
oral histories at the State Library of Victoria
to doubt them - including from the writer -
Thomas Keneally.

Tom Keneally? Yes his historical novels really crack me up, especially Schindler's Ark, that was a hoot. Excuse my mirth, who else John Pilger?

The Masochists Who Defend Sadists: The Regressive Left in Theory and Practice
http://quillette.com/2016/01/22/the-masochists-who-defend-sadists-the-regressive-left-in-theory-and-practice/

E-mail from my dear friend Senator Lee Rhiannon, if you are in Sydney on the day, you are all invited.

Dear Paul,

On January 26 thousands of Australians all around the country will be remembering the Frontier Wars when this land’s First Peoples fought against British colonisation. Starting in 1788, the wars spanned well over 100 years.

Indigenous peoples’ struggles and victories against structural racism continue.

Many in the Indigenous communities mark this day as Invasion Day or Survival Day.

We will be attending the Invasion Day 2016 Sydney march and we are hoping that you will be able to join us.

Location: The Block, Redfern (right by Redfern Station)
Time: 10am



Following this, we will be at Yabun festival, an annual celebration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures held on the 26th of January each year in Sydney.

It would be great to see you at Yabun. We will be in and around the Greens stall.

Location: Victoria Park Camperdown, Corner of City Road & Parramatta Road
Time: All day

We look forward to seeing you tomorrow.

Regards

Senator Lee Rhiannon and Jim Casey, Greens candidate for Grayndler

p/s On 6th Feb we will be celbrating Waitangi Day (New Zealand National Day) at Holroyd Gardens Merrylands Sydney, another great day which draws a very large number, both Maori and Pakeha.

Dear Foxy,

A bit disappointing: " .... You believe what you believe - I heard too many oral histories at the State Library of Victoria to doubt them - including from the writer - Thomas Keneally. .... "

Stories are worthless, completely worthless, without some evidence. I'm surprised that Keneally would go along with that, he usually does a lot of homework before he writes a book.

What do we run with - somebody's yarn, or a story, no matter how awkward or unexpected, that has some evidential backing ? Where lies the truth ? How can you know without evidence ?

Love,

Joe

It's the day after Robert (Robbie) Burn's birthday.

Of Course we need to link many comments - both oral
and written to address current national issues and
concerns. As historians point out Reconciliation
remains a major national aspiration, a collective
hope for a better communal future, a crusade that
many hope will overcome a dark and disturbing history,

Many Australians believe that now is the moment for
a decisive change of direction, that now is the time
to transcend the surviving legacy of colonialism.

We need to face up to our history, to embrace the
past in all its aspects, to cease trying to hide the
violence, the dispossession, the deprivation.

Most people now want to know the truth about the past and
to come to terms with it. They see this as an essential
step along the way towards national maturity.

There is nothing to celebrate about multiculturalism and two look-alike Left political parties dragging a once good country into the gutter.

It could be looked upon as the day that brought Indigenous Australians the wheel.

'We need to face up to our history, to embrace the
past in all its aspects, to cease trying to hide the
violence, the dispossession, the deprivation.'

does that mean Foxy that the Indigenous have to face their history of giving young girls to uncles, clubbing the disabled and horrendeous violence or is it only the Settlers who need to do so? Just wondering. Do some real research and come back with the answer.

Foxy,
Your 'facts' do not always reflect the truth. You make up 'facts' to suit your want.

Then you deny the truth.

Hi Foxy,

"We need to face up to our history, to embrace the past in all its aspects, ...."

My point exactly - but how can you gain any understanding of the past, of our history, without trying to find some substantial backing, some evidence for what you can believe in ?

There actually is no real need to just rely on stories - there is just so much documentation about our past. Frankly, anybody who does is an idiot, and I'm sure you're not an idiot. :)

The truth is what it is. We have to run with it. We shouldn't be afraid of it, even though it might be inconvenient and awkward. And if you dig enough, you can find it, you don't need to rely on just what you're told.

Love,

Joe

Australia Day, a meaning, it depends on whom you ask, and perhaps that is the way it should be. If you ask Americans about the fourth of July the answers are predominantly uniform, “independence day.” The day the 13 colonies formed a nation without the governance of Britain.

What is missing from the 4th of July rhetoric is an ongoing hate for the British, the ones they fought a war to rid themselves of. But here we have a growing lobby of Caucasians that call it “invasion day”. A day to feel guilt ridden about ancestors that treated the aboriginal nations with the same disdain for human life and right of place as they exhibited to generations of their own children by sending 6 year old boys down mine shafts to toil like slaves.

I accept no responsibility for the actions of a society and people that were born hundreds of years before I came to be. I do accept the responsibility for the positive discrimination towards our first Australians that government departments have in place. I do not accept responsibility for the government contributed moneys stolen from the first Australians by Caucasian administrators.

I do not accept responsibility for government monies stolen by the indigenous leaders of the land councils when they had direct control of the distribution. I do accept responsibility of a third world death rate for indigenous children in the far flung communities.

I will leave you with a “wild colonial boy” declaration I heard at an Australia day BBQ in the 1970’s that echoes football meat pies kangaroos and Holden cars.

Australia, land of Waratah and Dahlia
Australia, stick with us we won’t fail ya,
Australia, land in jail we will bail ya,
Australia, two arms two hands two dozen cans,
Australia.

Hi SoG,

One day, we'll all have to debate in real depth about the benefits and losses for Indigenous people in the coming of the outside world into their ancestors' lives. THEIR ancestors may have been on the tail-end of the massive migration sixty-odd thousand years ago out of Africa, hunters and foragers with the most basic human technology, to spread out across the huge land-mass of Australia - a land-mass with no domesticable animals, no or few domesticable plants, a continent condemned to yield nothing but what people could forage for.

On the one hand, no, it was illegal - as it had been illegal throughout those innumerable instances in history for anybody to invade anybody else's country - but did it have an up-side ? Would Indigenous people now genuinely prefer to be living as their distant ancestors did for so long ? Would they prefer to forgo the multitude of benefits that they now enjoy to spend their days hunting, fishing, gathering, sitting around a fire in the bitter cold of winters, and during the blistering heat of summers ?

At least here in SA, from the outset of settlement - and I get the idea that this pattern occurred across the country - people preferred to enjoy the bounty of rations rather than go out hunting and gathering, even though they had the legal right to do so. They preferred to work for wages in order to be able to buy some of the new wonders, tobacco, clothing, hats, boots, grog, food over the counter, and to travel around by horse or boat, rather than hunt or gather. They preferred to use fishing lines and hooks and linen nets rather than buggerise around with fishing spears - at least, down here in SA: the art of making fishing spears had gone within fifty years, by the way, much to the distress of the Protector.

The mission schools, in the earliest days, invariably taught in the local languages: once groups were mixing far more, something they would never have done pre-settlement, then of course

[TBC]

[continued]

kids at a mission were from different groups and, although they spoke English from early times, would not have spoken any common Indigenous language. So English it was. At least that saved the missionaries all that effort in translating work-books. But up at the missions east of Lake Eyre, Kopperamanna and Killalpaninna, the German missionaries taught in the one major local language, Diyari, from Day One until they were closed during the First World War.

The ration system would have ensured the lives of the elderly, particularly the women, and of the very young children, who would have died early on in any severe drought. In fact, the ration system may have ensured cultural survival: people would have gathered near rationing points for years on end, waiting for the drought to end. [Discuss]. We may think now that the rations were pretty basic - the same as the unemployed [the 'Destitute'] and prisoners got, but it probably had more nutrients and certainly sugar than traditional diets had, and certainly with less effort expended. [Discuss].

I recall one of my students, in about 1990, complaining during winter how her air-conditioning was playing up. Fair enough.

As we approach Australia Day, should we dig up Phillip's bones and kick them around the paddock ? Or should we reflect that, at last, Indigenous Australians are part of the world family again, after sixty thousand years cut off from human contact ?

Joe

I don't believe that we should kick anybody's
bones around a paddock as we approach Australia
Day.

What I would like to see though is that we bring
the level of health care, education, and other
services for our Indigenous People up to the
level that others receive in this country - which they
still don't have so many years after settlement.
When was it that they were given the right to vote -
1960s?

Foxy,

"When was it that they were given the right to vote -
1960s?"

Indigenous Australians had the right to vote, in some States, in the 19th Century, in 1901 there were modifications under Commonwealth Law but some retained the right to vote.
In a couple of States legislation had to be passed to remove the right of Aboriginals to vote.

It's all rather complex and cannot be covered by generalizations.

Dearest Foxy,

Aboriginal women had the vote in South Australia from 1894, before women had the vote in the US (1918) or, at 21, in the UK (1928).

But that was in State elections: at Federation, the States still had complete control of Indigenous Affairs, and Aboriginal people continued to have the vote - if they had it before 1901 - in State elections. The crime, one of many, was not to extend it, as of right, to anybody reaching voting age after 1901.

Legally, Indigenous people were British subjects from the outset, not that it did people much good in some states. All Indigenous people became citizens in 1948 under the Citizenship Act, along with other Australians.

As for Indigenous people today not having " .... the level of health care, education, and other services for our Indigenous People up to the level that others receive in this country .... ", you can lead a horse to water ....

Providing services to people in tiny settlements, at great distances, is always difficult and incredibly expensive, for Black or White.

To a far greater extent than people realise, Indigenous people have, within constraints, done pretty much what they liked from the earliest days, they have never been puppets or sheep: come into the mission or settlement, leave the mission or settlement, send their kids to school or not, take their nurse or doctor's advice or not, work or not. Trying to push them here or there has always been like trying to herd a mob of very intelligent cats: if people didn't want to do something, they didn't. [Discuss]

Love,

Joe

The following link explains a great deal.
It's from the Australian Electoral Commission:

http://www.gov.au/indigenous/files/history_indigenous_vote.pdf

oops - I'll try again:

http://www.aec.gov.au/indigenous/files/history_indigenous_vote.pdf

Greetings Joe.......low socio economic groups fall behind in all facets of the wider society no matter what race creed or religion. We embrace the struggle of those who have dragged themselves from the lowest strata of society to more secure strata. Predominantly this is accomplished via education or just through strength of character and struggle, but we applaud those very few who have risen from adversity.

Our first Australians had the skills to survive in a country with little natural resource, but the culture and community did not get past the Stone Age. There was absolutely no worth given to the dreamtime and its stories that helped the nations to survive in this arid continent because the settlers had technology to help overcome these hardships, so the indigenous peoples and their culture were deemed expendable.

In a society that had no concept of personal wealth, the notion of a grazier having more meat than they could consume in one sitting was foreign. The scant water resources of the inland that sustained the nations for 60 thousand years were now being muddied and fouled by the cattle and the elders railed against assimilation. As you mentioned the young were targeted by the missionary groups but the elders would not submit and were murdered indiscriminately for any violation that impacted the graziers.

But in saying all of this, we are not responsible; this society in modern Australia did not commit the acts. Australia day should be celebrated for what we are now, not what bones in a graveyard did centuries ago.

Hi SoG,

I would strongly dispute much of what you write. Where to start ?

First off, let's remember that all human societies were once hunter-gatherers, there is nothing unique about Indigenous Australian societies. All cultures are 'the oldest cultures in the world'. People in parts of Britain were living hunter-gatherer lives barely a thousand years ago. I read somewhere that some of the spears used at the Battle of Hastings in 1066 were stone-tipped.

One day, someone has to explore the impacts of long droughts on Indigenous population: I think that, many times in long droughts, populations would have been decimated, and some groups may have even been extinguished - although, of course, proof may be impossible. Old people, especially women, and young children, would have died quickly. So a drought that lasted for, say, ten years, even in a population that survived, would have had a age-gap of fifteen years or more between survivors and the next generation. Perhaps the old men may have passed on by then, so even cultural transmission may have been fraught.

You mention the scant water sources. Yes, but within a very short time, tens of thousands of bores were put down across pastoral land and, if anything, water was no longer a problem: feed for the animals was, again in droughts [such as the current long one in Queensland], the great conditioning factor in Australian history, just as feed for native animals during a drought would have been a problem for hunters.

I'm not sure what you mean by " .... the elders railed against assimilation ... " That plays well these days, but I'm not sure that it is accurate. The elders didn't mind living off rations from the beginning of contact, and it may have facilitated their sharing of knowledge and organising ceremonies all the more easily.

[TBC]

[continued]

Then you write, " .... the elders would not submit and were murdered indiscriminately for any violation that impacted the graziers." That also plays well these days, but you may need to find a skerrick of evidence :) On the other hand, many old fellas wore those plates around their necks - King Billy, King Jerry, etc.

I'm not even sure about this: ".... the indigenous peoples and their culture were deemed expendable.... " Young men were most certainly not expendable, they provided the backbone of the pastoral work-force for well over a hundred years.

It was customary for graziers to provide for all of their stockmen's dependants, and one reason for the laying-off of pastoral workers in the NT in the late sixties was the demand that accommodation be provided for entire families, not just equal wages, which most men were getting by 1967. You can read about this in the transcripts of national conferences in 1967 and 1968, all on my web-site, under 'Conferences'.

Some day, we will all have to face actual realities, not plausible stories. In the meantime, we can waste our time on wild-goose chases, they're so much more fun.

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Joe, you take issue with my comment "not expendable"...they were certainly expendable to some. Wholesale genocide did not happen, but individual massacres did.

As I said I do not accept any responsibility even if it was a great great grandfather of mine doing the killing. But your whitwash of the treatment of Aboriginals with a bent towards we did them a favour is not factual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_of_Indigenous_Australians

Hi SoG,

I haven't said anything about massacres, yet. Of course, they probably occurred, certainly out beyond the reach of government, in NSW and Queensland. I typed up three Royal Commission transcripts from Queensland in the late 1850s and up to 1861, mainly on the conduct of the Native Police, and there certainly were massacres, in that SE corner of Queensland, east and south of the Dawson, in the Bunya and on the MacIntyre. You can find them on my web-site: firstsources.info, under 'Royal Commissions', I think, or maybe under 'Queensland'.

I'm indexing a massacre of a dozen people that occurred in 1927, near Forrest River in WA, supposedly carried out by trackers, but probably with the connivance of white police.

There was a pitched battle down this way, on the Rufus River, in 1841 (from memory) which had been shaping up for months. A massacre of 28 white people was carried out by Aboriginal groups on the Coorong at about the same time.

I would like to find the transcript of the Coniston Massacre in 1928, west of Alice Springs, during a major drought, if anybody has access to it.

During droughts, the people from the Gawler Ranges used to come down marauding as far as Port Lincoln, until the Protector set up a couple of ration stations in the north of the Eyre Peninsula, and then over time, a string of ration stations in the Gawler Ranges themselves. I mapped them, and those maps are on that web-site. Those ration stations stopped the massacres of whites down the Eyre Peninsula - the last one was, I think, in about 1862. Also on that web-site.

Another massacre in SA - around 1870 - was carried out by Aboriginal groups near Mt Eba, south of Coober Pedy, in which they exterminated a group who had supposed to have married wrong.

Bar-flies from one end of Australia to the other profitably spruiked their exploits in numerous massacres. It would be great if forensic studies could be made of supposed massacre sites, just to nail down some of the truth.

Joe

sonofgloin,

That site you quoted is dead suss. The dubious quality of the information is openly admitted.

As an example of far-fetched BS, it speculates a biological warfare atrocity against Aborigines in 1768 as a part of 'frontier wars'. Codswallop!

Check what this reliable academic and expert says about Wikipedia as a (dubious) source of information and a tool of astroturfing lobbyists for secondary gain of course.

"Astroturf and manipulation of media messages | Sharyl Attkisson | TEDxUniversityofNevada"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU

Sharyl Attkisson, hardly a middle of the road reporter. Has spent most of her working life selling the 'American message' from the right wing media megalith CBS.

Wishing you all a very happy Australia Day
tomorrow. May we re-commit to make our future
better for us all in this country. Enjoy your
day with your family and friends.

We are having a traditional Aussie Day, celebrating with all thing Oz. I have already removed the Xmas reindeer antlers from the back windows of the Toyota and replaced them with a pair of dinky di Aussie flags I got from the Chinese guy at the $2 shop, Hong has a big range of Aussie stuff down at 'Hot Dollar'. Giving out the presey's is fun, I got a floppy hat that says '100% Aussie'gee how do the Bangladshies make em' so cheap? I wanted a pair of those Aussie thongs with the Aussie flag on em, and a hat with corks all round. Hong at the $2 shop has got all that neat Aussie stuff! Oh well, just have to settle for a VB and a Vegemite sandwich while I watch a rerun of 'Barry McKenzie'.

Going to the Yabun Festival tomorrow. A celebration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures.

onthebeach, after all this time do you still not know how Wikipedia works?

It doesn't speculate. It documents significant claims made elsewhere. Where those claims are dubious, it says so and includes links to the counterclaims. Highlighting its own potential shortcomings is a sign of honesty, not inaccuracy.

Though Wikipedia's crowdsourced nature inevitably results in errors, it is also good for correcting errors in most circumstances. The vulnerability to astroturfing is a serious problem, but AIUI that problem is being addressed, and anyway it really only applies where misinformation serves someone's commercial interest.

The suspected biological warfare of 1789 (not 1768) is indeed very dubious, but the same can't be said for the other incidents on that list.

Aidan,

Do cite Wikipedia 'information' if you will but don't expect your teacher or lecturer to accept it.

I have already proved it to be unreliable.

Did you have occasion to watch that linked video? See here,

<Check what this reliable academic and expert says about Wikipedia as a (dubious) source of information and a tool of astroturfing lobbyists for secondary gain of course.

"Astroturf and manipulation of media messages | Sharyl Attkisson | TEDxUniversityofNevada"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU
Posted by onthebeach, Sunday, 24 January 2016 2:43:52 PM>

onthebeach,

I found Wikipedia to be a great tool for uni. But you wouldn't normally cite Wikipedia itself; instead you'd go to the pages it references and cite those.

Of course Wikipedia is not 100% accurate. Nor is the rest of the internet. Nor is print. But Wikipedia does at least have error checking procedures, and is one of the more reliable sites despite its reputation.

Yes I saw the video, and I acknowledged "The vulnerability to astroturfing is a serious problem". But do you really think Wikipedia are ignoring the problem? And that for the vast majority of pages, people wouldn't have a financial incentive to post misinformation.

We're told on the web that college kids get their
political ideas from Wikipedia and Utube.
However most do not limit their research
to just those sites.

Utube is not a reliable source because there are
no checks and balances to confirm or deny what
someone says.

With Wikipedia it is true that anyone can go and change
things but the number of people who want to provide
accurate information far outweighs the people who like
to make things up.

OTB, Aidan,

That reference to a smallpox outbreak in 1789: smallpox has a definite incubation period; the First Fleet tok eight months to reach Australia. If there had been any outbreak on any of the ships, which there wasn't, it would have wiped out the ship's passengers well within eight months, and would have been been over by the time the ships arrived.

BUT there was another outbreak in about 1829-1831 which might be a pointer to something similar happening in 1789: Judy Campbell has written quite a bit about these outbreaks [e.g. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10314618508595711?journalCode=rahs19 ] suggests that an epidemic spread from the north and west, i.e. the Gulf of Carpentaria, down the inland rivers to the Darling and down the Murray: Sturt reported in 1830 seeing empty 'villages' along the Murray, long before any whites ever came that way - in fact, of course, as we learnt in school, he was the first. There was another outbreak which has been traced, much earlier, down the coast of Western Australia.

So if epidemic spread from the north, they could have been brought to Australia, and maybe again and again over the previous centuries, by seamen from what is now Indonesia - unintentionally, of course.

It's been an interconnected world for longer than we think.

Joe

Hi Joe, what about the 5 weeks the 'First Fleet' spent in Cape Town South Africa from mid October 1787? Smallpox was well known in South Africa at that time. The fact that only 23 convicts died on the voyage speaks volumes for Phillips ability or good luck.
The first fleet could have conveyed smallpox to Australia from South Africa. Given its incubation period and the naive Aboriginal population the disease could have been well established within the local Aboriginal population by 1789.

About 2000 people, my estimate, marched in protest from Redfern to the Sydney Town Hall in recognition of Aboriginal people. The protest was entirely peaceful. At the town hall there were speeches a plenty, even a number of children spoke. It was good to see so many white people coming together in solidarity with Aboriginal people. My partner said she was proud to "hikoi" (walk together) with people who suffer the same injustices her people do.
The police were out in force, and of good behavior, at least 50 plus, also van loads up side streets, good on the coppers. There was no trouble, the rednecks kept away.

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/national/2016/01/26/mass-protests-mourn-australia-invasion.html

Fox, "With Wikipedia it is true that anyone can go and change things but the number of people who want to provide accurate information far outweighs the people who like to make things up"

Where is the evidence to prove that?

Even if accepted, the fact remains that Wikipedia is an unreliable source of information.

No-one has dispelled the criticisms of the TED speaker I linked to.

Paul1405, "About 2000 people"

That is optimistically double the optimistic estimate of the protesters in the link you provided. The media always over-eggs to make a story out of SFA. You are saying that the information in it is not to be believed. So why link to it?

Some here have made it plain that Australia Day is just another opportunity for them to whinge and promote division.

Invasion? Laughable!

Maybe Australia Day should have an alternative name, ASS Day*.

* Aboriginal Social Security Day.

Hi Paul,

A series of long bows ?

1. Did any passengers or crew or convicts pick up smallpox in South Africa ? Yes ? No ? Evidence ?

2. The Fleet took more than three months to travel from South Africa to Sydney. What's the incubation period for smallpox ? Longer than three months ? I don't think so.

3. On which ship did your hypothetical smallpox sufferer sail ? Did they pass the disease onto anybody else trapped with them on-board ?

4. How many of the 29 people who died (out of 1200 or so) died from smallpox ? None ? Entire ship-loads ? Evidence ?

5. How close do you think the Aboriginal people around Sydney got to the newly-arrived whites ? Immediately ? After a couple of weeks ? Within your hypothetical incubation period ? Evidence ?

Stick with the narrative, Paul, it's so much easier to blather rather than demonstrate.

Joe

OTB,

Regarding Utube and Wikipedia - as I stated earlier
it's all on the web. Google the information.
Most people do not rely on Utube or Wikipedia. They
do their research from various sources. Nobody is
disputing the unreliability of these two sources.

LOL, so sly.

This is what I posted,

<Check what this reliable academic and expert says about Wikipedia as a (dubious) source of information and a tool of astroturfing lobbyists for secondary gain of course.

"Astroturf and manipulation of media messages | Sharyl Attkisson | TEDxUniversityofNevada"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU
Posted by onthebeach, Sunday, 24 January 2016 2:43:52 PM>

Now, what criticisms can you level at the speaker and her facts?

OTB,

You're reading far too much into things.

Have a nice day.

Hi Joe,

You simply tried to convey the false impression that the first fleet took 8 months to “sail” to Australia, which suited your narrative. The sailing time allowing for stopovers was somewhat less.
"If there had been any outbreak on any of the ships, which there wasn't, it would have wiped out the ship's passengers well within eight months," I am surprised that the 5 weeks stopover in Cape Town, a somewhat significant event, was not included in your considerations,
You also stretched the 2 months from Cape Town to 3 months, late November to late January is 2 months.
I did not present as fact anything other than those known facts about the time taken. I used the words could have, which is not claim something as fact.
“suggests that an epidemic spread from the north and west, i.e. the Gulf of Carpentaria, down the inland rivers to the Darling and down the Murray”
Now that is a longbow indeed.

You said “So if epidemic spread from the north, they could have been brought to Australia, and maybe again and again over the previous centuries, by seamen from what is now Indonesia”

That is conjecture and you present no evidence

Stick with the narrative, Paul, it's so much easier to blather rather than demonstrate. Likewise Joe likewise.

Preventing Smallpox

By the early 1700s smallpox inoculation, known as variolation, had spread to parts of Africa, India and the Ottoman Empire. It was in the latter that Lady Mary Wortley Montagu encountered it in 1717, when she witnessed local peasant women performing inoculations at seasonal ‘smallpox parties’. On returning to Britain, she had her children inoculated during an outbreak in 1721.

By the 1790;s Smallpox was no longer the deadly diastase for Europeans it had once been, with many surviving, unlike naive populations such as Aboriginals where the death rate was between 50-70%.

Paul,

The First Fleet left England on 13 May 1787. It arrived in Australia 18 January 1788. Eight months.

Mid-October to end-January, Cape Colony to Sydney: three months. Your words.

For evidence of smallpox outbreaks spreading from the north, check out numerous articles by the historian Judy Campbell.

"Could have". Or not, Paul. Any evidence either way ?

Are you suggesting that inoculated whites, who still carried the disease, deliberately spread it amongst Aboriginal people who they associated with ? Evidence ? Or just more blather ?

Joe

Actually, Paul, that's an interesting point: there don't appear to have been ANY other outbreaks of smallpox in the early days amongst Aboriginal people, anywhere in the country, except those three - one around Sydney coming down from the north coast in 1789, one down through the western rivers in 1828-1829, and one down the coast of Western Australia in, maybe the eighteenth century.

Another intriguing fact: in my typing up of extracts from the correspondence to and from Poonindie Mission, 1855-1890, here in SA, an outbreak of diphtheria, around 1872, killed many people in Port Lincoln, but no Aboriginal people at Poonindie itself, ten miles out. A couple of the missionary's kids died from it, but no Aboriginal kids. Did they have immunity to it ?

History is infinitely more interesting than fiction, isn't it ?

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Hi Joe, again you are misrepresenting the facts. I said "what about the 5 weeks the 'First Fleet' spent in Cape Town South Africa from mid October 1787?" note from mid October, simple mathematics add 5 weeks makes it late November, from late November to late January is 2 months, unless there is a month I don't know about.

To say " Mid-October to end-January, Cape Colony to Sydney: three months. Your words. Not my words you are wrong.

Given you may not be in command of all the facts. The first fleet made 3 stopovers on its voyage to Australia, Tenerife 1 week, Rio de Janeiro 1 month and Cape Town 5 week, significant events in the whole journey.

"Are you suggesting that inoculated whites, who still carried the disease, deliberately spread it among Aboriginal people who they associated with? No, I am not suggesting for a moment, that there was any deliberate spreading, accidentally is a possibility, but not deliberate. The only incidents of deliberate spreading of smallpox to indigenous people I am aware of took place in North America, whereby smallpox blankets were deliberately given to Native Americans by European colonists and later by the US Army.

The European of the 18th century and earlier, was in the main a disease ridden individual, and took a multitude of bugs, both large and small, wherever he went. Unfortunately the European, usually unintentionally, spread his pestilence with disastrous consequences for native populations. My partner had 2 siblings in a family of 12 die young from European diseases one in 1948 from TB, and the other from polio in 1963. she does not blame anyone for that, but it is fact.

Hi paul,

Two months, three months, whatever. What's the incubation period for smallpox ? Do you have any evidence that anybody got smallpox in the Cape Colony ? Or is this just another 'Kontiki' moment, i.e. if something could have happened, then it happened ?

Yeah, we keep hearing about that happening in the US. I wonder if there is any truth in it ? Like you, I'd love to believe it, Yanks are such bastards.

We all are full of all sorts of bugs, Paul - now, today, you and me. Anthropologists going to remote areas in PNG unwittingly took all sorts of diseases with them and wondered why people there started to get crook.

Do you have evidence that TB and polio were, at one time, specific to white people ? I thought there was one possibility that one of the Pharaohs had polio, but that might have been just a rumour.

Any other rumours you want to peddle ?

Joe