Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Thank You for such detailed explanations.

What an amazing achievement for you.
A worthwhile life's work on Aboriginal history.
I do intend to get hold of "Voices from The Past."
So that I can discuss things with you more
intelligently in the future.

Dearest Foxy,

Thank you for your kind words. What we have been trying to do for some years is to scour primary sources in the State Archives [Records]. We transcribed what you might call the biggest nuggets, but have left the future task of scouring the rest. There's plenty there, but it will require more time per unit of gold.

For example, the boxes and boxes of letters in to the Protector in SA are stored in with all other letters to the Commissioner of Crown Lands, the minister responsible. There are a few boxes for each year's correspondence; over eighty years of hand-written letters, some written with a thumb-nail dipped in tar. It would be a huge, tedious job to go through them.

Mind you, I was doing that for 1868 (I think), and came across a letter from Florence Nightingale, concerned about Aboriginal children's health.

The Protector's letters were hand-written of course (no typewriters back then, not until about 1912), and the copies are on very thin, corroding paper, with the ink either blurred or faded or both. Sometimes we had to carefully slide a sheet of white paper under a page to block out the page underneath and/or to keep it intact.

Those files are still there, presumably, so anybody who doubts the wording of anything we've typed up can make time to check for themselves. In our book, we've tried to stick to the very words of the Protector and other correspondents, and let them speak for themselves. To me, that's the hallmark of making use of 'primary sources'. I'll leave creative interpretation to qualified historians.

Love always,

Joe

Dear Joe,

You deserve all the accolades.

I can't even imagine the effort and all
the hours of research that you
must have put into your work. I admire you
greatly for it.

Historians have such a difficult job.
It's no wonder that there are so many cases
that exemplify the arguments of those who insist
there is no such thing as "objective history."
I've written in the past that the historian
can establish that an act took place on a certain
day, but this, by historical standards constitutes
only chronology or, as Europeans call it, "Factologija."
The moment the historian begins to look
critically at motivation, circumstances, context,
or any other such
considerations, the product becomes unacceptable for
one or another camp of readers.

My dearest Foxy,

Of course there is 'objective history': Japan invaded China in 1937. The second World War came to an official end in 1945. Charles I was beheaded in 1649. Shakespeare was born in 1564 and died in 1616.

In relation to Aboriginal affairs, during the nineteenth century, there was only one employee in the Aborigines department, the Protector - occasionally he had assistance from 'Sub-Protectors', at Wellington, Moorundee, Port Augusta and Blinman, but usually they weren't paid. Not by him, anyway.

The main duties of the single employee of the Aborigines Department in SA revolved around servicing the thirty, forty, fifty ration depots across the State, with ensuring that Aboriginal people had access to free health care, and that Missions were funded sufficiently to run schools. Nobody was ever (it seems) driven off land. Nobody was herded onto missions. It seems that Aboriginal workers were paid standard wages, or the equivalent on stations out beyond the money economy.

These are pretty objective facts. There isn't much wiggle-room for interpretation there. Of course, none of this fits in with the conventional Narrative, but this obviously means that there is something wrong with the Narrative: it doesn't fit reality. It doesn't fit history. It needs to be drastically re-assessed.

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

You're referring to "factology."

Go back and re-read my earlier post.

Cheers.

Dearest Foxy,

I'm not sure what you mean. 'Factology', 'post-truth', etc. are just synonyms for 'complete rubbish' and 'bigotry', the wilful ignoring of overwhelming evidence OR the seizing on the slightest scrap to 'conclusively prove' some point.

Or by 'factology', do you mean an obsession with evidence ?

As we all know from watching a multitude of crime shows on TV, a case can only be built on genuine evidence, and 'sufficient' evidence, beyond a reasonable (not an absolute) doubt.

So there are cases for which there is not enough evidence against a particular person, and they are put on hold. Rarely, there are cases where the evidence is overwhelming, and more than sufficient. And usually the evidence against a guilty party is not vast but conclusive enough to suspect, and then prove, his/her guilt, i.e. there are unlikely to be plausible alternative explanations.

I'm presuming that this is what you mean in relation to presumed massacres of Aboriginal people by whites ?

I'm suggesting that yes, there were probably such massacres, but any assertion has to be demonstrated with at least some evidence, ideally conclusive evidence. Bones with bullet or sabre wounds. If a 'historian' can be precise about the number of people killed across an entire State over a specific period, then the least one can expect is some evidence.

Crushed skull bones might indicate killing by whites, but wouldn't be conclusive, since such evidence may also indicate battles between Aboriginal groups.

Oh, you say, how could anyone claim that such battles have ever occurred ? Well, yes, every year down around the lower Murray Lakes: a place called Wommerang was favoured for battles between the various groups within the Ngarrindjeri. The missionary knew that he would have to be treating the wounded after one of these exciting times. One entire group was wiped out near Mt Eba (south of Coober Pedy) in about 1872, for 'marrying wrong'.

What happened in history (to cite Gordon Childe, the communist arschaeologist) - is sometimes fascinating.

Love,

Joe