History is full of lies. The past kings and leaders have been eulogised in history beyond their true worth concealing their true colour. If today’s history can be so brazenly tampered with in this enlightened era we can imagine the state of affairs in the past with very poor or no communication facilities.People with bogus honesty and integrity are being eulogised as great personalities completely masking their fraudulent activities. It is well-known that the present day politicians do not have the human quality of honesty and integrity. They may be great orators,quick witted persons,actors and what not. But honesty should be the main criteria for assessing great men and women. But honesty is completely buried deep while talking highly of these men and women. This shows that we repeat the same mistake committed by our forefathers of yore. Giving a pride of place in history for fraudulent personalities is dangerous.
Now journalism is misused by the dishonest media for survival. Let us not create pseudo history by portraying dishonest persons who have committed grave crimes against humanity as great men and women because they were able to become rulers or excel in some areas of social activity. Let us highlight the TRUTH about how the present day politicians and even the so called highly educated persons fool the common man by their fraudulent activities to garner power and position in the political arena or officialdom.

What nonsense is this history that buries truth deep? Let us not live in a fool’s paradise by making it appear that all is well while the fact remains that there is absolutely no morality not only in politics but also in all other social activities.

The media pours eulogies on persons of dubious integrity without any compunction thereby creating pseudo history as in the past. Creating pseudo history will not only lead to chaos in the present but in the future as well. The frequent escalation of strife between different groups and nations seen the world over is the result of creation of pseudo history by concealing the TRUTH.

All US presidents except Nixon were great Amnericans, France had a sun king and England a lionheart. Russia followed Alexander the Great with Ivan , Peter and Catherine the Great and Ivan the Terrible. Boris was Gudonov.

People have been discussing for decades the argument
that there is no such thing as "objective history."
The historian can establish that an act took place on
a certain day, but this, by historical standards
constitutes only chronology, or "factology". The moment
that 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.

"..we can imagine the state of affairs in the past with very poor or no communication facilities.."
The past keeps surprising us. Before printing presses there were systems for spreading news from official sources and political opposition. Placards were pinned to church doors, town criers announced news and local nobility were able to put contrary claims to their tenants . Pubs and horse-inns were centres for news. Russia today has state media alone for news and may be less informed than medieval Europe.

Dear Nick,

Russia has always had the "underground press".
They are probably more informed than we realise.

the current crop of historians seem to be the biggest revisionst of all time. Thankfully their is One who can't and never not lied. People hung Him on a cross.

Dear runner,

The following quote from an article by Milton Meltzer,
"Four Who Locked Horns with the Censor." Found in the
Wilson Library Bulletin, v.44, no.3. p.278-286.
May be of interest:

"Somebody in France wanted to put Voltaire
in jail. Somebody in Franco's Spain sent Lorca, their
greatest poet to death before a firing squad. Somebody in
Germany under Hitler burned the books, drove Thomas Mann
into exile, and led their Jewish scholars to the gas chamber.
Somebody in Greece long ago gave Socrates the hemlock to
drink. Somebody in the USSR banned Solzhenitsyn and Pasternak.
Somebody at Golgotha erected a cross and somebody drove the
nails into the hands of Christ. Somebody spat on his garments.
No one remembers their names".

Foxy
" The moment that 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."
um yes, indeed. Why do you say Russians are informed? Have you read about their internet censors?

Dear Nick,

According to history - there has always been
dissident movements in Russia, prior to and
during the Soviet regime. There have been authors,
journalists, and many individuals who have not
followed the Party-line. Hence many people have
been kept informed. I don't doubt that this is still
on-going today.

cont'd ...

People like journalist Masha Gessen write in both
Russian and English and keep people informed as does
the Russian newspaper - "Novaya Gazeta." People
will always be able to get information if they really want it.

hmm , Rossian people not happy about west democratica , it's too complex. Putin is strong man, good for strong power and defend nation.

'Ezhil' seems to be fixated on wild descriptions of dead people; we all know the 'musn't speak ill of the dead' palaver, and this nonsense is certainly used by poor quality historians. The latest example is the absolute rubbish written about the monster and murderer, Fidel Castro; we all know that Ned Kelly was not a folk hero: he was a rotten, cop-killing criminal. Only the gullible believe 'good press' on people from Mao to Churchill. It is the lies told about facts of history that are the problem for us.

One of the greatest historical liars of modern times is Henry Reynolds, with his 'invasion' theory of Australian settlement. The truth of such utter nonsense is to be found well before Reynolds, in actual anthropologists, not bum historians, who actually lived with Aborigines at the time of settlement,and up to and including the 1930s and 1940s.

Reynolds lies, eagerly grasped by modern Aboriginal elites and their Left, white lap-dogs, are the basis for the Recognition Referendum via which Australians are actually expected to hand over 60% of our continent to 3% of the population. Despite his waffle, Aborigines did not make 'war' on British colonisation; to the contrary, they took advantage of the easy living provided by the British and individual settlers because it was easier than the hunter-gatherer model. They never felt sovereignty for the land; they were not the first Australians, they were the first occupiers of a continent, not a nation, whose history started in 1770, and culminated in 1901 when the colonies merged into the nation of Australia. The claim that Aborigines were denied a vote, and ignored is also a lie. If this bulldust and treachery survives, Australia is finished.

Ttbn--There are several theories on the matter and it cannot be taken as fact that Aborigines were the first Australians. They may have evolved here, they may have moved to an uninhabited continent or they may have invaded.

As I understand it the central issue in the
Constitutional recognition debate is about
recognising that there were people in
Australia when Europeans arrived to colonise it.

There is no doubt that the Australian Aborigines were
in Australia when the Europeans arrived.

Whether there were people in Australia before them
seems irrelevant to the recognition of Aboriginal
people in the Constitution. BTW - Google this subject
on the web and you'll see that - "it is true that
there has been, historically a small number of claims
that there were people in Australia before the
Australian Aborigines but these claims have all been
refuted and are no longer debated. The overwhelming weight
of evidence supports the idea that Aboriginal people
were the first Australians."

If we are going to have recognition of Aboriginal people being here at settlement then why not have recognition of the British second and Whoever third. It seems senseless unless of course you are continuing to divide people by race.

Dear runner,

Perhaps the following website may explain:

http://www.recognise.org.au/why/why-recognition/

cont'd ...

The following may also help towards understanding:

http://www.theconversation.com/explainer-what-indigenous-constitutional-recognition-means-31770

A nice feeling to know everything without any doubts. It happens in teen-age years.
." They never felt sovereignty for the land; "
Would you perhaps happen to know the meaning of "Ngurunderi . Ngarindjeri. Barkindji. Nganyawana. Kati Thanda. "?
Would it matter if you did?

No Foxy, it's nothing about the simple act of recognition; it's about elitist politics practised by Aboriginal intellectuals who have never experienced the squalor and violence of remote living, endured by 21% of Aboriginals (79% live like the rest of us). They are aided by white manipulators also keen to retain their power and extremely lucrative careers. I have just finished reading "The Break-Up of Australia", and there is no way I would vote yes in a referendum, so disgusted am I by the plight of 21% of Aboriginals living in remote settlements (79% live in cities and towns, continuing their preference for white civilization which started in the 1890s). It's not my role to persuade anyone of anything, but I believe that if you read the book, you would agree with me. In 2012-2013, $30 billion of taxpayer money did not make a dent in the shocking savagery (by males) in remote settlements. Have you heard any of the so-called Aboriginal leaders talk about this? No. They want a referendum to give them more money and power, while poor bloody real aborigines continue to suffer Stone Age, patriarchal violence, child abuse, rape and murder. It disgust me that there is bipartisan support for this disgraceful con.

"Recognition Referendum via which Australians are actually expected to hand over 60% of our continent to 3% of the population."
Aboriginal leaders will get money and power including Yackandandah beehives and mineral spring, the Darwin railway , Darwin, iron ore , coal, Darwin highway, barrier reef, Blue Mountains and film rights to Uluru. Also Treasury building and control of the Mint.

The Australian Aboriginal people have a modern relationship to Indians going back some 4,000 years, so there is doubt that today's Aboriginals can claim to be the first people.
.

It is true that there has been, historically, a small number
of claims that there were people in Australia before Australian
Aborigines, but these claims have all been refuted and are
no longer widely debated. The overwhelming weight of evidence
supports the idea that Aboriginals were the first Australians.
However, the issue in the Constitutional recognition debate
is about recognising that there were people in Australia when
Europeans arrived to colonise it. There is no possible doubt
that the Australian Aborigines were in Australia when
Europeans arrived. Whether there were people in Australia
before them is irrelevant to the recognition of Aboriginal
people in the Constitution.

http://www.theconversation.com/explainer-what-indigenous-constitutional-recognition-means-31770

Dear ttbn,

I'll try to get hold of the book you recommended after
Christmas.

Wrong Foxy.... if there were people here before Aboriginals then they certainly were NOT the first people and their claims of "Terra Nullius" would be both hypocritical and wrong. Supporting and fostering this claim would be dishonest.

Aborigines are Australian, they are identified by others as Australian hence "Australian Aborigines" hence there is no need to single them out as a specific racial group in the Constitution... we are all AUSTRALIAN and all born here are INDIGENOUS.

You mean Aboriginals claim Terra Nullius and say they didn't exist? Yes all born here are Indigenous and we can walk into any house in Australia and take their animals , vegie patch and daughters for sex.

I am still fascinated by the notion that race (Like sex/gender) is what you think it to be/want.
Forget science (Note ABC except where we are talking about something they agree with) if I think I am aboriginal/female, then I am! As long as I can get some other people to back me up apparently?
Isn't it great that we look down on people who worship rocks and animals and yet some people believe this nonsense.
The law was racist in allowing "Aboriginals" a get out card in our law. Hope Vicpol are not monitoring this or I could get my front door kicked down lol.

Reminds me of some Poms who started "jury trial" a few years back. If people claim to be insane a jury can say "not guilty" of murder. Or sent to Oz to be flogged to death by Christians. They teach Santa Claus to their innocent , abused children and a boxing kangaroo says "oy oy" and rabbits have chocolate eggs at Easter , just ask Woolies share-holders. Aboriginals have cards to pass through gates which lock them in for years.

'Terra nullius'. Nowhere in research on the settlement of Australia can this expression be found! It is "especially absent from reference works cited by the High Court....in its Mabo judgement....". This was revealed by Michael Connor in 2004 in "Erro Nullius Revisited".

He writes that "The phrase was unknown ..... to Australian colonists... and it was not referred to in colonial courts or the Privy Council... it was never used by the British government to explain their appropriation of New Holland. It was so new that it didn't appear in the first edition of the Macquarie Dictionary in 1981. It isn't in the Oxford Dictionary" As at 2004. (P.340, 'The Break-Up of Australia).

Also, 'terra nullius' does not mean land unoccupied; it means 'land without sovereignty' - land "lacking the attributes of statehood or nationhood". There was nothing illegitimate about British settlement.

You mean Aboriginals claim Terra Nullius and say they didn't exist? Yes all born here are Indigenous and we can walk into any house in Australia and take their animals , vegie patch and daughters for sex.
Posted by nicknamenick, Monday, 12 December 2016 8:42:31 AM

Well thanks for that bit of Rubbish Nick... Irony not one of your strong points is it... Yes Terra Nullius... you know the term right it is a generic term not one we just use these days re Australia and aborigines... I do hope you learn about Irony soon, then you might understand my point. I shan't be holding my breath though.

As for trespass, you do know there are laws about that right? Oh and theft right? And rape? Just saying, I mean you did post the most ridiculous rubbish. Please don't do it in future it just wastes my time and that of others.

"Wrong Foxy.... if there were people here before Aboriginals then they certainly were NOT the first people and their claims of "Terra Nullius" would be both hypocritical and wrong. Supporting and fostering this claim would be dishonest."
T800 how is this irony? How is it sensible ? Who are "they" : the earlier people , the Aboriginals or the British with the Terra Nullius law ?
Can you see that the law against theft applied to British taking Aboriginal property?

Can contributors please try to write coherently ? It takes me a long time to understand what Nicknamednicknamednick is on about, and then I realise he is trying to be clever, e.g.: " .... Yes all born here are Indigenous and we can walk into any house in Australia and take their animals , vegie patch and daughters for sex."

As somebody remarked, Nick, irony or humour or even sarcasm are not your strong points. Stick to what you really want to say and save other people's time. Life's too bloody short to waste on rubbish.

As for 'Terra Nullius', no, I haven't found any reference before Justice Blackburn's reference in the Nabalco v. Milirrpum case (the Gove Case) in 1971. Cook didn't use the term. Phillip didn't use the term. Nobody did until Blackburn. Then Brennan J. and others on the High Court used it in the Mabo case (1993).

And I'm not even sure if it means anything to do with sovereignty or a State: in Latin, it would suggest 'a population without a recognisable system of land ownership or property relations'. 'Res nullius' would be the term to use about 'an entity which does not seem to have a system of government'.

Did Aboriginal people have systems of land OWNERSHIP or property relations ? Land USE, yes, but land ownership ? Certainly, Murray Islanders did, since they cultivated the land and set up physical boundaries, lines of stones, etc., but, on the mainland, only some groups on the Cape did so.

British law recognised the rights of Aboriginal people to USE the land as they always had done. Of course, also in British law, the principle of 'adverse possession' kicked in: if land had not been used for fifteen years, it could be claimed by someone else. Even the Crown in Britain is not immune to this law. I don't know about other States but South Australia still recognises the right of Aboriginal people to make use of the land as they did traditionally. Of course, now, they have to apply before a Committee.

Joe

Picking my way carefully through the bindi-eye patch created by the author of this thread, I think he/she accidentally raises the crucial issue of evidence in the proper interpretation of what makes history. Or maybe that's just my interpretation :)

Yes, indeed, history has to be based on solid evidence, and plenty of it. That's what makes history books often a bit tedious, since the author knows he or she has to have something to back up any assertions or interpretations - evidence. That can be supported by written records, and very well supported by multiple written records, ideally by writers who do not know each other, or are working in different regions. The works of the French Annalistes, disciples of Henri Pirenne, people like Lefebre, Bloch, de Roy de Ladurie, were magnificent, patient and tireless in their scouring through old documents from the Middle Ages - and bringing those times back to full, buzzing life.

If no evidence, then why believe ? If an assertion is made, then there should be evidence to back it up. 'Asseritur gratis, negatur gratis' - 'what is asserted without evidence can be ignored without having to have evidence'.

And of course, some historical events, if they occurred, would be bound to leave evidence. Killings, massacres, murders ? Then bones, teeth, bits of anklet or bracelet, remains of some sort.

Massacres of Aboriginal people by other Aboriginal people, group against group ? Crushed skulls, broken legs, spear marks on bones, the remains of spear points, not many young women's remains.

Massacres of Aboriginal people by Europeans ? Bullet wounds in skulls and other bones, sabre cuts on bones. Evidence of attempts to burn bodies to conceal the crimes.

Henry Reynolds claims there were fifty to eighty thousand Aboriginal people killed by whites in massacres in Queensland. At twenty to thirty people per massacre, the usual front-bar amount, that would be between two to four thousand massacre sites. People would be turning up bones, with bullet holes and/or sabre cuts, all the time at that rate. THEN we would have 'history', not bar-fly rumours.

[TBC]

Loudmouth
If it's a waste of time why write so much about it? Can you translate this from T800?
" if there were people here before Aboriginals then they certainly were NOT the first people and their claims of "Terra Nullius" would be both hypocritical and wrong. Supporting and fostering this claim would be dishonest.

Aborigines are Australian, they are identified by others as Australian hence "Australian Aborigines" hence there is no need to single them out as a specific racial group in the Constitution... we are all AUSTRALIAN and all born here are INDIGENOUS."
-
Please identify which phrases are ironic and how the logic works .
(The terra nullius thing is evidently de facto, that Cook had instructions to hand over annexed land to HM. Phillip's instructions were precise on that ).

[continued]

Yes, of course, massacres occurred: in one in SA's South-East around 1850, carried out possibly by a bloke named Brown, eight people were killed and their bodies burnt. In another, in about 1843, the Protector was told of a killing of thirty people up near Mount Bryan, near Burra. By the time he got to Clare, it was down to eight. In Burra, three or four. When he exhumed the bodies, there were two, a man and a woman: the man had been cut down by sabre, the woman shot. Another bloke poisoned two people near Port Lincoln, but got on a ship to California before he could be arrested.

Evidence. Facts. Either something is there that shouldn't be, OR something that should be there isn't. So history supports, or should support, inferences and conclusions only on the basis of evidence - that's genuine history.

Or, of course, one can just believe what one likes, without evidence, i.e. that what one 'feels' sounds right, or wants to believe, therefore that'll do; and anyway, 'How else do you explain .... ?' (the slogan of an ignoramus); or even worse, one staunchly believes regardless of actual evidence, or even tries to suppress evidence. The first is a fool, the latter is a bigot.

Of course, all this is a roundabout, and dastardly clever, way to plug our book: Crooks and Lane, 'Voices From the Past', now available on Amazon and Book Depository. What is presented there are comments on the annual reports of the SA Protector, word for word, a gold-mine of information. Cheap at half the price.

Joe

Squads of police have trouble finding a body after 20 years in a national park even when guided by the crim. It is possible that someone buried massacre victims? An older neighbour last century wrote the confession by an older man about a burial of women and children he and other gentlemen had shot. Newspapers of 1800s describe armed actions , Sydney has a mural painted by my sister at Rushcutters Bay of recorded killings.
and so on..
no video clips or Museum trophies of skull-with-bullet. No-one saw Burke and Wills reach salt water and why trust photos?

Get some evidence, Nick, not just hearsay.

As far as I recall, Burke and Wills didn't actually reach the Gulf, so no, they didn't reach salt-water. Twenty miles short. But presumably they left tree markings, etc., and recorded landscapes which turned out to be accurate. King's account would have indicated what may have happened, unless, perhaps you may claim, he was a liar ?

Yes, museum specimens would often show how people died. A painting or a story, even a novel like 'The secret River', are not evidence: they may be merely what people colourfully assumed happened.

If something happened - and I'm reasonably certain that many massacres did occur - then there would be some evidence. Where, when and how would be useful. Rumours or garbled second-hand account aren't.

As for other aspects of the Narrative, people being herded onto missions, driven off land, missionaries stopping people from speaking their languages, there doesn't seem to be any evidence whatever in South Australia. If there was, I would be trumpeting it to the skies. Was it so different from other States ?

Keep digging, Nick, you may learn something.

Joe

"But presumably they left tree markings, etc., and recorded landscapes which turned out to be accurate. King's account would have indicated what may have happened,.."
tut tut that's a wee bit sloppy, laddie. Show me footprints in the mangroves or DNA in urine. Did he have Gulf of Carpentaria pollen in his lungs? Come on, Loudmouth.

Fair point, Nick: there's 'enough' evidence, and there's 'overwhelming' evidence. What evidence would you need that Burke and Wills almost reached the Gulf of Carpentaria in 1861, or whenever, apart from their Journals, King's account and physical markings along the way ?

Would you expect as much evidence, urine samples, camp-smoke in the lungs, of victims of massacres ? Or just somebody's second- and third-hand accounts, the odd painting of what might have happened, or bar-fly's yarn ? Or somewhere in between, such as distinctive killing marks on bones, especially skulls ?

I suppose there is never TOTAL evidence for anything, even for something that happens before your eyes. But there is SUFFICIENT evidence, such as gun-shot or sabre wounds on bones - or on fresh bodies, if possible, to lead one to be fairly certain that something happened. That's how the courts go, I suppose.

That might be the touch-stone: would the evidence pass muster in a court, before a judge or jury ? Beyond reasonable doubt ?

Take issues to do with children taken into care: every child, one would expect, would have a case file, and those files probably can't be destroyed legally for, say, a hundred years. So uncle or auntie so-and-so's dreadfully sad story can be checked: were their parents negligent, or drunk, or absent ? I recall a Queensland case, oddly enough in a SA Royal Commission (1916), of a single mother with two kids, the mother died and the kids were taken from their hut, in a starving condition, into care. Were they 'stolen' ? There would be a record of that, perhaps even now.

Again: when the Japs bombed Darwin and all the settlements along the north coast, from Broome around to Charters Towers, white and 'half-caste' children from the NT Top End were evacuated to Sydney and Adelaide. Many didn't get back for ten years, and many were too old by then to be counted as children. Was that a 'stolen

[TBC]

[continued]

stolen generation' ? Many didn't want to go back: one girl, finishing Year 12, was hidden by Communist Party members in various places around Sydney until she could finish her exams. (Makes me proud to think of it). By that time she was eighteen, so she could do what she liked.

Again: on many missions, arrangements were made for parents to go out to work during the week, while their kids were looked after by the missionaries. Then the families were re-united on Friday nights for the weekend, then the same again. Are those kids 'stolen generation' ?

History is stranger, more fascinating, more surprising, than pat formulas and 'well, how else do you explain it?' idiocies.

Joe

I came across the following on the web:

http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2009/november/1270703045/robert-manne/comment

Do we really want an unblemished history?

Do we want to ignore eye-opening histories like those written by
historians like Henry Reynolds or do we prefer the
denialist apologetics of Keith Windschuttle?

Can't we have both?

Or is polarisation going to infect every discussion we have
of our nation's past.

Henry Reynolds and Robert Manne are LW PC revisionists... nothing they say should be taken as fact let alone truthful.

Dearest Foxy,

As a denialist apologist myself, I've been totally impressed and persuaded by pretty much everything that Keith Windschuttle has ever written. He provides evidence, records, accounts, dates and places, which seem to be lacking in much of Reynolds' work. He examines legislation for any evidence of racist policy - in other words, he relies on evidence, as if for a case which could be mounted successfully in a court.

That's what Crooks and I have tried to do with 'Voices from the Past' (available now on Amazon and Book Depository). We both derive from the Left, but are sceptical about much of the conventional Indigenous Narrative: we ask for evidence for any assertions and suspend belief until we get some. In our readings and transcriptions of (I lost count) maybe eighteen thousand pages of material, we notice what is there, AND we notice what isn't there. And what isn't there is much foundation for the conventional Narrative, certainly not in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

The single-person 'Aborigines Department' had the primary job of supplying up to fifty ration depots across the state of South Australia. He also had the task of providing health care - free health care, in an era when such a thing was unknown anywhere in the world - free travel passes, boats, guns (and the free repair of both for indigent people), funding for missions to run schools for Aboriginal children and to get local economies up and running.

What he didn't do was take children off caring parents, OR drive people off their lands, herd people onto missions, or oversee massacres. I don't think any of that happened in SA.

Foxy, I prefer the word 'sceptical' or the phrase 'using scientific rigour' to 'denial': denial assumes that people deny evidence which is right in front of them, and assert something for which they provide no evidence; i.e. bigots. Of course, anybody on the Left who is in this situation is entitled to be a bigot. But open your eyes to evidence, and close them to baseless assertions.

Love always,

Joe

I don't regard Keith Windschuttle as a 'denialist'. Everything he writes is scrupulously footnoted, from original documents where possible. He does not editorialise, but reports the truth, unlike revisionists like Henry Reynolds who is, to say the least, adventurous when it comes to history. One of the greatest rogues of Aboriginal history, however,is Professor George Williams, not even an historian, but claimant to the title of 'expert' constitutional lawyer; an expert who hasn't bothered to read the transcripts of 18th and 19th century court cases regarding Aboriginal matters. Some lawyer! We do not need various 'opinions' of history; we need the truth and, in my humble opinion, Keith Windschuttle tries hardest in that. The works of now deceased anthropologists who actually lived with Aborigines are also worth reading. Despite the connection to the land (of current Aboriginal-identifiers) claimed by elites, it is quite clear that Aborigines were 'coming in' very shortly after British settlement, and what W.E.H Stanner described as the High Culture had well and truly expired by the early 20th Century.

come on ttbn you know that Foxy is limited to her narrative. The man made gw alarmist also use the word denialist because they can't win the arguement. Anyone who can think at all knows that Windsuttle writes more from fact that those with a narrative.

Dear Joe,

At the moment I'm waiting for my husband to come
back with the car so that I can visit mum
for the day - so here I am filling in time.

I'll make a note to try to use better words in my
future posts. However, we do have to bear in mind that
there is more than one side to every story. It isn't
wise to accept any one interpretation of events as
your only source of information. For example, in TV
Westerns the Indians are nearly always the "baddies"
who attack the "settlers" from Europe who are just trying
to "pioneer" a new land. We also need to look at the
other side of the story. If it were written by an
Indian, the whole situation would probably be reversed and
the European settlers would have been the "baddies" who came
and "stole" the Indians' land by settling on it.

Therefore it is important to know who said (or wrote) what,
in order to be able to detect the bias that the author would
probably have.

Dearest Foxy,

I hope your husband doesn't have an accident. What road is he taking ?

Yes, indeed, there are many sides to any situation, but before we dissolve into a puddle of indecision, we should stand back and demand evidence, one way or another, and weight that up. History is like a court of law: the judge/reader has to suspend judgment until there is an imbalance in the evidence in one major direction.

Yes, we shouldn't seriously entertain any assertion until we have evidence for it. And we will never get chapter and verse, DNA in urine samples (to cite Nick), or eye-witness statements to the death of some poet or other in about 1783, handfuls of volcanic ash from Pompeii, written records of Asians migrating into America ten thousand years ago. But those events may have happened.

Conversely, claims of people being pushed over cliffs into the sea seem to be unprovable, by their nature - partly from the fact that people would have known their own country better than their white would-be murderers. Strangely, there is such a claim about people around Elliston here in SA - just before a ration depot was set up over near there. Sometimes, assertions do come a cropper.

Evidence: everyone claiming to have been stolen would have a large file on them. It would be no problem to take their case to court. And prove it.

Lots of love always,

Joe

Dear Joe,

Years ago I did my work experience at the State
Library of Victoria. I learned that to study the
past properly it's usually best to go back to what
we call "primary sources." That is the original
documents from which historians gather together
the pieces of information which they use to compile
a theory about the past.

From these sources we can look at many different
persons' viewpoints and draw our own conclusions
about what life must have been like. If primary sources
are not readily available, and sometimes it's very
difficult to find them on all topics we turn to history
books, in which historians who have looked at primary
sources have written down their findings.

We also need to remember history books are written by
historians, and historians are human beings. Their words
are often wise but never completely "gospel."
We need to ask questions all the time and never accept any
reference book as it it could not be wrong.

Therefore, just the same as with primary sources, we need
to consult as many history books as possible to get a
really fair picture of the past. Not only is it necessary
to question the objectivity of what we study (that is, how
fair is it to all sides), but we must be able to use the
different theories put forward.

We need to study not only what is in history books but also
what has been at times left out. If you find a text book that
is supposed to report the history of Australia, and it starts
off with the European exploration of the Pacific Ocean,
you will notice that a significant group, the original Australian,
the Aborigines, are overlooked. Naturally no history book
can cover everything that happened in the past, so the best
thing to do is to pick out what is worth learning about,
and to try to find source material that gives the information required.

Dear runner,

You'll always find people who in their
own minds tend to think that they are always
right. My name is not Google, so I don't
know everything.

However as a wise man once said -
"The most important thing in life is not
knowing everything. It's having the phone
number of somebody who does." ;-)

When ever I see a new book on Australian history the first thing that I do is look in the index for reference to the discovery of gold in NSW. If the author gives credit to Edward Hammond Hargraves I put the book aside as worthless.
If the author did not research Hargraves then what was the quality of research in the rest of the book?

Hargraves had the idea to look in the district where payable gold was first found but he didn't find it and eventually had his bogus claim ruled on by the court, consequently the monument erected by the NSW Government on the Ophir field gives the credit to James Lister and the Tom brothers.

From Wikipedia:
"In 1877, Hargraves was granted a pension of £250 per year by the Government of New South Wales, which he received until his death. Shortly before his death in Sydney on 29 October 1891, a second enquiry found that John Lister and James Tom had discovered the first goldfield."

Dearest Foxy,

I'm unsure what you were getting at in your last post, addressed to me. With the deepest respect and love, I suspect you were trying to teach me how to tie my shoe laces.

There seem to be (roughly) three positions in relation to history, evidence and narrative:

* the slightest piece of 'evidence' is enough to build a huge case on: for example, a bone found is, thereby, an Aboriginal bone, and, thereby, a victim of a massacre by whites and, thereby, probably one of many, many people probably in the same vicinity, thereby evidence of a huge massacre, therefore proof that many such massacres occurred; a variation of this is the 'possibility' approach: if it was possible, then it most likely occurred, for example, pushing people off cliffs into the sea.

* chapter and verse should be required to demonstrate the validity of any claim: for example, was there just one employee of the 'Aborigines Department' in South Australia, i.e. the Protector ? What about all the others that we don't hear about ? Surely they were there ? Just because we don't hear about them, just because there is no record of them anywhere in the State doesn't mean they didn't exist ? Well, actually, it does. Sometimes the absence of evidence means precisely, amply, the evidence of absence.

* the reliance on 'sufficient' evidence, perhaps not exhaustive but certainly more than surmise and maybes: for example, bones found with bullet holes or sabre cuts, associated with digging sticks, artifacts and grinding stones, and in some number, would indicate a massacre of Aboriginal people by whites.

So where are they ? Surely there must be some, somewhere ? Not just bones, but human bones, and not just human bones but, by DNA or associated artifacts, Aboriginal bones, yes, and not just that but evidence of their killing specifically by gun or sabre.

How we weigh up evidence is a bit like Mother Bear's porridge.

Love and forgiveness always,

Joe

Dear Joe,

I was not trying to teach you how to tie your shoe-laces.
In fact I didn't even know that you wore shoes with shoe-
laces. What I was/am trying to do is broaden this
discussion and make it more interesting for everyone.
If our history books were to cover all of the country's
past, we would have to record thousands of years of
Aboriginal history. However, as we know the books spend more
pages of detail on the European settlers than on the history
of individual Aboriginal tribes. And seeing as we don't have
the recorded details that a full account would require, we
have to fill in the missing centuries by making some
educated guesses.

However, all is not lost. The Aborigines may not have recorded
their history in writing, but they made sure their legends and
beliefs were not forgotten by teaching their people to
memorise the facts their ancestors wanted passed on.

cont'd ...

It is possible to learn about Aboriginal civilisations, not
only from their legends, but also from the finds of
archeologists and of anthropologists. We can therefore put
together the pieces of the jigsaw by looking at:

1) prehistoric skeletons that have been dug up.
2) artefacts that have been excavated or found in areas
where Aborigines lived.
3) cave and bark paintings.
4) the many different languages, legends, customs that have
been passed on by word of mouth.

But enough said.

I meant no disrespect to you.

Well I made a comment about Mungo Man but some here seem to have ignored that completely... So much for reading and listening to scientific facts.

Dear T800,

Scientific facts are fascinating and they are
constantly evolving as new discoveries
replace the old theories. Regarding
Mungo Man the following website gives some
more interesting data on the subject:

http://www.convictcreations.com/aborigines/prehistory.htm

Recently there was a doco on SBS that looked into the claim that the Wright brothers were responsible for the first powered flight by man.
The program brought forth, what many have claimed for years, that others had flown before them.
Good luck on ever getting the truth of this bit of history accepted.

Given the reliance of many Indigenous 'leaders' on a spurious interpretation of history, as pretext for a traty, recognition of nations and ultimately sovereignty, there's a fantastic long article about the 'Recognition' schemozzle in today's Australian by Greg Craven, Professor of Law, VC of the Australian Catholic University.

He absolutely nails all the talk about treaty, nations and sovereignty as phony, very divisive (even if cloaked in the jargon of 'reconciliation' and coming together). Well worth framing.

Joe

As a vegetarian, I have written on this topic before. That being in terms of Australian history, the first living species in Australia were plant and animal species (that were not human).

"The establishment and evolution of the present-day fauna was apparently shaped by the unique climate and the geology of the continent. As Australia drifted, it was, to some extent, isolated from the effects of global climate change. The unique fauna that originated in (Gondwana), such as the marsupials, survived and adapted in Australia", with both Aboriginal and European settlers impacting on what is now known (as the Australian environment).

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

Unfortunately, this is impossible to get across to nearly all Australians (and this includes many Aboriginal people) as only around 2-5% of Australians are vegetarian or a small percentage of people have views connected with (animal rights) in general.

Also it is difficult to get this across, as far too many Australians take a very anthropocentric view, in terms of animal species, the natural environment and day to day living. So in terms of humans owning Australia, this is something I cannot accept, as simply humans did not create this country, but I do accept humans can have deep feelings towards Australia.

I am related to Aboriginal people, and of Anglo-Saxon background myself so I understand connection, but animal species have a connection too, they simply can't speak a language like humans do! Finally, they are very smart - for example they can live without money!

Not all Australian animals are smart, Nathan; in fact some are downright stupid, particularly kangaroos.

'Roos will wait until the last moment before dashing in front of a motor vehicle, this is fine in the case of trucks, buses etc. but positively damaging for the average car.
One 'roo devalued my Statesman by some $3,000 then got up and took off into the bush.
All is not lost, however, as the 'roo roadkills provide sustenance for many non-vegetarian non-humans.

Foxy... thanks, but I already posted that information here before, if you had bothered to read it then you would know Mungo man was NOT Aboriginal but here before...

One of these spanners is Mungo Man, who was discovered in 1974 in the dry lake bed of Lake Mungo in west NSW. Mungo Man was a hominin who was estimated to have died 62,000 years ago and was ritually buried with his hands covering his penis. Anatomically, Mungo Man's bones were distinct from other human skeletons being unearthed in Australia. Unlike the younger skeletons that had big-brows and thick-skulls, Mungo Man's skeleton was finer, and more like modern humans.

The ANU's John Curtin School of Medical Research found that Mungo Man's skeleton's contained a small section of mitochondrial DNA. After analysing the DNA, the school found that Mungo Man's DNA bore no similarity to the other ancient skeletons, modern Aborigines and modern Europeans. Furthermore, his mitochondrial DNA had become extinct. The results called into question the 'Out of Africa' theory of human evolution. If Mungo Man was descended from a person who had left Africa in the past 200,000 years, then his mitochondrial DNA should have looked like all of the other samples.

Dear T800,

Actually do a bit more research.

There are contrary opinions on the subject and
especially interesting is -
what recent DNA technology has uncovered.

cont'd ...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-07/dna-confirms-aboriginal-people-as-the-first-Australians/7481360

Of course, the Aboriginal people were, whether with simple or complex mixed ancestry, here before Europeans, Chinese, Atlanteans or Tierra del Fuegans. This is a pointless and a sterile argument. Maori people have been in New Zealand for barely eight hundred years (they had been there for barely four hundred years, according to their own legends, when the Treaty of Waitangi was signed), and yet are clearly the prior occupants of New Zealand.

Have Aboriginal people been in Australia for at least eight hundred years ? Of course. Did any one group invade the territory of another in fifty thousand years ? Yes, of course, just like anywhere else in the world: traditional society everywhere was pretty brutal. For all that, were they the prior occupants of the continent ? Of course.

End of.

Joe

Foxy did that years ago... you need to stop posting links that back me up them eh.
You need to stop being in denial and do some research yourself.
You cant say Aborigines were the First people and put that lie in the Constitution.

Dear T800.,

You can choose to ignore the evidence.
The facts speak for themselves:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-07/dna-confirms-aboriginal-people-as-the-first-Australians/7481360

I am merely quoting the scientific evidence available.

As someone who has been living remote with aboriginal people for nearly 50 years I have to say I'm appalled by the innacuracies, emotive rhetoric and downright lies presented as " aboriginal history" by mainstream sources. Even simple beliefs, such as the one that aboriginal people were classed as flora and fauna are never challenged, nor researched, except by a few, who are howled down as racist bigots.
How people can really put their faith in generations of passed down stories in comparison to first hand witness accounts is beyond me. And even then, if the stories contradict popular belief they are dismissed as inaccurate.
I have read first hand accounts of settlements of missions and nowhere is there any mention of forced removals or violent confrontations. Missionary couples or priests slaved in horrific conditions to build a simple dwelling and grow food, which in turn attracted local blacks, who were drawn by promises of tobacco, sugar, tea and flour.
I was lucky enough to have a father in law who was raised in one of Australia's most remote , and most recent mission, where blacks had their first contact with whites in 1910.
His stories confirm the accounts written by those first missionaries, however locals don't like reference to this as it does not fit the popular narrative of enforced enslavement and violent treatment.
I can only hope the future brings enough historical scholars with the courage to write an accurate account of settlement so future generations have access to the facts, not just an idealised rendition of some supposed utopian existence that was destroyed by evil intended Europeans.

"Though baptized and blessed and bibled,
We are still tabood and libelled
You devout salvation sellers
Make us equal not fringe dwellers."
(Kath Walker).

Obviously Kath Walker did not know or understand her Bible, as it teaches ALL men are already equal they just need knowledge of that truth, and that is the position why Christian mission grew in all cultures around the World.

Dear Josephus,

Perhaps it's not Kath Walker who needs to be
persuaded on the lessons found in the Bible
but the Missionaries and the approaches that
they offered. We know what's best for you!
Regarding them as inferior.

Dearest Foxy,

I'm not sure that poetry is superior to reality.

Kath Walker grew up long after the times that Big Nana is talking about, i.e. during the time of fable and fantasy-making since, say, 1920. I've been amazed at the humanity and hard work, often for decades, of so many missionaries: Threlkeld, Meyer, Schurmann, the Albrechts, the Gribbles, Love, Bill Edwards, not to mention my favourite, George Taplin. Many of them worked themselves in early graves - not something that one could say of any of the current bunch of Indigenous elites, or of anybody on any of the Lefts.

Yes, of course they were Bible-bashers: they probably wouldn't have been there if they weren't, they would have stayed in the cities, done nothing and joined the 'Left'. Sorry, that's cruel. But so true.

Let's be honest: no Mission ever had a fence around it, not for the humans at least. People came and went, as they pleased. Nobody ever got herded onto a Mission, quite apart from the demeaning implications of that, since people have never been sheep. People 'came in' to Missions for the rations, yes, just as many of us will be 'coming in' to K-Mart or Aldi this week for what they have to offer - that doesn't suggest that K-Mart or Aldi have 'herded' us anywhere. And then locked us in.

To believe without evidence is no more than sheer, vicious prejudice. Such a believer is a bigot. It's a pity we don't realise this much, much earlier in our lives:) After all, why do we believe with not a shred of evidence ? Why are we inclined that way ? Do we all have paranoid tendencies ?

I'm not suggesting that it should, or could, be illegal to be a bigot: one aspect of the freedom of belief is that the most outrageous notions can be entertained privately inside one's head, and our freedom of expression allows such believers, if they are incautious enough, to express themselves openly. And to take the consequences in terms of rebuttal, ridicule and derision.

Joe

I'm not ignoring the evidence at all Foxy... you are. You are being selective like some scientists about what you are willing to accept. I told you you need to do more research.
Remember when the scientists on the Genome project said there was no such thing as RACE... that was a very PC thing to say. It wasn't correct and still isn't.
The theories about "Man's" origins are still being debated and the OUT OF AFRICA Theory is now on the backfoot. Only time will tell where that debate will end up.
Like I said you need to stop/think/research/learn and not accept something as yet unproven.

Dear Joe,

I do not doubt that there have always been
individual whites who cared for the Aborigines,
but even amongst those with the best intentions
according to the evidence available there have
been many sad mistakes made in the treatment of
Aborigines. For example, in the 1920s, Daisy
Bates went to live with the Aboriginal people
and with the love and understanding she gave, tried
to bridge the gap between blacks and whites.
But even with her good intentions, it was always
a pitying sort of approach that she offered to
the "poor, dying race" of Aborigines.

As you well know some protectors were dishonest, and
it has been claimed that they stole from the
Aboriginal workers whose interests they were supposed to
protect. Some people even go so far as to claim that in
some parts of Australia, Aboriginal workers were paid not
in money but in methylated spirits, which they drank.

In the 1960s, Aborigines demanded fairer laws and they
gained some benefits. They were finally allowed to
join trade unions and were given the freedom to remain
on reserves, or leave. They were given more freedom
from their bosses (their families no longer had to work
for the white bosses for nothing). Then, in 1967, a
referendum was held, and the whites of Australia decided
to give the blacks what had long been the natural right
of any white Australian citizen, the right to vote.

Although the government has tried to improve the
standard of living of the Aborigines, there are still
some pretty shocking facts to be learned about the way that
Aboriginal people are treated.

Historian Henry Reynolds stated in his book, "Why Weren't We Told?"

"Knowing brings burdens 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 for many years to come."

Dear T800,

If you can provide any evidence to disprove
the recent DNA technological findings in the
link I gave earlier -
by all means provide the links.

As for doing my research?
I always do. It's an occupational habit.

T800,

Race within homo sapiens is a myth, all humans of opposite sex can breed with each other, although some shouldn't; therefore they all belong to the same race.
It's just basic biology.

Foxy,

You airily claim that "As you well know some protectors were dishonest" ....

No, I do NOT 'know' that. Some I don't like much, but where - apart from out of thin air - do you get the idea that any of them were dishonest ?

Unless you can provide some evidence, Foxy dear, you are in danger of revealing yourself to be a bigot. Not that that's impermissible.

I'm not saying that everyone should provide, chapter and verse, evidence for everything they ever claim - but they should have that evidence in their locker, so to speak, in case they are called upon to provide it. Can you ?

Joe

Dear Joe,

We're all guilty of some measure of bias.
This problem occurs in all sciences,
but it becomes particularly acute in the
social sciences, especially whose subject
matter often involves issues of deep human
and moral concern.

The first step is to recognise that subjectivity
and objectivity are not two neat and separate
categories; they are really matters of degree.
By exercising scrupulous caution the
historian can attempt to be as objective as
possible. This caution involves a deliberate
effort to be conscious of one's own biases
so that they can be kept out of the process of
research and interpretation.

It is important therefore
to be intellectually
honest - and attempt to be aware of one's own
values and not allow these values to distort
your work. Equally important is the relentless
hunt down for the relevant facts and not
ignore those that are inconvenient for one's
pet theories. Data should not be manipulated to
prove a point and that research must not be
used to suppress or misuse knowledge.

When the research is published, other historians
can assess the findings and attempt to verify
them by repeating the research to see if it
yields the same results. This has been done
by various historians regarding the history of
our Indigenous - Settler relations.
The material is
available through State and National Libraries.
Many books have been written on the subject.
Students are now being taught this history at
Secondary High Schools. It is now possible to
explore the past by means of large number of
books, articles, films, novels, songs, and
paintings.

I have no wish to argue with you.
And if you think that I am a bigot, then that's
something I guess I'll simply have to live with.

For those interested in factual information here is the website for the Royal Commission into the Conditions of Natives. W.A. 1905.

http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/intranet/libpages.nsf/WebFiles/Royal+Commissions+-+Report+of+the+Royal+Commission+on+the+condition+of+the+natives/$FILE/Report+of+the+Royal+Commission+on+the+condition+of+the+natives.pdf

Even a quick read will show how concerned the government of the time was with the exploitation of vulnerable natives by white and Asian employers, especially in more remote areas.
The position of Protector of Aborigines was one of the recommendations following this Royal Commission.
Some of the witness testimony is fairly horrific. Young aboriginal girls abused and infected with gonorrhoea. Pregnant aboriginal women forced to dive for pearl shell by Asian pearling masters, with a resultant high death rate. Murder and dispossession of lands.
This commission stimulated new laws that were aimed at protecting people seen as very vulnerable and at high risk of abuse.
The fact that some individuals ignored the law and treated aboriginal people very badly cannot be blamed on the government, yet today's rhetoric promotes a view of deliberate government mistreatment and genocide.

Dearest Foxy,

I'm certain that you are not, or ever could be, a bigot, but you do - forgive me - equivocate somewhat, and indirectly slur the reputations of incredibly hard-working and well-meaning people in a multitude of very difficult situations. I wonder if the Left has ever produced such selflessness.

As Big Nana points out, the lack of regulation of Aboriginal Affairs in WA around the turn of the last century, especially in the far North, was a huge problem (we forget that the Kimberley area is as big as Victoria) and the staff of their 'Aborigines Department' (or Native Welfare Department) could have been counted on one hand, until the fifties. In fact, for most of that half-century, staff in WA (as far as I can tell) numbered two: one in the North, one mainly in the South-West, apart from an office staff member keeping the books and typing letters.

So your 'the relentless hunt down for the relevant facts' and need not to 'ignore those [facts] that are inconvenient for one's pet theories.....' is most timely. How does one hunt down facts ? At least, I would think, to go back to the primary documents, take them with a grain of salt, and measure outcomes against that combination of policy and practice. Of course, nothing ever works exactly to plan - the great policy theorists like Wildavsky and Elmore have demonstrated this - there are always unanticipated consequences to policy - but across the vast expanses of Western Australia, travelling by horse and cart, the Protector, I tentatively suspect did his best, i.e. protecting the rights and welfare of Aboriginal people.

But dishonest ? That still rankles :)

And yes, there may be a small grey area between objective and subjective. I think Mark Twain had a brilliant story about having an serious accident in Italy, and being treated first by an American Theosophist lady who suggested that it was in his mind, then by a vet who recommended treacle mixed in with his oats and cured him. Most of us can tell the difference.

Love,

Joe

So foxy you are happy to ignore the wider picture ignore the facts and live in denial like those who used to believe and accept the common view that the Sun orbited the Earth.
Fine.
Me... I'll be waiting for the actual proof.

Dear Joe,

I have read the books by Henry Reynolds - (amongst others).
"The other Side of The Frontier," "Fate of a Free People,"
"The Law of The Land," "Why Weren't We Told?"

I also intend to get hold of the copy of your book -
"Voices From The Past."

I feel that it is crucial to read as much as
possible on this important debate.
We need to continue to search for the
truth about our past. And today we can.

Hi T800,

If you are correct, Mungo Man died not thirty-odd thousand years ago, but more than sixty thousand years ago.

And that males can inherit mitochondrial DNA: I thought only women could, and therefore pass it on to their daughters. Or do you mean the Y chromosome ?

'Out of Africa' being unproven ? Hardly. There must be many, many DNA sequences having been done by now, easily linking all human beings ultimately to African ancestors, and the one you report seems to be one of the only ones - okay, the only one - which cannot be linked to the imperceptibly-slow migration out of Africa.

But you have set yourself a problem: how might the presence of a non-Out-of-Africa human, or of a hominin, in Australia be explained ? How did he mate and with whom ? Were there many like him (of course, there had to be at some time) ? Where did he come from, if not Africa ? East Asia, i.e. he was a Denisovan ? But ultimately, they too came 'out of Africa', just a bit earlier. What other humans does his DNA relate to ? Or are you claiming, none at all ? That he wasn't human ?

If you are claiming that he was an example of a separate species from the later stocky Aboriginal people in southern Australia, you may be mixing up times: sixty thousand years ago, Australia was entering a long, warm period (I think?) but ten thousand years ago, (I'm presuming this is who you meant) the Kow Swamp people had been living on the edge of a glaciated area in western Victoria, and had very likely adapted their body shapes over the twenty thousand years since the last warm period, from gracile to robust, i.e. evolving from tall and slender to shorter and stocky.

Joe

Hi Foxy,

Reading is crucial, but it is what and who you read that is important. Henry Reynolds is what is known as a 'Google historian'; his knowledge is very limited, and his views are narrow, based mainly on his own feelings and on a 21st Century take of right and wrong. He never compares Australia with other counties of the times. He is ignorant of early documents; has never read the 'classics' of history. The rot in history set in during the 1960s, and Reynolds is a product of that time as are his contemporaries, who all churn out the same stuff without question. I urge you to read Windscuttle, who will introduce you to people like Bill Stenner, who spent much of his life living with Aborigines.

Josephus,

Kath Walker was a communist; she would have no interest in the Bible.

Foxy,

Just reading through some posts again, I notice that your 'evidence' seems to come mainly from ABC sources. You will never get more than the one side from them - the ABC is a sheltered workshop for the Left. You are too smart to be locked into one side of things. Again: Windschuttle, Windschuttle, Windschuttle. If you can get hold of his 'fabrication' series, that would be be a good start.

Hi Foxy,

I'm not sure that the writing of history is some sort of beauty contest, where us spectators simply select the one we like best and ignore the rest. To me, that sounds like 'factology', or 'post-truth'. A bit like Chauncey Gardener trying to change the channel of reality when he was assaulted. No, reality is, it doesn't change to suit our feelings.

I don't know that Henry Reynolds has done much primary research, rather than re-cycled what others have written, which in turn was often recycled from earlier writers. So much of your 'appeal to authority' may fall on barren ground.

Back in the late nineties, when I typed up the 600-page Journal (1859-1879), of the Rev. George Taplin, founder of Pt McLeay, I sent a copy (in those days, an actual floppy, sent by mail) to Henry Reynolds, sort of half-expecting some detailed response, but got just a 'thank you' instead, which was nice. I hope he read it. I found it to be a gold-mine, probably of course because my wife came from there and there was a great deal in it about many of her ancestors. It's all on my web-site: www.firstsources.info, Taplin and Pt McLeay page.

Of course, even primary written sources tell one story. Actual evidence out on the ground would provide another source. But conversely, if something didn't happen at all, there wouldn't be any evidence. History doesn't strike some 'balance' between what happened and what didn't, it's unbalanced very much in favour of 'what DID happen' and properly ignores what didn't - apart, of course, from some historians focussing on WHY something didn't happen, which can be as important as why something DID happen.

[TBC]

[continued]

The combination of masses of written evidence AND no counter-evidence on the ground can be pretty conclusive: to me, the facts of

* a single employee of the Aborigines Department in SA,

* of a network of fifty ration depots,

* the issuing of boats and guns for free,

* free medical attendance,

* no reliable reports of massacres, driving people off their land or herding people onto missions,

* the fact that the law protecting Aboriginal people's rights to use the land as they always had done, even now

- all this paints a fairly conclusive picture. I measure any historian's efforts against that picture, and find some of them wanting.

I just wish some courageous and competent - and ideally impartial, if possible - person or group would actually carry out fair dinkum research into, say, a particular massacre on a particular claimed massacre site. In Queensland , there would be thousands, according to Reynolds. Okay: find one. Or preferably a few, let's say all in one area. And extrapolate from there. I'm craving proof, evidence, forensic findings, anything that might show conclusively that whites massacred Aboriginal people anywhere.

Love,

Joe

Dear ttbn,

Reading is indeed crucial I totally agree.
That is why it is important to read more
than one version of events as I've
stated previously.

Dear Joe,

There are so many links available on the web on
Aboriginal massacres. The following link is only
one such example:

http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/history/myall-creek-massacre-1838#toc3

Dearest Foxy,

Myall Creek, 1838, that's right, and nine white blokes were hanged for it. Any others ? Actual sites, where some investigation had been done? Not just bar-fly yarns, and third- and fourth-hand stories, handed down and magnified with each re-telling ?

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

Some others are also listed in the link I
gave on the Myall Creek Massacre. You can
also find them separately on the web.

Hi Foxy,

Are any of those others anything but rumours, maybes, hearsay, family legends, with not one actual investigation amongst them ? I can't be bothered looking up such sites. Give me some reason to.

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

So now you want me to teach you how to
tie your shoe laces after all.

Seriously, why don't you start with the
list given in my earlier link on the Myall
Massacre and decide for yourself.

Dearest Foxy,

A list of places with the word 'massacre' attached is not exactly evidence of massacres. Have each of those places been examined ? I don't know. Do you want me to go searching or would that be the obligation of those who assert that something happened ?

There are aspects of that Myall Creek account which don't quite ring true: I doubt that people would still travel about in a single coherent group, rather than scattering into ones and twos into the dense bush, which they would probably know well, even better than the native Police who usually came from some other region. Whites were usually useless in pursuing anybody in the bush, and tended to leave it to the Native Police. If thirty people were killed at Myall Creek, then surely there would have been thirty sets of remains to examine. Similarly at Coniston in the NT. Or anywhere else.

I'll say it again, I'm reasonably sure that many massacres occurred, but in order to be more specific, thorough investigation of supposed sites should - and still could - be carried out. Without evidence, why believe any particular story ? I'd be convinced if just one bone was discovered at any particular site with some marks of killing by whites, by gun or sabre. Not necessarily thirty different individuals with such marks at a site, but enough to give some reasonable certainty that, of, say, thirty sets of remains found, if the only evidence of cause of death on any of them were the marks of bullets of sabres, and not spearing or clubbing, etc., as might have been the case in Black on Black killings. i.e. just something to tie the deaths of individuals to the actions of whites, or Native Police under white direction.

He/she who asserts must prove, i.e. provide evidence sufficient to make a judgment about the assertion. A list of places doesn't cut it.

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

http://www.library.uq.edu.au/ojs/index.php/aa/article/viewFile/393/423

You can also Google "Mapping the Massacres of Queensland
Aboriginal Society." It's an article in The Australian
newspaper.

contd ...

See you on another discussion.
For me this one has run its course.

Dearest Foxy,

Thank you for that article. I was immediately struck by this sentence: "In Australia, however, relatively little research attention has been paid to the archaeology of Aboriginal/European interaction and almost none at all to the archaeology of frontier conflict .... "

Not very promising :( If it's true, then it's appalling. Still, press on. I support the author's definition of a 'massacre':

"For the purpose of this paper I define ‘massacre’ as the ‘one-sided’, indiscriminate killing of a group or groups of people .... This definition can also include single killings if they are part of a systematic and ongoing process of killings ...."

but I'm much less enthusiastic about his reliance on 'oral and historical' records, IF 'historical' ultimately means little more than 'oral' accounts, just from another time, or at a distance.

By the way, I transcribed three Royal Commissions, around the period 1857-1862, dealing with frontier conflict in what became Queensland in 1859: they are all on my web-site: www.firstsources.info, on the Queensland page. They deal with massacres on both sides, including outright murders of Aboriginal people.

The author refers to first-hand accounts, presumably eye-witness accounts, which are very persuasive. One problem with massacres is that, the further away an account may be in space and time from such an event, the larger the body count, and the more spectacular and lurid the distant accounts tend to become. So immediate, eye-witness accounts, particularly of participants, although they may UNDER-count the level of atrocities, is a sort of foundation from which to make judgments now, in 2016, for what may have happened 100-150 years ago.

However,

[TBC]

[continued]

I wouldn't rely on newspaper accounts for any accurate picture. Sensation sells papers: hence, in another context, newspapers may pick up on three little girls fleeing along a fence from town to town, IF it occurred, AND the more lurid accounts of massacres, if and when they occurred. But I think that's what the author means by 'historical accounts', i.e. newspapers.

So I'm sceptical about this:

"This strong body of historical and oral primary evidence lacks a corresponding archaeological signature for these events. Although the absence of archaeological evidence could be to some extent due to a lack of focus on this aspect of Aboriginal/European interaction, I propose that it has more to do with the nature of frontier violence in the Australian context and the kind of archaeological signature related to it, rather than a lack of research in this area."

Not very encouraging. This also surprised me: "There are no accounts of collecting the dead and burying them, of capturing people alive, tying them up, taking them to a central location and executing them into mass graves." I was also surprised at the low numbers of deaths that he cites - instead of the usual thirty, more often one or two. Perhaps, if anything, the eye-witness accounts under-estimate deaths, both immediate and lingering.

That a series of massacres occurred around Coniston is well-known. The Forrest River killings in 1926 are described on my web-site, on the Western Australian page. The missionary there, Rev. Gribble, may have exaggerated the casualty rate: Mrs. Mary Bennett, the communist champion of Aboriginal rights, was working there at the time as a nursing aide (I think), but doesn't seem to have ever written about any massacre.

Still, it certainly happened, but may have been over inter-group grievances - Sergeant Willshire was accused of being involved in such an atrocity in about 1891, west of Alice Springs: occasionally, some long-term coppers went rogue, effectively working for one Aboriginal group against another.

The author's summary, that

[TBC]

[continued]

The author's summary, that " .... The fact that no archaeological project has yet documented a massacre or a suspicious death in relation to Indigenous remains bears these factors out to some degree .... " obviously doesn't rule out the possibility that such massacres occurred, BUT neither do they suggest that they did. Very frustrating. I think the author focusses too much on the need for skeletal remains, rather than, say, teeth, BUT some association of teeth with bone fragments, ornaments, lead balls, shot, etc., would be that much more vital. Otherwise, no real evidence.

He writes of Aboriginal sensitivities about disturbing burials. But this may rule out vital evidence, and inevitably lead to a verdict of 'nothing to see here.' But clearly, such 'sensitivities' do NOT mean that anything necessarily occurred, or indeed DIDN'T occur. As well, time and human memory inflate and conflate accounts, and people may 'explain' distant events on the basis of 'Well, how else do you explain x or y ?' But the constant problem is that they do not provide or support evidence of violent deaths at the hands of whites.

I'm sure massacres occurred, certainly in western Queensland. I agee that as

" ..... Mike Rowland (2004) states, in one of the most detailed and moving histories relating to this topic, that the emphasis on ‘massacre’ reduces decades of all kinds of human suffering (from sexual slavery, beatings, forced labour, rape and forcible removals) to the semantics of numbers and terminology, thus masking the real long-term exploitation and misery of the Aboriginal frontier experience. For the central Queensland coast at least, I contend that it is unlikely we will find evidence for mass killings .... "

The Original Primal Crime of occupation was significant enough: it isn't necessary to over-gild the lily and devalue that original event - which is precisely what all of us need to re-assess, for genuine reconciliation to ever occur.

Joe

And yet, we need a Narrative - an evidence-based or -inferred, historically-rigorous base and sequence. Otherwise, we either drift or lurch from one baseless set of assertions to another. So what do we know, and what can we infer from our history ?

* Britain claimed sovereignty over, at first, just eastern Australia, then the lot, between 1788 and 1836. Alongside that political act, the issue of land ownership was inferred to simultaneously include the rights of foragers to maintain their customary practices, and the rights of non-Indigenous people to farm and pasture animals, in some form of co-existence;

* Indigenous people were unilaterally declared to be British subjects, a status often breached violently over the next 140 years;

* Learning as they went, in the first generation or so, invader-authorities attempted to set up ration systems, a school system and some form of European-type accommodation for local Aboriginal people around Sydney;

* Once the mountain barrier was conquered, European settlement moved rapidly across New South Wales and along the coasts. Inevitably, conflict occurred. Thirty Aboriginal people were killed in one massacre, for which nine (7 ? 11 ?) whites were executed in 1839 at Darlinghurst;

* If SA is any guide, people 'came in' as ration depots were set up - before their existence, Aboriginal people periodically (probably more so during droughts) raided pastoralists' huts and flocks. Once ration depots were operating, these raids ceased;

* From the earliest days, within a surprisingly short time, many Aboriginal people came in to work for money and exotic goods. Some took out land leases. Missions initiated schools which further attracted Aboriginal people into relations with Europeans: missionaries and farmers;

* Pastoralists sought local labour, so were happy to set up ration store-houses and issue rations, for free;

* During droughts, all able-bodied Aboriginal people were also entitled to rations;

* In SA, when white men got the vote, so did Aboriginal men; when white women got the vote in 1895, so did Aboriginal women. Aboriginal women could vote thirty years before British women;

[TBC]

[continued]

* Until about 1908, Aboriginal children at schools worked successfully with the standard curriculum. Between 1908 and about 1950, schools offered a 'culturally-adapted',i.e. colonialist, curriculum, and Aboriginal children were usually unable to complete even primary school. It has taken two or three generations to overcome this huge mistake;

* Indigenous people became citizens, along with all other Australians, in 1948;

* All Indigenous people have had the vote since about 1962;

* Indigenous people were counted annually in State Reports, with an estimate made (wildly greater than in reality) for those thought to remain 'beyond civilization'; and in the National Census from 1971;

* Indigenous people have been entitled to all benefits available to other Australians since the seventies.

Of course, there must be other planks to this Narrative. Completing that Narrative, on the basis of truth and evidence, will help to complete the process of Reconciliation, which is surely vital for any nation's future, based on justice and equality.

So what else should be included ?

Joe