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.