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.