A campaign has been established to recognise an Aboriginal past, rather than a 'white myth' in regards to the film 'Picnic at Hanging Rock'.

Titled "Miranda Must Go", Ms Amy Spiers believes people must understand the Aboriginal history of Hanging Rock, not a story based upon fiction. She says Aboriginal people in the area died of smallpox, colonial murder or were taken to an Aboriginal Reserve.

My concern though is about the impacts such a campaign would have on others, if it was to succeed, in terms of its outcome. For example, currently there are many authors, film makers and those in theatre internationally who write fiction, and it is something which has kept such sectors going in a day and age of technology.

With the skills of writing, should these people always have to face the prospect of "telling the truth" and become tired of being put through such a practice?

This politically correct drive is in my view a gross violation of basic individual rights.

Dear Nathan,

I don't think that writers or film-makers have much
to be concerned about. All PhD student Amy Spiers is trying
to do is point out that there is a "broader tapestry"
to Hanging Rock then Joan Lindsay's novel and Peter Weir's
iconic film. The book and the film are part of that story - but
there is also a significant part of the story that hasn't been told
and that is its Indigenous history, including its Indigenous name.
The focus thus far has been only on one aspect of the popular
culture surrounding Hanging Rock - and that has been on the
novel and the film. Amy Spiers is trying to tell a broader story.
We should support that.

"should these people always have to face the prospect of "telling the truth" .
I'm sick of it , all the news was just truth and it's so not. We need alternatives and viral bites and if Trump doesn't like it he's a fake.

Nathan,

Movies such as picnic at hanging rock are only loosely based on past events or they would be documentaries, and be seen by tiny audiences.

I second Foxy's motion.

<<All PhD student Amy Spiers is trying to do is point out that there is a "broader tapestry"...>>

My concern with that logic, is that if I was an author and decided to write a book about something that related to a particular site, that may be 100% fiction, some may be very offended by that because it does not tell the truth. This could include something like a horrible crime that occurred during a world war, times under Adolf Hitler or in this case issues related to Aboriginal history.

If someone wants to take on the matter of getting a broader message out to people, in the case of fact, I have no problem with that, but pressure should not be placed on playwrights, authors, film producers or those in related realms.

It is not fair to place pressure on anyone and writing, film making and being involved in the theatrical sector is a strong skill to have, and involves freedom of expression. To expect these people to "fill a void" because someone else wants truth out in the public sphere is a work load that these people should not be forced to take on.

In this case though, if Amy Spiers, wants the public to know more about the Hanging Rock element and its Aboriginal connections, she could take that workload on herself and find someone else willing to assist, if she really believes the cause is one to take further.

There are many films made based on true events, two other Australian movies with a true event indigenous content that I enjoyed were 'Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith' and 'Rabbit Proof Fence', how true those movies were to real life events, no one can say, but they were certainly a good watch.

If such movies had to follow the exact scrip of actual events then Hollywood would be out of business, and John Wayne would never have made a movie.

Paul,

I agree with you. Films that focus on historical accuracy are called documentaries and have a very limited audience.

Hi Paul,

You put your finger on the crucial issues: the Rabbit-Proof f3nce film was very effective. But was there a single element of truth in it ? Is there any evidence whatever that the events occurred ?

I'm not suggesting chapter and verse, but at least SOME shred of evidence. One intriguing feature of 'evidence' is that, when something actually happens, some types of evidence should be present. In this case, three little girls travelling up along a fence (or fences, further up the north) would have been encountered by the 150 employees working every day on the Fence (according to Arthur Upfield in one of his first Bony novels), who would have dropped into their local pub each evening, perhaps to chat to the local newspaper editor, who (in addition to wondering why the sudden influx of police in their area) would have passed on such an intriguing story to the West Australian, at the time a fiercely pro-Labor and anti-government paper.

But no, nothing in The West Australian about it, according to Trove.

After Labor won the WA elections in (I think) 1933, it organised a Royal Commission into Aboriginal Issues (the Moseley Commission), evidence before which - close to a thousand pages - is available on my web-site: www.firstsources.info , on the WA Page, and with a 60-page index. There were mentions at the Commission of young Aboriginal women escaping from Moore River, 16- and 17-year-olds, but where did they 'flee' to ? Fremantle, the bright lights, and were usually picked up off the streets and brought back to Moore River.

In other words, contra the Narrative, NOT in the service of separation but in the direction of assimilation. There was not a single mention of any flight from Moore River towards the north, and not even any mention by Mrs. Mary Bennett, a vocal left-winger and constant thorn in the side of Neville (Kenneth Branagh).

So sorry, ....

{TBC]

[continued]

So, sorry, Paul, there appears to be not a skerrick of evidence supporting the Story. How many other unsubstantiated stories might there be ? In my earlier days, I probably promoted them all - whites were such bastards, that anything that they were accused of was probably true. But older and slightly wiser, certainly a bit more sceptical, I would now suggest that we suspend belief about anything reported about the past until we have something substantial.

For example, newborn babies born at the Cootamundra Girls' Home (the one with the swimming pool) thrown down a well ? Excavate it and prove it one way or the other. Two hundred people pushed over a cliff in Gippsland ? Two hundred Aboriginal people being together in that country at one time ? Not likely. And, on their own country, not knowing it far better than a few white fellas ? Hardly likely. Plus the absence of any evidence. Yes, absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence, but it makes a pretty good starting point.

Yes, I suspect that a hell of a lot happened for which there is now no evidence, no bones to be excavated. But if we are given the option of believing every story we are ever told, or expecting some substance, just a tiny bit, to back up a story, I'll take Option No. 2.

Cheers,

Joe

I'm undecided if I agree with Foxy's take on this or not.

http://www.amyspiers.com.au/author/amy/
"In response, artist and researcher Amy Spiers has initiated the “Miranda Must Go” campaign. Inspired by decolonial and anti-racism campaigns, such as Rhodes Must Fall, the campaign seeks to challenge the habitual retelling of the Picnic at Hanging Rock story at Hanging Rock. The goal of removing pervasive associations to Joan Lindsay’s novel, and its main character Miranda, is to prompt questions and public debate about the dominant culture’s obsession with fictional white vanishing and direct attention to the real Aboriginal losses and traumas at Hanging Rock."

The wording does not to me seem to leave room for the "fictional" tale to live along side the narrative which Amy and the organisers want told. Perhaps the campaign name “Miranda Must Go” is chosen for dramatic effect rather than intent but nothing I read gave me any confidence that's there is room for both stories in Amy's view of how things should be.

Joe once again well said.

R0bert.

Joe, the modern aboriginal narrative survives partly because some bad things did happen, and partly because it is politically incorrect to challenge it.

My great-great grandfather was a bush policeman in NT and the Kimberleys. When there was conflict and whites died, he "rode the range until the campfires went out" according to one account. Terrible justice, but true.

Why was there conflict? I know that when whitefellas are trying to make a go of life in the bush, such as building homes, stores and cattle herds, they can't expect the locals not to avail themselves of what this has to offer them, causing aggravation. However, there were out and out hostile locals too, who were either allowed to block endeavours, or were opposed.

It was not a time for great politeness, but there are many more accounts of positive interactions between aborigines and newcomers than of verified (by evidence) deadly conflicts.

I've written before about the desire of some aboriginal groups to remain both tied to their land and to welfare. The problems surrounding this will never go away unless aborigines understand that urbanized people are not responsible for their decision to remain remotely separated from services they need. Those urbanized people include aborigines who have decided to join the 21st century and make their contribution alongside decades and decades of migrant newcomers.

I'm not interested in a treaty with compensation, based on a faulty narrative, as its aim.

"the Rabbit-Proof Fence film was very effective. But was there a single element of truth in it ? Is there any evidence whatever that the events occurred?"

Hi Joe, to answer your question, and this in a subjective opinion. I believe, yes there was some truth in it, but to what degree I can't say. With films based on a true event, to what extent the film depicts the actual truth it cannot be judged or quantified, To say RPF was 90% truth, or to say no, it was only 10% truth, we cannot say anything like that. The makers do not expect that of the audience. Movies first and foremost have to entertain, then for the investors they have to be a financial success, and unless you are a David Attenborough, that is hard to achieve with a doco.

A good example of truth verses cinematic licence, is movies and documentaries on 'Titanic' both types have been done, both concern a true event in history, that is not in dispute, and I must say, well done at that. It would be wrong to take the movie versions and believe that is how it was, just as it would be wrong to watch the documentaries and looking for the entertainment value only, where is the love story.

Imagine if you were asked to write an historical assignment on the 'Titanic', and all the knowledge you had was from watching Kennith More in the 1950's 'A Night to Remember', (excellent film for what it is), I think you might score an "F" on that one. But if asked to write an essay on a popular 'Titanic' movie and chose that film, you could score an "A".

How about 'The Sapphires', very good movie.

https://www.creativespirits.info/resources/movies/the-sapphires

Hi Paul,

So how do we distinguish between truth (backed up by evidence) and propaganda (backed up by no evidence at all, but obviously geared to support a Narrative) ?

Joe

"When a myth is shared by large numbers of people, it becomes a reality."
~Lawrence Blair

Hi Paul,

In the interests of objectivity and truth, let's explore the RBF story a bit further. You suggest that, "I believe, yes there was some truth in it, but to what degree I can't say."

It's intriguing to know why you do believe the story - do you have any factual evidence, anything else besides an unquestioning belief in a story told by someone fifty or more years after the story was supposed to have happened ?

In this case, let's imagine what would have happened IF the story were true. Police pursuing the girls up the fence ? Then, there would be police reports, police wage sheets documenting overtime and accommodation allowances, etc; there would be hotel records up the line at nearby towns. And of course, there would be local newspaper reports, sold on to the West Australian. The Superintendent at Moore River Institution would have had to report on it. Mrs Bennett would have quickly got wind of it all, and used it publicly and vocally against Neville. But nothing.

With respect, you do seem to try a sleight of hand next: "With films based on a true event, to what extent the film depicts the actual truth it cannot be judged or quantified."

Says who it is true ? Isn't that what they call begging the question, assuming precisely what needs to be demonstrated ?

Then you suggest that: "To say RPF was 90% truth, or to say no, it was only 10% truth, we cannot say anything like that."

Well no, not if there is no evidence whatever. But what we can say (provisionally, until evidence is found) is that it didn't happen.

'No evidence' is always a pretty strong case. It beats all the righteous chest-thumping in the world.

By the way, I'm not suggesting that a poor old lady lied - the mind does funny things over a few short years, let alone fifty. My grandfather, Ithink, incorporated the war exploits of another soldier of the same name who he probably knew in Palestine. Sometimes 'belief' doesn't count for much.

Cheers,

Joe

Dear loudmouth,

I have no problem with you wanting documentary evidence before fully embracing something but to say “Well no, not if there is no evidence whatever. But what we can say (provisionally, until evidence is found) is that it didn't happen.” is crazy. Even if there were no other evidence available oral history is of itself evidentiary. How much weight is placed upon it can be debated but the default should not be that nothing happened.

An old friend of my father confessed to him in tears to having eaten human flesh to stay alive on the Kokoda Track. Both men have passed away and there are no records to substantiate any of it plus it was delivered to me third hand. Under your rules it didn't happen.

From the Age;

“Some time later, Doris was invited to give a speech at an Aboriginal family history event in Perth. There she repeated the story her aunt had told her. "After the speech, one of the lads in the audience came up and said, 'You know that story you told, about the girls running away - that's really well documented'. Then he sent me all these files." The clippings and reports he sent to Doris provided the factual backbone for the story that would eventually become the book Follow The Rabbit-Proof Fence. She wrote the first draft in 1985 and sent it off to a publisher. The publisher wrote back saying the work read a little like an academic treatise, and suggested she try her hand at fiction instead.”
http://www.kooriweb.org/foley/resources/film/sunage17feb02.html

So it would seem there was further evidence.

I recently watched the movie Hacksaw Ridge. Desmond Doss's story has elements in it that were not depicted in the film because Gibson felt they would not be believed even though they were in Doss's citation for the Medal of Honour.

Films are designed primarily to entertain otherwise why bother. Just as with Gibson there were probably aspects that were left out of this film because of the medium. To completely write the thing off as unsubstantiated is just churlish.

Here's a link that may be of interest:

http://www.kooriweb.org/foley/resources/film/sunage17feb02.html

BTW: Oral histories are so important in our quest to
learn about the past. I still recall my time working
at the State Library of Victoria when I catalogued
collections of oral histories on tape. It was fascinating
work and I learned so much. Oral histories whether in the
form of diaries, tapes, et cetera play an important role.
Think of "The Diary of Anne Frank," "Bitter Harvest,"
(Ukrainian famine), and other works. "Rabbit-Proof Fence,"
certainly had its affect on me - despite what Andrew Bolt,
or Keith Windschuttle may have us believe.

Hi Steele,

You assert that " ..... if there were no other evidence available oral history is of itself evidentiary."

No, it isn't. On its own, it's no more than a story, and possibly very third-hand, having gone through many versions depending on the current political atmosphere. It may be true, or roughly true, but on its own, there is no evidence for it.

If there is any documentary evidence for the RPF story, then it should be presented. Otherwise, it is a charming, and politically loaded, story, in support of a Narrative. i.e. a story is rarely 'neutral', it is usually exploited to advance a Narrative. So of course, it should have some backing besides somebody's assertion. As the Romans said, 'Asseritur gratis, negatur gratis': an assertion without evidence or substance can be set aside without evidence; he who asserts must demonstrate.

Churlish or gullible ? I'll choose churlish.

Cheers,

Joe

When Mary Craig, the subject of RPF saw the film she's reported to have said, "That's no my story".

As to the rest, its just more of the 'look at me' generation. Someone creates a fictional work about an iconic location and because it fails to mention the history that others would prefer to discuss, they seek to delegitimise it.

Don't watch 'Roman Holiday' because it doesn't mention Christians killed in Rome. OMG 'An American in Paris' doesn't mention Caesar's conquest of the Parisii.

Dearesat Foxy,

That's a strange remark: "Oral histories whether in the form of diaries, tapes, et cetera play an important role."

Written accounts go some way towards evidence, especially if they can be cross-checked, triangulated, verified by other sources.

You move even further away from 'oral history' here: "Think of "The Diary of Anne Frank," "Bitter Harvest,"(Ukrainian famine), and other works."

Such dreadful events have been thoroughly corroborated, documented, accounted for, verified. What happened to Jewish people under the Nazis, or to the Ukrainian people under the Communists, is light years away from 'oral history'.

It's not just that evidence strengthens an assertion: for many assertions, certain forms of evidence SHOULD be readily available if the story had any truth in it. If it was a big enough story to come to the attention of newspapers, then it would be reported. I would suggest that the RPF story should have that sort of documentation, not to mention WA police, hotel, Rabbit Department records. The Moseley Royal Commission would have covered it in detail. Mrs Bennett, a communist and tireless worker for Aboriginal rights in WA from the twenties up until her death in 1961, would have got wind of it and hounded Neville with it.

There is a story here in SA, of an Aboriginal woman escaping from Kangaroo Island and swimming across Backstairs Passage with her baby on her back, to crawl exhausted up the nearest beach on the mainland and dying. But currents in Backstairs Passage would have taken her a hundred miles along the coast. Not to mention sharks having a go. So a striking, charming and tragic story. Interestingly, it could be a composite of many other stories: a child lost in the bush down that way; Aboriginal women being thrown into the sea; photographs of Aboriginal women with their babies on their backs; perhaps a body being found on a beach near Cape Jervis. Put it all together and bingo !

One lovely old bloke I knew claimed that that baby was his grandmother, therefore that he was not Ngarrindjeri but from Tasmania.

Meile,

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

We had better be clear about what you are asserting here. Are you saying there is no evidence that they walked this distance or is it just that some of the aspects in the film were exaggerated? The book obviously contains a lot more information which does not coincide with a sizable part of the film but as i said that is part of the craft.

Hi Steele,

My fourth post, I think.

No, I'm saying that unless there is some strong evidence, certainly something better than an 'oral story', then there is no evidence that it happened at all. No evidence, when there should be some = no truth in the story.

No, I don't think, on the evidence, that the Rabbit-Proof Fence story happened. Spiffing movie though: that bastard Neville, those poor little girls.

I'll say it again: I don't think that the old lady lied, but that, after fifty or more years, the bits and pieces of different stories may have been brought together to form a composite story, which actually had no basis in fact.

Why the story in the first place ? Because the Narrative demands that there be evidence of the rejection of white society, and a craving to return to country away from whites and their influences. Anything which trends that way will be believed by people who believe the Narrative. It's a pity that evidence suggests the opposite: girls of 16 and 17 (young women really) who escaped from Moore River were invariably found in Perth, mainly on the waterfront at Fremantle, enjoying the bright lights of assimilation, and the company of big spenders.

All stories in the Conventional Aboriginal Narrative must conform to this sort of trend: evil whites committing all manner of unspeakable crimes, innocent Aboriginal people fleeing away, being driven off land, herded onto missions, deliberate spreading of disease, etc., etc. Massacres of course: I hope somebody, one day, does an archaeological dig at a supposed massacre site, just to demonstrate that they did indeed happen. I've been tempted, but I don't have the expertise, or the knees.

Cheers,

Joe

Dear loudmouth,

This is what Andrew Bolt (not someone I thought I would be quoting in this context) wrote of the film;

“It was 1931 and Molly Craig was just 14, when she and two of her younger cousins -- Daisy, 8, and Gracie, 11 -- were taken from an Aboriginal camp at Jigalong, in Western Australia's north, and sent to the Moore River Native Settlement, 2000km south. There these girls were to live with other ``half-castes'' and to go to school, learning skills to help them to adapt to non-Aboriginal society. But the girls fled after one night, and in an amazing nine-week epic walked home to Jigalong -- all but Gracie, that is, who was found by police at Wiluna. Craig's feat made the papers but was not written up in full until 1996, when her daughter, Doris Pilkington, who was herself raised at Moore River, wrote the book on which Noyce has based his film. BUT Noyce and his scriptwriter didn't stick to the facts Pilkington uncovered.”
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/rabbitproof-fence-how-the-film-lied/news-story/9837347e0bdbaf3395635be48580ede5?nk=13e4ad793ad2d02fcd57d8fad318865b-1488246860

So the story did indeed make the papers of the time and Bolt accepts “ the facts Pilkington uncovered”. His issue is with the depictions in the film.

He also speak of Molly as showing “extraordinary courage, endurance and willpower”.

Therefore my friend, when even someone like Bolt accepts the journey happened it kinda leaves you as the proverbial shag on the rock, and I repeat a rather churlish one at that.

Dear Joe,

You seem to not count oral history as real history.

All I can suggest is that if you haven't already
done so - get hold of a copy of Bain Atwood's "Telling
the Truth about Aboriginal History," and Dirk Moses -
"Genocide and Settler Society: Frontier Violence and
Stolen Indigenous Children in Australian History."

Then of course there's also the "Bringing Them Home,"
Report which might help.

My concern with wanting change on this issue, is that with Aboriginal stories that were told, this is factually correct, but the stories themselves are likely to be a myth (in terms of what happened). Like essentially spiritual stories. This does not mean they are unimportant.

Comparisons could be made to like what some people take on terms of the Bible, but people who take this view can be very selective.

Also like Shakespeare. This does not mean these stories are not interesting or have important connections to them (in terms of say Aboriginal people) or others who have heard them over time.

I watched the program Backroads on the ABC. The town of Hermannsberg in NT was visited. Stories were told about history, both of its Aboriginal and German origins. A historic (built) precinct in the area, still standing shows the original German settlement, that's like a small village. There are many interesting stories. For example some Aboriginal people still go to the Hermannsberg Lutheran Church

Stories are interesting to keep. People don't always need to be told the truth in a way, that some want. That with Aboriginal people negative only. The Backroads program highlighted how Lutherans protected Aboriginal people locally from others and how Albert Namatjira was directly connected to the arts in the historic village of Hermannsberg.

The program itself was wonderful and eye catching. It highlights the good and the bad, but does not want to 'skew' the situation in one direction.

Hi Steele,

So to you, Andrew Bolt is an authority ? And what "facts" are we talking about ? Evidence would be nice. Until some is presented, I'm reconciled to being the shag on a rock.

Dearest Foxy,

No, oral history - on its own - is not history. It's yarns, stories, myths, UNTIL it's backed up by some evidence. I look forward to academics telling the truth-with-evidence, rather than the truth-with-passion.

The "Bringing Them Home" Report ? So how come only one case has ever been proven in court (and even that was pretty dodgy in so many ways) ? Don't you think that there would be a file on every one of those children taken into care, which they could present in court ? Without that, it's still just yarns, stories, myths. If people think they have a case, they can easily take it to court.

Many oral histories are charming. But they need some corroboration, evidence, back-up, independent verification, substantiation, if their tellers want people to take them seriously.

Joe

Dear Joe,

Studying history does not just involve memorizing
names and dates, kings and queens, wars, revolutions,
explorations, and so on. They are only part of the
story. If we really want to know about the past we
need to know - how people lived, what they thought
about themselves and their world, how they solved
their problems, and so on. To do this it's necessary
to study not only the 'superstars' of the age, but
the ordinary people, the men, women and children, old
people, and minority groups - in other words the
social history - the study of society in the past.

We have to be able to ask the relevant questions and listen
not only to the answers, but to the silences as well.
A lot of things for a variety of reasons may not always
be recorded. That's why oral histories do play an important
part. We need to always 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. You need many sides to be able to make a fair
assessment. It's important to know who said what, in order to
be able to detect the bias that author's may have. That goes
for government records and newspaper ones.

Historians can establish that an act took place on a certain
day, but this by historical standards constitutes only
chronology or - 'factology'. The moment the historian begins
to look critically at motivation, circumstances, context, or
any other considerations, the product becomes unacceptable
for one or another camp of readers.

Dearest Foxy,

Yes, of course, most of what you write is incontestable, but really neither here nor there. I've never thought of history as memorising names and dates, although they sometimes are very handy pegs to hang events and forces for social change on. For example, the 1440-1450s: the rapid rise of Portuguese naval technology and exploration at about the same time that the Ottomans captured Constantinople: so the shift from east to west Europe ? From an orientation to Asia by land, to one by sea ?

You commit a slight sleight of hand here: "Historians can establish that an act took place on a certain day, but this by historical standards constitutes only chronology or - 'factology'."

"Only" chronology ? So how would you consider a story which actually CAN'T establish that an act took place, ever, because it is not based on any actual evidence ? It may not be much but I'm sure that if a historian was able to establish that a crucial act took place, something that his fellow-historians had been unaware of, he would be over the moon.

"Factology". Mere "factology". "All 'facts' are mere interpretations of what may have happened, based on 'mere' evidence. "Feh ! Evidence ! Give me belief without evidence !"

So what would you call "factology" without evidence ? Oral history ? Give me naïve 'factology' any day.

Joe

Dear Joe,

I can see that you are reluctant to modify your
judgements concerning oral histories.

Therefore I shall slowly step away from this
discussion.

Cheers.

Dear Loudmouth,

You wrote;

“So to you, Andrew Bolt is an authority ?”

Of course not but I did think he might have some currency with you given you are not unfavourably disposed to the slime ball.

Well perhaps the words of another of your favourites Mr Windshuttle might carry a bit more weight.

“Pilkington was one of Molly’s two daughters. She wrote her work from the stories told by her mother and Daisy about their escape in August 1931 from the Moore River Settlement north of Perth and their three-month, 1600-kilometre cross-country walk back to their families. Pilkington originally trained as a nurse but later studied journalism at Curtin University, where she ob­viously learnt some useful research skills.”

“For her book, Pilkington searched the Western Australian archives and found a number of relevant surviving documents. They allowed her to reconstruct the girls’ removal and escape, both from their own perspective and the viewpoint of the authorities. She found docu­ments about the removal of Molly, aged fourteen, and Gracie, aged eleven, but not any records about the removal of Daisy, aged eight. Pilkington also found telegrams, memos and letters sent by police and welfare officials as they pursued the escapees across the state.”

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/history-wars/2010/03/the-holes-in-the-rabbit-proof-fence/

Windshuttle does not have an issue with the book but rather the film. He obviously believes the escape and journey occurred. Why is it that you do not? Well I think we both know the correct answer to that one but I would like to hear your version.

Hi Steele,

No probs. I think both Bolt and Windschuttle were being careful and diplomatic by recording that somebody had claimed to have documentation about the girls being taken to Moore River. I don't think that has ever been disputed.

As for documentation - " ....telegrams, memos and letters sent by police and welfare officials as they pursued the escapees across the state .... " - I'll suspend my belief until some of it is made available, if any of it exists AND actually relates to the 'escape' and not to the taking into care of the girls.

Readers should check out the "Rabbit Proof Fence" on Google. There were actually a few fences in the North, one running towards the coat, others running out into the desert. Dreadful country. Which were the girls supposed to take ?

You know, we are talking about three young girls walking a thousand miles across extremely harsh country, moon-scape in parts. The police were supposed to be like Keystone Kops, never getting ahead of the girls ? Really ? Even after the first few days ? In the bitter cold of late winter, they survived week after week, until the boiling hot of summer at the other end ?

Perhaps the couple of hundred Rabbit Department employees along the various Fences provided them with shelter, food and water ? And didn't say anything to the local newspaper reporter that night ?

I would love to see a re-enactment of this myth - a group of, say, twenty athletes, each walking a stretch of fifty miles, eighty kilometres, starting out with no food or water. How many do you think might finish their stretch ?

Christ, people die out there. Why do we believe, without evidence, that three little girls can do the impossible ? Aboriginal people are as intelligent and resourceful as anybody else, sure, but they're not supernatural. Sorry, oops, I said it.

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Joe,

Miracles do happen.

Did you watch "60 Minutes," on Sunday, 26th Feb. 2017?

Ross Chapman was fishing alone on his 4.8m boat "Poppa
George," 40 km off the WA coast at about 8.30am.
After catching and releasing a 250kg blue marlin, he
knocked his GOPRO camera into the water and when he
reached down to grab it, he fell into the ocean. The boat
was in gear and moved quickly away from him. He was left
alone in the sea. He at first clung desperately to a
fishing line behind his unmanned boat - but eventually
the line snapped and there he was treading water in shark-
infested waters. He felt like "huge live bait."

He was rescued after six hours treading water in shark-infested
waters.

Anything is possible.

Well, here is an article by Windshuttle refuting much of the details in the movie.
I actually find him to be a good researcher and certainly would trust documentation over oral history any day.
Oral history is notoriously unreliable and reading testimony given in inquiries into land rights claims,you can see how different people from the same area give different versions of events.

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/history-wars/2010/05/holes-in-the-rabbit-proof-fence/

Dearest sweet Foxy,

So are you saying that you would believe anything ?

I have an Opera House, slightly used, good position, close to transport, going for a bargain, could be knocked down and replaced by tram sheds.

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

The following link may be of interest:

http://www.learnnc.org/lp/pages/762

As Steele pointed out to you Windschuttle does
not refute the fact that this event took place.
Why do you?

Dear Big Nana,

It seems you have posted the same link as I did earlier. If you read the posts you will see the argument is not about the accuracy of the movie but rather whether the journey of escape and travelling so many miles to return home even occurred.

Loudmouth thinks it did not. Windshuttle asserts it did. What do you think?

Dear Loudmouth,

You wrote;

“You know, we are talking about three young girls walking a thousand miles across extremely harsh country, moon-scape in parts.”

From Windshuttle's article;

The author “researched the vegetation the girls would have encountered in the various districts they traversed, the land use by white farmers and pastoralists in the early 1930s, the contemporary pattern of tracks, roads and railways (some now long-closed), the animals the girls would have come across at that time of season, and the weather in those months of the year. “

Now I find Windshuttle a particularly sloppy historian who has been shown up time and time again constructing narratives without evidence or holding on to them when countervailing evidence is provided. However you used to think far more highly of him than that. He says he researched the story and found little to fault with the book. Why do you so distrust his endevours? Perhaps in future you should refrain from quoting him.

Hi Big Nana,

I wonder how much of what even Windschuttle accepted - the camel driver, for instance - was actually genuine. Or was it just another part of the story that has developed over the decades ?

It's interesting - as we should all know from watching thousands of crime shows - that when something is supposed to have happened, there should be what you might call ancillary evidence. In this case, not just what relates to the three girls, but to the supposed chase itself: records of the Rabbit Department and its hundreds of staff; police records, re-locations, overtime, accommodation at hotels in towns up along or nearest the Fence; newspaper reports. In a dodgy story, the teller usually overlooks something which should be there, but isn't.

Or vice versa: in the Hindmarsh Island Scam, there was woolly talk about 'the meeting of the waters'. In fact, a book in support of the scammers came out under that name. It sounds so loving and peaceful: 'the meeting of the waters', i.e. the sea and the Murray River. But the scammers forgot two things: river flow and tides. The Murray mouth is, they should have known, notorious for its violence: two tides in each day, two tides out, through a narrow river mouth. Many people have drowned trying to navigate their boats through that mouth. So the 'meting' is actually pretty violent, and where it actually meets - not just near the Goolwa wharf, as claimed - could be anywhere out to sea or up-stream, depending on the strength of the river flow, and on whether it's low or high tide. So that 'meeting' could be ten or twenty kilometres out to sea at low tide, if the river was in flood; or fifty kilometres up the river, at high tide and when the river flow was low.

We don't have to believe without question. Those days are hundreds of years in the past.

Joe

Windshuttle trumps oral history on this one.

This movie spreads to the world a false fabrication of the malintent of our ancestors and their institutions in protecting children, and, by extension, we and our institutions today.

I find this offensive and want it dealt with under 18c.

Big Nana, "Oral history is notoriously unreliable"

As confirmed by the peer-reviewed research by psychologists and others.

What is going on here is rhetoric and politics, not science.

The settlement of Australia is a very recent event in history. The British administrators and bureaucrats prided themselves on their record-keeping and rightly so.

To add, movements obtain huge benefits from claimed martyrs. Martyrs 'prove' terrible wrongs by 'tyrants' and 'fools' (anyone on the other side). The resulting stereotyping takes over and nothing more needs to be said.

It helps that the martyrs of The Rabbit Proof Fence (a powerful image in itself) are girls. Boys wouldn't be anywhere near as good.

The extreme left and the extreme right are always up to their necks in presenting outrageous porkies as fact. It is propaganda. Goes with the totalitarianism of far left and far right.

How real are the "oral histories," of our holy books,
the Bible, the Koran, the Torah? What proof do we have
of the Resurrection, Noah's ark, the Burning Bush,
and other "miracles?"

I wonder whether we can convince all those Left/Right
men/women followers that these things did not happen.
That they're all someone's wrong interpretations and
not facts. What kind of scam were the writers of these
books running?

What about keeping to the subject at hand?

Where the European settlement of Australia is concerned, some are Velcro for anything bad and Teflon where any good is concerned.

You wouldn't like to be like that now would you?

That is why evidence is relevant and necessary.

Given the recent settlement of Australia, the renowned diligence of the administrators and their bureaucrats in keeping records and the NON-existence of documentary proof and archeological evidence. 'Hey, someone said there may be some, somewhere' is not good enough The allegations inherent to the novel are very serious indeed. However, 'The Rabbit Proof Fence' remains a jolly good yarn, a fiction, speculative as to what might have been. That is until proof comes forward, which it has not so far despite heaps of research, including school children's and students' compulsory assignments and reports. Full marks to the author and to the makers of the very entertaining movie.

Wanting it to be true is another thing and can easily result in researcher error.

Actually the 'child in danger in the threatening, dangerous Aussie bush' theme is more 'civilised' urban than country or black. -Black excluding the urban indigenous who like the remaining 98% of Australians are frightened by the loss of city lights and conveniences like Woolies.

An argument could be put and it is time that it was, that 'The Rabbit Proof Fence' is a continuation of the fear of the unfamiliar bush that so upset the early 'civilised' Brits and later migrants too, who lob in Sydney and stay near to Centrelink.

The novel is full of the threats and images of the newbie to Oz, back when. Yet as a child I roamed far and wide in the bush, sometimes along with indigenous and other mates but most often without.

Then there is the long, long journey, to test the heroine (they were ahead of their time, representative of the ballsy heroines to come after womens liberation). No karate and no katana though.

An entertaining story, but more deserving of literary criticism than historical or social analysis.

It is not a fictional masterpiece, but ok for a ride on The Ghan. Some tea?

Dearest Foxy,

Exactly ! Charming stories, the best interpretations of the distant past that people could come up with, but completely fanciful. Mind you, perhaps the priests did all right out of spinning those yarns. Thank you, love always.

Hi Steele,

The Fence (or Fences) is/was (are/were) out on (and usually beyond) the limits of wheat country. That's why they were built back in 1907 or so, to keep rabbits out of wheat country. In Upfield's early novel, "Mr Jelly's Business", set on the Fence at Burracoppin (yes, there is such a town) in about 1931-1932, he meticulously describes the environment. By definition, it's usually hard, marginal country. Your quote gives the impression that it is some sort of Garden of Eden (which, by the way, may not have existed: sorry).

'Animals' ? Did the girls have a knife in the fable ? I know, I know, the girls WERE supernatural, they could run down a kangaroo and cut it open with their bare teeth, no worries. They could live on a teaspoon of water a week too. Tough little varmints. The Chinese Long March ? Bunch of wusses.

Windschuttle wrote of 'documentation' - my bet is that none of it relates to any flight, only to the journey down by boat (not by train like in the film: there still isn't a train from the Pilbara to Perth). I'd dearly love to see it :(

Just one verifiable 'fact', please ! I don't like being out here in the cold, I want to be part of the mob, like you fellas :)

Joe

Dear Joe,

Go back and read the Windschuttle link that Steele
gave you. Read Windschuttle's discussion of the
book and the research the author did and the
evidence she found. You obviously have not read
the link.

Dearest Foxy,

Contrary gto ovderwhelming opinion, I'm not really an idiot. Yes, I did read that link. Yes, I'll frepeat:

"I think both Bolt and Windschuttle were being careful and diplomatic by recording that somebody had claimed to have documentation about the girls being taken to Moore River. I don't think that has ever been disputed.

"As for documentation - " ....telegrams, memos and letters sent by police and welfare officials as they pursued the escapees across the state .... " - I'll suspend my belief until some of it is made available, if any of it exists AND actually relates to the 'escape' and not to the taking into care of the girls."

I'm patient. I'll wait for the relevant documentation to be made public.

Meile visada,

Joe

Dear Joe,

I won't bother you any more after this:

http://journey-and-destination.blogspot.com.au/2016/11/follow-rabbit-proof-fence-by-doris.html

http://www.academia.edu/15509561/An_Analysis_of_Doris_Pilkingtons_Follow_the_Rabbit-Proof_Fence

Thank you, Foxy, for these links. I've got a couple of items on Academia myself, so I didn't think it was so well-known.

But with the deepest respect, neither of those links were any use: they both assumed what needs so desperately to be demonstrated: is there any truth to the RPF story ?

I'll keep waiting :)

Love,

Jo

Dear Foxy,

I know you are finding this disconcerting, after all Loudmouth is a big fan of Windschuttle's historical writing in the past;

“Windschuttle writes exhaustively, thoroughly, citing evidence for each point, I suppose like a lawyer would in court.”

Yet Loudmouth has got it into his head, either through the writings of this so call historian or Bolt or some other Rupert hack, that the story itself is false. He has not a shred of evidence to support himself but that is his rusted on opinion.

I think in the past I have used the term 'willfully ignorant' but I'm not sure it fully describes what we are witnessing here. Loudmouth had taken these news stories and opinion about the movie and determined that the story itself must be false. It is completely fitting his mindset about indigenous issues but also on things like climate change.

He reminds me of this reporter interviewing Bill Nye recently;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKMxmYcfw8Q

Even when it is pointed out to him that the probably sources of his misinformation conclude the story is valid Loudmouth's ideology says NO! He wants someone to turn up at his house and lay the evidence out before him before even contemplating changing his stance.

Of course he exhibits a racist's perspective but it is also something relatively new.

I would be interested in your thoughts.

Hi Joe, I'm sorry for not getting back to you earlier on this. I didn't intend to divert attention from 'Rabbit-Proof Fence' by introducing 'Titanic'. I used 'Titanic' as it is a good example of a short time span historical event which has been well done from both a factual, and an entertainment perspective. I think it is a mistake to confuse the two. For me RPF falls into the entertainment category and I don't criticize it for any lack of historical accuracy.

Some of the basics of the move are true, there was a Mollie, Daisy and Gracie, and there was some kind of event in their lives, so the move at least from there is historically true. I think the producers achieved what they set out to do, and first and foremost that was to make an entertaining movie, there is nothing wrong in that. What else I can I say.

On the score of oral history, go to any court house and you will find judges and juries accepting oral history every day of the week.

First hand accounts are the most reliable, and therefore the most accepted, anything else may be treated as hearsay and not be acceptable. For those peoples who don't have a written history, doesn't mean they don't have a history at all, unfortunately sometimes it is difficult, or impossible, to authenticate that history.

My partner bombards me with oral history of her people all the time. Again can't prove or disprove it, just have to accept it. She claims the old people were charged with the responsibility to faithfully guarding the truth. They took that responsibility very seriously indeed, so its claimed, so it must be true. Such faith.

Hi Steele,

The problem is that there is no corroborating evidence for this amazing story, when there ought to be. No newspaper reports at the time, no mention in the 1000-page transcript at the Moseley Royal Commission in 1934 [available on my web-site: sww.firstsources.info on the WA Page], set up by the Labor Party after winning the 1933 elections, no mention at the Royal Commission or in any writings by Mrs. Mary Bennett, a communist and wonderful woman and champion for Aboriginal rights at the time and until her death in 1961.

And it is an amazing story: think about it, three little girls, setting out in the depths of winter to walk a thousand miles across unfamiliar territory, harsh territory most of the way, to arrive three months later in sweltering heat.

Do you think seriously that nobody - not even the 150 employees of the Rabbit Department working every day to maintain the fence - would have noticed them ? Nobody would have passed on their observations in the local pubs to the local newspaper, who would have sold the story on to the West Australian, a staunchly pro-Labor newspaper at the time ?

Every time we hear a story, we should routinely ask ourselves: what is missing from this story ? What should be there, if we wanted to corroborate it ? What is in the story which doesn't quite ring true ?

So what have we got ? A story, with no independent back-up, except some mysterious 'documentation' relating to the bringing of the girls from the Pilbara down to Moore River Institution. Nothing which can actually verify the story.

Do you think I like being a shag on a rock ? Do you think I wouldn't like to be one of the mob who cheer on the film ? Do you think I wouldn't like to believe without evidence, or question ? Bloody oath, but some accursed little germ in my brain says:

[sorry, there's more]

[continued]

check it out, does it make sense, how could you quickly verify such a charming and tragic story ? Such an amazing story: surely there would be some way to verify it, besides hearsay ?

I've knocked around the Aboriginal cause for more than fifty years now and I've witnessed quite a few scams. What, you think that Aboriginal people are so simple, so childlike, that they are incapable of cooking up stories ? Or at least embroidering stories, filling in the detail as they imagine it might be ? Even unintentionally ? Babies thrown down wells, or massacres: then excavate. Disproportionally too many deaths in custody ? Do the stats. Stolen children ? Check out their ample files. Secret women's business ? Then why no mention for 150 years, and why did some women - just as embedded in the group - not know anything about it ?

Actually doing some work and finding out can be very traumatic. 35 years ago, I did an income study at a community where I had lived, expecting to find high levels of poverty. I found that the average (mean) weekly income there was equal to the Australian average (median) weekly income. I threw in my studies and contemplated suicide (I'd swim out into the middle of the Murray and sink); that certainly was traumatic, since so much of what I believed was riding on it. But it explained lot. I'd probably confused squalor with poverty.

If a cause is just, then any documentation about it must be full, genuine and honest. If not in some particular detail, then that has to be winkled out, exposed and criticised. There can be no real justice through fabrication, dissembling, false stories, or outright lies. The path to genuine justice always bumps over the rocky road of truth.

Cheers,

Joe

To be found guilty of a crime malintent must be established, amongst other things. Where is this established in the RPF story, which claims to be a true story?

Our ancestors and their institutions and, by extension, ourselves, have been hung out to dry on the world stage, without proper evidence, and some people here think that's fine?

No doubt Loudy's research on squalor vs poverty should be ignored in pursuit of the aboriginal cause, while our society is dissed by Pilger et al for the choices made by some to remain living in remote communities on welfare and thin services.

Hi Lucifease,

I'm not suggesting that any crime was committed - perhaps for the tenth time, I have to point out that a story may be untrue, i.e. it didn't actually happen, but its teller may not be 'lying', so much as putting forward a story, embroidered countless times already over the years, honestly believing it themselves, and having no intent to deceive.

On the other hand, yes, there certainly was malintent towards Neville (that nasty man played by Kenneth Branagh) when he probably did nothing like he was accused of doing. Back in the early 1930s, how many people were employed in the 'Native Welfare Department' ? About three, including a clerk in Perth doing the books. Did Neville have so much idle time, in his State of a million square miles of lousy roads, to devise devilishly cunning schemes to needlessly take children from the loving arms of their mothers ? I don't believe so.

No, come to think of it, I don't believe in a Stolen Generation either. Neglected kids taken into care, as every government has the duty to do ? Yeah, sure. For no reason at all ? Now THAT's malintent.

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Steele,

Years ago I undertook to examine the details of
the Holocaust in Lithuania. I came across the
writing of the former Lithuanian Ambassador to
the United States and recently the Lithuanian Foreign
Ministry's Ambassador for Special Missions - Alfonsas
Eidintas, a historian by training, who had considerable
experience in examining the details of the Holocaust in
Lithuania. He had undertaken to document the evolution
of Lithuanian memory and thought about the Holocaust.
The end result was a book he published in 2001.

In his introduction Eidintas also delved extensively into
the prehistory of the attitudes or mentality of Lithuanians
toward the Jewish minority that lived among them for centuries.

Eidintas writes that the subject of the Holocaust in
Lithuania exemplifies the arguments of those who
insist that there is no such thing as "objective
history." In discussing the Holocaust one camp
may call for uncompromising indictment of all
deemed guilty, while another, if not denying the guilt
may argue extenuating circumstances from temporary
insanity through provocation.

Eidintas learned that survivors and victims' relatives are
usually more interested in condemnation and punishment
than in explanation. Explanations seem tantamount to
sympathizing and excusing. The determination to write
indictments in mass killings, however, all too easily leads
onto the questionable practice of stereotyping.
In 1941 Jews died as the victims of the stereotypes that
cast them as Communists and Jewish survivors carried
stereotypes of their oppressors with them.

Over time the survivors have shown themselves reluctant to
modify their judgements. Continued stereotyping of course
leads to counter-stereotyping and the result is usually
a complete breakdown in communication.

I think we have a similar problem here in this discussion.
I'm not sure if I've expressed things well in this post
but I hope that you will understand what I am trying to say.
People have their reasons for what they will or will not
accept. Some prefer a more cleaner version of their
country's history and will be in denial or refuse to
accept anything derogatory being presented.

Deareat Foxy,

You wrote:

"People have their reasons for what they will or will not accept. Some prefer a more cleaner version of their country's history and will be in denial or refuse to accept anything derogatory being presented."

Yes, indeed, and vice versa. So how do you tell the difference ? How can anyone make a judgment about, in this case, whether or not three little girls walked a thousand miles over hard country, pursued by police, Rabbit Department men, nasty Mr Neville etc. ?

By holding back one's belief until something concrete turns up. Evidence. Something checkable. By not being such a mug as to believe every story one hears.

Actually there is one possible source which might demonstrate the truth, one way or the other: Neville's diaries, journals, and his letters. Presumably, if this had all occurred, then he would have written to his Minister, and maybe to the Police, about it. He would have got letters from the Superintendent at Moore River and replied to him. He would have invoices for accommodation at hotels along the way, for petrol, all those humdrum sorts of things.

So there's an easy research project for someone in Perth :)

I still think of myself as being on the Left. I WANT to hear about what a total bastard Neville was, and that all other Protectors were no better. But I'm cursed with a respect for the truth, as substantiated by evidence, evidence of any sort, not just stories. I DON'T want to know that Neville always did the right thing, that he was a good, hard-working man, much loved by many Aboriginal people.

Love always,

Joe

Just to clarify, Joe, I was talking about the supposed crime of white society via its servant Neville.

It is an interesting problem where people with a political bias, in this case left - which apparently requires belief in 'The Stolen Children' - would more avidly maintain and defend that belief after being shown evidence to the contrary. Which would include that there is no robust, reliable evidence to support their belief, ie., 'The Rabbit Proof Fence'.

It is a fable.

But rather than admit that, along comes the dog whistler, whose call is answered (yet again one suspects) and the messenger is mobbed and trashed.

Loudmouth (Joe),
I admire your polite and respectful persistence.
You would of course be aware of this research, the 'Backfire Effect',

"When Corrections Fail:
The persistence of political misperceptions"
Brendan Nyhan
University of Michigan
and
Jason Reifler
Georgia State University

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/nyhan-reifler.pdf

Hi Leoj,

Thanks, that's quite a valuable article. Leon Festinger, back in the fifties inhis work on 'cognitive dissonance', did a study of a religious sect which believed the end of the world was imminent. After it didn't come, he found that the adherents, instead of dropping their beliefs or even modifying them (oh, well, maybe it's next year), doubled down, as they say, and believed even more fervently.

It helps in those situations if one does not need a scrap of solid evidence to keep believing. That raises the inconvenient possibility that belief in Narratives may have a religious tinge to them, or at least a belief in the existence of devils, constantly thwarting good.

Yes, mark Twain was wickedly perceptive so often: "“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

Evidence. Evidence of the RPF story. Evidence of a stolen generation. Any evidence would be handy. Not stories, not yarns, not flights of fancy or of maybes. Evidence.

I crave to believe in a Cause, one based on truth and integrity. This ain't it.

Thanks again.

Joe

Dear Steele,

Here are a few links that I think speak for themselves:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-18/manne-name10-a-journey-through-the-journalism-of-andrew-bolt/3577

http://www.theage.com.au/news/robert-manne/the-cruelty-of-denial/2006/09/08/1157222325367.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-02-15/37108

cont'd ...

Dear Steele,

Oooops, sorry for the typo.

Here's the first link again:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-18/manne-name-10-a-journey-through-the-journalism-of-andrew-bolt/3577

Dearest Foxy,

I'm far more modest than Bolt. I would be grateful if someone could point out ONE person who was 'Stolen'. Just one. Well, apart from Bruce Trevorrow, of course.

No rush.

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

You want the name of just one person who was stolen?

OK. How about Margaret Tucker.

I've got a copy of her book "If Everyone Cared."

Perhaps it would do you some good to read it.
I would recommend you getting hold of a copy.

http://koorihistory.com/if-everyone-cared-margaret-tucker/

Then there's also John Kundereri Moriarty.

This will do for now.

Dearest Foxy,

Yes, I remember her, a lovely lady. I loved her in the last episode of "Women of the Sun".

Do you mean that she had to go out and work at fifteen, after being trained as a domestic - that that was what made her 'Stolen' ?

My wife went out to work as a domestic at fifteen, in 1964. Everybody could leave school at fifteen in those days. My grand-dad started work at nine, my grandmother at twelve, my mum at fourteen.

Is that it ?

Love,

Joe

Joe,

I can see that you're not really taking any of this
seriously so I shan't waste any more of my time.
Suffice to say that as someone who supplosedly has studied
Aboriginal history I am surprised that you are not
familiar with Margaret Tucker and her background.
She was one of the many Aboriginal children forcibly
separated from their parents. In her case, at the age
of 12. police took her from her mother at Moonaheulla
Mission, near Deniliquin.

I find your flippancy rather offensive to say the least.

Thank you for the links particularly the Robert Manne one. He really does hit the nail on the head.

The conversation with Loudmouth is certainly emblematic of this malaise. Note the victimhood claims which are so typical of the mindset.

“Just one verifiable 'fact', please ! I don't like being out here in the cold, I want to be part of the mob, like you fellas.”

This is despite the the majority of posters in this thread are taking his side.

Here ia a 1930's picture of the children interned at Moore River in the 30s. Quite confronting. No wonder there were so many escape attempts. Of course if you escaped more than once both boys and girls were sent to prison instead which must have been terrifying for these youngsters.
http://www.slwa.wa.gov.au/images/pd226/226,017PD.jpg

“Children in the barred dormitories slept two and three to a bed on bug-infested mattresses of coconut straw, frequently soaked with urine. The diet consisted of sour bread and fat, watery stew and unsugared black tea. There were no toilets and only a few buckets, so many used sinks and toilet floors (which were covered with sand for the purpose).”
http://thealtitudejournal.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/43.pdf

Dear Loudmouth,

Why are you asking “I would be grateful if someone could point out ONE person who was 'Stolen'. Just one.”?

Are you saying the children who were taken from their mother in this case were not stolen from her? Okay mate, you had better give us your definition of stolen then.

Hi Foxy,

A few snippets of the times in which these girls were living.

“In a certain district in the Kimberley a half-cast was shot dead by a white man, allegedly in self-defence. The jury of three local residents at the inquest returned a verdict of accidental death at the hands of the accused in a scrimmage in which the victim was the aggressor. Consequently upon the Department's own inquiries into the matter steps were taken to prevent the white man concerned from again having anything to with the working of native labour, and the persons mostly concerned in that regard were warned accordingly.”

“A native was badly assaulted in Kimberley by a white man against whom there were other previous complaints, including the wilful murder of a native, of which he had been acquitted at Wyndham. The offender quickly disposed of his property and quitted the state before action could be taken against him.”

“Proceedings were taken against the part owner of a station in the East Murchison district and convictions secured for the supply of liquor to aborigines. Although there were 6 quarter-caste children on this property alleged to be fathered by the white man in question, the case against him under Section 43 of the Aborigines Act was not successful. In this instance the whole of the natives were removed from the station, which was after the trial granted permit to employ only single men.”

“In January last it was decided to investigate reports concerning the alleged murder of natives in the vicinity of Rawlinson Ranges. A police party left in March to investigate matters but although the inquiry was very thorough sufficient evidence could not be obtained justifying action being taken against anyone.”

When you sit down and look between the lines of all these incidences it makes for confronting reading. All this was in the mid 30s.

Tiny audiences but still drawing a crowd to this day. All because there was no conclusion to the story. People are in two minds if it was fiction or fact. A very clever piece of work.

Dearest Foxy,

A bit of a high horse :) I honestly don't know what you mean by 'flippant': I meant every word.

It's 'Moonahculla'.

I liked this bit from Margaret Tucker's book, on page 15: her mother and aunts worked on a farm, and ' .... when my mother and her younger sisters got sick of the farm work, they ran away to a neighbouring Aboriginal Reserve, Warangesda .... " And who was the farmer they were working for ? Her mother's father, i.e. her Aboriginal father.

And this (page 29): "The missionaries were very kind, when you think that life for them was pretty rough too."

By the way, in those days, kids - even in the cities - could leave school at twelve. In the country, if they were on a farm more than a few miles from a school, they didn't have to go to school at all.

Margaret Tucker was perhaps fifteen, (see pp. 17 & 91) when she went to Cootamundra Girls' Home, the one with the swimming pool.

Hi Steele,

Glad to. My very broad definition of 'stolen' would involve children who were taken but who were NOT neglected, or orphaned, or - after their mother had died - whose father was unable, for work or other reasons, to care for them, or - after their father had died and mother remarried - whose family circumstances (especially of young girls) made it very difficult or impossible for them to stay in the home.

So what's your definition, now that you've raised the issue ?

Whether or not parents willingly sent their children to schools on missions and government stations can be checked from various records, if one had the patience.

Anything else ?

So let me ask you: why do you believe the RPF story, when you have not a single bit of evidence to back it up ? If you do have, let us know it and put us out of our misery. Do you usually believe without question ? Isn't that a sort of religious approach, Steele ?

Joe

Hi Foxy and Steele,

No matter what evidence you provide, extremists with an alternate agenda will simply dismiss it as unacceptable, inappropriate nonsense. When those of the extreme right can deny the Holocaust occurred, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, how do you expect others with a similar mindset towards Aboriginal people accept anything detrimental to the cause of white supremacy. It ain't going to happen! Shameful things happened to Aboriginal people, and still do, we know that. That is enough evidence.

Thanks to you both for trying.

Hi Paul,

Your reflection, that: "No matter what evidence you provide ...." may need some elaboration: what evidence do you mean ?

I fully agree with you, that "Shameful things happened to Aboriginal people .... " But you may need to fill out your conclusion: "That is enough evidence."

Well, no, it isn't. No evidence is, however you cut it, no evidence.

By definition, racists and bigots are happy to run off at the mouth with no evidence to back up their vile declarations, which commonly malign innocent and good people. I hope you are not anything like that, Paul :(

So my puzzlement still is: why do people so fervently believe something for which there is absolutely no evidence ? And, to boot, a story which is amazing, unbelievably heroic, and probably physically impossible. Where is the evidence that should be there, IF this story were true ? Documentation, newspaper reports, complaints by Mrs. Bennett, letters to and fro, etc. etc. ? Why is it 'missing' ?

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

Where does the crime of being half-caste fit into your definition since this was singularly the most often used reason for stealing children from their families?

Does your failure to mention it show a scant appreciation for the policies and actions that drove the removal of so many children? Or do you see it as a valid default reason for tearing children from their mothers?

As to why I believe the tale of the children escaping the Moore River settlement is not only the testimony of those who did the walk but also the journalistic training of the author, her obvious regard for documentation, and her acknowledged research skills. Add to that her work was researched by a person very antogonistic toward Stolen Generation accounts but who found little to fault in her work. Given the above my default position is to accept and celebrate the account until proven otherwise. To me this is the logical thing to do.

Someone like yourself is determined to dismiss it for your own reasons but they have little to do with logic although you attempt to dress them up as such. For instance you ask why there were no newspaper reports. Perhaps there were but logic dictates it would entirely unlikely their families would be announcing to the world that their children had returned because they would face immediate recapture and possible prison sentences.

Look mate, you are certainly more reasonable than many on this forum but I recognise this is a blind spot for you. That's fine, I have them on other issues myself, but don't expect not to be called out on them.

Trust Paul1405, the claimed adoring 'good mate' of the CFMEU and the NSW Greens 'Eastern Bloc', to step in and try to poison the well against anyone who quite politely and reasonably asks what evidence there is for the far leftist religious martyrdom of the characters of the fictional novel, 'The Rabbit Proof Fence'.

It was clever getting it on the schools curriculums. That it is the subject for historical and social criticism MUST mean there is some truth in it. Typical left to aim at vulnerable young, developing minds.

The revolutionary left, an example being the far left Greens, likes to imagine it can win through demonisation, polarisation and through censorship, even of innocent questions.

That is where, for example, Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act comes in to threaten and cause journalists and the public to self-censor, lest their words (and thoughts!) “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone because of their race or ethnicity.

The environment of politically correct propaganda, intolerance, censorship, and demonisation of any opposing views being promoted by the ideologically preening left elite, their bully boy and girl sycophants in the media and by opportunist, egocentric politicians like Willie Shorten, can and does lead to more authoritarianism and more extremists, both left and right. That is not good for society.

In the US the centre left has thrown in the towel to the far left, who are undemocratically refusing to accept the result of the US election. All of those celebrities must be right, so don't think, just abuse and demonise. Heaven knows what manner and number of extremists, far left and far right (in opposition), are being fostered, only to emerge later through some horrendous personal-political stunt.

It is time that the illiberal left 'progressives', who are rapidly earning their nick as 'regressives' woke up to themselves. Even if only because it isn't serving their own political interests. In the US for example, Trump grows stronger because of wild, unreasoning, ranting left ideologues. In Australia, by comparison with left ideologies, One Nation are the honest brokers, reasonable and the political centre.

Dear foxy,

This is from a newspaper report the following year after the girls made their escape;

The increasing number of escapes
from the Moore River native settlement
is referred to by the Chief Protector of
Aborigines (Mr. A. O. Neville) as a
matter for concern. In his annual re
port Mr. Neville says that ten male and
eighteen female aborigines decamped
during the year.
"These were practically all adolescent
youths and girls, some of the girls being
enticed away by outside young men of
their own class," says Mr. Neville. "By
thus decamping the majority of these es-
capees committed breaches against the
Act and regulations, and rendered them-
selves liable to imprisonment. I do not
like to see these youngsters sent to
prison for running away, and it is very
rarely that a girl goes there unless the
offence is repeated more than once, but
this is a problem which is extremely
difficult to deal with.

The thought of these youngsters trying to make their way back to their families and country is sobering. It is not hard to imagine that most did not succeed but many obviously attempted to do so. I think of my kids at that age and wonder how totally lost they would feel.

SteeleRedux,

Was it anything like this, where the sources and documentary proof are available for all to scrutinise?

"Forgotten Australians are the estimated 500,000 children and child migrants who experienced care in institutions or outside a home setting in Australia during the 20th century. The Australian Senate used the term specifically when reporting on its 2003–2004 "Inquiry into Children in Institutional Care".
Children ended up in out-of-home care for a variety of reasons, mainly relating to poverty and family breakdown at a time when there was little support for families in crisis.

Residential institutions run by government and non-government organisations were the standard form of out-of-home care during the first half of the 20th century. Children in institutions were sometimes placed in foster homes for short periods, weekends or during holiday periods. There was a move towards smaller group care from the 1950s and a move away from institutional care to kinship and foster care from the 1970s.

Many of these children suffered from neglect and were abused physically, emotionally or sexually while in care."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgotten_Australians

Maybe call them the 'Invisibles', who are never to be seen or recognised by leftist ideologues. Doesn't suit the politics, eh?

SteeleRedux, I won't comment on the movie but I will address your comment about children being removed just because they were half caste.
That is not correct. If it were correct then the Welfare Dept would have primarily taken the most available half caste children, those who resided in towns, right under the noses of police and Welfare Officers. But they didn't. My half caste husband, his siblings and thousands of other half caste children all grew up in the towns of the Kimberley, attended school, played sport and generally made themselves very conspicuous, yet were never even threatened with removal. If you study government policy at that time you will understand why. Apart from the aboriginal reserve, any aboriginal person who moved into a town had to have a job, which meant all the children had working fathers, sometimes mothers as well, and all children were cared for and educated.
As it is, the children taken were almost always children from remote areas like cattle
stations, who had no father present and mothers with no means of support. Many were pubescent girls,who were sexually active with the white stockmen others were outcaste because of their fair skin. Many of the fair skinned babies had been killed at birth because they were born outside their correct skin group.
The government policy at the time was to not interfere with full blood children as it was felt full bloods should not have their culture interfered with but the half caste children were different because they had white fathers and the government decided that if those white fathers wouldn't take responsibility for their offspring, then the government was obliged to, just as it did with neglected white children.
On a final note, the argument that those removed children should have been left to live with their culture is a fallacy, because most were more white than black, so their dominant culture was European, and as such, they had every right to be raised in that culture.

Dear Steele,

Thank You for your posts and cited references.

To study the past properly it's usually best to go back
to what we call 'primary sources'. 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.

Of course we need to remember history books are written by
human beings. Their words also cannot be taken completely
as 'gospel'. We need to ask questions all the time.
Therefore, just as with primary sources, we need to consult
as many historical records, not only books, but oral
histories, and other evidence to get a really fair picture of
the past. It is necessary to question the objectivity of
what we study (to make it fair to all sides) but we must be
able to use the different theories put forward.

We need to study not only what is in the history books but
also what has been at times left out.

Growing up and studying history I'm sure that quite a few
of us found that in text books that were supposed to report
the history of Australia they started off with the
European exploration of the Pacific Ocean and one could not
help but notice that a significant group, the original
Australians, the Aborigines, were overlooked.

Naturally, no history book can cover everything that happened
in the past, so most of us found that the best thing to do was
to try to find source material that gave us the information
required. Regarding the Stolen Generations - there's enough
accounts of the various government and institutional
policies, agencies, people's accounts, of those times on record
to be able to capture that past history.

There's not much more that I can add to this discussion.
I look forward to further discussions with you on another
topic.

Have a nice day.

Platitudes where what is so desperately needed is the humility to admit that the left does not hold the leasehold and copyright to the truth.

That is the problem with the illiberal, totalitarian left, 'I am going to impose my truth on events and on you' by re-writing history and by restrictions on free speech. -Which is where the obnoxious s18C comes into play, as some unfortunate QUT students would attest after Triggs (HRC) gagged them and tried ruin their careers and lives.

Although far smaller in number and effect, the far right is the same. Two sides of the same coin.

The posts of Big Nana and Loudmouth are breaths of free air, reassuring me that out there in the maelstrom of political spin there remain pillars of reason and good sense who say in effect, 'Hey, it is ok for you to have your belief systems, but if you try to impose them on others, confidently expect to be challenged for evidence'.

Just think, it only takes a smidgen of humility to benefit from that.

Steele,

If you think being 'half-caste' is or was a crime, you really are an idiot. Where do these ridiculous ideas come from ? Out of someone's arse ?

Ah, I see: you think that there was some sort of policy of 'stealing' 'half-caste children ? No, there was a policy, of taking neglected children into care, and 'full-bloods' tended to have stronger group structure and so someone was usually around to take care of the kids, AND governments were careful not to break down traditional culture.

It's striking that in the early days in SA, 'half-castes' tended to have far fewer social options, fewer potential carers, and more dangers, particularly for young women. My wife's gr-grandmother was what you would call 'quarter-caste', but luckily closely related to some powerful people in the group, AND was married off very young to a very active, strong man, a 'half-caste' raised in Goolwa, who had been earlier employed to work for the Protector. None of their kids were ever taken off them, come to think of it; none of their grandkids; none of my wife's many siblings.

So such a bullshirt excuse certainly wasn't used in those families, or any other that I know of. Yes, I know of many kids who were taken into care because their father had died, or their mother had died, or one or both parents were boozers. [Am I allowed to say that some Indigenous people can be boozers ?] Almost all came back after a few months, or a couple of years at the most. I know one bloke who must have been utterly useless as a parent, and sure enough .... His sister had been pretty useless as a mother too, AND their father, AND his mother AND her mother. [Wow, that's going back to the 1850s]. Yes, often it IS inter-generational, inter-generational incompetence.

Evidence ? Documentation ? i.e. relevant documentation ? Or will any story do ? Maybe after Foxy buys the Opera House off of me, I can sell it to you too ?

One born every minute.

Joe

Hi Steele again,

Newspaper reports: the website Trove has photostated every article in every Australian newspaper boing back to at least the 1830s. Not one was about any escape along the Rabbit Fence, not even in the West Australian. No mention. Nada. Dipote.

So what have you got ? Nothing. Not a scrap of evidence, only passion, gullibility (not that gullibility is always a crime, some of my former best friends are completely gullible) and the standard Narrative. Yes, I'm blind when it comes to nothing: I can't see 'nothing', as you clearly can.

Young girls escaping from Moore River ? Yes, indeed, and where to ? Perth. Fremantle. The bright lights. Your point is ? My god, it's true, that a little learning is a dangerous thing .....

Please take the time to find someone who can explain Big Nana's post to you. If possible, read it to yourself, a couple of times. Try to learn from one who has seen everything you have, a hundred times over. Be humble, Steele, learn from others.

Oh well, I tried.

Dear Foxy,

Thanks for your primary school lesson: "What is History ?" I hope Steele got something out of it.

Earlier you mentioned John Moriarty, who we knew well in the early seventies. He, like all other white and half-caste kids, were brought down from the top end of the NT for their safety after Japan bombed Darwin. Most of those kids, housed in Sydney and Adelaide, did not get back to their home communities until swell after the War, some not until about 1954. By 1950-1952 or so, as a bright young kid, John was ready for secondary school, so he stayed in Adelaide and finished that, then went on to a soccer career. So what was your point ?

'Stolen Generation' ? Just one example, please.

Love,

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

If you are going to spout nonsense you really do need to hedge your bets a little.

Here are some extracts from the 1935 Western Australian Royal Commissioner who was appointed to Investigate, Report and Advise Upon matters in relation to the Condition and Treatment of Aborigines. The investigation was sparked by the numerous complains about the treatment of full and half-cast aborigines and the practice of removing half-cast children, particularly those living in the camps.

“At first sight it would seem desirable that, for the future welfare of the half-caste or person of lighter colour, the native camps should only contain full blood aborigines. As I have already observed, there is a duty on the community to see that half-castes are placed in surroundings and given a training which will fit them later to take their place, if necessary, in a white civilisation. An easy method from one point of view would be to remove them when young from the influence of the aboriginal and form settlements at which, on similar lines to those applied in the case of orphaned white children, they might receive the training above referred to. That method however, does not appear practical for application to all half-castes. The great objection in many cases is that they have parents, and there is beyond doubt in the native woman a great love for her child, whether that child's father be black or white.”

He later relates “At one school only in the Great Southern district I saw half-cast children attending the state school; they were, considering their surroundings in the camp, clean and tidy in appearance and, up to a certain age, the white children mixed happily with them. The head teacher told me, however, that from the age of about 10 to 12, particularly in the case of girls. The other children would have nothing to do with them; they were left alone in the playground...”
http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/intranet/libpages.nsf/WebFiles/Royal+Commissions+-+Royal+Commission+Appointed+to+Investigate,+Report+and+Advise+Upon+Matters+in+Relation+to+the+Condition+and+Treatment+of+Aborigines/$FILE/Royal+Commission+Appointed+to+Investigate,+Report+and+Advise+Upon+Matters+in+Relation+to+the+Condition+and+Treatment+of+Aborigines.pdf

Cont..

Cont..

He was actually ahead of his time in some ways. In other not so much.

He goes on to talk about the horrific conditions at Moore River, about the 'boobie' into which young escapees and other miscreants were kept in practically airless isolation for up to a fortnight and other deplorable living conditions.

But his attitudes to intermarrying were plain to see;

“But it is encouraging to hear from Doctor Bryan that miscegenation has practically ceased in the United States, partially because of the stringent laws against it, but chiefly because of the public attitude against cohabitation of the white and blacks. And in this State I am inclined to think that more can be done by public opinion than by laws. I have advocated the amending of the existing legislation and the drastic administration of the law, but it is one thing to know the practice is going on – it is very often quite a different thing to prove it to the satisfaction of the court.”

There is little doubt his mind and those of people like Neville half-castes were the product of criminal liaison.

As to the story of the girls you now seem to accept they may well have escaped the deplorable conditions of Moore River but imply they saunered off to Perth nearly 150kms away. What proof do you have? And why are we revisiting your notion that their walk would have been splashed all over the newspapers when to have done so would have seen them immediately returned to those dreadful conditions.

What we do have is the direct testimony of two of the girls who made the trek, the research of someone trained in journalism, supporting documents, and the appraisal by one of your heroes. You sir have given scant reasons why they shouldn't be believed.

Finally please cease asking to be given an example of a stolen child. I answered but your warped perspective refused to accept it and every other example will be given the same treatment so just don't bother.

Dear Big Nana,

I'm sorry I haven't had the time to give your post more fulsome attention though I do feel some of the citations in my answers to Loudmouth might address some of what you have contended.

I will ask one thing though;

You wrote;

“On a final note, the argument that those removed children should have been left to live with their culture is a fallacy, because most were more white than black, so their dominant culture was European, and as such, they had every right to be raised in that culture.”

Please think about that for a moment. In the previous sentence you were keen to paint these as fatherless kids being raised by their Aboriginal mothers and yet you claim their dominate culture was European. So if an aboriginal woman gives birth to a half-caste child is her culture suddenly dissipated?

Hi Steele,

The Moseley Royal Commission, yes, I transcribed it all word for word, indexed it, and put it on my web-site: www.firstsources.info on the WA Page. Nice to read it again. Why do you assume that nobody has read what you have just discovered ? A little learning ......

So what is your point ? That somebody had a certain point of view about casual liaisons ? Was it translated into legislation ? No ? Then, what ? How is this relevant to the RPF myth ? Check out that Royal Commission transcript again, Steele: is here a word about the RPF story ? No ? Nothing from a single witness. [You may find it easier to use the Index to it on my web-site].Why's that ?

Do Neville of 'Doctor Bryan' use the term 'criminal liaison' ? No ? What were they worried about then ? Clearly, they were concerned to minimise the number of young children without any family support - don't forget that back in those days, (and until about 1971), there were no financial supports for single mothers and even for deserted wives - those children would have to be supported by the State, as one of its fiduciary duties. Me and my brother and sister were some of those kids; I don't know how on earth our mum supported us for a couple of years. I remember staying in a playground next to the tinware factory where she worked; she would come out every break to check on us. Somehow we weren't spotted by the policed. I think that lasted only a couple of days.

No, different girls, 16- and 17-year-olds, heading off to Fremantle and the good life, not 9-year-olds and 12-year-olds. As for Neville's concern about those girls' behaviour, see the last paragraph.

No, none of your 'sources' are conclusive. Not even Windschuttle, in his comments on the methodology used by Pilkington. Read them again more carefully.

No, you haven't given me the case of any 'stolen child' as far as I remember. Foxy tried, but not you. Any suggestions ?

Joe

Dear Steele,

Perhaps you could suggest to Joe to try the following:

(I don't have the will or the patience).

http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/politics/a-guide-to-australias-stolen-generations#toc0

http://www.creativestories.info/aboriginalculture/politics/stolen-generations-stories

http://stolenchildrensstories.blogspot.com.au

cont'd ...

My apologies, let me try again:

http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/politics/stolen-generations-stories

http://www.australianhumanitarianreview.org/archive/Issue-February-1998/bird.html

cont'd ...

Dear Steele,

Google the names of Belinda Dann, Joyce Injie, Maree Lawrence,
Bill Simon just for a start. On the law of averages are they all
lying?

Dear Foxy,

Thank you. If Loudmouth can't accept the obvious, that Molly and her cousins were stolen, then there is little to be gained by placing anyone else in front of him. Don't worry though, things are bubbling along nicely.

Dear Loudmouth,

You are now embarrassing yourself. You are now asking why the PRF story was not in the Commissioner's documents. This is just another version of something you have asked twice before and given a perfectly logical answer. Why are you still persisting? Are you inebriated?

You wrote;

“Why do you assume that nobody has read what you have just discovered ?”

Where on earth have I given that impression? Please don't make things up. I had actually expected you to recognise some earlier quotes which is why I didn't attribute them. Would you like to guess where they are from?

Now most of us have a tale to tell from our past. My mother was widowed and also told that she was possibly going to lose us five children to social services before she managed to secure two days work in a local nursing home. Tough times indeed.

However there was a single man with the power of guardianship of every aboriginal and half-caste child to the exclusion of the rights of the mother of an illegitimate half-cast child. This power was extended after the Royal Commission to include all aboriginal children until the age of 21 'notwithstanding that the child has a parent'.

You wrote;

“So what is your point ? That somebody had a certain point of view about casual liaisons ? Was it translated into legislation ? No ?”

It seems transcription has little to do with comprehension. I am going to give you the opportunity to take that back. How about you examine your position tomorrow after the sherry wears off.

The central character for the government who administered the law in Western Australia at thst time was the long servicing Commissioner for Native Affairs A.O. Neville who was appointed Chief Protector of Aborigines for the state in 1915. Neville remained in control until 1940.
According to Warwick Anderson, in his book 'The Cultivation of Whiteness:Science, Health and Racial Destiny', Neville is reported to have said in 1937:

"Are we going to have one million blacks in the Commonwealth or are we going to merge them into our white community and eventually forget that there were any Aborigines in Australia?"

Given Neville had the autonomous authority to administer the law as he seen fit, and given his stated attitude on the removal of children, Moseley Royal Commission 1934;

"they (Aboriginal people) have to be protected against themselves whether they like it or not. They cannot remain as they are. The sore spot requires the application of the surgeon's knife for the good of the patient, and probably against the patient's will."

As Neville had both the desire and the means to remove children, there is no doubt in my mind that children were removed against both their's and there parents will.

Neville believed he was acting for the good of these children, and at that time his thinking was not contrary to the general white opinion. Such thinking would not be acceptable today, but certainly was in the 1930's.

Dear Steele, and Paul,

There's an interesting link that covers a good range
of issues from :

1) Free Stolen Generation Resources (worth looking at)
as it provides further documented evidence that is available.

2) Denying history - covering the "not stolen, but
rescued topic".

3) The "white stolen generations."

4) Stolen generations in other countries.

And so on.

It's worth a read.

http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/politics/a-guide-to-australias-stolen-generations#toc6

Hi Steele,

A nice little Clare Valley Temperanillo, actually. Mmmmm, still a bit left.

Stolen ? All you or anybody else has to do is get hold of the Departmental files and check them out. Let me know what you find. What, you thought there wouldn't be any paper-work ? One thing about Aboriginal affairs everywhere is that there are mountains of paper-work. My wife could easily find far more documentation about her family and everybody else in her community than I could find out about mine. Birth, death, marriage, school records, and probably oodles of police records, hospital records, etc.

That was the big mistake that the scammers in the Hindmarsh Island case made: they were oblivious to records (true, they really were), and thought that they could make up whatever they liked and nobody could check. Sorry, ladies. Birth and marriage records clearly set out who was, and who wasn't, descended from Ngarrindjeri mothers, and grandmothers, etc., who were supposed to have passed down secrets, mother to daughgter. But a very high proportion of women, like anywhere else, had a mother/grandmother/ etc. who wasn't, and therefore couldn't have passed on any of those 'secrets'. So when, the scam was put together on Friday, May 10, 1994, at the Mouth house on Hindmarsh Island, they thought they had a free hand. Sorry.

When people cook up a scam, they really do need to do a lot of research, to brainstorm, to make sure that there aren't any holes in their story. Otherwise, anybody else can do the research and see them coming. During that controversy, I was constantly reminded of a group of burglars stealthily approaching a house to rob it - but a team of coppers, with night-scopes, in position, watching them.

And lying gets so complicated. It needs a very good memory.

[wait, there's more]

[continued]

What really pissed me off about that scam ? When one woman started slagging one of the dissident women, calling her a 'woman of the streets'. Clearly she pitched her outrage at the gullible white audience, since the old lady was her mother's sister. I was disgusted that someone could attack her auntie just to scare them into keeping quiet, and just to suck up to a white audience.

Hi Paul,

A slight sleight of hand there. Neville expressed those views at the1937 Conference (transcript available on my web-site: www. firstsources.info , on the Conferences page). But no, his word, or hope, was not law. No, he didn't have the legal means to take children willy-nilly. No, I suspect that was never the case anywhere. Find the records and prove otherwise. Or, of course, keep believing without question :)

As for his 'desire' to take children from northern cattle stations: his rationale, right or wrong, was that - since some of those stations were huge, like villages - the children of Aboriginal women, paler each generation, were likely to be condemned to stay on those stations, with no school, and no matter how pale they might be. If they were girls, it was pretty much certain that they would be sexually abused and, in turn, produce another generation of paler girls. From photos of the girls when they were elderly, they seemed pale, under their Pilbara tans.

We forget that, by the 1930s, four or even five generations might have passed of Aboriginal women having relations with white men on those stations, kids getting paler every generation; as Neville says, many children would have been indistinguishable from white kids, and yet, because they were counted as Aboriginal, they were condemned never to get schooling, etc., and to stay on the station; and in turn, girls would .....

Of course, there could have been other ways to improve conditions: mandate schools on stations, for instance; require station hands to contemplate marriage, or at least acknowledge parenthood and pay maintenance for their kids' education.

[even more to come ... ]

[continued]

After Neville retired in 1940, he helped to set up the Coolbaroo Club, for mixed-race' people in Perth; it did wonderful work in helping Aboriginal people in the city come together, socialise and marry. I think there would be a video about it, so you can check it out. So, while Neville's suggestion that those people might marry non-Aboriginal people only partly came to fruition, an Indigenous urban, working - and eventually educated - class rose up. Thanks partly to Neville.

Get stuck in :)

Anyway, back to topic ....... Just one bit of documentation which indicated that yes, there were coppers out on the Fence looking for girls, might do it. Just one.

That raises another issue: were the cops so dopey that they didn't decide to get up in front of the girls, say fifty miles, and just sit and wait ? Probably with blankets, food and water. Gosh, I wonder if there could be any documentation about that. Police overtime, Hotel records. Bills sent from the Police Department to the Native Welfare Department. Mentions in parliament, now in Hansard (so easily checkable, in every main WA library). Wouldn't it be nice to find mention of this amazing journey in Hansard ?

Think, with both your heart AND your head.

Cheers,

Joe

SteeleRedux, in response to your comment about rights to culture, firstly, the small children removed wouldn't have known much about culture, but they did know about hunger, pain and abuse. That's not to say all aboriginal mothers were abusive, in fact most of them loved their babies greatly, but the fact remains that fair skinned babies were not generally wanted in a tribe and were frequently killed at birth. My husband used to tell me a story about how black women would try and deceive their husbands when they produced a light skinned child. They would tell him that the fair skin was the result of them eating too much white mans flour! So, those children didn't know culture and had the right to know their fathers culture.
As for the older ones, almost always girls felt to be at risk of sexual exploitation, well, to say they had no right to know their dominant culture is like telling an aboriginal child raised in a white home that they have no right to get to know their aboriginal culture.
The fact is, most of the older, teenage kids weren't removed as such, they were put into apprenticeships in work that they could find employment in when older, if they didn't want to return to their community. And in fact, most didn't return, they remained in towns and cities, whilst still keeping in contact with their bush family.
You need to look at this in context of the wider community. Single white girls had their newborn babies taken from them, in far greater number than black ones ever were. And deserted white wives frequently had their children removed because they had no means of support. There was no welfare for those women back then so Child Protection would remove the children and put them in homes.
It wasn't a black/white issue, it was a child protection issue.

For anyone interested in the intentions behind the Aboriginal Protection Act, I suggest you read the W.A. Royal Commission into the Condition of the Natives 1905.
Testimony given there shows how concerned many people were about the exploitation of vulnerable aboriginal people, from white station masters to Asian pearling masters.
The sexual exploitation of young girls was so bad that STDs had become such a community health problem a special hospital had to be built on an island off the NW coast to treat these girls. And no, this was not all forced sex. Many of the girls were traded for goods by their husbands and many other girls discovered they were treated better by white and Asian men so they prostituted themselves to gain favours.
And who of you knows that Asian pearling masters used aboriginal women to dive for pearl shell because that's a Japanese tradition. They believed pregnant women were the best because they felt they had a better lung capacity! The result of this was that many aboriginal women were worked until they died underwater!
So the W.A. Government passed a law forbidding the employment of aboriginal women in the pearling industry.
So, for all that people rage against what seems like draconian and cruel laws for aboriginal people, when put in context of the time, it was an attempt to protect aboriginal people from themselves and others because the change from Stone Age life to the Industrial Age happened overnight for them and they didn't have the skills to cope at that stage

Big Nana,

The following is also worth a read:

http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/politics/a-guide-to-australias-stolen-generations#toc6

Thanks Big nana,

That WA Royal Commission (the 'Roth' Commission) in 1905 is on my web-site: www.firstsources.info on the WA Page. Easy-access :)

The Commission also recommended that young boys not be allowed on luggers, to thwart what they called the 'Mahometan vice' (p. 11).

Dear Foxy,

With the greatest respect, I'm sure Big Nana would be too diplomatic to let you know that your advice to her is like a primary school kid advising a rocket scientist how to land on the moon.

If I live another fifty years, I won't have as much expertise and experience of Aboriginal people as Big Nana has.

Love,

Joe

There is some very clever sophistry and propaganda on that site, Foxy. Not 'good hearted' stuff by any means, but cold hard spin.

There is an attempt to piggyback on the 'white stolen children' and 'stolen children' elsewhere. They should get some propaganda prize for that alone.

Plenty of 'infographics' (that's a good one!) for schoolchildren and students who are being obliged to write reports and assignments on fables like 'The Rabbit Proof Fence'.

Joseph Goebbels would be relegated to sporting a provisional 'P' plate.

Tell us all Foxy, do you believe that the stolen children problem affecting indigenous continues unabated and is worse than ever? Wow! -From your recommended site of course.

Dear Loudmouth,

Not addressing my challenge to your assertion that the views of Mosley and Bryan about casual liaisons between identified racial groups were not 'translated into legislation'?

Mate you may well be and excellent transcriber but your comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.

One of the amendments to Section 43 the 1905 Aboriginal Act after the Commissioner's report included the words;

“Any person (except a native) – (b) who cohabitates with or has sexual relations with any native who is not his wife nor her his husband shall be guilty of an offence against this act.”
http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/pco/prod/FileStore.nsf/Documents/MRDocument:12388P/$FILE/AborgnActAmAct1936_00-00-00.pdf?OpenElement

Perhaps taking a break in your transcription task and concentrating on what you are reading might be beneficial. I will help where I can.

Look, you claim to have judged the RPF event in the light of the 'balance of probabilities' even though extraordinary feats are not without precedence.

But on the other hand you are asserting that of the thousands of half-caste aboriginal children who were taken from there families under a regime where the Protector's rights completely obliterated those of the mother, where the colour of the child's skin and their location were the over riding reasons for removal, and where the attitudes and laws regarding liaisons between Aboriginal and whites cast a pall of default criminality over mixed families that not a single child was taken for reasons other than dire neglect and abuse?

Can't have it both ways my friend.

Dear Big Nana,

You are continually making broad brush statements in an effort to legitimise the wholesale removal of children from their families based mainly on the colour of their skin.

Neville clearly states in 1936;

“There are growing up in the native camps and on stations a considerable class of people who are too white to be regarded as aboriginal at all, and who ought to have the benefit of white education and training, with complete separation from the natives after they reach mature years, say 21. That is to say, the Department should be able to take these white children from the camps and other native surroundings, and bring them up in special institutions for their kind.”
Clearly this was not about just rescuing those abused, starving and in pain. It was to remove a whole class of children because of their colour. And where were they removed to? Moore River where they slept 3 to a bed on urine soaked straw mattresses, in dormitories so filled with vermin the commissioner thought they should be demolished, where the nutrition was identified by him as vastly inadequate and where disease epidemics, general ill-health and malnutrition were the norm rather than the exception.

Are you seriously making the case that all these little children were better off than remaining with their mothers and receiving assistance where they lived if needed?

Dear Joe,

I know nothing about Big Nana, so I can't comment
on her "qualifications," regarding the stolen
generations. (Rocket Science no less?)
I am merely going by what she says
in her posts. The evidence that I am finding in
my research does not support either her or your
denials. And if that puts me back to primary school
in your opinion then I guess that's something I
shall have to learn to live with.

SteeleRedux, you have ignored my information about how part aboriginal children were not removed from stable families. The ones removed from stations had no fathers, and their mothers rarely had any form of income, but were dependant on rations from the station manager.
As the Protector has said, from your own quote, too white to leave them in those conditions". Which means exactly that, white children living with white single mothers with no means of support were also removed!
I suggest you study the history of white child protection and you may discover that aboriginal children were not the only ones removed from mothers who had no husband or income!
You also need to speak to some aboriginal children who were removed from appalling conditions and who later returned to find their mothers and siblings. Most are horrified by what they see and express deep gratitude for their removal.
TBC

As for kids being put into appalling conditions in homes, well, I can only speak about what I know and have been told by adults who grew up in the dormitory system in missions in the Kimberley. Including my mother in law and her 10 siblings, who, like all other aboriginal people who choose to live in the mission, had to move into the dormitory at age 7 and stay there until they were school leaving age. However, their parents also lived in the same mission and they saw them every day and spent Sundays and school holidays with them. The dormitory system there was a form of boarding school to ensure the kids were well educated and learnt good hygiene.
The other dormitory system was for those fair skinned children who had been removed from stations and sent to BEagle Bay to be raised by the nuns. However, these kids also had visits from mothers and family members whenever they had the chance to travel to BEagle Bay and certainly all the kids knew who their families were.
Not once have I ever heard one of those people complain about unclean living conditions, lack of food, unfair treatment of children in the dorms.
Yes, the nuns were strict. Kids had rules, especially regarding school, hygiene, and not speaking language in the dorm. And the church did not allow promised marriages of young girls to go ahead, which was the main complaint of the elders.
As I said, I cannot speak of other children's homes because I have no personal experience of them but I am very reluctant to believe a lot of stories I hear because I have known quite a few people to lie about their circumstances of removal because they cannot bear to accept that their family gave them away.
That's perfectly understandable but it tends to distort historical truth.

Just as afterthought for all involved in discussing Aboriginal Acts and other legal rulings, it pays to be aware of the definition of " aboriginal " that was used at that time. Where the word Aboriginal or Native is used it refers to full blood aboriginals only. And in the Protection Acts I have read, the conditions applied only to full blood and half caste people, anyone of less blood was not considered aboriginal. In fact, in the Act linked by SteeleRedux, octoroons( quarter caste) people actually had to apply to the Protector for permission to be legally known as aboriginal if they so wished.
This blood quotient was taken seriously and I learnt this from personal experience when my husband was pulled from a pub where he was having a beer after work and marched off to the local Native Welfare office by a new policeman in town so he could work out exactly,how much aboriginal blood my husband had to see if he could legally drink. He was actually halfcaste but the local police saergent rescued him because there was an unwritten rule in town that aboriginal people who worked had the same drinking rights as whites.
So where people presume that the Protector had power over all aboriginal people that's incorrect. It was only half caste and full bloods who came under the act, or the children of half castes. who were living with fullbloods.
And once again, this was done to try and protect gullible people from being exploited by unscrupulous men and employers .

"Protecting gullible people . circumstances of removal because they cannot bear to accept that their family gave them away.
That's perfectly understandable but it tends to distort historical truth."

So we have what ? Sign board at police station : Gullible children can apply here to avoid unscrupulous employers. Parents can give away surplus kids in the pen next to Police station . A Receipt will be issued business hours 9-5pm.

Rubbish , my Nigerian barrister sent $4837194 and discount coupon for Freddo frog chocolate. He operates through Canberra Fed Hacker Cops.

Hi Olivia Miguel, I'm from Australia, we have a two word saying in Australia, the second word is Off, the first word starts with "F", maybe in New York you have the same saying,

Other than other peoples money, what do you want?

Best sentence ever in OLO :

". I ordered the $75,000 worth bank transfer and to my greatest surprise, i got it with 3 working days."

Hi Steele,

Many times, I have written about how casual liaisons were made illegal (in SA, in thev1939Act) while marriages were approved - clearly, what governments didn't want were casual liaisons producing more illegitimate children.

Doctor Bryan was, I think, American ? So not much WA legislative input there; recommendations maybe. Same with the Moseley Royal Commission: the power to recommend but again, not any power to legislate, and certainly not to legislate back in 1905, when Moseley was probably still in short pants. Perhaps a child could explain the differences between recommending and legislating to you, if their mother allows you near one.

And no, it was never the law (at least in SA) that the Protector had superior rights to the mother: time and again, in the Protector's annual reports (now available in a book by Alistair Crooks and that fool Joe Lane, 'Voices From the Past', on Amazon and Book Depository etc.) and in his letters, he points out that he has no power, or desire, to take children without a mother's consent, unless the child is grossly neglected, i.e. if the mother - or any parent - can't be found. If anything, he responded to requests from mothers to send her child to a Mission for schooling, that sort of thing.

Where do some of you whitefellas get the idea that Protectors were forever drooling at the prospect of ripping kids away for no reason ? Do you have any evidence of that, at all ? You've seen records to that effect ? I don't mean some incredibly sincere and tearful speech by someone claiming, hand on heart, that it happened, but evidence that it happened ? Can you tell the difference ? Yep, one born every minute.

A little learning, my friend ......

Joe

Dearest Foxy,

I'm glad that at last you are beginning to do some research into some of these fascinating topics. But you and I put together will never have the fifty-year experiences of Big Nana right on the coal-face, so to speak, as a nurse from one end of the Kimberley to the other. If you have data which contradicts what she says, one thing is for sure - you will know it is rubbish.

As for some strange craving to take children away for no reason, in SA, from the forties and perhaps much earlier, the Children's Welfare and Public Relief Board was paying Aboriginal single mothers to take care of their children, and paying the mothers until they were sixteen. My wife found a list from about 1951, of about thirty children who were being supported this way. She was one of them. She was always puzzled why her step-father didn't formally adopt her - she was known by her father's surname but when we were being married, her mother's surname was on her birth certificate, and that was the name the minister called out. Embarrassing all round.

So no, I don't believe a word about the 'stolen generation'. All people have to do if they want to make money from it is find their file, usually somewhere in their State's Archives or Records, and bring it to court.

[TBC]

[continued]

People are talking about a second 'stolen generation' now. What, that some government people are taking kids away ? OR that, yet again, parental neglect has reached epidemic proportions ?

Strangely, the 1950s were (a) the peak decade for children being taken into care and (b) the second worst decade, at least from the death records from Pt McLeay Mission going back to 1860, for infant mortality. Why ? There was plenty of work around, therefore good wages. Could it be that the extra wages tended to get blown on much more purchases of grog ?

One bloke I knew in the early sixties, a terrible drinker (as was his wife), used to be blotto all weekend then went back to work in a railway camp with a four-gallon can of port, which he got through before the Friday. He had lost a couple of kids, one to starvation. Yes, that happened. Maybe that was common then, that men worked, got good money, and blew an enormous amount on grog, legal or not - and, in fact, the more they earned, the more their kids were neglected.

That answers a few puzzles. When we lived up on the community, almost all the men were employed and most used to take off to the pub on Saturday afternoons. One bloke who didn't drink said to me one Saturday, 'You know, you and me are the only sober blokes on this place.' Maybe it's a bit of a working-class thing too, that the more money you earned, the more you blew on grog. So people seem to be poor, because so little is left over, and certainly not much for the kids. Frank McCourt (in 'Angela's Ashes') wrote of his father drinking away almost all of his pay-packet on the one night. Michael Caine spoke of his father dying and leaving, after a long working life, 1/10, which for the kiddies is about nineteen cents.

Real life is so much more fascinating than the fables.

Love,

Joe

Joe
From Big Nana
"The other dormitory system was for those fair skinned children who had been removed from stations and sent to BEagle Bay to be raised by the nuns".

Hi Joe.

You continually ask others, particularly Steele and Foxy, to provide evidence of claims. But a couple of points; "it was never the law (at least in SA) that the Protector had superior rights to the mother" I'll accept that in essence, that was the law in SA, and probably elsewhere. Can you provide evidence that not withstanding that was the law, that in reality the likes of A.O. Neville in WA adhered strictly to the letter of the law. Did Neville see himself as the equal, and not the superior of Aboriginal mothers. Was there some kind of partnership of understanding between Neville and those mothers.

On what evidence did the Protector base his decision to remove a child, was it first hand evidence, or mostly hearsay. Can you attest that in every instance the reasoning was based on neglect.
"he points out that he has no power, or desire, to take children without a mother's consent, unless the child is grossly neglected, i.e. if the mother - or any parent - can't be found. If anything, he responded to requests from mothers to send her child to a Mission for schooling, that sort of thing."
Evidence please that what was claimed by the Protector in SA, did in fact apply to Neville in WA, or even the protector in SA for that matter. Not all coppers, or public servants always tell the truth. You want to preach about the events outlined in the entertaining movie Rabbit-Proof Fence, but swing form WA to SA in an attempt to prove your point. RPF, as I said before is an entertaining move, based to an unknown degree on fact, but it is nothing more, and should not be used as proof that people lie about these things. There was not much political will in the 1930's from politicians to see that Aboriginal rights, assuming they had any, were protected. Certainly there were no votes in spending money in what was a desperate economy at the time on Aboriginal welfare.

cont

cont

You also sarcastically claim people telling their story and "I don't mean some incredibly sincere and tearful speech by someone claiming, hand on heart, that it happened"
Yet whatever a government official said with "hand on heart" you accept as gospel

That's right, Nick. What's your point ? Why do so many people objet to Aboriginal kids getting an education ? And to Aboriginal parents wanting their kids to get a good education ?

As it happens, around 120,000 Indigenous people have attended university at one time or other, some in many courses My kids have been enrolled in (and graduated from) a total of about eight courses. Racists of all sorts need to get used to it. More than forty thousand have graduated, and currently there are nearly twenty thousand enrolled (of whom more than ten thousand will graduate).

I keep mentioning Mrs Mary Bennett, in WA. One thing I'm crooked on Neville for involves her: Mrs Bennett was a teacher at a Mission near Kalgoorlie, and she as in close touch with many people from the Western Desert. One family wanted their son to be enrolled at a school in Kalgoorlie, but Neville blocked it, on the excuse that 'full-bloods' should keep their culture, and ordered the family to return to the Desert. Mrs Bennett fought for the boy to be enrolled for some years, but (I think) Neville refused. I wonder where some of you compassionate people would line up: 'culture' or education ?

The great majority of Indigenous people, maybe 85 %, live in urban areas, cities and country towns. They need the skills to make it in those environments (well, of course, so do people out in remote areas, perhaps even more so): the smaller the community, the more people have to be multi-skilled, resourceful and versatile, to make them work. Think about it.

[TBC]

[continued]

Statistics can be tricky too. Take the 'Deaths in Custody' Royal Commission data. The Indigenous population makes up around 2.5 % of the total Australian population, but back in 1990 or so, 23 % of all prisoners. Of all deaths in custody, 22 % were Indigenous.

Trick question: what would you expect to be the 'equitable' proportion of deaths in custody which were Indigenous ?

23 %. No ! you may say: they make up only 2.5 % of the population, so only 2.5 %. So, what if only 1 % of prisoners were Indigenous, would you still expect 2.5 % ? Well, 1 %. Okay, so what if 80 % of prisoners were Indigenous: what would you expect ? 2.5 % ! Well, no, 80 %. It depends on the makeup of 'all prisoners', it has nothing to do with the proportion of the general population who are Indigenous, only the population of prisoners.

I'll try again: If there were almost no Indigenous prisoners, what would you expect ? A tiny proportion. Surely a proportion of deaths in custody which matched the proportion of people in custody ? If there were NO Indigenous prisoners, what would you expect ? If ALL prisoners were Indigenous, what would you expect ?

Actually, the Johnston Royal Commission knew all this before it even got going. So the Commission focused on improving monitoring conditions etc. for ALL prisoners, and good on them.

Think with your heart AND your head.

Joe

Joe
Joe wrote ". But you and I put together will never have the fifty-year experiences of Big Nana right on the coal-face, so to speak, as a nurse from one end of the Kimberley to the other. If you have data which contradicts what she says, one thing is for sure - you will know it is rubbish. As for some strange craving to take children away for no reason".

Big Nana wrote that kids were taken.
Big Nana writes in English.

Hi Paul,

I'm not in WA, so I don't have access to files over there, so I can only go by (a) evidence, or the lack of evidence, of the RPF story, and what evidence should be there but isn't; and (b) in parallel, what the Protector in SA was doing between 1836 and 1912 or so (the hundred-year rule means that, as an outsider, I can't get access to documents relating to the period after that date).

If you have evidence that the story reflects what actually happened, then I would be delighted to know it. But, as for what might be in those massive files in Perth, one can't prove what isn't there - it's up to anybody who claims that there IS evidence of Neville or anybody else in other States taking children for no reason, without their mother's consent, then let them find it. I'm suggesting that it may not exist.

When Alistair and I were working through the Letters and Annual Reports (around four thousand pages, all up), we were surprised at how few children came to the attention of the Protector - whose job, after all, was to protect mainly the kids, mainly the girls. Bearing in mind that the Department here had only one employee, the Protector, and even in WA, you could count the number of employees on one hand, I'm amazed how UN-disrupted family life was for Aboriginal people. Maybe many incidents didn't reach the attention of the Protector, but two or three cases each year seemed to be average, and usually they were resolved in ways which kept the family together.

[TBC]

[continued]

You can check all this out yourself, by checking those documents on my web-site on www.firstsources.info where I have tried to put together Indexes to assist anybody trying to find details from those thousands of pages. Look up "Children" or some related term, in the Indexes. You can get an idea of how the Protector tried to keep families together.

In SA, the Children's Council was responsible for the welfare of children, but they refused to take responsibility for Aboriginal children: that was the Protector's job, they said. As far as I know, there were never (or maybe rarely) any Aboriginal children taken to the huge Goodwood orphanage in Adelaide. I don' know of anybody who was sent there. At the Fullarton Girls' Home, there were never more than half a dozen Aboriginal girls, and maybe none before about 1934. And of those girls, at least one was an orphan, and a couple had lost their fathers and their mothers had re-married. Go figure.

I hope this helps.

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

Interesting change of tone.

Is the cat out of the bag?

All right mate let's bring this to a head, what if it could be illustrated to your satisfaction that the three girls did escape together from Moore River, head north-east in the direction of the rabbit-proof fence and home rather than west toward the 'bright lights of Fremantle' as you implied, were not recorded as being captured within the first week, shown to be avoiding human habitations and to have caught and eaten game meat; would that then allow you to turn aside from ever again labeling this as a 'myth'?

Hi Joe,

"I wonder where some of you compassionate people would line up: 'culture' or education?"

Are the two diametrically opposed to such a degree that you cannot have one and the other coexisting?

I have spoken of my partner before, as a Maori she retains here culture through language, the understanding of protocols, practices and customs of her people, their history and genealogy. Just because she does not get around dressed in a piupiu, weaving flax baskets and singing 'Pokarekare Ana', things she can readily do if need be, does not make her less cultured that those who in the past carried on in what might be termed a more traditional lifestyle. Culture is forever changing as one adapts to a changing environment Just as European culture changes, so does indigenous culture. People speak of 'Australian culture' is it the long lost culture of 'Clancy of the Overflow' or the kid with the Iphone.
Just as European culture changes with education, so does indigenous culture. I do not believe there is any choice to be made between education and culture, the two can haply coexist. Yes a highly educated rocket scientist can also have a culture, just like the rest of us. Agree?

Dear Big Nana,

You wrote;

“SteeleRedux, you have ignored my information about how part aboriginal children were not removed from stable families.”

I have not. You are wrong and there are plenty of examples of such a crime occurring although granted in far less numbers compared to elsewhere, but leaving that aside if you read what I have posted you will see I specifically said “where the colour of the child's skin and their location were the over riding reasons for removal”.

Even though the Protector had complete rights over the half-caste children in the State it was the camp and often the station children who were specifically targeted. Why? Because of the great unease of someone with a similar skin colour to the Protector's 'living like' or being treated like a native.

Here is the thing. You are giving me you testimony without any collaboration evidence. Now I am not someone like Loudmouth who would discount it out of hand, and I accept that this is your opinion, reinforced by your apparent interaction with others.

But I have been at pains to cite and quote those who were there at the time, the documents and policy they produced and acted upon, and the legislation that was formed as a result. You were not there and you are attempting to refute the position I have taken on here-say. I'm afraid I am asking for more than that.

Cont..

Cont..

Let me give you a case in point. I raise the issue of the terrible conditions at Moore River and you then retort with;

“As for kids being put into appalling conditions in homes, well, I can only speak about what I know and have been told by adults who grew up in the dormitory system in missions in the Kimberley.”

Well just in case the link to the Commissioner's report wasn't enough let me quote him verbatim;

“The dormitories are vermin ridden to an extent which I suspect eradication is impossible … the sooner new dormitories are constructed ... the better for the health and comfort of the inmates.”

'The equipment in the dining room is deficient, and, with few exceptions, the children had no implements of any kind to aid them in eating.”

“Food.- Here there is much room for improvement. Powdered milk for children is obviously useless … No vegetables are grown at the settlement, and a totally inadequate supply is imported. Tinned vegetables (so called)
are in the same category as powdered milk. There is an insufficient supply of meat, and, if such articles as fruit and eggs were occasionally supplied, fewer children would go to the hospital.”

Now you 'know' about this too.

Hi Steele,

Thanks for your request: " .... what if it could be illustrated to your satisfaction that the three girls did escape together from Moore River, head north-east in the direction of the rabbit-proof fence and home rather than west toward the 'bright lights of Fremantle' as you implied, were not recorded as being captured within the first week, shown to be avoiding human habitations and to have caught and eaten game meat; would that then allow you to turn aside from ever again labeling this as a 'myth'?"

Yes, of course, if you could find evidence of it. As it happens, there was a case of a couple of girls running away from Moore River out towards the fence. They were tracked and found to have caught a rabbit, but without knives etc., they were unable to cut it open or cook it, so its carcase was found untouched. It was assumed that the girls had perished in the bush. This is probably one of the strands of story, along with Arthur Upfield's book published around 1937, along with stories of other girls running away to Perth.

Every day along the Fence, perhaps a couple of hundred Rabbit Department employees worked to maintain it. If just a handful of them had seen three little girls walking along the Fence, they would have passed that information on at the local pub that night; after all, it would be pretty remarkable. That information would have got into the local paper, then the main State paper, the West Australian. But nothing. Zilch.

Another source of information are the memoirs of Paul Hasluck, later the Minister for Territories (including Indigenous Affairs) and Governor-General. In the early thirties, in addition to being involved in setting up the Aborigines' Advancement League, Hasluck was a pro-Labor reporter with the West Australian. He toured all over the State with the Moseley Commissioners, and attended most sessions when it heard witnesses. He had many colorful stories in his memoirs, but not a mention of any flight along the Fence. Nothing.

But you might know better ?

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

So you found it. Thought so after the shift in tone. Oh well for the benefit of the rest this is a newspaper story in the Western Australian ran over a week after the three girls escaped;

“The Chief Protector of Aborigines (Mr. A.O. Neville) is concerned about three native girls, ranging from eight to 15 years of age, who, a week ago, ran away from the Moore River Native Settlement, Mogumber. They came in from the Nullagine district recently, Mr. Neville said yesterday, and, being very timid, were scared by their new quarters, apparently, and fled in the hope of getting back home. Some people saw them passing New Norcia, when they seemed to be heading north-east. The children would probably keep away from habitations and he would be grateful if any person who saw them would notify him promptly. “We have been searching high and low for the children for a week past,” added Mr. Neville, “and all the trace we found of them was a dead rabbit which they had been trying to eat. We are very anxious that no harm may come to them in the bush.”

The West Australian 11 Aug. 1931

Pity. I was enjoying you digging that hole.

Dear Foxy,

You might get a kick out of this young lass from England who this year decided to do the same walk as Molly and her cousins. The first video is a bit of a monage and the second is of her arriving at Jigalong to be met by Molly's daughter. She has very few views so watch if you get a chance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfjNEsN9tig

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPsC-pXkwOM

Still inspiring other after all these years.

Hi Steele,

I think you have delivered the knock out blow, "The West Australian 11 Aug. 1931". I will be most interested to read Joe's response.

Interesting YouTubes as well.

Now lets move onto the Peter Weir film 'GALLIPOLI' starring Mel Gibson. A story about three young Western Australian lads who joined the First AIF and went off to fight at Gallipoli. What a load of codswallop, fancy presenting that as fact, no doubt to perpetuate the myth that is Gallipoli. I can speak with authority on the subject as my Grand Uncle Jim was at Gallipoli, on our side, not the Turks. When I was about eight years old I plucked up the courage to ask uncle: "Uncle, what did you do at Gallipoli?" Being the crusty old "B" that he was, uncle replied in a gravelly deep voice: "Son...I kept my "F'n" HEAD DOWN!" I never asked uncle about the war ever again.

There's a myth about a Captain Cook ( obviously a joke name) and an Endeavour ship using an actual British troop transport during the American War of Independence and which was scuttled in a blockade of Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island, in 1778. As of 2016 her wreck had not been precisely located but was thought to be one of a cluster of five in Newport Harbor, and searching continued. A replica of Endeavour was launched in 1994 and is berthed alongside the Australian National Maritime Museum in Sydney Harbour.

What a fake tourist industry that is.

Dear Steele and Paul,

You guys are truly awesome.

Reading your posts has made my day.

Cheering on doesn't make up for the complete lack of evidence to support 'The Rabbit Proof Fence' as anything else but a work of fiction. Even as a work of fiction it stretches the credulity far too much, requiring the reader to suspend his/her critical faculties far too often and far too far.

However all is not lost with such perfect examples of the 'Backfire Effect' mentioned earlier in the thread [at page 10],

"When Corrections Fail:
The persistence of political misperceptions"
Brendan Nyhan
University of Michigan
and
Jason Reifler
Georgia State University

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/nyhan-reifler.pdf

Interesting answers to the question, 'When you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth' - to what extent is this the case?

http://www.quora.com/When-you-tell-a-lie-often-enough-it-becomes-the-truth-to-what-extent-is-this-the-case

Adoption of Indigenous Australian children - History (10) - ABC Splash
splash.abc.net.au/home#!/media/153540/adoption-of-indigenous...children
Imagine being taken away from your family and forced to live with people from ... the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families.

It's an interview from 50 years ago, before the "stolen" idea was known.

Hi Paul,

Well, hardly. In that tragic news item, the little girls had got barely twenty miles (from Moore River to New Norcia) and had already been seen, and if they were actually heading for the Fence, they still had a hundred miles to go just to get there. And isn't it possible that if they couldn't even gut a rabbit, that they would not last too many bitter-cold winter nights out in the bush ? Isn't it possible that they perished in the scrub ?

Moore River was a miserable place to live at, as Neville constantly complained: the budget for his Department was constantly being cut, and his work being hindered by the Conservatives before the change of government in 1933: his testimony at the 1934 Moseley Commission initiated by the new Labor government, is full of such complaints. Children running away was not uncommon, so there were bound to be at least some cases of kids running, not towards Perth (the favoured destination, it seems) but in every direction.

Notice that there is no mention, or perhaps even a thought, of following the Fence. If there had been any more sightings, say one every twenty miles by the sound if it, surely the West Australian would keep on the story ? Shy didn't they follow up the story ? No more sightings; little children unable to even pull a rabbit apart, let alone cook it. It's unfamiliar country to them, they were probably under-nourished at Moore River. Isn't it possible that they died out in the scrub, after just a few days ?

A bit of a long bow, Paul :)

At nearly a thousand pages of transcript, the Moseley Royal Commission was probably the most exhaustive ever mounted in Australia on Aboriginal issues, until then. The sixty-page Index took me three months alone. Do you think I wasn't looking for any mention of these poor little girls constantly ?

By the way, as I understand it, the girls who were supposed to make this epic journey were at Moore River when they reached eighteen.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi avgain paul,

I feel liked I'm constantly mopping up after you fellas :)

My reference to white attitudes to Indigenous 'culture' and education was precisely that: that to many people (in the old days, those on the Right; these days, those on the 'Left'), in order to stay truly Indigenous, Indigenous people would have to spurn education as alien - that the only 'true' Aboriginal people were those who had as little 'white' education as possible, etc.

Of course, it was different in New Zealand: the first schools, like Kendall's up at Kororareka in 1814, were for Maori kids, and (as best as Kendall could) in Maori. Interesting, the ship which brought over a load of Bibles to the Bay of Islands had at least one Aboriginal crew member.

My point tried vainly to deal with the attitudes - of both whites and Indigenous elites - to Indigenous participation in higher education. I think it's wonderful. But many whites can't seem to get their heads around the possibility, and/or are very uneasy with the notion of success. You can almost hear them thinking, "But .... but. won't they lose their culture ?" Thank Christ they're not in full control.

And Indigenous elites rarely seem at all enthusiastic about large Indigenous numbers - currently around two age-groups at any one time - participating in higher education. I've been keeping a database for many years now, and I can' recall any Indigenous academics showing any interest except Anthony Dillon at Uni of Western Sydney, and a couple of others who would probably prefer to remain nameless.

So the conundrum is: for the 80-85 % of Indigenous people who live in urban areas, should they be encouraged to participate in higher education, or - to protect their 'culture' - urged away from it ?

Or am I being paranoid ?

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

My apologies for turning this into a bit of a sport. I should have twigged that you obviously have an enormous amount invested in maintaining the journey was a myth, so best we just leave it there. Look after yourself mate.

Joe
Is it chasing rabbits or red herrings? University education is hardly the point is it? But like all references to fact given to you this info will probably go down a black hole.

Indigenous Studies | Nura Gili | UNSW Australia
www.nuragili.unsw.edu.au/indigenousstudies.htmlMar 17, 2015 -
Indigenous Studies is an interdisciplinary field of study that offers students the opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of the history and ...
-

Check out the Indigenous staff and their motives. But you'll find some illogical argument against it won't you.

Hi Joe,

I am staggered that you would say " that the only 'true' Aboriginal people were those who had as little 'white' education as possible, etc."
That simply puts indigenous people in some kind of time warp, where to be "cultured" one has to fit an unchanging fixed model. Culture is not static but dynamic, and is forever changing as external influences and internal attitudes bring about change. European is a forever changing culture as it grows and develops, as is Aboriginal culture.
Ones culture is far more than the outward appearance which manifests itself through language, dress, art etc, which can be confused with a traditionalist consept, as in traditional dress. Although those outward appearances are important in helping to identify with culture, they are not the be all, and end all, So many abstract considerations also help to make ones culture, the concepts of family, love, kinship, respect, understanding of traditions, practices, beliefs, protocols, socially accepted norms all go to formulate ones culture,

Can you describe what is Australian culture? I have some difficulty with it, although I believe I can pick up on the abstract qualities of it, but the physical features are a bit harder to identify with, what ever they are.

Hi Steele,

I can just as easily turn that around, that " .... you obviously have an enormous amount invested in maintaining the journey was NOT a myth".

How does one tell the difference between myth and fact ? [After all, that's part of the theme of this thread.] You say, story, I say, evidence. You say, sincerity and passion, I say corroboration and back-up. Potato, potarto. "Let's call the whole thing off"

No, let's keep going, keep looking, keep exploring what evidence is there, what evidence should be there that isn't, which aspects of the story not only ring true but have some backing. Anything. Any report in newspapers, letters, documentation, memoirs, reports, diaries, police overtime applications, hotel records, invoices sent from the Police Department for work done to the Aborigines Department, parliamentary questions, mentions in Hansard.

Presumably there would still be records of the Rabbit Department: with 150-200 employees out on the various Fences, blokes who know their stretch of territory and can see three little kids coming up the Fence - surely not much would get past them ? They would have been glad of the conversation. And if the little girls hid until each one was gone for the day, how much longer would they have taken - not ten weeks or three months, from August to November, but six months, right through summer ?

On the other hand, if Jesus could survive in the wilderness for forty days, why not three little girls in the Western Desert ?

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

Perfectly valid points my friend. We will just have to be prepared to live with the knowledge that each of us have a different view of what might or might not have occurred which is perfectly okay. All good at this end

Hi Nick,

The great majority of Indigenous university students are enrolled in mainstream courses, not Indigenous-focussed courses, and at degree- and PG-level. Can you get your head around that ?

Hi Paul,

Good trick: you know very well I'm not suggesting that, but that I suspect many white racists, on both the Right and the Left, believe it. They would approve apartheid, by any other term, in the name of supporting 'traditional culture'. As I said, "Thank Christ they're not in full control."

And as I said, in relation to Indigenous participation at universities, "I think it's wonderful."

What don't you understand about that point of view ?

But I fully agree with what you write in the rest of your post. Thank you.

Cheers,

Joe

Joe
Ah jest noo you'd be illogical.
"And Indigenous elites rarely seem at all enthusiastic about large Indigenous numbers - currently around two age-groups at any one time - participating in higher education."

' Nura Gili provides pathways for prospective Indigenous students to study in all UNSW faculties and programs.' That is , mainstream and cultural . Both .
-
Back on the fence : if the kids were running from whites and expecting to be caught then maybe they'd avoid the fence men . Walk behind trees and stuff . Without mobiles, any sighting of Aboriginals ( in the bush of all places ! ) would rarely make it into news papers .

Hi Joe,

We are off to NZ this weekend for 2 weeks, fly into Auckland Saturday, pick up a rental, drive down to Rotorua to catch up with a special auntie and some of the clan, for a few days before heading up north to see the whanau, been promised heaps of seafood, all the good stuff according to the nephew, "T" wants her rotten corn, but its not for me. While in Roto will probably take in Tamaki Tours, maybe Sunday night, always an interesting cultural experience for tourists and alike, about $100 plus, includes a show and a hangi, good value.

http://www.tamakimaorivillage.co.nz/

Hi Nick,

Illogical ? Not really. There has always been tension between Indigenous Studies staff and Indigenous student support staff at universities in my experience, particularly over those students who are enrolled in mainstream courses, i.e. enrolled in non-Indigenous-focussed courses.

In my experience in student support, from around 1981, on and off, directly until 1996, and vicariously until 2005, Indigenous Studies people didn't think there was any need for student support: enrol Indigenous students in lower-level courses if they couldn't handle degree-level courses - and take the $ 5000 or so per student from Canberra and use it to employ more Indigenous Studies staff.

Now that so many universities have compulsory Indigenous Culture courses for all students, and thereby provide more funding, they can dispense entirely with Indigenous students. BUT something else has been happening since about 2000.

The very rapid growth in numbers of Indigenous students finishing Year 12 means that, on the one hand, those Indigenous students are much more likely to go on to mainstream courses at degree-level, and on the other hand, are far less likely to need student support, which they can get from the uni's mainstream services anyway.

So Indigenous student numbers have doubled since 2007. Annual graduate numbers have gone up around 2.5 times. Total graduate numbers at the end of last year were between 40 and 44,000. Overwhelmingly urban, as rural an remote populations were bound to be the ones to suffer from the neglect by Indigenous programs since 2000. So now, there is very, very clearly a sharp division between major urban, and rural/remote, populations in terms of university participation. I would estimate the differential to be 10 to 20 - i.e. ten to twenty times as many young urban people would be enrolling at universities for every one from rural and remote areas. THAT's a Gap.

I'm suggesting that the Indigenous elites, academics, are either oblivious, blind, or uninterested (or all three) in getting out and actively encouraging rural and remote people to start on the long path to university - and of course, trades. That Gap gets wider.

Joe

Hi Paul,

You trying to make me jealous or what ? You've succeeded. I probably won't be able to go to see my folks in Auckland this year; it seems none of them are talking to each other. Huh, families !

Haere ra !

Joe

Joe
It appears you agree with removing kids when it leads to education. That suggests the re-education camps of Stalin , Mao and Pol Pot.
Putin seems to be sniffing the breeze too with Russian values education which also blows in US and Oz.

My wife was and her friend continues to be a tutor for Aboriginal students in both mainstream and Indigenous courses , directed by the Uni's Indigenous centre. We suspect the local Indigenous primary school captures kids to compel indoctrination by nuns and slave drivers.

SteeleRedux, you continue to either misread or misunderstand my comments.
I stated that I knew nothing about dormitory conditions in places like Moore River but I knew about the conditions in Kimberley dormitories and you responded with a quote that is obviously related to the Moore River mission and not the Kimberley ones.
How do I know that? Because he talks about horrific physical conditions and lack of fresh food, especially fruit and veggies.
But in the Kimberley, all the missions were almost self sufficient in food. They had market gardens, orchards, piggeries, goats, chickens and their own bakeries. When I moved to the mission you could still see the remains of all the structures and all my inlaws spoke about how much food was produced and how well they had been fed compared to the current generation. As far as the buildings themselves, well, my husband and I and our four children actually had to live in the old boys dormitory for nearly a year whilst we were waiting for a,house to become available so I was well aquainted with its condition and yes, it was sturdy and functional with a whole separate abolition block next door, which we used to shower etc.
You appear to be unaware that white settlement has only really been in the Kimberley for 100 years. The mission my husbands mothers family grew up in was started in 1913 and the one my father inlaw grew up in, in one of the most remote areas of Australia,
started in 1910.
So when I arrived up here nearly 50 years ago, there were still people who remembered their first contact with whites and the stories I was told was first hand experience.

Nick,

There's never been a need to remove children anywhere in Australia in order for them to get an education. Parents are usually quite enthusiastic enough.

When Rev. George Taplin was appointed in 1859 to open up a Mission, the main purpose of which was to provide schooling, when word got around, one bloke walked twenty miles from Yankalilla (my wife's growing-up town) to Pt Elliott just to ask if he would be taking older students as well, i.e. adults. Taplin said (first page of his Journal: available on www.firstsources.info , Taplin and Pt McLeay page) that he would be happy to take anybody. And yes, later he did run night classes for adults.

It took him a year or so to find a site for a Mission, build a small cottage for his family (still there) and then a combined school/dormitory (still there). In the meantime, people congregated over the hill and waited impatiently for him to get the school going. So he set one up in a tent temporarily for the first six months until the school was ready.

Even then, people had an understanding of what education meant and wanted their kids to at least get literate. By 1870, Indigenous kids in that area (and young people too) were literate, while fewer than half of the white kids in the area were, since farming kids didn't have to go to school. So who was smarter ?

But your disparagement of education proves my point: there are people around who are distinctly unenthusiastic about the right of Indigenous people to get an education. The usual excuse is that they will lose their culture, but as Big Nana has pointed out again and again, the two are not necessarily contradictory.

Being paranoid, I suspect there are other reasons: that uneducated people are more manipulable, more at the mercy of the Industry, more touristy-photogenic, more charming in their natural environment, and a long, long way from inner-Sydney. What's your preference, Nick ?

Joe

Just to follow on from Big Nana's post, when SteeleRedux decries the variety and quality of food available in some remote areas, eg fruit and canned products, he also neglects to draw any comparison with the experience at the time of the mainstream population in cities, in country towns (especially on the fringes) and in the bush.

SteeleRedux could easily search old newspapers where there are plenty of stories and photos of the most restricted conditions, highly disadvantaged and poverty stricken when compared with the modern welfare State of course (or even back then), that applied to many if not most of the mainstream population at the time. All things considered, those in federal government care probably did very well compared with others. Take say the 1850s through to the years immediately after WW2, for instance. What about inner city 'burbs such as Collingwood in Melbourne? Check the newspapers photos that must be available in the NLA.

The great majority of Australian families had to look out for themselves, which necessitated growing own vegetables and raising poultry wherever possible. I would daresay that some here might remember very tight food and clothing budgets and painfully thin people in those years. People raided the dump to shop for bikes and for necessities for living such as bike parts for work and school transport.

I mentioned earlier that some people are Velcro for anything that might support the black armband view of history and Teflon for anything good done by those hated AngloSaxon 'whites'.

Joe
Once again. I said the opposite - that Indigenous academics assist mainstream and cultural Aboriginal students. Nowhere did I disparage education for Aboriginals .
"We forget that, by the 1930s, ... because they were counted as Aboriginal, they were condemned never to get schooling, etc., and to stay on the station; and in turn, girls would ....."
That is justifying removal from family . You seem to want forced education in the bush and pressure on universities to drive Indigenous students forward. I'm not asserting anything except that you are continuing in your own way to impose subjective control.

We should all be pleased that most of us on this forum
do not believe that there is only one point of view
and that we choose to engage in discussions most of
the time in a civil manner.
Most of us choose to do so partly because its
in our nature to try and understand why people think the
way they do and partly because we hope that in understanding
we'll figure out a way to make changes as well as broaden
our perspectives.

I'll confess though this discussion has made me rather
weary. And whenever I'm weary I find it useful to remember why
I came onto this forum in the first place (so many years ago)
and why I'm still here.

Historians (Henry Reynolds, Brian Atwood, and many others,
including people like Stan Grant, Helen Razer, and others)
have pointed out that it is now possible to
explore the past by means of a large number of books, articles,
films, novels, songs, and paintings to capture the past of
this country. We can know a great deal about the history of
indigenous-settler relations.

But as Reynolds has stated - 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.

As Reynolds says it will continue to perplex us for many years
to come.

Dear Paul,

Wishing you a great time in New Zealand and
look forward to hearing all about it on your
return.

You'll be missed.

Of course it wouldn't suit some to know that at the time of the fictitious happenings of 'The Rabbit Proof Fence', many Australian families were living in makeshift shelters and tents in the bush. There are photos and newspaper reports to go by.

Yeah, it doesn't suit the narrative of political activists, opportunist politicians and the gravy train.

Nick,

You suggest:

"Once again. I said the opposite - that Indigenous academics assist mainstream and cultural Aboriginal students.... "

[What do you mean, 'cultural Aboriginal students' ?]

Not really. In my experience, those academics are usually too busy with their incredibly important and elusive 'research' to bother themselves with lowly students; they usually leave that to some junior-grade beginning-academic, who drops them ASAP and moves into - 'research'.

And from this perfectly reasonable observation:

"We forget that, by the 1930s, ... because they were counted as Aboriginal, they were condemned never to get schooling, etc., and to stay on the station; and in turn, girls would ....." [I'm implying that, in their turn, the girls would get rooted and produce another generation of paler kids, including daughters, who in their turn ..... ]

you jump to this:

"That is justifying removal from family. You seem to want forced education in the bush ..... "

Not in the slightest. I don't even know what that means. 'Removsl' rarely if ever happened. Obviously, [well, to a reasonably sensible person] I'm suggesting that those brilliant and dedicated Indigenous academics at universities, in an ideal world, would develop pathways for rural and remote people to be able to eventually access education to the highest levels. Otherwise the Gap will never be Closed. Is that what you want ?

So the upshot is that you do indeed

" ..... disparage education for Aboriginals..... "

since you can't seem to imagine that it might be voluntary.

So, in your world, Aboriginal people shouldn't get educated ? Have you heard of a philosophy called 'Apartheid' by chance ?

Joe

Dearest Foxy,

Primary sources beat secondary or tertiary sources any day, if they are available. I've typed up around fifteen to eighteen thousand pages, i.e. 15,000 to 18,000 pages - of primary documents. There they are, on my web-site: www.firstsources.info.

Certainly, researchers and writers can piece things together and write valuable books on various topics, but they have to rely on primary sources one way or the other. If they don't, then they're not really worth their salaries. In fact, they have a duty, if they expect anybody to take their work as authoritative, to do so.

Anyway, there it is, at least for SA.

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

Yes it is usually best to go back to 'primary sources'.
however they sometimes are not readily available and
sometimes it's very difficult to find them on all
topics. Then we turn to history books, in which historians
who have looked at primary sources have written down
their findings. But even the words of historians are never
completely gospel. 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 but we must also be able to use the different
theories put forward. That's where personal accounts
come into play. We need to study not only what is in history
books but also what has been at times left out.

I've been reading a great deal from items like the
"New Holland Morning Post" (1791). J. McMahon, "Fragments of the
Early History of Australia," (1913). R. Therry, "Reminiscences of
Thirty Years in New South Wales and Victoria," (1863). There's
a copy of a letter written to the newspapers in 1873 on
"The Social and Moral Black Thursday of Colonel History".
Then there's a very frightening article in the Herald
5.9.1977 by Jack Waterford. And the list goes on.

Amazing what you can learn when you start digging.

cont'd ...

Dear Joe,

For me this discussion has well and truly run
its course so I'll quietly tip-toe away.
It's been quite a revelation and I wish you
every success in your further endeavours.

I've learned a great deal.

See you on another discussion.

Dear Big Nana,

I had committed to step away from this thread as sometimes intransigence becomes belittling for those involved however you have posted something directed at me so I'm responding.

You wrote;

“SteeleRedux, you continue to either misread or misunderstand my comments. I stated that I knew nothing about dormitory conditions in places like Moore River but I knew about the conditions in Kimberley dormitories and you responded with a quote that is obviously related to the Moore River mission and not the Kimberley ones. How do I know that? Because he talks about horrific physical conditions and lack of fresh food, especially fruit and veggies.”

No I haven't read misread or misunderstood anything. Your first post on this thread was in support of Windschuttle's take on the film. You then raised the 1905 Act. Subsequently you have discussed your experience of the Kimberly and the oral history you were privy to. You were perfectly entitled to make that segue even though it deviated from the subject at hand being the veracity of the RPF event and the details surrounding it. Perhaps you would have liked me to explore your offerings in greater depth however though I acknowledged them I chose not to travel that path with you. I was then accused of ignoring them and now of misunderstanding or misreading them.

You further rhetorically asked how you knew I was talking of Moore River. Well my friend I explicitly spelled out what I was discussing before delivering the quotes. You claimed to have not known about the dreadful conditions at Moore River and I set out to educate you so now you do know. Can I also let you know of the over 200 children, or should I say inmates because that it what they were called, who died at that awful institution.

Cont...

Cont...

The Commisioner's showed great restraint in his report but he wanted Neville stripped of much of his power. Mr Lane's website is worth a read. This quote from Norman Micklem Morley really struck a cord;

“Under the present system, the half-castes suffer from too much so-called “protection”, and I consider that in too many cases strict departmentalism is allowed to over-rule the real welfare of those people and their natural affection for their own children.”

The more I read of Neville the more I dislike the man. He was bullying, dismissive, power hungry, vindictive, and brooked little criticism. This is the account of him working fastidiously to discredit someone who was critical of his administration.

“Neville also failed in his fiduciary duty to Aborigines. It is obvious, from a reading of the departmental files that the abuses Piddington detailed in his interview with The World, and in his earlier discussions with Neville, were substantiated by a departmental inquiry and police reports. Police who had interviewed Aboriginal workers who worked for the sandalwood cutters at La Grange stated that their evidence supported the allegations made by Piddington. Moreover they recommended the removal of John Spurling, the local protector. Neville ignored this recommendation and took no action to protect Aboriginal workers from these employers.”
http://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p72631/pdf/article0715.pdf

While others here seem content to be apologists for this man I hope you might have more sense.

Joe
How on earth do you find me saying I'm for apartheit and against education?
Your true source Big Nana says :
"The other dormitory system was for those fair skinned children who had been removed from stations and sent to BEagle Bay to be raised by the nuns".
When I quoted her you wrote:

You reply " Why do so many people objet to Aboriginal kids getting an education ?"
The point was removal not education.

You ask "What do you mean, 'cultural Aboriginal students' ?"
I mean your words :

"The great majority of Indigenous university students are enrolled in mainstream courses, not Indigenous-focussed courses, l. "

You wrote : "We forget that, by the 1930s, ... because they were counted as Aboriginal, they were condemned never to get schooling, etc., and to stay on the station; .....".. ] you jump to this : ( NNN " That is justifying removal from family. You seem to want forced education in the bush ..... ") " I don't even know what that means. 'Removsl' rarely if ever happened."

As you see , Big Nana says they did .

You wrote:" Obviously, [well, to a reasonably sensible person] I'm suggesting that those brilliant and dedicated Indigenous academics at universities, in an ideal world, would develop pathways for rural and remote people to be able to eventually access education to the highest levels. Otherwise the Gap will never be Closed. Is that what you want ?"

Joe , how do your words about " never to get schooling" mean that " university academics would "..
There's no link between your thought processes and unis don't provide primary schooling .

You wrote:"So the upshot is that you do indeed " ..... disparage education for Aboriginals..... " since you can't seem to imagine that it might be voluntary. "

As Big Nana says there were removals then that's what my quote was about. Voluntary moving was never mentioned by me nor did you give evidence for it nor did I mention education of kids at dormitories. If anything the apartheit is you suggesting Indigenous people are the ones to arrange Indigenous schools , that it's OK to have dark indigenous kids removed to missions and white skin indigenous to another with no evidence of volunteering and OK to have pressure by Indigenous academics for such students to study mainstream uni courses .

You're using force on my sentences and accept forceful methods on kids . I'm for education and against force.

The Anoriginals only want the truth when it suits them.

Oh! let's have the truth about invasion day.

Ok, let's call it invasion day,
But let's have the truth about the lack of advanced civilisation that was here when the British arrived and how the advanced society in Australia today was bought here
by the advanced civilisation that arrived.

There were already houses and streets in England back then.

My grandson was sent out of class as a racist for making this truthful and factual
Observation in class recently. How come only the Aboriginals can talk up their culture
But my grandson can't.

I said to him, you come from a very advanced culture, look at the orchestras
medical advances, electronic inventions, glorious artworks. Even back in the earlier centuries, Europe had great paintings and artworks. I said, I'm British and I'm proud to come from such a wonderfully advanced culture with all its beauty.
My grandson has every right to be proud of his culture and he should be allowed
to mention these great achievements at school.

But you can't tell the truth, and mention the achievements of white culture, you are
only allowed to label them as bad invaders.
The Aboriginals can't handle the truth of white invention and achievement.
And no it is not racist, it is factual and the truth.
But western schools label it racist. Excuse me, but the truth is what schools are supposed to teach. They teach ideaolgy instead. That's why Europe is in the danger
It's in today , our kids grow up with a guilt complex and let other races walk all over them.

Nick,

We need to be careful to remember how words might have had different meanings in earlier times. A policeman might be 'removed' when he was, what we might call now, posted to another station. A teacher might be removed from one place, to be promoted to a better position at another school. In earlier times, 'removed' meant 'moved', or simply 'went'.

I would support Big Nana's observation that children 'went' to mission schools, and I would add, very likely with their parents' - or at least their mothers' - approval, even their insistence. That certainly was the case down this way. People aren't stupid - they know that their kids need some education.

Perhaps these days in remote 'communities', they now 'know' that their kids DON'T need much education if they are going to spend their lives on welfare. But how long might that last ?

Perhaps that is why we are sort of arguing at cross-purposes. From my reading, 'removal' often and perhaps always meant 'moved', 'transferred', 'went'. So the 'removal' of children simply meant that children enrolled at a Mission school, etc. You have mistaken the use of the word to mean force of some sort. Again, you need evidence of thst.

We forget that - as far as I can tell - in WA, back in the 1930s, the number of staff in the Native Welfare Department was extremely small, across a huge state. There would have been the superintendents at government stations like Moola Bulla and Moore River, and barely five other staff like Neville travelling around the State, and looking after the books and correspondence back in Perth. How and why so few would be able to round up anybody beats me. Across the Kimberley ? I simply don't believe it, from what I have read of the available files.

[TBC]

[continued]

On a slightly different track: get something straight - nobody has ever forced Indigenous people to go to university. More than 120,000 have done so in the last thirty years, nearly 20,000 are currently studying, more than 40,000 have graduated. Those who did not find it to their liking, or had all manner of pressures on them to drop out, did so and nobody stopped them.

My point about Indigenous academics was that they seem to be doing little to encourage the most disadvantaged Indigenous people, in rural and remote areas, to start the long and many-stepped journey to higher education, which is something which every community desperately needs, especially if they are ever to replace non-Indigrnous qualified staff with their own people. Whether people want to make that journey is up to them. I hope they do, so that, at last, the Gap can begin to be Closed.

You may think differently ?

Joe

Though I would watch the movie again, been some time. Regardless of the accuracy of the events portrayed, nowhere could I find any claim that it was anything more than a movie based on the book 'Follow the Rabbit Proof Fence' by Doris Pilkington, the daughter of one of the central characters Molly Craig. It is regardless, an extremely entertaining movie, with fine performances by the three non actors, the girls who played the central characters. There is no doubt in my mind that there is truth in the story interwoven with fictional poetic licence, how else can you make this kind of movie if it is not like that?

I can also see how some white Australian in particular, are uncomfortable with anything that might invoke references to past injustices, as this movie does, injustices perpetrated collectively against Aboriginal people, a people who were extremely vulnerable to abuse. For many the best defense against this shame is attack, or denial "it bloody well didn't happen!", this kind of attitude is yet another form of abuse, The European as he moved around the world was very good at abusing indigenous people, why should Australia have been any different?

Paul1405,

But you yourself would strenuously object if you were charged and convicted on the basis of stereotyping:

Prosecutor,
"Your Honour, from speculative gossip affecting people like Paul1405 and the understandable negative stereotyping of him by police, Paul1405 sports the sort of reputation that would make any heinous crime possible where he is concerned, so no evidence is required and the court should summarily convict and sentence him".

Judge,
"I agree". "Furthermore, Paul1405 and his 'White C[bleep]' forebears have a nasty, notorious rep that is taught in schools, and on children's TV by the taxpayer-funded State Propaganda Unit".

"Members of the Jury, there is no need for evidence, convict the SOB because he is a 'whitey' and 'Anglo' and we all know what they are like".

"Oh, and it is 'Wimmins Only Day' on the State Propaganda Unit. Stand by for a tsunami of feminist mantras that you WILL be listening to. Now lets check that goose step in the way out".

Dear Paul1405,

Spot on.

I have used the term willfully ignorant but it really is more determinedly ignorant. I suspect a very high proportion of those claiming the event didn't happen have not read the book and probably a good proportion of those have never seen the movie.

It obviously comes from a different place to natural skepticism, we all see different things in evidence laid before, but this is akin to a religious determination to view things in a singular light and to discredit conflicting evidence with deep resolve.

Perhaps it is a sign of uncertain times.

Hi Steele,

Or maybe it's a sign of a certain scepticism, and a desire to suspend belief until one has the evidence ?

The theme of this thread (if we go back to the original post) was how myth can replace reality. But one myth can replace another, as in the 'Hanging Rock' story, and be not one bit more valid.

In fact, I would suggest that this is how oral history works, that it is constantly revising, modifying, 'improving' a story in accordance with the social and political trends of the day. I'm not saying that people do this consciously, and I'm certainly not saying (Paul) that they are lying. If some detail of a story that they have heard (and assuming they have remembered it perfectly correctly and fully, which really is unlikely) doesn't seem relevant, it may be dropped out - and, vice versa, it some (unspoken) detail seems to be self-evident to the receiver of the story, then it may be added. And so the story changes slightly. Again and again. Like Chinese whispers. We all do that.

Then there is the one-upman-ship of story-telling. I recall a group of older Ngarrindjeri recounting their early days to Steve Hemming, now at Flinders. Each successive teller seemed to one-up previous tellers in how much closer they were to traditional culture. I'm not saying it's conscious or malicious or even intentional, but people 'fill in' detail as required, to give their version a boost and improve their 'credentials'. We all do that too.

One remedy might be to try to find independent evidence to corroborate a story. For example, the story of the little girls lost in the bush could easily be checked against the letters and reports of the superintendent: surely he would have named those little girls in correspondence to Neville (and vv.) ? After all, he would have got a caning for 'losing' three little girls. So what were their names ? That might clinch the Story, one way or the other. Find and check that correspondence and this disagreement will be over.

Cheers,

joe

Dear Loudmouth,

Please don't call this a disagreement.

A question if I may;

Did you read the book Follow the Rabbit-Proof Fence?

Dear Steele,

I found the following link interesting:

http://dailyreview.com.au/helen-razer-stan-grants-australian-dream/53079

cont'd ...

The responses to the article are worth a read.

Hi Steele,

Yes, quite some time ago.

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

I was finding it very hard to escape the conclusion that you were being a dishonest broker in this and admit to being a little embarrassed for you. I felt it would have been preferable if we had both withdrawn. However it is what it is.

You claimed to have read the book but then you would have been aware of the newspaper report I posted. Why? Because it is in the book word for word.

So why were you so determined not to believe these were the same girls?

In fact you have continuously maintained there were no newspaper reports about the event including no details of a search. Why?

Neville said they had searched high and low.

And what was this from you very late in the piece?

“As it happens, there was a case of a couple of girls running away from Moore River out towards the fence. They were tracked and found to have caught a rabbit, but without knives etc., they were unable to cut it open or cook it, so its carcase was found untouched.”

Covering your bases?

I now have little doubt the effort it would take for you to accept the event took place would be extraordinary. The question is why?

Cont..

Cont..

You had replied to me;

“Thanks for your request: " .... what if it could be illustrated to your satisfaction that the three girls did escape together from Moore River, head north-east in the direction of the rabbit-proof fence and home rather than west toward the 'bright lights of Fremantle' as you implied, were not recorded as being captured within the first week, shown to be avoiding human habitations and to have caught and eaten game meat; would that then allow you to turn aside from ever again labeling this as a 'myth'?"”

“Yes, of course, if you could find evidence of it.”

I did but you didn't.

Now according to you the burden of proof moves out another step;

“So what were their names ? That might clinch the Story, one way or the other.”

The Western Australian article spoke of three girls who had “recently arrived” at Moore River in 1931, from the district near where Molly and her cousins were taken in 1931, who then escaped and head north-east toward the rabbit-proof fence.

So essentially it comes down to you asking us to believe the extremely high likelihood of these being the same girls is rather so remote that you get to maintain this a myth.

You don't.

Hi Steele,

No, you didn't. Some documentation would be handy. Yes, if letters could be found between Neville and the Moore River Superintendent which named the three girls, and any other correspondence which provided details of whatever followed, that might move the discussion forward.

I know it might be difficult to get access to letters written in 1931 or 1932, if the SA Records' 100-year rule is any guide. This is why newspaper accounts, or mentions in Hansard might be useful, they may be the only written records currently available.

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

This is what I mean by a dishonest broker. Your language goes from “clinch it” to “move the discussion forward” in consecutive posts. You have little intention of giving up your position because it would mean going around all the various forums in which you have propogated unequivocally that this event did not occur and declaring you may be wrong.

I have absolutely no doubt that the author did her homework including accessing those documents and you have very little reason to think otherwise. For instance the admission cards for all the Moore River 'inmates are available once you gain permission from the relevant agencies. Windschuttle accepted her work. The fact that you don't after all this elevates your attitude from churlish to borderline pathological.

Now I am starting to wonder how much you may have tampered with the documentation you profess to have transcribed. What got left out because it didn't fit your narrative?

For instance where is this letter in your collection?

“A letter from Noongar girls at Moore River in 1934 to Moseley Royal Commission states:

Every morning our people would crush charcoal and mix that with animal fat and smother that all over us, so that when the police came they could only see black children in the distance.”
https://www.noongarculture.org.au/stolen-generations/

Come on mate, don't you see what you are doing here is polluting the work you have done. You have had evidence placed before you that would have made anyone else at least consider their position. The fact that you can not bring your self to do the same is just sad.

Hi Steele,

Yes, of course, I may be wrong: this amazing feat may have happened. And it would have been truly amazing and worthy of much more than a film.

On the other hand, I'm not so confident about your statement: "I have absolutely no doubt that the author did her homework including accessing those documents and you have very little reason to think otherwise."

You may have no doubts but nobody else has to have the same level of faith. You've seen those documents ? I suspect they are very comprehensive in dealing with the period rom the beginning of the girls' journey in the Pilbara right up to their reception at Moore River, then they tend to dry up.

I'm interested in documentation, all of it, if it exists, concerning their escape from Moore River, their flight up along the fence and arrival back in the Pilbara. In fact, I would be happy with just one single document, say, a letter from Neville to the Police Commissioner or the Minister responsible for the Rabbit Department, asking for help at some point well along the Fence, or some story from a local newspaper up the Fence. Or something as mundane as a bill from some hotel for a sudden influx of Keystone Kops up along the Fence.

I'm troubled why there was nothing after Neville's letter which you printed above: why didn't the West Australian follow up the story ? Why Paul Hasluck, later Minister and Governor-General but at the time a reporter for the West Australian and heavily involved in Aboriginal issues, said nothing in his memoirs, nothing about this story anyway - he says a lot about other aspects of Aboriginal affairs, including the Moseley Commission which he accompanied from one end of the State to the other.

In other words, to cite Sherlock Holmes, why didn't the dog bark ?

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

You wrote;

“I'm interested in documentation, all of it, if it exists, concerning their escape from Moore River, their flight up along the fence and arrival back in the Pilbara. In fact, I would be happy with just one single document”

No you wouldn't because I provided you with a document 'concerning their escape from Moore River', the Western Australian Newspaper report, but you have dismissed it as inadequate, a fate I am sure would befall any other documents that were produced.

You also wrote;

“Or something as mundane as a bill from some hotel for a sudden influx of Keystone Kops up along the Fence.”

You are confusing the book with the movie. Where in the book does it detail “a sudden influx” of policemen? Are you really sure you have read it?

Are you at least satisfied that the girls who escaped were Molly and her cousins?

Jigalong was a town created by the fencers of which Molly's father was one. The fence had water tanks or wells along its entire length. The journey was of course difficult but even a little bit of bush knowledge goes a long way. Why is this so hard for you to accept they managed to do it?

You say;

“You may have no doubts but nobody else has to have the same level of faith. You've seen those documents?”

Pilkington quotes Native Affairs file numbers and dates through her book. Why are you so determined to insinuate she and her mother are liars?

Hi Steele,

Presumably, if Neville the Devil, the Police, the Rabbit Department and Uncle Tom Cobbley were all chasing those three little girls up the fence, they would have needed hotels to stay at, given that, for the sake of the story - in book and in film - none of them had the wits to get up in front and wait ? ?

But I think I may have found a way out of our rather fruitless discussion.

Given the high level of surveillance of and reporting on everybody at Moore River, especially the children, the teachers at the school would have kept a roll. All children, up to sixteen or even seventeen, would have been on the Roll. Their daily attendance would have been recorded.

I'm presuming that the Moore River records are being held in the WA Archives or State Records:

[ https://archive.sro.wa.gov.au/index.php/aborigines-department-2-au-wa-a63 ]

Although the Education Department at the time refused to take any responsibility for the education of Aboriginal children, it's possible that the Moore River School still tried to follow Ed. Dept. curriculum and practices, including the administration of records, particularly the Roll.

At least, that's the way they did it in South Australia, the leader in Indigenous policy.

So those three little girls would have been on the School Roll at Moore River. Their attendance of absence would have been recorded every day. If they moved to another school, or left school and went out to work, that would have been recorded on the Roll, in the last column.

This throws up a number of possibilities:

[TBC]

[continued]

* IF they were the three little girls who ran away in early August, 1931, their absences would have been recorded.

* IF they were eventually found and returned to Moore River, those absences and renewal of attendances would have been recorded.

* IF they ran away from Moore River, reached Nullagine or Jigalong, and were then brought back to Moore River, say early the next year, their long absence and re-enrolment would have been recorded on the School Roll.

* If they reached the Pilbara, but were allowed to stay, perhaps (and according to documentation) because their mothers didn't want them to be returned, they would not have showed up again on the Moore River School Roll - unless their mothers changed their minds.

So, if someone is in Perth and has a few weeks free time, perhaps they could check out the State Archives; I think they are now housed in the State Library in James Street, near the Museum.

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

You wrote;

“IF they were the three little girls who ran away in early August, 1931”

God save us man. Really?

From the Department of Native Affairs file no.173/30

In a letter dated 4th August 1931 and addressed to Constable Riggs from Neville;

“the three girls...arrived safely … Daisy, Molly and Chissy [Gracie] at Moore River Native Settlement. The girls seem very scared of the other children, and require watching to prevent them running away.”

Then this in a newspaper a week later;

“The Chief Protector of Aborigines (Mr. A..O. Neville) is concerned about three native girls, ranging from eight to 15 years of age, who, a week ago, ran away from the Moore River Native Settlement, Mogumber. They came 'in from the Nullagine district recently, Mr. Neville said yesterday, and, being very timid, were scared by their new quarters, apparently, and fled in the hope of getting back home.”
http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/32369233?searchTerm=neville%20protector&searchLimits=exactPhrase|||anyWords|||notWords|||requestHandler|||dateFrom=1931-01-01|||dateTo=1931-12-01|||sortby

I understand this is difficult for you to accept but could you please tell us why you think there is any possibility these were not the same girls? I realise that if you were to work really hard you might be able to construct another narrative but you sir are looking like a fool.

Hi Steele,

Just eliminating the possibility that another three little girls were involved, amongst the possible options. I'm assuming that they weren't, that 'our' girls were the ones who ran away from Moore River between the 4th and, say, the 9th of August 1931.

So, what do you think of the idea ? That somebody locates the Moore River School Roll in the State Archives, and checks it for those girls' attendance in and around that time ?

For someone to register as a User at the Archives might take only a few minutes, then they might have to wait, perhaps a couple of hours, for the staff to find the file, and a minute or two to find the right page, and bingo ! Half a day's research !

That should clinch it, one way or the other, don't you think ?

Cheers,

Joe

Not where some have a vested interest, even if 'only' psychological, in keeping a fable alive.

There is no accident in having it as a text for primary and secondary students.

Meanwhile the BBC is forced into making a cringing apology for lifting the rug on the indigenous boozing (and violence) that is 24/365 in country towns. Where small children lock themselves in rooms at night, or hide together somewhere in an effort to escape the horrors that will befall them anyway at the hands of the very people who claim 'foul' and 'racism' when their excesses are reported.

I wonder how some here can live with themselves knowing as they must that 'stolen children' were removed for their own safety and the numbers have increased. Yet the increase is claimed to be more 'stolen children' . Those little children must always resign themselves to the fact that there is no-one coming to help and their cries are in vain. Their continued suffering bis exchanged for guvvy grants and sinecures for others.

Plenty of political game playing though.

Dear loudmouth,

No you don't my friend, this is already clinched. The churlish prevarication is all yours.

As far as most reasonable people are concerned, even including those who are not so reasonable like Windschuttle, this is done and dusted.

The only reason I am bothering to pursue this is because you continually put yourself out there as some kind of expert on these things because of your transcription activity.

Ultimately this is about a deep intransigence on your behalf. Even getting you to admit the smallest detail is an exercise in combating pathological denial. It feels like I am dealing with someone in a cult and I recognise it is all about baby steps.

I will therefore ask again, as clearly as I can; can you at least accept the three girls referred to in the newspaper alert were Molly and her cousins or not?

Wouldn't it have been good if instead of the 'big knobs' Emily's Listers showcasing their networking via the 'wimmin only' ABC yesterday, those well-off, privileged women had chosen instead to donate a week's pay (one pair of shoes) to build some lockable at dusk, chain-wire enclosed accommodation so indigenous women and children could sleep safely?

Nah, a constant supply of victims is required to shame and guilt the 'whites' and shake down the gold from that money tree in Canberra. Even so, the dollars allocated are not reaching the intended recipients. Everything remains the same.

Hi Leoj,

If we are going to get onto the 'Stolen Generation' story, it might help to analyse actual cases.

When my wife and I analysed the School Records from her home community, we pulled out all the names of kids who had, usually for a short time, been put into care of some sort, almost always to a home for boys or girls. Since we knew most of those put into care, and their family situations, it wasn't difficult to understand the whys and wherefores:

* between 1880 and 1960, forty women died, usually in childbirth, leaving 140 school-age kids motherless; since fathers had to go out to do rural work, the community had to find ways to support those children, which seemed to happen fairly effectively up until about the 1940s; then it broke down;

* a handful of fathers died, and the mothers re-married; no surprise, their teenage daughters were sent to the Fullarton Girls' Home;

* at least one single mother died, leaving a child orphaned, and sent off to Colebrook in 1944. She would be the only child that we couldn't place; another girl was orphaned in 1934 at about six, sent to the Fullarton Girls' Home; she returned and married an Aboriginal partner, like most did who had been taken into care;

* in at least one case, the mother had died, the father had re-married, but the new wife refused to look after someone else's brats, so they were sent off for six months, until their grandfather could retire and take care of them.

* without birth control, women had large families, up to eighteen kids (a friend has just passed away who was one of eighteen); fathers, as rural labourers, earned very little. So destitution (and sheer break-down of the mothers) was common, but often just for a short time until the parents could get themselves together again; then the kids were all brought back.

* like in any community, a few bad kids were sent off to the reformatory, returned, sent off again, returned, etc.

Hopefully, this helps.

Joe

Hi Steele,

" .... can you at least accept the three girls referred to in the newspaper alert were Molly and her cousins or not?"

Sure. But getting hold of the School Roll and checking, would clinch it, one way or the other, don't you think ?

After all, why didn't the West Australian follow up this story ? is it possible that they were found, brought back and that was that ? So, ho hum, no more story.

The School Roll would settle the issue pretty conclusively. End of angst.

Joe

@Loudmouth, Thursday, 9 March 2017 11:59:02 AM

Yes it certainly does help to get down to cases and I thank you for the detail.

Dear Loudmouth,

You wrote;

“ I'm assuming that they weren't, that 'our' girls were the ones who ran away from Moore River between the 4th and, say, the 9th of August 1931.”

Well no. The book tells us they said they left the day after arrival. The letter was written on the 4th. The newspaper report saying they had escaped a week ago was on the 11th which fits the time sequence.

Some of your earlier quotes;

“But was there a single element of truth in it ?”
“So, sorry, Paul, there appears to be not a skerrick of evidence supporting the Story.”
“But what we can say (provisionally, until evidence is found) is that it didn't happen.”
“No, I don't think, on the evidence, that the Rabbit-Proof Fence story happened.”
“So how would you consider a story which actually CAN'T establish that an act took place, ever, because it is not based on any actual evidence ? “
“I'll suspend my belief until some of it is made available, if any of it exists AND actually relates to the 'escape' and not to the taking into care of the girls.”
“Windschuttle wrote of 'documentation' - my bet is that none of it relates to any flight, only to the journey down by boat”
“So what have we got ? A story, with no independent back-up, except some mysterious 'documentation' relating to the bringing of the girls from the Pilbara down to Moore River Institution. Nothing which can actually verify the story.”

Hopefully we have now moved past them.

So I will ask the question again;

Has it now been shown to your satisfaction that the three girls did escape together from Moore River, head north-east in the direction of the rabbit-proof fence and home rather than west toward the 'bright lights of Fremantle' as you implied, were not recorded as being captured within the first week, shown to be avoiding human habitations and to have caught and eaten game meat?

If so will this then allow you, as agreed, to turn aside from ever again labeling this as a 'myth'

Hi Steele,

Ah, yes, but did they get very far past New Norcia before they were brought back to Moore River ? I'll wait until someone gets hold of either the School Roll and/or - since you will say that there was no time for them to get enrolled - correspondence between Mr Neal, the Superintendent, and Mr Neville about it all, i.e. the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. No rush.

Hi Leoj,

It was also common practice at Missions and government stations in the South, for children to be housed in small dormitories while they were at school during the week, so that their parents could both go out and work at neighbouring farms.

In this way, the kids could get an education, and get properly fed and clothed, while their parents were free to work. This seemed to be the practice for many years at Koonibba, Pt McLeay (until 1918), and at Gerard on the Murray River (from about 1952 to 1961).

Many people have confused this with 'taking the children away' but clearly it was a win-win situation, for both children and parents. Of course, they were all reunited on Friday nights for the weekend.

At Gerard, where we lived for a few years, but before we got there, parents had gone out on the fruit blocks during the week while the Missionaries ran the dormitory and the kids went to school. If the parents worked further away, sometimes the Missionaries would look after the kids over the weekends.

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

Why the obfuscation?

The question made no reference to further travels, nor recapture, nor committing you to anything else.

In fact it was very simple and I will ask it again - Has it now been shown to your satisfaction that the three girls did escape together from Moore River, head north-east in the direction of the rabbit-proof fence and home rather than west toward the 'bright lights of Fremantle' as you implied, were not recorded as being captured within the first week, shown to be avoiding human habitations and to have caught and eaten game meat?

Yes or no? If no what part have you now decided to object to?

Hi Steele,

I don't disagree with you on most of that: once someone has checked the School Roll, we can establish conclusively that the three girls mentioned in Neville's letter were in fact the three girls of the book and film. I'm assuming so. Whether they got much further than past New Norcia twenty miles from Moore River, is another story. The Roll might help.

Just to correct you on one point: they caught a rabbit but couldn't gut it or skin it, and had nothing to cook it with. So, no, they didn't eat game meat, no from the available evidence anyway. Nor did they pass human habitations undetected. So what did they eat, even in their first week, let alone the entire three months or so ?

Actually ...... if they WERE caught and brought back, THEN they would have been put on the School Roll. And of course, if they did get back to the Pilbara, but were brought back down again, THEN they would also have been put back on the Roll. So what we probably arguing about is: were they on the Roll, attending school, from, say, late August 1931, for the rest of the year, and in later years ?

And of course, correspondence between Neal and Neville would clinch it too: if the Story were true, there would have been a flurry of letters. I hope that it is possible to view those letters in the State Archives.

A thousand miles: wow ! That's like from Adelaide to Broken Hill to Sydney, plus up the Coast a bit. Phenomenal !

Cheers,

Joe

Joe (Loudmouth),

Again, very useful and I am digging away somewhere ATM. For historical interest.

Here is something for you of which you would be aware, Russell's Teapot. For that poster with the rude remarks.

I am referring of course to the duty incumbent on those who make extreme claims, such as are in The Rabbit Proof Fence, that they should also go to extreme lengths to prove their claim/s.

The duty is not upon the skeptic to prove anything.

Dear Loudmouth,

So this is how you have decided that there was no Stolen Generation.

You make each case jump over a bar so high or you delve so into minutia that need to be verified that none have a chance of qualifying in your eyes.

'You say you were stolen? I say you were rescued. Show me papers that say you weren't neglected. What? Nothing? You are a liar and a scammer for perpetuating the Stolen Generation Myth!'

Highly toxic position and one that displays a singular lack of empathy for the suffering of so many half caste children who were ripped from their families.

Hi Steele,

So we move from the RPF to the SG ?

I suppose the same rules for proof apply: get the evidence for any claims and don't rely on any hand-on-heart statements. If any SG claim is genuine, the proof will be there, in each case, a thick file somewhere in the relevant State Archives.

How many cases have been demonstrated in court, where this would logically end up ? One. He was my late wife's second cousin: well, they would share cousins. I knew his mum and her boyfriend's family. It has to be said that they were drinkers, so (really get stuck into me now) it's just possible that the poor bloke in that case had FASD, which of course wasn't diagnosed as such back then in the fifties and sixties.

If someone has a case, they take it to court. If it stands up, they should be entitled to compensation.

And no, I would never say that someone lied about their case (although that's possible), but more like they have to put the best interpretation on being taken into care, which exonerates their parents from neglect or any blame, especially as the mists of time soften their memories.

People misremember, reshape their memories, drop stuff out, add stuff, especially their experiences as very young children - and who would want to blame their own parents for being put into care ? My mum got a court order against our father when I was maybe four, on the grounds of his drunken violence; I don't ever remember any of that, but it seemed to have happened. Grog's a killer.

Cheers,

Joe

Aboriginal issues certainly stir the emotions in some, even to the point of anger among many of the hard right , bigoted racists with a "How dare they!" attitude to any issues concerning indigenous people.

If the bases of this story is questionable, then should not many other unsubstantiated accounts by other Australians involving horrific ordeals, or acts of heroism, particularly during times of war, also be questioned, rather than simply be taken on face value as many often are.

Seems we will apply a double standard when it suits the chosen narrative.

Along comes Paul1405 to try to out-do SteeleRedux at argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

"Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa)." [Wikipedia]

Paul1405 adds an association fallacy, a red herring, as usual. Irrelevant.

No evidence has been tendered to support the RPF fable.

The RPF novel was a clever insertion into the primary and secondary school syllabuses. Because it is there, some will be likely to swallow it. Then there is the extra opportunity for activists to add more spin. Leftist politics in education. To think that the Jesuits had such a bad rap for trying to mould young minds.

NathanJ, (original post), "This politically correct drive is in my view a gross violation of basic individual rights"

Thanks for an interesting thread NathanJ. You are right. The school kids are definitely targets of Leftist revisionism.

Hi Paul,

Haere mai :)

Your interesting post criticised " ..... hard right , bigoted racists with a "How dare they!" attitude to any issues concerning indigenous people."

And there I was, thinking I was still somehow on the Left. But no, if I think an injustice has been done to Indigenous people, and declare "How dare they !" now I'm a bigoted racist. No, I assert that the Indigenous Cause is just, apart from the odd scams, lies, misuse of statistics, etc., and I will always say that it is regardless. Once you're in, you're in for life.

You have a srong point here, I think:

"If the bases of this story is the Australians involving horrific ordeals, or acts of heroism, particularly during times of war, also be questioned, rather than simply be taken on face value as many often are."

Yes, that's true, and usually deeds of heroism CAN be validated by many eye-witness accounts, reports, body parts, etc., the more the better. If there are none for a particular incident, then of course its veracity has to be held in abeyance until there is some sort of validation. The famous photograph of a Spanish Civil War guerilla being shot is a lesson: was it Frank Capra who got the bloke to pose half a dozen times, and selected the most truthful-looking one ? By jeez though, it looked authentic.

Yes, working out the actual truth can be tricky. Literally.

Joe

Hi Joe,

Apology, I don't consider you a "hard right, bigoted racists with a "How dare they!" attitude to any issues concerning indigenous people." That was a general observation of some you find crying in their beer down at the RSL, or on a forum like this, although not so many these days, as time catches up. You put a lot into the issues and that is commendable in no small measure.

I accept there is some truth in the RPF story, I said that from the start, I don't accept the movie is 100% fact with every word uttered being gospel, I believe there is no reason for those involved to lie outright, but did they embellish their story, did the movie makers embellish the story with poetic licence, probably true on both counts.

Anyway off to NZ in the morning to catch up.

G'day Paul,

I'll say it again, and again and and again if you like, that no, I don't think anybody was lying. Memory is fallible. We remember what makes sense at the time that we're remembering, we drop things out that don't seem important, we add things that we think should be there, if they help to make our memory more sensible at that time when we're remembering.

So in remembering again and again, the story changes slightly again and again. Nobody's lying. Contexts change, our understanding of the world changes, so our memory of something from the distant past slightly, ever so slightly, changes, each time we remember.

Have you ever played 'Chinese Whispers' ? In that chain off communication, bits of the original story get dropped out each time, new bits get added, so after a dozen or so interactions, with the 'original story' being passed on through a dozen different people, the 'final story' can be quite different.

So, in real life, how do you know which was the original 'original story' ? You have to find other ways of corroborating it, and SOME evidence is not a bad start. We can 'believe' 'til the cows come home, and no get one millimetre closer to the 'real story'.

So I'll wait until somebody has checked the Moore River School Roll, Failing that, if it's been destroyed (as so many Aboriginal records have been, usually by pure, dumb accident), then I'll be happy to rely on some other evidence, any other record of presence (or otherwise) at Moore River: dormitory records if such exist, hospital records, 'boob' records, anything. Or letters between Neville, Neal, and the Police, the Minister, Hansard, perhaps even the Premier, newspaper reports, etc.

But I'll never, never just believe such an amazing story on its own.

Sorry.

Joe

Paul1405,

You are no different then, exactly the same, as the ideologues and religious fundamentalists who similarly start with a given, pre-set belief, scripture verse, doctrine, alternative "fact" or conclusion and then search for any reasonable-sounding argument to justify and defend it.

As another poster is trying to educate you, indigenous suffered quite enough harm even from the generally peaceful settlement. It was enormous change. For some the change is still happening. That is the big issue. But there were wrongs too by some on both sides.

Therefore, indigenous have no need for the patronising lies of cynical political interests and power-hungry activists who are serving their own needs exclusively, political and personal, under the guise of being 'do gooders' and 'progressives'.

If I was a indigenous leader the very last thing I would be seeking is the continuation of the victimhood that is doing so much damage to indigenous youth. It is playing out in anti-social, risky behaviour for instance and more domestic violence. What I would be promoting instead are the success stories and the empowerment and futures that go with it. Loudmouth's stats on university attendance are highly relevant.

Discussion time here would be better spent finding ways to publciise those achievements of individuals and many thousands of them as it turns out. Not something that gets any attention, much less positive mention, on the ABC, particularly entertainment shows like Q&A that sensationalise and stir to get an audience.

Dear Paul,

Have a lovely time in New Zealand.

And when you get back if you can get hold of the
book, "The Other Side of the Frontier," it
certainly is worth a read. The author has painted
an exciting and compelling picture. It's quite an
important book on the Aboriginal European contact.

It always helps to get more than just one point of
view on any issue. And today we certainly can know
a great deal about the history of indigenous-settler
relations.

There being no proof proffered for the Rabbit Proof Fence, nor for the Stolen Generation that is alleged to be still happening(?!), the diversion is now 'The Invasion'.

What about starting a new thread instead? Starting with evidence, although that poses some real leaps of faith too it would appear,

"The construction of Aboriginal history: fact or fiction?"
http://www.kooriweb.org/foley/resources/history/winddebatehr03.html

Thanks Foxy, bad weather over the ditch, looks like we'll spend tonight in Auckland, down to Roto tomorrow. Got relos to call on in Auckland no problem, so a bed is always there.

Hi Joe, what can't be embellished, changed or altered in any way is the basic fact"

"Three girls walked the RPF in the 1930's." I hear what you say about recollection, but I accept that basic fact, what transpires in the movie, the finer detail, is not all verbatim fact. Can you accept that, otherwise the whole story is a lie.

Dear Paul,

I don't accept that the whole story is a lie.

Aboriginal history has predominantly been written
by non-indigenous people from a non-indigenous point
of view.

There is so much more available today that we can access
The following link may be of interest:

http://www.creativespiritis.info/aboriginalculture/history

cont'd ...

My apologies for the typo:

http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/history

Dear Paul,

I've come across an interesting person - Jane Resture.
You may be interested to Google her biography.

Anyway here's her link on the famous Aboriginal author, poet,
and grand lady - Kath Walker:

http://www.janesoceania.com/australia_great_woman_kathwalker/index.htm

Is everybody lying?

cont'd ...

Sorry - more typos.

Here it is again:

http://www.janesoceania.com/australia_great_women_kathwalker/index.htm

Dear oh dear,

This is like arguing with four-year-olds:

"I'll say it again, and again and and again if you like, that no, I don't think anybody was lying. Memory is fallible. We remember what makes sense at the time that we're remembering, we drop things out that don't seem important, we add things that we think should be there, if they help to make our memory more sensible at that time when we're remembering.

So in remembering again and again, the story changes slightly again and again. Nobody's lying. Contexts change, our understanding of the world changes, so our memory of something from the distant past slightly, ever so slightly, changes, each time we remember."

Nobody lied, but they may have mis-remembered. We all do it. Look at the stories on 'Who Do You Think You Are ?' Almost invariably, every person finds out that what they have been told is not quite, or not at all, the truth.

How can one verify anything then ? As much as possible, to gather data, evidence, especially data that SHOULD be there but doesn't seem to be.

Does anybody really think that, if this story were true (and I don't give a toss about fine points of difference between the story in the book and the story in the film), that there wouldn't be correspondence flying between Neville and the Moore River Superintendent, Neal ? Between Neville and his Minister ? Even between that Minister and the Premier ? Between Neville and the Police ? Between Neville and reporters from the West Australian, requesting details of what the hell was happening ?

This I supposed to be about vastly more than a few girls strolling over a hill. A thousand miles for Christ's sake ! Doesn't that strike anyone as incredibly enormous ? How could that be possible ? A paper trail would surely exist if it actually happened ?

Right, where is it ? School Roll ? Neal's records ? Neville's records ?

[TBC]

[continued]

And please let's not go on about 'fabrication' because that doesn't help the story: the story NEEDS documentation because a lack of documentation would suggest that none of it happened, that there was nothing to report.

Christ, this is like trying to play poker with someone who never shows you his cards but swears he's got a full house or whatever, therefore wins the pot every time.

Please don't treat people like mugs. It's perfectly reasonable to ask for some sort of back-up evidence to confirm something so amazing. In this case, the lack of evidence really may well be the evidence of absence.

Joe

Dear Joe,

There is plenty of documented evidence, names are listed
all you have to do is Google them. I'm sorry but on the
law of averages they can't all be lying. You just refuse to
accept any of it. I wonder why that is?
Anyway, I'm done here. You go right on claiming it didn't
happen - the rest of us will simply move on.

"Though babtized and blessed and bibled,
We are still tabood and libelled.
You devout salvation sellers,
Make us equal not fringe dwellers."

Kath Walker.

Dear Loudmouth,

No this is about a serial denier who is worming around having to give an inch.

Your insipid little homilies like “Nobody lied, but they may have mis-remembered. We all do it.” are blatant deflections. Show me an fourteen year old who would misremember a journey which you yourself claim was 'enormous'.

You have taken the position that this did not happen. Rather than just expressing skepticism you have repeatedly asserted it was a myth. You claim to have read the book but seem to have not noticed newspaper report confirming the girls escape contained within.

You have also conflated commentators like Bolt and Windschuttle's concerns about the film into a position on the book. I have seen your contributions on other threads running the same line. You have been doing so for years and have so much invested in calling this a myth that you are unlikely to change.

The author had her original draft rejected because it was considered too academic. Perhaps she could make it available to satisfy people like you by why should she have to? This is an event accepted even by some of the most rightwing in this country. If you want to make the claim it is a myth then it is now up to you to prove it. It should be easy as you claimed.

I am not as generous on this as Foxy and Paul. I consider your stance on this story and that despite all the evidence and testimony not a single half-caste child could be considered stolen in this country's history, to be markedly offensive and ultra rightwing.

The ball is in your court. Disprove it if you can otherwise it might be advisable to put a sock in it.

Shifting the burden of proof to the skeptic is a shonk. Always was and always will be.

There are many stolen generation members still alive
today. They are the living proof. Besides, the absence
of proof is not proof of absence. It's simply proof
of those that just do not want to see and understand.

Here is a link that further explains the film:

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2002/0ct/25/artsfeatures

"...It's simply proof of those that just do not want to see and understand"

That is the problem with freedom and democracy, people are not being obliged to believe and do what you say.

Hence the need for s18C and the thought police.

Hi Steele,

No, I'm taking the position that there hasn't been any evidence that it happened. When some is presented, I'll gladly believe the story. Why ? Because it will be backed up by evidence. But I can't accept anything just on faith, not being religious. Not just on a story alone. Evidence. of some sort. Of any valid sort. Especially some documentation.

Yes, thank you, without any evidence, a story is a charming myth. No more than that. I don't believe in Little Red Riding Hood either, although I have no particular love of wolves.

Seriously, do YOU have any evidence ? Then why do you believe it ? Because it would be a nice, un-racist, thing to do for an Aboriginal lady ? Well, you might have a good heart but I doesn't say much about your brain, no offence.

You suggest: "I consider your stance on this story and that despite all the evidence and testimony not a single half-caste child could be considered stolen in this country's history, to be markedly offensive and ultra rightwing."

No probs, Steele: just find some evidence, and I'll be happy to believe. Why ? Because the evidence will, I hope, confirm the story. No more, no less.

Of course, if you can't provide any evidence, then, as my dear old grandmother would say, you can kiss my hairy arse.

Cheers,

Joe

Dearest Foxy,

Then all they have to do is get hold of their files, and present them to the appropriate court. My wife had no trouble getting held of hers. End of.

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

They have already proven their case.

Our former Prime Minister apologised to them on
our behalf.

Did you not watch it on TV?

It made the news. And was covered in all the media.

Dearest Foxy,

Well, one bloke has. I'm not aware of any other successful cases. Please elucidate :)

I think I've just blown my fourth post :) I'd better make it worthwhile:

I was raised in a communist household. We didn't think we were religious (of course, we were, but were praying to a different god). Since those ancient times, the entire world has witnessed a combined hundreds of years of 'real socialism' and the people at the higher end of the IQ bell curved have decided that it doesn't work, and never will. It is a pathway to fascism, not perhaps as direct as pure fascism or Nazism but you'll still get there eventually. Quite quickly sometimes: cf. Pol Pot. But it wasted decades of my misspent life, working that out. Never again.

So I'm very chary of 'believing' without question, believing just out of my innate good nature. I've witnessed too many scams and don't want to be taken in yet again during my last few years.

But if a story is fair dinkum, why shouldn't there be evidence ? In fact, how could there possibly be NO evidence ? If there is none, then why believe ? Not-believing is as valid as believing in that case.

In the RPF case, there SHOULD be ample evidence. In the SG case, there would be ample files: as many people have complained, Aboriginal people are the most documented people in history. So there are files. Oodles of them. [Some people have even more than one oodle]. Present them to a court.

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

The Creative Spirits website regarding
Stolen Generation Members and court cases
tells us that most members of
the Stolen Generations will find that a successful
pursuit of a civil claim through the courts is
technically impossible, or simply too painful.

"Suing governments is hard, brutally hard, especially
for people who are damaged," says Julian Burnside, a
human Rights lawyer and activist. For many claimants records
might not exist or have been destroyed or lost which makes
it very hard if not impossible. Witnesses might have passed
on. Relevant documents have been, and still are controlled
by governments and institutions.

Plaintiffs must also endure "hostile cross-examination" and
intense scrutiny of their private lives and those of their
family including health and social problems that they might
have suffered as a result of their removal.

"Compensation is not what everyone wants - we need healing
centres across Australia so people can move on and heal their
incessant pain." (Brenda McDonnell, 64 member of the Stolen
Generations).

Or as Noel Pearson, Aboriginal Elder stated, "Those people
stolen from their families who feel entitled to compensation
will never be able to move on. Black fellas will get the words,
the white fellas will keep the money."

Syd Jackson (famous footballer player and member of the
Stolen Generations agreed - as did many others).

This was proven by the Fairbridge Farm School, a case of
selective compensation in Australia where the similarities of
both their case and those of the Stolen Generations are
compelling. The Fairbridge Farm School case gave $24 million
to child migrants (of solid British stock) in compensation.
The Stolen Generations - have received zero.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-29/fairbridge-farm-school-child-migrants-paid-24-million/6580104

Dearest Foxy,

So ...... are you saying that there may be no evidence of something, in many cases, and so we should believe ? One could reply, with equal sense, 'Or not believe.' i.e. we would SUSPEND belief until we found a bit more than an incredibly sincere and tearful story.

Even Burnside would know that, without evidence, no matter how it has disappeared, fire, theft or whatever, it would constitute 'no evidence', of the 'My dog ate my homework' type, in front of a judge. She would throw it out and maybe caution the lawyers for wasting her time. And why not ?

Frankly, I don't believe that. My late wife simply applied for her file and was given access to it with no delay. There were quite a few surprises, but much that made sense of her early life, and just before. So it would go for pretty much everybody, or at least all Indigenous people, who also wanted to have a look at their files. Government agencies keep files, mountains of them. And I think Burnside would know that.

If it would be too painful for people to even look for their files, then what are we asking ? That, on say-so, they get compensated ? After all, that's what this is all about, isn't it ? Get the files. End of.

Nobody likes to admit that their parents, especially their mother, was neglectful. But it's happened. It's still happening: when coppers pick up a kid from the streets at 3 a.m., take her home but can't find anybody sober enough to take care of her, and spend the rest of the night going to relatives' houses trying the same, then there may well be an element of neglect.

I was talking to a retired copper friend who used to have to go out to sort out DV and child neglect cases: he said that they could have put the police car on auto-pilot and it would have found its way, the same places came up so often.

[TBC]

[continued]

There's talk of a new 'Stolen Generation'. But now, in 2017 ? Where's the horrible white men in white coats ? Some deliberate policy of ripping children from the arms of loving mothers ? Any evidence ? Could some current child neglect be very much home-grown ? Inter-generational and home-grown ?

And if the causes for it now are similar to those in the past, then is it possible that there might have been, I don't know, the odd rare case of child neglect back then ?

Love anyway,

Joe

Dear Joe,

The fact remains an apology was made by our government
to the Stolen Generation and that in itself is an
acknowledgement. There must have been enough documented
evidence on record for this to have occurred. The fact also
remains that our former PM John Howard would not make the
apology because he feared that there would be a rush of
compensation claims. The fact remains that many Aboriginal
people can be, and have been traumatised by having to face
white man's justice because they have to relive the terrible
past experiences. Why do you think so many rape cases used to,
and still do, go unreported?

Still despite all the information that this discussion has
attempted to provide for you you still keep on with the same
old denials. Fair enough. That is your right.

A democracy requires its citizens to make informed choices.
If citizens or their representatives are denied access to the
information they need to make these choices, or if they are
given false or misleading information, the democratic process
may become a sham. It is therefore important that the media
not be censored, that citizens have the right of free speech,
and that public officials tell the truth - no matter how
painful it may be.

See you on another discussion.

cont'd ...

There's a very interesting article about Syd Jackson
the famous football player in The Herald Sun that's worth
Googling. I'll give the link but you may have to be a
subscriber to read it. Anyway it's worth a Google.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/syd-jackson-says-he-doesnt-know-his-real-name-or-his-birthday-and-had-to-fight-to-be-recognised-as-an-australian/news-story/5e5f7c514bd95e3ca343b0d9760caa27

Dearest sweet Foxy,

You suggest: " ..... all the information that this discussion has attempted to provide .... "

'Information' ? Do you mean 'assertions' ? What information do you refer to ?

And surely you're not so naïve that you would hang an entire policy on the words of a politician, even a Prime Minister ? I don't believe it. I think you're pulling my leg :)

One crucial aspect of the Enlightenment has been the development of the 'scientific method', of establishing a theory or whatever only on the careful basis of evidence, testing, validating or invalidating hypotheses - but above all, relying on replicable evidence.

Of course, we can't replicate events such as the mythical RPF story, so if anything, we need MORE evidence, more data, more 'information' than we would if we just replicated the myth. As one of your videos tried to demonstrate, it is possible for a trained athlete, with a team of supporters, and regular meals, etc., to walk at least part of the way along the Fence, and video it for 'absolute' proof. But this is, in some ways, neither here nor there; just because something CAN be done, doesn't mean that it WAS done.

The archetypical case here is the Kon-Tiki Expedition: in 1947, a group of Scandinavians sailed a balsa raft from Peru to Polynesia, to prove that it could be done. Of course, then they concluded that it WAS done: that Polynesians were actually South Americans. The problem came a few years later when a Frenchman sailed successfully the other way, to demonstrate conclusively that South Americans were actually Polynesians.

So, evidence please. Or give me a lobotomy, so that I can enthusiastically believe without question.

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

The apology was a historic day. Through one direct act
Parliament acknowledged the existence and the impacts of
the past policies and practices of forcibly removing
Indigenous children from their families. And by doing so
has paid respect to the Stolen Generations. For their
suffering and their loss. For their resilience. And
ultimately for their dignity.

There are so many biographies of the Stolen Generations
that can be Googled on the web. Dr Lowitja O"Donoghue is
another one worth mentioning. Biographies are a revealing
in depth account of people who share their experiences,
people who have reached a stage of their lives where they
can look back and reflect. Through revealing in depth
accounts they share their lives - of beginnings and
challenges, landmarks and turning points. In so doing they
provide us with an invaluable archival record and a unique
perspective on the roads we, as a country, have travelled.

cont'd ...

http://stolengenerationstestimonies.com/index.php/testimonies/index.1.html

"Every individual Australian needs to have an experience, when the
view of the history is reversed, everything you thought you knew is cast up in the air.
That hasn't happened with white Australia sadly."
(Thomas Keneally).

Before leaving this discussion it would be appropriate
to just add a few more thoughts on the question of Amy
Spiers'campaign to draw attention to the Hanging Rock's
cultural heritage and conservation.

Her campaign is apparently attracting attention and
until now the Macedon Ranges Council had focused on
Recreation. Currently it appears that it is now working
to incorporate more Indigenous history into the site.
However the Council does seem to feel that "Miranda Must
Not Go." The story should be retained as part of the
"rich tapestry" of the site.

Werundjeri elder Annette Xiberras has stated that references
to Lindsay's tale should stay, but there should be more
Aboriginal information. It seems that before white
settlement the rock was used for corroborees and initiations.
A medicine woman, Bundine, sourced plants there, including
Kangaroo Apple, for contraception and gum tree sap for
antiseptic. Interesting.

My Russian gran was a firm believer in all sorts of herbal
remedies. To this day mum believes that gran saved mum's
hair from falling out during the war with her special
concoctions that she used to rub into mum's head.
Today, mum may have lost her memory - but she's got the most
magnificent head of hair that everyone admires.

Dearest Foxy,

Lowitja was a good friend of my wife's, and we still sometimes meet and hug each other in the same supermarket. She lives just up the road.

She is probably aware that her father placed her and her brother and sisters at the Oodnadatta Police Station, since there was a severe drought in the early thirties and he could no longer work in the region: he was going to go to Queensland to look for work, but to return as soon as he could. We know now that he couldn't, or at least didn't. Of course, we know what came after 1934; he didn't know at the time.

I understand that it would be painful for many people to go through their files. Of course. But they may come to understand better the whys and wherefores of how and why they were put into care. Of course, somebody could say that much of the material in their file has been fabtricated, doctored, faked. But then, what else do they have as evidence ? Frankly, I don't believe that much gets faked, it really is too hard to keep up a lie.

When I was typing up the nine thousand letters of the Protector, I used to constantly ask myself if this one or that one was genuine. And of course, it was, I'm sure: faking a letter leaves one open to all sorts of unexpected double-checking, which would quickly expose any fraud. Then I asked myself, what if someone thought that I had fiddled with a letter, or faked what it said ? What would be the point, I thought, I'd be bound to be found out, simply by someone checking the original letter in the Archives. Busted ! Anyway, I'm too lazy to try anything as stupid as that.

So anybody taken into care would have a file. It would be unlikely that there would be any faked data, letters, reports, etc., in their file. I look forward to somebody somewhere taking their case to court. Good luck to them.

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

Actually Dr Lowitja O'Donoghue tells a different version
of events to yours. She was born in 1932 in a remote
Aboriginal Community. She never knew her white father
and at the age of two she was taken away from her mother
who she did not see for 33 years.

Dr Lowitja O'Donogue proudly calls herself a member of the
Stolen Generation and is a great activist for her people.
Her biography is one of those revealing in depth accounts
that provides us with an invaluable archival record and a
unique perspective on the roads we, as a nation have
travelled.

Just letting you know that I am now leaving this discussion
and I shall not be responding to any further posts.

Dear Loudmouth,

Your hairy arse not withstanding if there was a letter from a Mr Arthur T Hungerford, Depot Superintendent at Jigalong addressed to Neville, dated 11th October 1931, which happened to read as follows;

'The half-caste girls Molly and Daisy have returned to the Jigalong area after their most wondrous walk home. I am afraid you will never get them now. By this time they will be somewhere back in their own country out in the desert – nobody knows where. I do not think you will ever keep them in a settlement unless you lock them up all the time. And I guess it is better for them to live in the bush rather than behind a locked door.'

Do you think you might then be inclined to drop the term myth?

Dearest Foxy,

Lowitja's father's letter is in "The History of the United Aborigines Mission' booklet, by A. E. Gerard (1945), in the Appendix. It should bde in most State Libraries, it certainly is in the SA State Library.

Hi Steele,

At last ! Evidence ! Thank you ! So the girls took around seventy days to travel the 1000 miles ? If they got a ride from a camel driver, that makes sense: about 16 miles each day.

Now, that wasn't so hard, was it ? Evidence: if a story is plausible, rhere's bound to be some. Thank you again.

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

Here is the thing mate, this letter was reproduced in Pilkingtons's book, the one you claimed to have read.

Therefore you previously have had the evidence before you, but you chose to ignore it and claim repeatedly this was a myth. Willfully ignorant doesn't quite do it justice. Either that or you never did read the book.

If you are going to claim something is a myth you at least need to have made some effort to appreciate what evidence substantiated the body of work. You did no such checking but instead let your ideology dictate your position. It was shoddy and shameful.

And look, even in your last post you are insinuating the girls did not walk much of the distance but were carried by camel. Pilkington relates they rode with Joey their cousin on a camel from Station 594 to cover just the last four days.

I think you owe the author an apology, she did painstaking research for this book only to be dismissed as a myth peddler by yourself. The authority you claimed your transcriptions, essentially secretarial work.

I make the point again, this really does cast a pall over the veracity of your work and its completeness which is a pity.

It also makes a complete mockery of your claim that there are no children who can rightfully claimed to be part of the Stolen Generation. Who would take you seriously?

Perhaps I have been harsh on you but this kind of thing really pisses me off. I have inlaws who are 100% convinced that the moon landings were staged. No matter what evidence is laid before them they always have an answer. Ultimately though their disbelief does not disrespect the lived experiences of thousands of mainly vulnerable children who had their lives dramatically impacted by racist policies.

Yours does.

Perhaps you might now bring yourself to at least acknowledge the girl's 'most wonderful walk home' and the sheer courage and tenacity it took to complete it. It would be decent and show at least a modicum of generosity of spirit.

Hi Steele,

I'm glad that you recognise that evidence has to be provided for any assertion. I guess the Romans got that right.

Get something straight: I'll NEVER believe any assertion without some reasonable, plausible evidence. Pass it on.

As long as anyone can demand evidence for any assertion, and not take anything on faith, without evidence, and without question, we can hopefully minimise the con-jobs that might be floated.  After all, to throw your support behind a cause is pretty serious, so you have to be pretty sure of its genuineness. 

I certainly don't mind sowing the seeds of doubt about anything - I've become even more of a 'Marxist' in that way than ever (just kidding) - if it forces people to come up with evidence, and encourages others not to believe until they see some. It's a long time since I was religious (I hope), so belief without question is a meaningless concept.

And no, I don't believe the moon landing was staged. In fact, I've tried to point out often that successful conspiracy theories are probably very rare.

Oh well, back to my secretarial work.

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

What self serving rubbish. This was never about being a skeptic, rather it is about your toxic ideology, one that takes the default position of utter rejection of any stolen generation story.

You sir had read the bloody book, you had laid eyes on the very evidence you had so stridently claimed was not there, yet you repeatedly impugned Molly, her cousins and her daughter as untrustworthy, untruthful, and purveyors of a myth.

You response once you are finally dragged squirming across the line? No apology to the author, no proper stepping away from your myth assertions, nothing, just a 'look at me what a good boy am I' while you pat yourself on the back. For what?

You really need to ask yourself a few questions. Did you believe in their story when you first read the book? If not why not? Or did you osmotically absorb the far Right's decrying of the movie and conflate that with the book, deciding it was a myth? Whatever it was it is unpleasant.

I ask again; will you at least now, without any further qualifications, acknowledge the girl's "most wonderful walk home" and the sheer courage and tenacity it must have taken to complete it?

SteeleRedux wrote: “What self serving rubbish. This was never about being a skeptic, rather it is about your toxic ideology, one that takes the default position of utter rejection of any stolen generation story.”

As anyone on OLO who has taken even the most cursory of glances at some of my comments would know, there is no one here who expresses an appreciation for evidence, or prides themselves on their scepticism, more than I do (even if I do say so myself). (I even had someone try to mock me for it recently, as if it were a bad thing.)

However, a demand for evidence must be proportionate to two things:

1. The extraordinariness of a claim, and;
2. The extent to which the acceptance of a given claim would be worldview-altering.

For example, if someone were to tell me that they owned a dog, I would quite happily take their word for it that they did, because people own dogs and I would not have to alter my worldview if it had turned out that what they were saying was not true.

That being said, I don’t buy this supposedly-virtuous display of scepticism from Joe. It doesn’t add up. Something else is at play here, and it sounds purely political to me.

Sure, be sceptical about claims of gods, creation stories, holocaust denial, and the suggestion that every one of the world’s climate scientists is in on a hoax the size of which would be impossible to conceal. But to so adamantly require such irrefutable evidence for a *relatively* unremarkable story - while placing a disproportionate and unreasonable level of value on documentation for a field of study as reliant on personal accounts as history is - to me reeks of motivated reasoning.

Dear AJ Phillips,

Thank you for a more sober, even handed appraisal than I am capable of at the moment. I realise I might be laying it on a bit thick but reading some of the deep injustices that were inflicted on half-castes and their families during that period has not left me in the mood for niceties.

Joe is just part of a trend of contrariness. Perhaps there is a measure of anti-intellectualism, with a pinch or two of racism, and a dram or two of absolutism, but it is a heady and worrying mix.

Oh no, SteeleRedux, I wasn’t suggesting that you should tone it down. I’m one of the last people on OLO in a position lecture others there. On the contrary, I think you have done a stellar job remaining as cool, calm, and collected as you have, given the circumstances.

No, I quoted you as a lead in to something that I have been thinking for a while now, as I read the discussion that has been taking place here. You were my excuse to jump in. I also agreed with your apparent doubts that Joe is simply exercising a healthy scepticism here, and thought I’d expand on why I think it is that you’re right, from a fresh perspective.

Finally, as someone who is on record as being one to accept that the stolen generation happened, and who is always banging on about scepticism and the need for evidence, I felt obliged to comment on what I think is an important difference here between a healthy scepticism and a toxic denialism, and why I think it is that Joe’s supposed scepticism actually tips over into a more toxic denialism.

There are many things we could justifiably be sceptical about and demand evidence for. But given that most reasonable people would at least sometimes accept, at face value, stories that are far more incredible than the Rabbit Proof Fence story as being an accurate-enough depiction of what had really happened, I find the fervour with which Joe expresses his scepticism of this particular story (and any stolen generation story, for that matter) a little strange and obsessive.

Whether it is driven by a dislike for indigenous people (which is unlikely, given he was married to an indigenous person); a simple anti-intellectualism; a black-and-white view of the situation; or the desire to view the treatment of indigenous Australians, by the British settlers, in the best possible light due to the discomfort that accompanies the thought of what one’s own ancestry did to the first Australians brings, I don’t know.

Continued…

…Continued

One thing I am certain of, however, is that it is not an appreciation for evidence and the truth.

Joe may very well have been an activist for indigenous affairs in his “naive” and “ideological” youth, and Joe may very well have one day come to the realisation (in his non-professional and academically naive view) that there is a problem with the official version of events after discovering that written primary sources were scant. But I would think that the logical thing to then do would be to check with qualified historians as to what an appropriate and reasonable level of weighting is that should be given to non-verbal primary sources (or as the title of Joe’s website refers to them, “first sources”) as compared with written primary sources, and why that is the case.

Instead, Joe apparently presumed immediately to know what level of weighting should be given to written primary sources and has now spent the last 30 years gloating over a perceived lack of reliable evidence based on that naive presumption.

That is not rational inquiry, nor are they the actions of someone exercising an impassioned and healthy skepticism.

Nah, to me, the story doesn’t add up. There’s gotta be some other factor here driving an almost zealous pursuit to discredit the accepted view that generations were effectively stolen in an attempt at cultural genocide. And given that Joe’s late wife was indigenous herself, I am forever intrigued as to what that is.

Every time I see Joe zealously defend the predictable, conservative take on the stolen generation and jump in with an almost-religious fervour to tell us all about the lack of primary sources for the stolen generation, I think of the story of Millicent (http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/bringing-them-home-millicent-story). But I suppose she remembered being used as a sex slave after being stolen all wrong, and I’m that sure there are also no primary sources supporting her story either. I’m also sure that Joe is now itching to tell me all about the fact and will do so in due course.

Let 'er rip, Joe.

Hi AJ,

Sorry, computer problems. No, modem, I think. Little lights flashing ten times a second: is that modem, server, router, exchange, or that useless NBN?

Anyway, your observation: " .... a *relatively* unremarkable story ": three little girls, in unfamiliar country, setting out in the depths of winter and walking a thousand miles ? 'Unremarkable' ? I'd suggest it's amazing, incredible, historic, epic, unprecedented in history. Wouldn't it surely fit your criterion:

"However, a demand for evidence must be proportionate to two things:

1. The extraordinariness of a claim ..... "

That's surely my point ?

Don't you find this epic story extraordinary ? I look forward to re-enactments by trained athletes, with support crews, perhaps every year, or more realistically every five years, it's such a huge and time-consuming event. I don't want to be so uncharitable as to ask what happened between New Norcia and four days out of Jigalong, i.e. any evidence of their actually being somewhere along the fence, so let's overlook that, for the sake of peace and harmony.

As to Steele's complaint, I skim-read the book between about 1998 and 2001 in the State Library. I don't pretend to have a photographic memory, so no, I don't remember every name and place mentioned. I remember the film, with Neville running around (but strangely, it seems now, hardly never writing to anyone, to the Police, his Minister, etc.)

And I'[m still puzzled why here were no references to this story in the West Australian, in letters, in reports, in Parliament, in Hansard, in the Moseley Commission transcript, in Hasluck's memoirs, in Mrs Bennett's writings. Maybe they communicated always by phone. Well, it's possible.

Ah of course, they're all white fellas - therefore racists. QED.

Cheers,

Joe

No Probs, AJ,

You write rather ambiguously of " ..... lack of primary sources for the stolen generation." If you mean that there might not be much in the way of primary sources, you may be mistaken: in SA, there would be truck-loads of files, for the hundreds of children taken into care, and anyone who was taken into care can access their own file. Not really a 'lack' there.

After all, in the single case involving a 'stolen generation' child, Bruce Trevorrow, there didn't seem to be any shortage of reports, letters, data, etc., for almost every year of his life. The social worker, Marj Angus, well-known to all southern SA Aboriginal people over a certain age, dead now for thirty years and buried in an Aboriginal cemetery, certainly over-stepped her authority in that case, but in her defence, she would have known all of the families involved over many years beforehand, known of their fondness for the grog (even - ! - over Christmas), and, right or wrong, had the life and future of that sick baby at heart, and anybody who knew her would concede her intentions.

One case. Still, AJ, even with your rigorous attention to evidence, you're free to believe in something without having evidence. Religious or not, that's your right. It's still a free country, you're free to have faith, to believe without question :)

Cheers,

Joe