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