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.