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..