…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