Dear Big Nana,

In answer to your question as to why the Indigenous
People should get a Voice to Parliament - the following
link written by an Indigenous person explains far better
than I ever could:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/why-blackfellas-need-a-voice-in-parliament/news-story/e71dc2eac072722d9aecc4cc72f4c6c1

I also need to again correct a false assertion made about me
by ttbn.

I do not support any particular political group. I choose the
parties that I support by their policies.
I do not believe
in labelling people. Labels belong on clothes not on people.
And most people I know tend to change their minds on
various issues anyway. So to label someone you don't really
know on this Forum is purely intellectual laziness. Of course
they are entitled to their negative opinions. But I wish
that they would pick on someone else for a change. I only have
two middle fingers to go around. (smile).

Hi Ttbn,

I hasten to assert that I have nowhere near the length and depth of experience, or the richness of her current relations with Indigenous people, that Big Nana has.

Foxy,

I was yarning to my daughter this morning to the effect that, the stronger, and the more passionately and virtuously, one believes in a particular Narrative, whether it's Christianity, Islam, socialism, fascism, or the Black-Arm-Band version of Indigenous history, the more one discounts the need for evidence, proof, corroboration - it's as if the more one 'feels', the less one needs back-up.

But surely every genuine truth has some evidentiary support ? Every massacre can be forensically examined ? Every 'stolen child' has a file that they can easily find, and present to a Court ? So why isn't any of that being done, if only to give one in the eye for white fellas ?

I used to believe what I was told by my mum, that a farmer's wife out near Dubbo had poisoned four thousand Aboriginal people with arsenic in the flour, some time around the 1880s. For forty or fifty years I believed that. Then I thought, just a few years ago, hang on, that's a lot of people to get rid of - well, it's a lot of people just to feed, that would make days, so that some people would be dying in agony before half of them had been given their flour; then what to do with four thousand bodies ? Would that many bring the crows, kites, eagles, etc., from hundreds of miles around ? And leave a bit of a bone-field ? Or did she bury them all ? By shovel ? A dirty big hole ? Or did she burn the bodies ? At a tonne of wood each ? Busy lady.

Or is it all bullshirt ? Without evidence, one must surely suspend judgment, at least ?

Joe

Dear Joe,

Today, it is now possible to explore the past by means of
a large number of books, articles, and many other sources.
We can find out about the past. There are many historians
who have provided us with documented evidence.

But 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. It probably will
continue to perplex us for many years to come.

Foxy,

I think you're proving my point: evidence is not just a lot of books, it's actual investigation and corroboration, not just what might be asserted in print. Can you tell the difference ?

Joe

Dear Joe,

Yes, as a researcher I certainly can tell the difference.
And I certainly agree that it is actual investigation
and corroboration not just what might be asserted in
print. And there are quite a few historians who are
highly respected for their investigation and corroboration
that we can rely on. One of the most highly acclaimed
and highly respected names is that of Prof. Bain Attwood.
I can thoroughly recommend his "Telling the Truth about
Aboriginal History". See the book review:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/book-reviews/telling-the-truth-about-aboriginal-history/2005/12/23/1135032164127.html

In any case I don't care to re-hash all this with you again.
Been there done that. You are entitled to your opinion
But on this one we shall have to agree to disagree.

No, Foxy, it's not just 'opinion': it's belief versus evidence. Whoever asserts, must provide evidence, corroboration, back-up for their assertions. Has there been any investigation of a single supposed massacre site in Australia ? It seems not. This is very frustrating because I, for one, do suspect that there have been massacres, in most States. But the lack of any investigation means that my suspicions can't be either confirmed or denied. They can only be asserted, which is empty and worthless.

The definition of a bigot is twofold: one who either -

*. refuses to believe, in spite of evidence; and

*. one who believes his (or her) prejudices) without any evidence.

Without evidence, the only principled position on any issue is to suspend belief UNTIL evidence is provided. If books simply regurgitate secondhand sources, rumour and hearsay, without any actual evidence, then I don't care who they are written by, that really is merely an appeal to authority, which, for someone on the Left, is anathema to me, as it should be to you.

Joe