PDA

View Full Version : Revisionist Australian History



The Bigfella
02-06-2010, 03:55 AM
Australian history seems to be subject to more and more revisionism as time passes.... and it isn't for the better.

Rather than muddy up another thread, I’ll raise a couple of issues here. I posted a comment in the other thread that “Australian aborigines were never denied Australian voting rights... except in a couple of tinpot states.”

The response I got was:



read the legislation AND ITS APPLICATION eh. Specifically s 27 was abt the right to make laws "on behalf of" (note: not "for the wellbeing of" and LJH and his scum used this to deny NT rights) and a further portion read on voting rights "if they are ELIGIBLE and enrolled as such under specific State legislation" , the means of which people were judged under specific "welfare and protection" Acts, viz: ALL of OZ and Territories.

Begone child!

Phillip Noyce – he who directed “Rabbit Proof Fence” has furthered that sort of rubbish with comments like:


Until 1967, Australian Aborigines couldn’t vote....

http://www.landmarktheatres.com/Stories/rabbit_frame.html

Not true, of course.


In NSW, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania, all male subjects over the age of 21 had the right to vote from when voting commenced in these colonies in the mid 1800’s. I haven't got a copy of, for example the NSW Constitution Act (17 Vic. No.41) of 1855.... but that's what I believe it contains (same for the other colonies). Aborigines were NOT excluded. All male subjects.


Upon federation in 1901, state voting rights translated into federal voting rights.Section 41 of the federal constitution, said that any person who held a state vote also held a federal vote. S41 is:



No adult person who has or acquires a right to vote at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of a State shall, while the right continues, be prevented by any law of the Commonwealth from voting at elections for either House of the Parliament of the Commonwealth.


Queensland and Western Australia weren’t quite so magnanimous. They waited 100 years or so.

AussieBarney
02-06-2010, 04:31 AM
It may have been enshrined in law, but, try and exercise that right my friend and find out what it meant to be indigenous in the great south land. Dont try and tell me that there was any equality for the black in Australia. In 1971 I was put in a corrective boys home bcause my daddy was a blackfeller who upset the local child welfare authorities. What did I do that was so wrong that I was regularly beaten, sexually molested and denied an education? Why was i told that my parents did not love or care whether I was alive. I lived with that lie for ten lonely bleak and loveless years before I confronted my mother and asked her, "why dont you love me What did I do wrong" When I said that to Mum, She fainted and it was two more years before she could convince me that what I had been told was a lie.
The law may have said one thing , but, the ugly bleak reality of my early life tells another story. What happened to me in my late teens may not have happened if I had been raised to understand that violence was and is the last resort and not the first option.
Remember this when think of being under the control of the Office of the Controller of Aborginal Affairs or whatever the hell that SOB's title was, My father, at the age twenty two had to apply for official permission to marry!! no white man would have to do that.

The Bigfella
02-06-2010, 04:44 AM
I didn't say life was a bed of roses Barney... far from it. My half sister and half brother were told the same sort of lies and it wasn't until the death of their mother that my half sister found out the truth when she uncovered a lot of hidden material that proved the lies. I hadn't met my half brother as a result, until my father was on his death bed.

Life in any institution in those days wasn't pleasant either.... just as it isn't pleasant for many kids in care these days, going on what is in today's paper. I'm sorry for any and all who suffered... be it under the care of the state or the god botherers - and we know how good they've been.

You and I will never know what really transpired to create these situations - but we do know that many lies get told. As you say "upset the local child welfare authorities". Who the hell knows what that means? The system isn't perfect, but we know that it is generally motivated by good intentions - if not always carried out well.

PeterSibley
02-06-2010, 06:00 AM
You do remember the aborigine kids hiding or being hid when Welfare came around eh ?
I'm white as snow but they weren't , different histories .

purri
02-06-2010, 06:30 AM
FWIW the Constitution states that the States had the sole right to make laws for the regulation (implied benefit) of Aborigines. The referendum of 67 revoked that right but did not define that to read "for the sole benefit of Aborigines" and that is what LJH and his sorry minions exploited in the High Court decision. (Keating being a compliant party in the final decision on NT "usage" to castrate claims by in part only including traditional rights thus excluding contemporary rights including ETS)

As for application of the State (NSW) "Protection Act" the "exemption certificate" whereby a blakfella signed a stat dec to the effect that he revoked his ancestry and affiliations to associate with other family members identified as Aboriginal; and the local coppers determined that if one was of "sufficient value" then a "dog licence" could be issued BUT could be revoked at any time.

As to the Education Act (Henry Parkes "Public Instruction Act" of abt 1873) then the substantive clause read "if an Aboriginal child(ren) was enrolled and there was the likelihood of parental objection than that/those children would be removed and "schooled" in isolation". (usually by untrained dominies) And for this matter I have a few tales from communities to add. This was repealed IN 1973 FFS!!!

"motivated by good intentions", FFS. The reality was to produce a compliant underclass of labourers and domestics and "breed out the colour" in order to serve. Most of us mob have very personal and unpleasant family histories of what this means.

To claim affiliation to your relations via second hand memories to promote your own collective agendas is specious.

BTW ours is from the Kimberley to FNQ and northwest NSW, adjacent QLD and central NSW. The effect of policies is a common denominator.

The Bigfella
02-06-2010, 06:43 AM
You do remember the aborigine kids hiding or being hid when Welfare came around eh ?
I'm white as snow but they weren't , different histories .

Peter, have a read of the debate between Andrew Bolt and Robert Manne on this issue.

As Bolt says:



Yes, you have stories of great loss, stories of betrayal and pain, and also stories of lives saved - of children rescued from great need to become artists, businessmen and writers.


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/stolen_generations_my_writers_festival_speech/

The Stolen Generation has been politicised more than the damn Climate Change debate... if that's possible.

Tales like Barney has outlined are just tragic.... but I can't bring myself to believe that it was policy driven by skin colour. Most people just aren't like that... and like me, you can probably recount the attitudes of our grandparents - in my case stretching back into the early 1890's. Sure there were some bad apples... but not a lot.

Barney and I have discussed other things that were in my view a miscarriage of justice - which we won't go into here - where access to better legal advice may have made a difference.... but that might not have been any different had it been me or you. I'd like to think that Legal Aid... which wasn't really around much then, has made a huge difference.

purri
02-06-2010, 06:48 AM
^ in short and quoting Djon Mundine; "upstairs talking about downstairs".

The Bigfella
02-06-2010, 06:54 AM
FWIW the Constitution states that the States had the sole right to make laws for the regulation (implied benefit) of Aborigines. The referendum of 67 revoked that right but did not define that to read "for the sole benefit of Aborigines" and that is what LJH and his sorry minions exploited in the High Court decision. (Keating being a compliant party in the final decision on NT "usage" to castrate claims by in part only including traditional rights thus excluding contemporary rights including ETS)

"motivated by good intentions", FFS. The reality was to produce a compliant underclass of labourers and domestics and "breed out the colour" in order to serve. Most of us mob have very personal and unpleasant family histories of what this means.

To claim affiliation to your relations via second hand memories to promote your own collective agendas is specious.

BTW ours is from the Kimberley to FNQ and northwest NSW, adjacent QLD and central NSW. The effect of policies is a common denominator.

The 67 Referendum had nothing to do with voting rights for aboriginals or anyone else. It was a referendum motivated by a desire to "improve the lot for indigenous people" if I can borrow a phrase from another thread. It received a 90.77% positive vote. Yeah... sounds like there was a real desire to do harm back in those days eh?

"Breed out the colour" is another of those ridiculous bits of bumfluff that keep coming up. Wasn't that just the ranting of one idiot who was shuffled off quietly by his government? I'll look into that one tomorrow.

The Bigfella
02-06-2010, 06:54 AM
^ in short and quoting Djon Mundine; "upstairs talking about downstairs".

You really do bring a chip on your shoulder to any discussion, don't you?

The Bigfella
02-06-2010, 07:04 AM
Ahhh... found a piece that was in the paper a week back... it addresses and pretty much refutes your point about "breeding out the colour"

IN his 2008 parliamentary apology, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd endorsed the estimate by Peter Read, the university historian who first advanced the concept of the Stolen Generations, that 50,000 Aboriginal children were forcibly removed in the 20th century.

Read had written that governments removed children as young as possible and reared them in institutions isolated from any contact with Aboriginal culture. "Welfare officers, removing children solely because they were Aboriginal," he said, "intended and arranged that they should lose their Aboriginality, and that they never return home."

The majority were allegedly babies and infants. The SBS television series First Australians claimed most of the 50,000 were aged under five. Henry Reynolds explained the rationale: "The younger the child the better, before habits were formed, attachments made, language learned, traditions absorbed."

It is not difficult to prove these assertions are untrue. When you look at the surviving individual case records in NSW, as I did for the period 1907 to 1932, they reveal that 66 per cent of the 800 children then removed were teenagers aged 13 to 19 years. Some 23 per cent were aged six to 12, and only 10 per cent were babies to five-year-olds.

Most of them came from Aboriginal welfare stations and reserves. Two-thirds of the teenagers went not to institutions but into the workforce as apprentices.

For white children in welfare institutions, apprenticeship was then the standard destination too. At the time, for both white and black children, apprenticeship meant leaving home for four years and living with an employer. The principal occupations targeted by these job placement schemes, agriculture for boys and domestic service for girls, were the same for both black and white apprentices.

In Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory in the first half of the 20th century, laws and policies forbade the removal of full-blood children. The policy for segregated reserves across all of central and northern Australia, where full-blood populations still predominated, had been defined in Queensland in 1897.

One of its principal aims was to preserve the ethnic integrity of the full-blood population by prohibiting sexual relations with Europeans and Asians. For J. W. Bleakley, the Queensland chief protector who also wrote the commonwealth policy that prevailed in the 1920s and 1930s, this was a matter of great principle. "We have no right to attempt to destroy their national life. Like ourselves, they are entitled to retain their racial entity and racial pride."

Only half-caste children could be removed. However, in WA, half-castes could not be removed under the age of six. In the post-war Northern Territory, 80 per cent of children in the Retta Dixon Home in Darwin and almost all those at the St Mary's hostel in Alice Springs (the Territory's sole institutions for part-Aboriginal children) were of school age, between five and 15. This was not surprising since the main reason for these homes' existence was to provide board for children sent by their parents to go to school.

The idea that most children were removed permanently is also untrue. In NSW, 80 per cent of those sent to one of the three Aboriginal child welfare institutions stayed there less than five years. Those aged 12 to 15 typically remained for months rather than years. Long-term residents were limited to those who had no parents willing or able to care for them. Rather than attempting to destroy Aboriginal culture, institutions for these children performed a temporary care function for disadvantaged and dysfunctional families, the same as welfare institutions for white children.

Those made apprentices were away from home for four years but could return for annual holidays. Their case files show that once their apprenticeships were complete, a majority returned home.

Another falsehood is that parents were not allowed to visit children in institutions. In NSW, the Aborigines Protection Board not only permitted this but from 1919 onwards it gave parents the money for the rail fare plus "a sustenance allowance" to do so.

There is plenty of evidence of Aboriginal parents visiting their institutionalised children in NSW, SA and WA. As one inmate of the Cootamundra Girls' Home said, "my father, he always used to come over on pension day, and me birthday". At the Retta Dixon Home in Darwin, up to one quarter of those accommodated wereworking women, several of them single mothers with their children.

The notorious Moore River Settlement in WA was an institution for destitute Aborigines of all ages. Indeed, most children went there with their parents. Only a minority of children at Moore River, a total of 252 from 1915 to 1940, or 10 a year, were removed from their families. This was out of a state population of 29,000 Aboriginal people.

What support there was for the Stolen Generations thesis came from quotations taken out of context by politically motivated historians. Read claimed the files of individuals removed by the Aborigines Protection Board revealed the motives of those in charge. "The racial intention was obvious enough for all prepared to see, and some managers cut a long story short when they came to that part of the committal notice, `reason for board taking control of the child'. They simply wrote `for being Aboriginal'."

My examination of the 800 files in the same archive found only one official ever wrote a phrase like that. His actual words were "being an Aboriginal". But even this sole example did not confirm Read's thesis. The girl concerned was not a baby but 15 years old. Nor was she sent to an institution. She was placed in employment as a domestic servant in Moree, the closest town to the Euraba Aboriginal Station she came from. Three years later, in 1929, she married an Aboriginal man in Moree.

In short, she was not removed as young as possible, she was not removed permanently, and she retained enough contact with the local Aboriginal community to marry into it. The idea that she was the victim of some vast conspiracy to destroy Aboriginality is fanciful.

Rather than acting for racist or genocidal reasons, government officers and missionaries wanted to rescue children and teenagers from welfare settlements and makeshift camps riddled with alcoholism, domestic violence and sexual abuse. In NSW, WA and the Territory, public servants, doctors, teachers and missionaries were appalled to find Aboriginal girls between five and eight years of age suffering from sexual abuse and venereal disease. On the Kimberley coast from the 1900s to the 1920s they were dismayed to find girls of nine and 10 years old hired out by their own parents as prostitutes to Asian pearling crews. That was why the great majority of children removed by authorities were female.

The fringe camps where this occurred were early versions of today's remote communities of central and northern Australia. Indeed, there is a direct line of descent from one to the other: the culture of these camps has been reproducing itself across rural Australia for more than 100 years.

Government officials had a duty to rescue children from such settings, as much then as they do now. Indeed, the major problem was that state treasuries would not give the relevant departments and boards sufficient funds to accommodate all the neglected and abused Aboriginal children who should have been removed.

The other great myth about the Stolen Generations is that children were removed to "breed out the colour". It is certainly true that two public servants responsible for Aborigines in the 1930s -- Cecil Cook in the Northern Territory and A. O. Neville in WA -- subscribed to a proposal for radical assimilation. Cook said in 1933 that he was endeavouring "to breed out the colour by elevating female half-castes to white standard with a view to their absorption into the white population". Neville said in 1937 that if such a scheme were put into practice we could "eventually forget that there were any Aborigines in Australia".

There are two problems with this case. For a start, the proposal was, as its name said, about "breeding", not the removal of children. It was a plan to oversee the marriage of half-caste women to white men. In practice, it was a failure. Part-Aboriginal women preferred men of their own background and few wanted to marry white men. By 1937, Cook confessed he had overseen fewer than 50 such marriages in his time in office.

Second, those who proposed it were never given the legal authority by their ministers or parliaments to institute such a scheme. Nor were they given enough funding to do so. Neville constantly complained about the tiny budget he received, half that of NSW for an Aboriginal population three
times as great. He was never funded to undertake a program of inter-marriage and assimilation. Indeed, the Native Administration Act of 1936, now demonised by historians, inhibited his ability to breed out the colour by defining half-caste people as "natives" and forbidding their marriage to white people or those of lesser descent.



.... to be continued .....

The Bigfella
02-06-2010, 07:04 AM
... from above....

An earlier generation of historians support my interpretation. In his 1972 book Not Slaves, Not Citizens, Peter Biskup declared Neville's program "an unequivocal failure" that was "quietly dropped". Biskup said of the 1936 act: "Instead of being bred out, colour was being bred in." In Shades of Darkness, his history of Aboriginal affairs from 1925 to 1965, Paul Hasluck said the proposal was too unpopular with white voters and their elected representatives to ever have been implemented.

Yet recent historians and commentators have persisted in describing this proposal as "a massive exercise of social engineering" and an instrument of genocide. Robert Manne, professor of politics at La Trobe University, described it as commonwealth policy: "The officials in Canberra and the minister, J. A. Perkins, gave support to Cook's proposal for an extension of the Territory policy to Australia as a whole."

This is false. The truth is that Perkins, minister for the interior in the Joseph Lyons government, in a carefully worded statement to the House of Representatives on August 2, 1934, denounced the proposal. He said: "It can be stated definitely, that it is and always has been, contrary to policy to force half-caste women to marry anyone. The half-caste must be a perfectly free agent in the matter."

From 1932 to 1934, Cook had tried several times to get approval for his proposal from the Lyons cabinet. None of the letters and reports that circulated between Darwin and Canberra on this issue ever mentioned that it had anything to do with removing children. The whole discussion was about arranged marriages.

Once Lyons and his ministers learned about Cook's plan, and especially after being subjected to the embarrassing publicity it generated in both the Australian and English press, they wanted nothing to do with it. On September 19, 1933, cabinet sent the proposal back to the department unapproved. Bleakley's alternative recommendation for segregated reserves that retained the Aborigines' "racial entity and racial pride" remained commonwealth policy for the duration of both Cook's and Neville's tenures in office.

None of the historians of the Stolen Generations have ever reproduced Perkins's statement. Nor have they reported any of the other critical reactions made by Lyons to the press. On June 23, 1933, the Darwin newspaper, the Northern Standard, quoted Lyons government sources saying: "It is all a lot of rot." But you won't find that quoted in any of the academic literature on this topic.

Manne is not the only offender here but, as a professor of politics, he had the greater public duty to tell the full story. However, he stopped short of revealing that the events concluded with cabinet throwing out the proposal and the minister denouncing it in parliament. To have told it all would have publicly disproved his case about the Stolen Generations and the allegedly racist and genocidal objectives of government policies in the 1930s.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/flawed-history-keeps-myth-alive-about-the-stolen-generations/story-e6frg6z6-1225824632357

I suppose the standard response will be to play the man, not the issue?

isla
02-06-2010, 08:48 AM
Even Ian's view through rose-tinted spectacles of that whole situation sounds horrendous. Teenagers removed from their families and communities for four years for 'apprenticeships' sounds to me like an example of draconian social engineering.

Peerie Maa
02-06-2010, 10:47 AM
Even Ian's view through rose-tinted spectacles of that whole situation sounds horrendous. Teenagers removed from their families and communities for four years for 'apprenticeships' sounds to me like an example of draconian social engineering.

Don't forget the British children exported to Oz "for a better life" Australia will formally apologise to generations of children, including thousands of Britons, who were abused while in state care, in a gesture similar to last year's acknowledgment of past injustices suffered by Aborigines. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/6116294/Australia-to-apologise-to-thousands-of-British-children-abused-in-care.html)
It would seem to less about race, more about power over the powerless.

The Bigfella
02-06-2010, 10:59 AM
I think you might be right there Nick.

Be that as it may, we still have a lot of children "at risk" who are removed from their families by the state... here in NSW, aboriginal children are significantly over-represented on a per capita basis.. by about 12 times IIRC.

paladin
02-06-2010, 11:01 AM
I can't begin to speculate what it was like in Oz.....but in 1940's and 1950's America, what was written as law and wahat was practiced are two entirely different animals. Folks point to the books and say "this is the law and the way it was"...but in reality, it was written but the actual action was totally different.

The Bigfella
02-06-2010, 11:19 AM
I think some of that may have gone on beyond the 50's too, and I also think, to use a different analogy to purri's "upstairs/downstairs" one - which is a bit too narky for my liking, that the cause of some of the "way it was" occurred on both sides of the fence.

We have a rather too common ability to make life harder for any minority group, be it race, religion or whatever. Re-writing history is not the way to have that recognised and eliminated.

isla
02-06-2010, 12:18 PM
It would seem to less about race, more about power over the powerless.

Slightly off topic (sorry Ian) but relevant to Nick's statement, was the similar treatment of Irish children. This was also in my opinion a ham-fisted attempt at social engineering:

In Ireland about 35,000 children were placed in a network of reformatories, industrial schools and workhouses right up to the 1980s. The institutions housed abandoned or neglected children, but courts also sent those guilty of truancy and petty crime. Unmarried mothers were also sent to institutions known as Magdalene Laundries, many by their own families. Allegations against the institutions include sexual abuse and repeated beating of boys and girls with a leather strap. Some punishments were said to be handed out for talking at mealtimes or writing left handed.

The Bigfella
02-06-2010, 03:43 PM
Yeah, it didn't take much to lose a child to "the system" in the old days. I shared a house with a young woman who had gotten pregnant whilst at school. The baby was taken for adoption. She had no say in it. I guess her parents did. Happened to others I knew too.

PeterSibley
02-06-2010, 04:35 PM
The Stolen Generation has been politicised more than the damn Climate Change debate... if that's possible.

Tales like Barney has outlined are just tragic.... but I can't bring myself to believe that it was policy driven by skin colour. Most people just aren't like that... and like me, you can probably recount the attitudes of our grandparents - in my case stretching back into the early 1890's. Sure there were some bad apples... but not a lot.



I have no trouble at all with the concept ..I worked for DAIA , I know institutionalised bastardry when I see it .....and when I'm called on to institute it .

No politicisation Ian ,just a reality check .

purri
02-06-2010, 06:18 PM
^ Too true. Theory and application are often poles apart.

Phillip Allen
02-06-2010, 06:44 PM
shades of Dickens... :(

Larks
02-06-2010, 06:58 PM
^ in short and quoting Djon Mundine; "upstairs talking about downstairs".

Purri, with the greatest respect I do have to ask, you are obviously well educated and I assume successful in whatever it is that you do, do you consider yourself upstairs or downstairs?

seanz
02-06-2010, 07:11 PM
Australian history seems to be subject to more and more revisionism as time passes.... and it isn't for the better.

Well, Australian History got off to a bad start with the whole Terra Nullius debacle. Start a nation's History with a debacle like that and you've set yourself up for revisionism as an integral part of your History.

Wanted: One single white colony, no baggage.

AussieBarney
02-06-2010, 10:03 PM
You do remember the aborigine kids hiding or being hid when Welfare came around eh ?
I'm white as snow but they weren't , different histories .
Peter, I can still remember my Aunt Edith yelling at us kids,"get under the house with the dogs. the welfare are here", We would grab a couple of mongrel dogs and sit under the centre of the house and the women from the Aboriginal welfare Board were too scared of the dogs to come under to grab us. I was finally collared at school when I had no protection.
I do believe th in some cases they had a case to take the kids, same as they had a case to take anglo kids. But when I was taken it was as payback to my father who was considered an uppity black who needed to be slapped down.
There was an idea that the Australian Aboriginal was a decadent and lazy race because the english could not get us to workfor them, we did not live in houses and we did not believe in possessing everything we could lay our greedy little paws on. In other words, a massive cultural divide and the poms thought they were the gods of the world, mind you,some still do.

Phillip Allen
02-06-2010, 10:09 PM
Gad Barney...that's close to home time wise

PeterSibley
02-06-2010, 10:18 PM
Peter, I can still remember my Aunt Edith yelling at us kids,"get under the house with the dogs. the welfare are here", We would grab a couple of mongrel dogs and sit under the centre of the house and the women from the Aboriginal welfare Board were too scared of the dogs to come under to grab us. I was finally collared at school when I had no protection.
I do believe th in some cases they had a case to take the kids, same as they had a case to take anglo kids. But when I was taken it was as payback to my father who was considered an uppity black who needed to be slapped down.
There was an idea that the Australian Aboriginal was a decadent and lazy race because the english could not get us to workfor them, we did not live in houses and we did not believe in possessing everything we could lay our greedy little paws on. In other words, a massive cultural divide and the poms thought they were the gods of the world, mind you,some still do.

A mate of mine tells the same story from down south , Dad was an oyster farmer ,the workers were mainly aborigine .He grew up with them and their kids....the Welfare was much feared ,lots of hiding and running .

The Bigfella
02-06-2010, 10:24 PM
My point is that "the Welfare" was motivated by their welfare ideal... not by some "breed out the blacks" crap. The same motivation was behind "The Intervention". Evidence was produced that showed extremely widespread problems with child welfare.... and all that entails.... and the Territory government was doing nothing about it.

In my view, its racist to do nothing about it. It wouldn't be tolerated in the rest of our society. Eh?

AussieBarney
02-06-2010, 10:33 PM
My point is that "the Welfare" was motivated by their welfare ideal... not by some "breed out the blacks" crap. The same motivation was behind "The Intervention". Evidence was produced that showed extremely widespread problems with child welfare.... and all that entails.... and the Territory government was doing nothing about it.

In my view, its racist to do nothing about it. It wouldn't be tolerated in the rest of our society. Eh?
So long as it is done with the imput of the family and the community the child comes from and they dont try on that 'make a christian/ ersatz white kid out of them' crap. They are of a race/culture that has just as much right to exist as any other. maybe they dont live in a house? so? we have to stop the violence, the alcoholism, the sexual/physical abuse. we have to make sure they have access to education and resources that allows them to live fullfilling an meaningful lives the way they want to live. Not the way that some people say is the right way

PeterSibley
02-06-2010, 10:34 PM
In my view, its racist to do nothing about it. It wouldn't be tolerated in the rest of our society. Eh?

You really have no idea do you ? Get hold of some DAIA files , just have a look ....:(

Ian ,you continue this line year in ,year out ....but it flys completely in the face of my experience .The most evilly racist bastards I've ever met were DAIA employees .

purri
02-07-2010, 12:06 AM
Purri, with the greatest respect I do have to ask, you are obviously well educated and I assume successful in whatever it is that you do, do you consider yourself upstairs or downstairs?

I used Djon's quote that mirrored the BBC series title.

I am basically downstairs and did not resile from the opportunity for a good secondary public education but for the main am self taught. Therefore many community members call me a GRP ("grass roots person").

I have done OK as many others have but much of my work for the cause has been unpaid though much appreciated as some mob tell me in a roundabout way (shame job).

Otherwise the joke amongst us is being "flaaaash blaks/ chardonnay blaks" or uptown as the case may be. (self deprecation y'know) ;)

purri
02-07-2010, 12:15 AM
However if you want I have extended family tales from the 1880s to the 1980's right across OZ. (plus that of buro backstabbers from a few State and federal agencies in my time).

The Bigfella
02-07-2010, 01:32 AM
However if you want I have extended family tales from the 1880s to the 1980's right across OZ. (plus that of buro backstabbers from a few State and federal agencies in my time).

Hang on a minute....



To claim affiliation to your relations via second hand memories to promote your own collective agendas is specious.

PeterSibley
02-07-2010, 01:40 AM
snap

purri
02-07-2010, 06:26 AM
In short, I have direct family and employment experiences both in private and public sectors to draw on. My reference to wider clans and multi generational experience merely puts it that the historical record is widespread and trans generational.

Capiche?

shamus
02-07-2010, 06:31 AM
History, like science, is a social product.
The history we have at a particular time, reflects the society which produces it, much more than the times it purports to explain.

PeterSibley
02-07-2010, 06:36 AM
Except that there are multiple histories and multiple perceptions of that history , there are not multiple laws of gravity .

shamus
02-07-2010, 06:38 AM
Oh yes there are.

shamus
02-07-2010, 06:40 AM
e.g. google le sage gravity

PeterSibley
02-07-2010, 06:46 AM
I'll take you word for it , but with history , everyone carries it within them .There are as many stories as people ( to quote SBS !):D

I know you are going to disagree with me , but I would expect more objective truths in science than history .Why do I feel like a sitting duck .:rolleyes:

purri
02-07-2010, 06:56 AM
^ and the examination of such is to draw common threads into the (wider) historical narrative to understand the social and political processes across generations.
(BTW oral histories are as valid constructs of historical cause and effect processes as those of the "professional historian" as they inform without the blinkered narrative of the dominants)

shamus
02-07-2010, 07:02 AM
Such a discussion would be interesting, but would be off topic. Perhaps another time.

Re: history, another way of looking at it is that it is never truly the study of the past, but the study of the surviving evidence of the past. This makes a huge difference. New evidence can arise, for one thing. But also every individual is quite entitled to interpret the indisputible factual matter through the lens of their own experience. None of this produces a factual narrative. It produces an individual narrative, or in the case of 'official history' a social narrative. So I believe.

shamus
02-07-2010, 07:08 AM
(BTW oral histories are as valid constructs of historical cause and effect processes as those of the "professional historian" as they inform without the blinkered narrative of the dominants)


Absolutely, and without the constraint of having to fit into some damned 'schema' which happens to be the current ideology.

The Bigfella
02-07-2010, 07:53 AM
But they also often contain a lot of personal enhancement aka bull****

PeterSibley
02-07-2010, 04:01 PM
But they also often contain a lot of personal enhancement aka bull****
How could you possibly know that ? Or is that just a very personal opinion ?

Ian McColgin
02-07-2010, 04:17 PM
One interesting phenomenon perhaps more noticable to an outsider reading the various click-overs here is that those denying any lost children are also most assiduous about bringing up stories of child abuse that echo frighteningly the arguments that justified the laws causing disruption of aboriginal families.

It's not usually helpful to boast about how one is not racist.

Larks
02-07-2010, 08:32 PM
One interesting phenomenon perhaps more noticable to an outsider reading the various click-overs here is that those denying any lost children are also most assiduous about bringing up stories of child abuse that echo frighteningly the arguments that justified the laws causing disruption of aboriginal families.

It's not usually helpful to boast about how one is not racist.

Ian, I'm not sure what you are referring to with the term "lost children" - but I assume you may mean the children that we refer to as the "stolen generation"? If that is the case you should be aware that there are many layers to the events, actions and outcomes of that time in our history.

As I understand it, the policy was a blanket policy, possibly with all the best intentions at the time based on what I also assume was a very narrow view of mixed blood children and the environments that they were being raised in, and they ranged from the forceful removal of children from loving and caring families to those essentially rescued from abusive, alcohol soaked violence.

The outcomes now equally vary from adults who have been deeply and sadly affected by their removal from their families and their upbringing by strangers, possibly in a simply different but equally abusive environment, to those that will openly tell you (if given the chance) that they feel very fortunate for their upbringing outside of the environment that they were born into, as well as others (friends of mine included) that once would have told you that they felt fortunate for their removal from an abusive and underprivileged environment but would now prefer to ride on the band wagon of the "stolen generation".

I know I'm opening myself up for all sorts of chip on the shoulder BS now, but thems the facts boys!!!

Talk to many of the older people in places like Alice Springs who were mixed up in that scenario and you might start to get an inkling of how true this really is. When I say older people I mean the mixed blood grand parents and great grand parents who themselves tell (told) stories of taking their grand children away from violent alcoholic parents and giving them up in the hope of a better life for them.


Also, I think what you guys are talking about above is "Historicity"???:confused: The concept that history as we know it is that which is passed on, often by the victor, the survivor, the one able to write it down or the one who speaks loudest and most often, or even just the one that bothers to pass on their version of events.

"History" may be nothing like actual events, we don't necessarily know the motives or reasons for an action and we don't know how much the story has been skewed and enhanced over time, regardless of whether it was oral or written.

Also, the version that is most likely to capture the imagination or is most likely to enthrall, outrage, scare, entertain or amuse the listener or reader is the one most likely to gain momentum over time.

WX
02-07-2010, 08:57 PM
Aborigines were NOT excluded. Wouldn't that have been a difficult when they weren't considered Australian citizens till 1967.

In 1967 after a referendum was held to ask Australians if they agreed to Aborigines being given citizenship, therefore also obtaining the right to vote.

WX
02-07-2010, 09:05 PM
As far as I am concerned the European settlement of Australia is rife with examples, both government and citizen level of acts that can only be described as ethnic cleansing. If this is not the case then ask yourself, where are they? They couldn't all have died from disease. The best that can be said of the last 200 years is that "management of the aborigines has been one of benign neglect. I would say it has been far worse than that though.

The Bigfella
02-07-2010, 09:06 PM
Wouldn't that have been a difficult when they weren't considered Australian citizens till 1967.

From the Australian Electoral Commission website...



Ask Australians when Aborigines got the vote and most of them will say 1967. The referendum in that year is remembered as marking a turning point in attitudes to Aboriginal rights. In one of the few ‘yes’ votes since federation, 90.77 per cent of Australians voted to change the Constitution to allow the Commonwealth to make laws for Aborigines and to include them in the census.

But the referendum didn’t give Aborigines the right to vote. They already had it. Legally their rights go back to colonial times. When Victoria, New South Wales, Tasmania and South Australia framed their constitutions in the 1850s they gave voting rights to all male British subjects over 21, which of course included Aboriginal men. And in 1895 when South Australia gave women the right to vote and sit in Parliament, Aboriginal women shared the right. Only Queensland and Western Australia barred Aborigines from voting.

Very few Aborigines knew their rights so very few voted. But some eventually did. Point McLeay, a mission station near the mouth of the Murray, got a polling station in the 1890s. Aboriginal men and women voted there in South Australian elections and voted for the first Commonwealth Parliament in 1901.

That first Commonwealth Parliament was elected by State voters but when it met it had to decide who should be entitled to vote for it in future. Three groups attracted debate. Women had votes in some States but not in others, so had Aborigines. And there were some Chinese, Indian and other non-white people who had become permanent residents before the introduction of the White Australia immigration policy.

The debates reflected the racist temper of the times with references to savages, slaves, cannibals, idolaters and Aboriginal ‘lubras’ and ‘gins’. The Senate voted to let Aborigines vote but the House of Representatives defeated them. The 1902 Franchise Act gave women a Commonwealth vote but Aborigines and other ‘coloured’ people were excluded unless entitled under section41 of the Constitution.

Section 41 said that anyone with a State vote must be allowed a Commonwealth vote. South Australia got that clause into the Constitution to ensure that South Australian women would have Commonwealth votes whether or not the Commonwealth Parliament decided to enfranchise all Australian women. The Commonwealth did enfranchise all women so they did not need section 41. But that section did seem to guarantee that, except in Queensland and Western Australia, Aborigines would be able to vote for the Commonwealth because of their State rights.

WX
02-07-2010, 09:13 PM
The Senate voted to let Aborigines vote but the House of Representatives defeated them.
So the federal government of the time passed an illegal act of parliament?

The Bigfella
02-07-2010, 09:32 PM
They already had the right to vote in Federal elections under S41 of the Constitution - but not in WA or Qld which did not allow them to vote. Aborigines had always been able to vote in the other states... as long as any other citizen had. (remembering that women didn't have the right at first)

More from the AEC site...



The Menzies Liberal and Country Party government gave the Commonwealth vote to all Aborigines in 1962. Western Australia gave them State votes in the same year. Queensland followed in 1965. With that, all Aborigines had full and equal rights. In 1971 the Liberal Party nominated Neville Bonner to fill a vacant seat in the Senate. He was the first Aborigine to sit in any Australian Parliament.

WX
02-07-2010, 09:39 PM
They still weren't equal to whites and just because it says so in law does not make it an enactable fact in reality.

Larks
02-07-2010, 09:48 PM
When I was in Alice Springs and working out at the airport we'd go to Yirara College, on the way out to the airport from Alice, to vote.

As a group we witnessed during every election (and tried to get the media to report on it) the process of allowing the guys that were bused in from the communities to vote.

The bus would arrive at the college, the electoral "officials" would get their details and mark them off the role, then some white do-gooder would tell them all who to vote for and exactly how to mark their electoral cards. It was ALWAYS a labour vote.

In the top end it was even worse, they'd bus them to the polling booth, get their vote and then leave them to their own devices to find their way home.

The Bigfella
02-07-2010, 09:49 PM
Reminds me a bit of the nursing home scene. The nurses got lots and lots of votes

PeterSibley
02-07-2010, 10:17 PM
When I was in Alice Springs and working out at the airport we'd go to Yirara College, on the way out to the airport from Alice, to vote.

As a group we witnessed during every election (and tried to get the media to report on it) the process of allowing the guys that were bused in from the communities to vote.

The bus would arrive at the college, the electoral "officials" would get their details and mark them off the role, then some white do-gooder would tell them all who to vote for and exactly how to mark their electoral cards. It was ALWAYS a labour vote.

In the top end it was even worse, they'd bus them to the polling booth, get their vote and then leave them to their own devices to find their way home.

Strangely enough when I worked in Qld for the DAIA ,nothing ,not wild horses could get an aborigine to vote for Joh and the Nats .I wonder why ?
I guess they voted Labour .:rolleyes: