Re: WOT: Australians

clete purcell's next girlfriend wrote:
Thanks for enlightening me Mike, I have read the articles you have
posted here and I'm pretty horrified at what (hopefully) is confined
to the work of a few historians.

I've had my head down for about the last decade having 4 kids. Prior
to that I got my first degree in Australian history and literature at
qld. I didn't pursue a higher degree in either history or literature
at that time because I wasn't comfortable continuing with the kind of
scholarship being pursued ie. post modernist, deconstructionist etc.
I eventually went on to get a Bed and am looking forward to teaching
Australian history again. So, therefore, what you have to say is of
great interest to me.

Wow. Over the past decade (well, seven or so years of it) I've been busy watching my kids providing us with four grandchildren. Not to be compared, of course, but busywork nonetheless. :-)

In my case, I'm not really the victim of any sort of fashionable '-ism', except perhaps 'ignorance-ism' having merely graduated from High School many years ago when 'history' was not a lot more than the mere rote learning of dates and 'facts', and the teaching of any sort of purely Australian history was in its infancy. But I did grow up in the country in western NSW where many assimilated Aboriginal families were pretty much indistinguishable from the rest of the (albeit working class) community, but where mission-based Aborigines were very much second-class (non-)citizens, even invisible. Under the laws of the day, the missions were no-go areas for non-Aborigines who did not actually work there, so ordinary people didn't have much if any idea of what went on there. This began to change, not always for the better, in the 1970s. I might add that during most of the 60s and the early 70s I was outside Australia in the then Territory of Papua New Guinea and, later, in the RAAF in Malaysia.

So really, I only know what I've read in books, the media and observed with my own eyes over the best part of 60 years or more. The media is unreliable because they are only interested in controversy, and they rarely allow the facts to interfere with a good story.

I ask though: how could these things happen? I was always under the
impression that to get published in a significant journal (and from
there to proceed to a SAM) one had to submit to a fairly rigorous
round of academic scrutiny? Please direct me further if you wouldn't
mind to the books, articles etc.

Watching my own sons battling to get their degrees (one majoring in History, the other in Law), I was frequently called on to proof-read assignments. Just as frequently I challenged some of the more obviously weird political conclusions being drawn only to be told, invariably and forcefully, words to the effect: 'I know, Dad, it's bull***, but it's what the lecturer wants, and unless I feed it back I will not pass the assignment'. So, that's one reason why these things 'happen'.

The only thing I can recommend is to carefully read a selection of the more conservative commentators on Australian history. I know that people will throw rocks at you if you are caught reading some of them, because they are persona non grata to the left intelligentsia, but Geoffrey Blainey is still considered by most people to be Australia's greatest living historian. This despite attempts to destroy his reputation on trumped up charges of racism - led by the very same Henry Reynolds who was very proud of himself for having conducted (with the aid of his PhD students and other historians, but with negligible success) the same sort of exercise on Blainey's work as Windschuttle conducted on his.

Many good articles are written in Quadrant magazine - also seen by the left as a conservative 'rag', but all the better because of it. You'll find articles there by people like Peter Howson, a former federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, who has many interesting things to say on the issues.

I don't think my analysis is entirely broken though, histories are
always written to serve certain interest groups, right or wrong, I
think critical literacy is the imperative, hence I do have a horror of
ignorance and am far from set in my ways.

Regarding my comment on the apartheid system being adapted from the
queensland example, I'd have to scratch around to provide you with the
reference, but its buried deep in my academia boxes from decades ago.
Whether or not, after reading the articles you have provided, it will
stand the test of academic rigour is the question.

Context is everything, I think. There is no doubt that for many years, particularly since the Whitlam years and since 'Nugget' Coombs and other well-meaning people on both sides of politics took an interest in Aboriginal Affairs, the practice has been to effectively seal off the Aboriginal communities in the Outback. However, this was done with the intention of protecting them from the depredations of white low-lives who went into the settlements with alcohol looking for Aboriginal women, and/or to exploit them improperly in other ways. There was never any official intent to segregate them from the rest of the country, and this is demonstrated by the fact that they were always free to leave their settlements to travel to the big cities, even while white people were forbidden to enter their (Aboriginal Reserve) lands without permits.

So the Apartheid analogy breaks down right there.

I don't believe Howard sent in the military with the express purpose
of opening the land up to the mining companies either. I'm just
looking 50 years ahead in that respect (regardless of which party is
in power) and wondering what it could mean in a legal sense.

Too early to tell yet, of course, but I can't see any direct connection. The land can already be opened up to mining companies and is being done so every day with the consent of the communities, and mining companies are not stupid. They know that a pig-headed approach is never going to work in today's (or any foreseeable) political climate, and they will work with the communities towards their mutual interests rather than otherwise.

Regarding genocide and aboriginality, How far does semantics come into
this? I'm uncomfortable about making broad statements about
aboriginal people because they are not an homogenous group as you have
also pointed out. I don't think though that anyone could say that
they have an equal or better standard of living than the majority of
Australians, nor have they had since colonisation. What did you mean
when you said that living separately was the undoing of tribal
aboriginals? I didn't 'get' that statement and put it down to the
hole- in- my -knowledge syndrome acquired since having a litter.

See a bit later when I talk about the bush Aborigines being denied any opportunity to better themselves through education and to make their way in the world at large on their own merits. Encouraging them to stay in their own lands while providing no meaningful employment for their 'sit-down money' effectively meant that their young people lead hopeless existences while being aware of what exists 'outside'. No wonder they would choose petrol sniffing as their entertainment.

Here's where the boring argument starts and here's where the lawyers can (if they're not asleep yet) correct me where I'm adrift. :-)

As Jane is fond of saying, words have meanings. 'Genocide' is a legally defined term. The Convention (on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide) (in article 2) defines genocide as:

Quote

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

End quote

Of that lot, the only possible argument to support a view that genocide might have occurred within the proper meaning of the term might be, and I stretch the words might be to a point beyond elasticity, that the so-called 'Stolen Generation' might have been 'forcibly transferred' in contravention of sub-para e. But I think that breaks down on a number of grounds. For example, there is no evidence, as far as I know that, whatever might have been the views of some individual bureaucrats in some states at some times, there was ever any official Government intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethical, racial or religious group by such actions. In fact all the evidence is that with only rare exceptions, kids were officially removed from their families either with their parents' consent or in circumstances where they would be, and are still, removed from dysfunctional white families for their own safety and well-being.

Notwithstanding the so-called Bringing Them Home report (which has been seriously criticised for its incompetence, incidentally), the only two resultant cases that have been tested in court, ie the Gunner and Cubillo cases, failed. There's a good article in Quadrant explaining the situation here:

http://quadrant.org.au/php/article_view.php?article_id=1397

You can download the entire judgement from the Federal Court if you wish.

So, I think that the careless use of such a loaded term as 'genocide' in the Australian context does not help anyone, least of all the Aborigines. Unfortunately, modern media and politically motivated historians and other commentators often couldn't care less if it furthers their own private agenda. The fact remains that an act does not become 'genocide' simply because someone thinks it ought to be and calls it such, any more than an accidental homicide becomes murder if intent cannot be proved.

Forgive my ignorance which I would like to address by getting up to
speed with the reading, please advise. I joined this group because my
intellectual stimulation these days is largely confined to reading
genre fiction, something I never thought I'd be doing while studying
big "L'' literature years ago, and I miss the discussion and debate.

Well, you'll get plenty of discussion and debate in here and, some people's opinions notwithstanding, strong criticism of an argument in RAM does not usually mean that the individual is being criticised as a person. Jane's 'Rules of the Road' apply pretty much in this (usually) very civil group.

Now, to sum up my own position on the Australian Aboriginal question (I hate to see it as a problem, because for the most part they are not the problem), it is that the time for politicking has long since passed. In my lifetime, we've had well-meaning policies ranging from what could at best be called static paternalism through to benign neglect, that have resulted in the disastrous mess that we have today where, on the one hand we have city-born and raised Aboriginal people who really ought not need any sort of government assistance beyond the normal social services available to everyone, to the grossly impoverished and dysfunctional rural communities where children and women are being abused in flagrant breach of the country's laws. Tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars have been squandered with no good result.

To my mind, the first step needed is something like the Howard initiative - get the whole exercise under the control of the Feds and root out the corrupt officialdom at every level, be they Aboriginal, State or local government. Then and only then can a cohesive policy be developed for the good of all the people.

But unless and until those small, widely scattered and basically tribal local communities can be provided with constant and honest civil services such as housing, utilities, law enforcement, full-time medical and other health care, and permanent schools adequately staffed by qualified and well-motivated teachers, nothing will be achieved. The difficulty is that the sheer cost of providing these services to such scattered communities will be seen to be prohibitive, and it probably will be. Even my home town, only some 600-odd km from Sydney, which has a population of 1500 and services a district population of some thousands more, cannot attract and retain doctors and it hasn't had a resident dentist in more than 40 years. Teachers have to be blackmailed to serve there and leave at the first available opportunity. The cops see it as a hardship post, and the hospital recruits nurses from all over the world in the hope of providing at least some qualified staff. What hope then of properly staffing the services of tiny little desert communities of a few hundred souls at most?

So, the ultimate answer looks like being the very thing that everyone wishes to avoid - moving the people to the services. This will inevitably result in the loss of culture, and the people's effective loss of their traditional lands. However, who are we to dictate that Aboriginal people must be preserved in their pristine state (as if) as cultural icons and, effectively, living museum pieces? How can we deny these people the opportunity to attain a lifestyle as comfortable and as diverse as our own.

I rave. But the policies to date have failed and both those policies, and all who sail in them, need to be tossed overboard. I'll need more than the embittered rants of those who think Howard is the devil incarnate for interfering with their cosy little rackets before I'll be convinced that his actions are wrong. Only time will tell.

For just one example of the depths of corruption in even the city Aboriginal community affairs, you might like to check out this site:

http://www.icac.nsw.gov.au/index.cfm?objectid=7F13726A-CD0A-992F-4C5A0C03666B70D0

If you have the time and the patience to read the whole thing, you'll get some idea why it's easy to be cynical about such left-wing heroes as Charlie Perkins and the like. Incidentally, the David Burke referred to in the transcripts is my brother, and the Robert Scott mentioned is my brother's former business partner. Fortunately, my brother was not involved in any significant way in this scam.

We need to clean out these sorts of rats' nests and it long past time. The Aborigines in the Outback settlements will not survive much longer.

Mique
.

Loading