An Enormous Decision for Indigenous Australians.

[poppa x]

I'm not asking Aborigines to forget their culture, their heritage, or their traditional lifestyles, but I think for the race to evolve and to continue, they have to also take hold of opportunities that are out there.
Just holding on to past wrongdoings, will only lead to the death of the race as a whole, as the world will not stop for them.

This bloke sounds like a eugenics textbook from the 1950s.

Please tell me why.  What has Livers said that (in the quote above) that is factually incorrect?

Go away and read up on theories of eugenics, and theories that the aborigines were a "dying race" who would merge with the white population and become indistinguishable from whites (common over the last two centuries in Australia) or "die out", and it put together yourself.

Why should we have to "put it all together"?  You're the one making the allegation.
Oops - I forgot.  Rednecks have to prove their facts while earth culture touchy feely people need only say something (anything) for it be a proven fact.

 

[AngryAnt]

Sorry for posting such a "'stupid comment". Here is some evidence for the "stupid comment".

The "stupid comment" proves the idea that those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.

Thomas Mitchell was born in Scotland in 1792.

According to him "Aborigines were not the lowest of humans, as many in Britain erroneously believed, but their way of life could not survive competition from superior civilization. Perhaps "Aborigines might be induced to work like white men," becoming assimilated members of settler society, but [End Page 572] this seemed unlikely (189). By the end of Mitchell's career, "he had been reduced to the hope that government policy might, at best, smooth the pillow of a dying race" (195). http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/victorian_studies/v042/42.3kuklick.html

Sound familiar?

 

[AngryAnt]

I'm not asking Aborigines to forget their culture, their heritage, or their traditional lifestyles, but I think for the race to evolve and to continue, they have to also take hold of opportunities that are out there.
Just holding on to past wrongdoings, will only lead to the death of the race as a whole, as the world will not stop for them.

This bloke sounds like a eugenics textbook from the 1950s.

Please tell me why. What has Livers said that (in the quote above) that is factually incorrect?

Go away and read up on theories of eugenics, and theories that the aborigines were a "dying race" who would merge with the white population and become indistinguishable from whites (common over the last two centuries in Australia) or "die out", and it put together yourself.

Why should we have to "put it all together"? You're the one making the allegation.
Oops - I forgot. Rednecks have to prove their facts while earth culture touchy feely people need only say something (anything) for it be a proven fact.

Wrong - I commented on the similarity between Liverpool's ideas and and an outdated philosophy of race and culture. That is not an "allegation". Anyone who has done any study on these issues can see this similarity.

Whatever you think of me, I am not an "earth culture touchy feely" person. I understand history, I understand research and I understand the need for policy to be based on research and evidence. Any argument about policy needs to be based on fact, not opinion - and true, some facts and circumstances are contested and debated. I used to consider myself "left" or "progressive" - nowadays I see that both left and right spout *smile* as it suits them, so I don't classify myself as either.

What I do object to are people like Liverpool spouting opinions and then claiming these are equally as valid as the work of historians, professionals and researchers.

I can't re-educate people with a few weblinks - particularly when the same people refuse to educate themselves by doing something as challenging as picking up a book.

 

[poppa x]

Thomas Mitchell was born in Scotland in 1792.

According to him "Aborigines were not the lowest of humans, as many in Britain erroneously believed, but their way of life could not survive competition from superior civilization. Perhaps "Aborigines might be induced to work like white men," becoming assimilated members of settler society, but [End Page 572] this seemed unlikely (189). By the end of Mitchell's career, "he had been reduced to the hope that government policy might, at best, smooth the pillow of a dying race" (195).  http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/victorian_studies/v042/42.3kuklick.html

Sound familiar?

This bears no relationship to what Livers has been saying.  And I fail to see what an 18th century Scotsman has to offer us in the 21st century.  Other than being used as a derogatory insult hurled at some-one whose opinions you don't share.

So let me ask you this.

How do we fix the problems of the aboriginal people?  How do we give them better health. More jobs.  Better education.
Cos simply saying "sorry" won't fix any of these pressing issues.  And they are pressing.  The overall state of these people is something we should all be embarrassed by.  So how do we fix it? And do the Aboriginal people have to share with us the responsibilty of getting it fixed?

 

[richards42]

Sounds like we have a massive difference in views here.Which can be healthy. As long as both parties give a bit of ground and somewhere meet in the middle. At the moment we have some views that are very left and poor old liverpool on the right.
I spent about 8 years as a bar manager in remote places such as Weipa Nth Qld,Pine Creek in the Nt and a couple years on Groote Eylandt in the gulf of carpentaria. You might say 'what would he know" but as a bar manager you get to hear everyone's view on "everything aboriginal'.
Liverpool you said, "we can't stop serving them alcohol because thats racist".
Some black communities have it written in nt liquor act that no person of aboriginal decent can buy alcohol from certain pubs in that area. Some have it "they can buy a 6-pack only" or one community has it that they get 14 cartons each day for the whole community.There are hundreds of stories i could tell about these dealings, some sad,some funny.
  I really want to just stress a point that there are in my opinion two different aboriginal plights.The urban-ised aboriginals who have no obvious attachment to the land. I'm 43 and i reckon things have changed massively for the better in the
last 20years or so in urban australia.There is still a long way to go.
But the problems are not only just beginning but also entrenched in the aboriginal communities in outback australia.
No jobs, boredom and no need to hunt anymore are having catostraphic effect in these communities.Boredom leads to alcohol, alcohol leads to violance.In these communities its the women and children i feel sorry for. The women cop scars like you'd never see in mainstream australia.
Went i first went up to the territory I probabley had a view that was very close to Liverpools.In that "they get this, they get that, gee white people don't get that why should they".
While working at a club on Groote Eylandt I became good mates with the aboriginal liason officer for the mine up there.His views very much to the left mine to the right. I'd let him stay back after hours and we'd play pool all night both airing our views.Somewhere in our conversations/debates i ended up middle.Its a place i feel comfortable with.
*More than 1/4 of the northern territory is aboriginal land which it should be and i'm comfortable with that.Imo the youth  in the community should be given jobs, or some of the royalities from the mines should be for job creation projects.
*In urban  areas i'm comfortable with some jobs being for "aboriginal or Torres strait islanders".The more aboriganal people employed the better ,the flow on effect is enormous.The kids see mum and dad working and its sets a good path for them to follow.
*Housing commision areas.I now work part time in a pub in wagga wagga in low income housing commision(large amount of aboriginals).These houses are not worth much, maybe we could set up a scheme with no interest and let these people pay these houses off.(set a low market price) House ownership would give these people much more pride in themselves.In turn would save the government money because no one would want to smash up something they own.It costs the goverment a fortune to maintain these properties.It could be a way of urban land rights and would actually save money.
    After hearing about the good work the Klontarf college in perth does, i think the territory could do something similiar.Maybe like an aboriginal institute of sport.In the olympics wev'e only seen a few aboriginal people com thru. Yet as kids and playing footy most aboriginals were the fastest in the team, but these kids are not coming thru the system. They could go somewhere its especially sensitave to homesick kids we may have a few budding champions that are at the moment slipping thru the system.
Well thats my say, I'm not left or right hopefully comfortablely in the middle, and i don't want to get into any debates with anyone, i've got better things to do like watch the rumour file and find out whats going on with the mighty tiges.
   Ps.we need to send some tigers players up to maurice Rioli country on melville island because all the kids are bomber supporters.

 

[AngryAnt]

Thomas Mitchell was born in Scotland in 1792.

Sound familiar?

This bears no relationship to what Livers has been saying.

Exactly what Liverpool was saying actually - they need to become more like us and "evolve" or they will "die out". A common theory from times past, based in part on eugenics and now completely discredited. Not a new idea, actually an old one and one that many people still believe.

And I fail to see what an 18th century Scotsman has to offer us in the 21st century. Other than being used as a derogatory insult hurled at some-one whose opinions you don't share.
This bears no relationship to what Livers has been saying.

You missed the point - again. Actually it was an observation of how people's attitudes don't change - particularly if they don't learn the lessons of history. The Scotsman had similar attitudes two centuries ago to what Liverpool has today. Because Liverpool doesn't read books (he doesn't need to apparently) he thinks what he is saying is revolutionary, simple and obvious. It's not.

So let me ask you this.

How do we fix the problems of the aboriginal people? How do we give them better health. More jobs. Better education.

Well Liverpool knows - apparently if they all relocate from remote communities to where the jobs and medical facilities are, they will be fine. If they would just knuckle down and get jobs and wear suits and ties everything will be just hunky dory.

Oh yes - and if they would just forget about the past two hundred years of history when they were invaded, shot, poisoned, deliberately infected with smallpox, locked up on reservations, denied citizenship and other forms of legal rights open to all others, denied access to their traditional lands and culture, forced into indentured labour where they were not paid except on the whim of the local aboriginal "Protector", had their children forcibly taken away (although apparently this never happened because Andrew Bolt said so) it would be better because then we could just treat them "equally" and they can "evolve" and not "die out".

Cos simply saying "sorry" won't fix any of these pressing issues. And they are pressing. The overall state of these people is something we should all be embarrassed by. So how do we fix it? And do the Aboriginal people have to share with us the responsibilty of getting it fixed?

Point me to one post where I said saying sorry would solve any of these problems. I am not particularly hung up on the "sorry" issue except where that it shows that our political leadership is still in denial over the reality of Australia's colonial history. It's a symbolic thing that would at least show that white Australia recognises the evils of the past and then both populations can move forward in good faith.

But of course John Howard can't say sorry because it could cost the country "trillions" in compensation - according to Liverpool anyway.

I also believe the "welfare" approach to support aboriginals and aboriginal communities has failed and needs to be rethought. I actually agree with some of the statements from the guy who worked in the top end - I have not worked there but some of my colleagues now have and they say similar things.

However, a solution whereby aboriginals need to "try harder" and "take responsibility" to move forward is naive, simplistic and wrong.

I suggest you read some of the speeches and papers from Noel Pearson - director of the Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership in Cairns http://www.cyi.org.au/

He has really interesting things say about saving and redeveloping aboriginal communities, moving away from welfare dependency, tackling issues of alcholism,drug dependency and violence in aboriginal communities, encouraging aboriginal entrepreneurship and businesses and so on.

But central to his message is also a recognition of historical fact and circumstance and a recognition of the value of indigenous culture and ways of life. I reckon this guy is really smart and has really good things to say but bear in mind he has a lot opposition in aboriginal policy circles as well.

 

[AngryAnt]

Sounds like we have a massive difference in views here.Which can be healthy. As long as both parties give a bit of ground and somewhere meet in the middle. At the moment we have some views that are very left and poor old liverpool on the right.
I spent about 8 years as a bar manager in remote places such as Weipa Nth Qld,Pine Creek in the Nt and a couple years on Groote Eylandt in the gulf of carpentaria. You might say 'what would he know" but as a bar manager you get to hear everyone's view on "everything aboriginal'.

SNIP

Top post Richards42.

 

[Rayzorwire]

Yep, good posts Richards42 and antman.

Rayzorwire,
It wouldn't matter if I did post my personal experiences with the Aboriginal culture on here though, would it?

It's very obvious you don't Liverpool...and rather than learn something you dodge all points made and stick to your malformed preconceptions.

Rayzorwire,
I have no problem admitting that Aborigines were here first....I've never denied that.
However, white settlement is 200+ years into existence now. We are not going anywhere. This is fact. Its a waste of time and resources, going on about what was taken from Aborigines 200+ years ago.

But we're not talking about things that happened 200 years ago - there are still plenty of Aboriginal people alive who lived in some of the worst era's of deprivation and culture destruction. There was over 180 years of genocide, dislocation, culture destruction and assimilationist policies before the slightest thing was done to right past wrongs. You can't fix that magnitude of destruction overnight...some aspects will never be fixed and what can be done may well take a long time.

Now, 200+ years later, non-Aboriginal Australians, not just white Australians, but Australians with backgrounds from all different countries, backgrounds, and religions, have made Australia 'home'.
Many of these people are happy to co-exist, even though they are a minority themselves....and happy to contribute to the country. They are happy to use the opportunities to further themselves personally, as well as use the experiences they gain, to further the country as a whole.
I encourage Aborigines to do the same.

If an Aboriginal person feels that for spiritual reasons they must remain in their homeland and they have no work opportunities there, then they're caught between a rock and a hard place.

Rather than understand and acknowledge that, all you can offer up is glib, thoughtless 'solutions' to this problem like that they 'should just move elsewhere', and totally incompatible comparisons to others as a means of furthering your opinion that it's their fault. You're wrong.

Your line:

Practically all Aboriginal 'problems' stem from all that was taken from them.

....is a cop-out, and an excuse, for current failings.

I'm not asking Aborigines to forget their culture, their heritage, or their traditional lifestyles, but I think for the race to evolve and to continue, they have to also take hold of opportunities that are out there.
Just holding on to past wrongdoings, will only lead to the death of the race as a whole, as the world will not stop for them.

Very few proactive Aboriginal leaders (and there are many) dwell in the past, but it doesn't change the reality of the present. Once again your oft repeated throwaway line about 'taking advantage of opportunities' fails to account for the reality that they are few and far between if they exist at all. Having to move away from family and their homeland is no opportunity at all.

You're happy to selectively quote Richards42 when it suits you - read his last post. There are several examples of proactive ways Aboriginal communities can be helped...genuine employment creation projects where they live instead of pointless pseudo welfare like the CDP, job positions specially earmarked for Aboriginal people to help them enter the workforce, and efforts help them get a foothold in home ownership.

These are the sort of measures you and your ilk get upset over because you see them as 'unfair', yet methods like these are the only ways to genuinely address obvious disadvantage and ensure that it doesn't become multi-generational.

It amazes me that people like you can whitewash 180yrs of shocking treatment with a 'get over it and move on' attitude, yet deride positive measures designed to address and in some degree correct the past, as 'unfair.'

You don't know the meaning of the word.

 

[lefty]

Captain Cook, that noted British map maker, commented in his diary in 1770, that the local blacks (from the Botany Bay area) 'just wanted us to go away.'

Reading some of these posts I think I know why.

:

 

[Liverpool]

Whatever you think of me, I am not an "earth culture touchy feely" person. I understand history, I understand research and I understand the need for policy to be based on research and evidence. Any argument about policy needs to be based on fact, not opinion - and true, some facts and circumstances are contested and debated. I used to consider myself "left" or "progressive" - nowadays I see that both left and right spout sh!t as it suits them, so I don't classify myself as either.
What I do object to are people like Liverpool spouting opinions and then claiming these are equally as valid as the work of historians, professionals and researchers.
I can't re-educate people with a few weblinks - particularly when the same people refuse to educate themselves by doing something as challenging as picking up a book.

Antman,
A lot I have stated is my opinon, which I am an entitled to, and never have I stated that this is as valid as historians, professionals, or researchers.
So instead of my opinion, lets look at some facts then:

In 2000, the supposedly strongest case for the 'stolen generation' was heard...that of Cubillo/Gunner.
While the court didn't deny that there was a 'stolen generation' (that children were taken from their parents), the court found there was no evidence of children being stolen from their families under a policy of removal of Aboriginal children from their parents.
This is fact....not myself spouting my opinion.
The best case for the 'stolen generation' to prove that they were taken from their parents under a policy of removal of Aboriginal children from their parents, and it failed.
Here is a link to the actual case, this is fact....I did not write it, it is not my opinion, it is fact:

http://judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/2000/J001084.doc.htm

Now my opinion...thats right....my opinion....is that of the court.
I don't deny that the 'stolen generation' exists.
However, it is my opinion, that the term 'stolen generation' shouldn't be pigeon-holed as a unique Aboriginal occurrence (in fact, should it even be called "stolen generation"?)
Many white children were also removed/stolen from their families, with varying degrees of consent, but this never seems to get mentioned.
And seeing that there wasn't a policy at the time (see Cubillo/Gunner case above) that specifically detailed that Aboriginal children were to be forcibly removed from their parents, then, my guess, would be that the authorities at the time took children, of any race, for their perceived well-being.
While the methods were, I'm sure, in some cases, cruel and unjust, that is the way society was back then.....I'm sure, however, there are many children out there who would not be alive, if it wasn't for this interference.
This is just my opinion though.

Let's look at some more facts...

In many areas, much of the skills and knowledge needed to practice this traditional way of life was lost due to past European interference - appropriating Aboriginal land for commercial purposes, dislocating them and depriving them of their livelihood in the process; stealing children from their parents etc.

Practically all Aboriginal 'problems' stem from all that was taken from them.

Rayzorwire,
Nancy de Vries was taken from her parents when she was 14 months old.....fact.
She went through 8 foster homes....fact.
Nancy became an enrolled nurse......fact.
Nancy worked nights, while raising 3 children.....fact.
Nancy became one of the first Aboriginal nursing graduates from the University of West Sydney.....fact.

Let's look at some more facts...
Nancy Barnes was placed in Colebrook home in 1930, aged 3 years of age after being taken from her parents......fact.
In 1956, Nancy became the first Aboriginal Kindergarten Union Graduate.....fact.
In 1959, Nancy became Director of the first Alice Springs kindergarten to admit Aboriginal children.....fact.
Nancy wrote a book called "Muny's Daughter", with the line, "We are referred to as the 'Stolen Generation' I consider myself saved."......fact.

You can read even more of successful Aborigines who were fostered out, away from their parents here:
http://www.southaustralianhistory.com.au/colebrook.htm

These stories are not my opinion, this is fact, from Aboriginal people themselves..

Now, my opinion, is that people like yourself, some others on this very thread, and some Aborigines out there, consistently play this persecution and feeling sorry cop-out far too much, as an excuse as to why Aborigines of today have poor health, poor education, poor job prospects, etc.
I stand by my opinion.
The cases above, plus the link above, show that even away from their biological parents, raised in foster care, they used the opportunities at their disposal, and have become successful Aborigines.
With their education and positions in our society, they have been able to help fellow Aborigines.

Now, like any foster-care, I am sure there are stories of abuse, I'm not denying that....but abuse in foster homes isn't exclusive to Aboriginal children, it is something that does occur I'm afraid, to many children of different races and religions.

While people like you Rayzorwire think that all Aboriginal problems originate from the evil white man, and you enjoy using such lines, and "180 years of shocking treatment", as an excuse for present-day failures, therefore it was enlightening to see that there are successful Aborigines out there, who were part of the 'stolen generation', who refused to use this as an excuse to be a failure in life.

Why is it that, when it comes to the stolen generation, all I hear from yourself and your left-wing cohorts, are stories of abuse and complete negativity, and not a mention about the succesful stories, and I'm sure, in some instances, children surviving when they might not have?

The problem with the stolen generation debate is that it is harming today's aboriginal children, as the Aborginal politician, Warren Mundine states (this is fact):

Let's stop, you know, being touchy feely about the whole approach. I understand why some governments and also the white Australian community put there, you know, like to back off, because they don't want to be accused of being racist or creating a stolen generation again. I'm saying to them, "No, you need to get your hands dirty if you're going have to fix this." That means you've got to get in there and deal with the issues, and you've got to deal with them tough.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2006/s1641045.htm

I hope there are more and more Aborigines out there who stop wallowing in self-pity, decide to help themsleves and their fellow Aborigines, and use the abovementioned people, as inspiration, that you can be successful, regardless if you are Aboriginal or not.
The opportunities are out there...your fellow Aborigines have shown it,a nd proven it.

If an Aboriginal person feels that for spiritual reasons they must remain in their homeland and they have no work opportunities there, then they're caught between a rock and a hard place.
Rather than understand and acknowledge that, all you can offer up is glib, thoughtless 'solutions' to this problem like that they 'should just move elsewhere', and totally incompatible comparisons to others as a means of furthering your opinion that it's their fault. You're wrong.

Rayzorwire,
I think just "understanding and acknowledging" is a rather glib response too, in my opinion.
I'm more looking for a practical solution.
I think, that if European immigrants can travel thousands of kilometres away, from the other side of the world, following the devastation of World War 2, that destroyed their homes, employment, infrastructure, etc......that Asians can immigrate here on 'leaky boats' from their homeland, following conflicts in the region, such as Vietnam.....then its not asking too much for Aborigines, who feel that the community they live in hasn't got adequate welfare, education, or employment opportunities, to move to a town that does provide for these services for themselves and their familiy.
Aborigines have to help themselves as well.

Point me to one post where I said saying sorry would solve any of these problems. I am not particularly hung up on the "sorry" issue except where that it shows that our political leadership is still in denial over the reality of Australia's colonial history. It's a symbolic thing that would at least show that white Australia recognises the evils of the past and then both populations can move forward in good faith.

Surely John Howard did this in 1999 (fact):

But that does not mean that we ought not to address the issue, that does not mean that we oughtn't to, in reflection and in generosity and with good heart, express a regret, and a sincere regret, for what has occurred in the past. But for the overwhelming majority of the current generations of Australians, there was no personal involvement of them or of their parents. And to say to them that they are personally responsible and that they should feel a sense of shame about those events is to visit upon them an unreasonable penalty and an injustice

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s47033.htm

Surely, this is as good as a 'sorry', if that is all Aborigines are craving, and recognises past deeds.
Also, just wondering, are the Aborigines and people such as yourself and Rayzorwire, asking the British for their apologies and 'sorry' as well, seeing that it was "180 years of genocide and shocking treatment"?

I couldn't finish my post without pointing out the unbelievable hypocrisy and double-standards of a couple of the fellow posters on this thread:

After Richards42 first post, which favoured a couple of my points, this was the response:

Well done Liverpool. Yes I do question Richards' asserted experience. His opening line was "Trust me, I've worked there". Why should I trust that assertion when it can be easily used as a trump to a discussion like this? Like I said, maybe he worked there, maybe he didn't. I have no reason at all to trust that assertion.

Following Richards42 second-post, which seemed to agree more with these posters, the following responses were posted:

Top post Richards42.

Yep, good posts Richards42 and antman.

You're happy to selectively quote Richards42 when it suits you - read his last post. There are several examples of proactive ways Aboriginal communities can be helped...

Rayzorwire,
You and your buddies were happy to totally discredit Richards42 initial post, yet now, have the audacity to have a crack at me regarding his second post! :rofl
What hypocrisy and double-standards.

And for your information, I did read his first and last posts, and like both of us, he is entitled to his opinion on the subject, and I implore more posters to enter the discussion to voice their opinions, whether they agree with me or not.

 

[AngryAnt]

Antman,
A lot I have stated is my opinon, which I am an entitled to, and never have I stated that this is as valid as historians, professionals, or researchers.
So instead of my opinion, lets look at some facts then:

Internet research is crap - you never get the full context. Your example of the Cubillo Gunnar case is a masterpiece of selective quotation - and remember that standard of evidence to prove illegality or civil liability in a a court case is very high. This court case effectively tested whether the actions of the Aboriginal Protectors in removing the children was LEGAL according to the laws and procedures of the day - not whether the Stolen Generation existed or not, or whether or not the removal of the children was morally correct. A very narrowly legal test case, in other words.

Looking at the summary of the case - all these are points you conveniently leave out by the way,

"The applicants, Mrs Lorna Cubillo and Mr Peter Gunner, are said to be members of "the Stolen Generation". Neither the evidence in this trial, nor the reasons for judgment, deny the existence of "the Stolen Generation". Numerous writings tell tragically of a distressing past. But this trial has focussed primarily on the personal histories of two people: Lorna Cubillo and Peter Gunner. They have claimed that they, as young children, were forcibly removed from their families by employees of the Commonwealth Government."

This case was about two people - not the whole Stolen Generation - the justice was careful to point out that this case in no way invalidates the concept and history of the Stolen generations.

Here is the proof that the policies that governed the taking of children from their parents was a racially based policy and so very different from children taken from white parents (from the case you cite - shot yourself in the foot again there mate).

"Section 6 of the Aboriginals Ordinance permitted the Director of Native Affairs, a Commonwealth public servant, to undertake the care, custody and control of a part Aboriginal child if, in the Director's opinion, it was necessary or desirable in the interests of the child to take the child into care. The law permitted the Director to do that against the express wishes of the child's family."

There it is in black and white mate. But you still say that the Stolen Generation was no different for blacks as it was for whites. Essentially what this means for the case is that what was done at the time WAS legal. This of course is the whole point - it was LEGAL for the white authorities to take children against the wishes of the Aboriginal families. This was meant to be for the benefit of the children - but we know that in the racist climate of the time it clearly was not for the benefit of the children in many cases.

There is a saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".

More from the summary.

"6 In 1947 Mrs Cubillo and fifteen other children were taken from the Phillip Creek Native Settlement by the late Miss Amelia Shankelton, the Superintendent of the Retta Dixon Home for part Aboriginal children in Darwin. The children were taken to Darwin in a truck that was driven by Mr Les Penhall, a cadet patrol officer, and an employee of the Native Affairs Branch. The Director of Native Affairs at that time was the late Mr Frank Moy.
SNIP
8 I came to the conclusion that, through the involvement of Mr Penhall, the Director, Mr Moy, played a part in Mrs Cubillo's removal from Phillip Creek and her detention at the Retta Dixon Home. I accepted Mrs Cubillo's evidence that she was viciously assaulted by a missionary on the staff of the Home and I accepted her evidence that she was very unhappy and starved for affection during her time at Retta Dixon."

But all the aboriginal children taken from their parents were better off, right? Even if they were viciously assaulted, unhappy and starved for affection?

"9 However, in many very important areas, the history of Mrs Cubillo's removal from Phillip Creek was incomplete. Neither Mr Moy nor any other officer from the Native Affairs Branch - except for Mr Penhall - has lived to give evidence about why Mrs Cubillo was removed. Mr Penhall did give evidence but he was a junior employee at the time and did not know why a decision had been made to remove the children from Phillip Creek. What is more, none of the parties have been able to find any documents that dealt with the reasons for the removal of the children. There is a huge void. We know that Mrs Cubillo was taken away but we do not know why."

Because of bureaucratic incompetence we will never know if the aboriginal protector and their staff had good grounds or not for the removal of these children. This is essentially why the case failed - not because it was shown that the children benefited from their removal, but because the whites involved had died or memories had failed, AND THERE WAS NO SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION.

This is just as much an indictment of the policy and its implementation as anything else in my view.

"10 The obligation was on Mrs Cubillo to satisfy the Court that the Director failed to act in accordance with the provisions of s 6. As it is, people are dead and documents, if they ever existed, have been lost. There is now no way of knowing what went on in the mind of Mr Moy when he participated in the removal and detention of Mrs Cubillo. I cannot assume, out of a feeling of sympathy for Mrs Cubillo, that Mr Moy failed to perform his statutory duty."

A lack of documentation and direct evidence led to the dismissal of the case. Again an indictment of the policy and its implementation. IN STRICT TERMS IT WAS LEGAL TO TAKE THE CHILDREN AND THEREFORE A CASE OF LIABILITY WAS NOT PROVED - PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF A LACK OF DOCUMENTATION.

"11 The position concerning Mr Gunner is quite different. In his case, there were several pieces of documentary evidence concerning his leaving Utopia. Mr Kitching's memory has faded and Mr Giese, through ill-health, was unable to give evidence. However, the documents that were available point strongly to the Director, through his officers, having given close consideration to the welfare of the young Peter. Most importantly, there was his mother's thumbprint on a form of request that asked that Peter be taken to St Mary's and given a western education. I have concluded that Peter went to St Mary's at his mother's request. I accepted Mr Gunner's evidence that he had a most unhappy childhood at St Mary's and I accepted his evidence that he was the victim of a sexual assault by one of the missionaries during his time at St Mary's. Nevertheless, I concluded that the evidence did not justify a finding that the Director of Native Affairs removed Mr Gunner from his family against the wishes of his mother. Although Mr Kitching was involved in the removal, he did so at the request of Mr Gunner's mother."

In the case of Gunner, there was some evidence that Gunner's mother consented in some fashion - her thumbprint was on a document - no-one knows how this consent was obtained or what she was told in order to place her thumbprint on the document. In this case there was also documentary evidence provided that showed that the Protector believed he had good grounds for Peter's removal BY THE LETTER OF THE LAW AND THE CULTURAL CLIMATE OF THE DAY. Legally, the Protector had ticked the boxes and done the right thing - even if in hindsight we disagree with the law.

One also has to ask - did Gunner's mother consent to him being sexually assaulted by a missionary? Unlikely.

However, it is my opinion, that the term 'stolen generation' shouldn't be pigeon-holed as a unique Aboriginal occurrence (in fact, should it even be called "stolen generation"?)
Many white children were also removed/stolen from their families, with varying degrees of consent, but this never seems to get mentioned.
And seeing that there wasn't a policy at the time (see Cubillo/Gunner case above) that specifically detailed that Aboriginal children were to be forcibly removed from their parents, then, my guess, would be that the authorities at the time took children, of any race, for their perceived well-being.
While the methods were, I'm sure, in some cases, cruel and unjust, that is the way society was back then.....I'm sure, however, there are many children out there who would not be alive, if it wasn't for this interference.
This is just my opinion though.

Wrong.

Aboriginal children were removed from their parents as part of a racially-based policy. Very simple concept - if you read the Bringing Them Home report you will understand this a lot better.

So in the case you use to prove your argument, both children end up assaulted by whites - one "viciously", one sexually - and the legal case fails due largely to lack of documentation meant to be kept by the white authorities.

Try reading a legal case before you base an argument on it next time.

 

[eight ace]

Liverpool, are you seriously trying to use the summary of the Federal Court judgment (the Cubillo and Gunner matter) to support your conclusions (note that I assume you did not read the judgment itself)?
The judgment provides no support for the general conclusion you have drawn from it.

First you display a specific misunderstanding of the court proceedings and what they were trying to achieve in that case. Then you display a general misunderstanding of the court process itself.

The summary makes clear that the principal problems confronted by the applicants were evidentiary - and that this occurred mainly due to the passage of time since the events in question - certainly in the case of Ms. Cubillo. It is also clear that the decision of O'Loughlin J is limited to the applicants before him. Not only is this clear from the nature of the proceedings, but O'Loughlin J states:

Neither the evidence in this trial, nor the reasons for judgment, deny the existence of "the Stolen Generation". Numerous writings tell tragically of a distressing past. But this trial has focussed primarily on the personal histories of two people: Lorna Cubillo and Peter Gunner

The court proceedings were intended to achieve a specific purpose and were subject to the rules of evidence and other limitations affecting those proceedings. There is no general finding regarding removal of aboriginal children. That you try to take comfort from the case does not surprise me. However any attempt to do so by you is fundamentally flawed.

 

[Liverpool]

Antman/Eightace,

The Cubillo/Gunner case wasn't selective quotation.
In fact, what I should have posted was just this:

I have criticised many areas of Mrs Cubillo's evidence and some areas of Mr Gunner's but I accept the main thrust of their evidence about the hurt they suffered as a result of their removal and detention. However, at the end of the day I remain satisfied that the Commonwealth of Australia is not obliged, as a matter of fact and law to compensate them for their losses.
Each of the claims that have been made by Mrs Cubillo and by Mr Gunner must be dismissed. I will hear the parties on any question of costs.

While I also agree witht he court that these two people went through a lot in their life, the fact (and thats what we are looking at) is that their case was dismissed.

Aboriginal children were removed from their parents as part of a racially-based policy. Very simple concept - if you read the Bringing Them Home report you will understand this a lot better.

Antman,
The Cubillo/Gunner case found that these two to have been not have been 'stolen', and along the way found that there was at the relevant time no policy of forcible removal of children in the Northern Territory.
In New South Wales, a similar case was thrown out by the Court of Appeal in late September, the same year.
Yet you persist with spouting your opinion, and encourage me to read "Bringing them Home" (which has caused controversy even amongst some Aborigines, as to the authenticity and truth behind this paper), yet refuse to acknowledge facts, from a court of law.

http://www.ipa.org.au/files/news_497.html

But all the aboriginal children taken from their parents were better off, right? Even if they were viciously assaulted, unhappy and starved for affection?

Secondly, as my last post pointed out to Rayzorwire....I don't deny that some Aboriginal children were abused by their 'new' foster parents. I am sure children, of all races, who have been fostered out...some of them have been abused. Thats a sad fact, and something I have never denied.
Its something I touched on earlier in the thread, that today's Aboriginal children are being abused, by fellow Aborigines, yet authorities are too scared to remove the children, due to the 'stolen generation':

http://www.smh.com.au/news/miranda-devine/suffering-of-unstolen-generation/2006/07/22/1153166631227.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2

Will you be saying sorry to these children?

However, there are also many successful cases of Aborigines being fostered out, who have made themselves and their race proud, however, I do not hear any of these positive stories at all on this thread, only the ones of abuse and negativity, to try and justify why white people are the destroyers of all things Aboriginal, past, present, and future.

So in the case you use to prove your argument, both children end up assaulted by whites - one "viciously", one sexually - and the legal case fails due largely to lack of documentation meant to be kept by the white authorities.
Try reading a legal case before you base an argument on it next time.

Antman,
So who is the racist here, with that comment? :

 

[Rayzorwire]

So many words just to build another half dozen strawman arguments. :

You should be a Fox News presenter Liverpool...adept at padding, misdirection, dodging , spinning...and most prized of all, unshakeable conviction that you are right, despite your positions being shown as ridiculous and utterly separated from reality.

Buggered if I know why anyone bothers to debate with you.

 

[poppa x]

Because he has friends Rayzor.
Friends who believe in reasoned argument instead of name calling.

 

[eight ace]

What I was suggesting to you Liverpool, is that you were using the federal court judgment to make a general point.  The case does not help you progress your argument. You clearly misunderstand the legal process - hardly surprising. You have misread the judgment and misapplied it. I am not offering that as an option - I am telling you that is what you have done.

 

[AngryAnt]

So in the case you use to prove your argument, both children end up assaulted by whites - one "viciously", one sexually - and the legal case fails due largely to lack of documentation meant to be kept by the white authorities.
Try reading a legal case before you base an argument on it next time.

Antman,
So who is the racist here, with that comment? :


What, I am racist because I pointed out how you failed to read the document? Or because I referred to white authorities or abusers? How is that racist? You are a sad individual.
You don't argue coherently, you don't present evidence fairly and you are just about winding people up.

Fair play to you - myself and others who bother to respond to you have been suckered in well and truly.

Remain happy in your ignorant bliss.

 

[Legends of 2017]

...............and good to to see everyone back on the topic again instead of resorting to personal abuse : oh hang on :

 

[an_oxford_man]

Fair play to you - myself and others who bother to respond to you have been suckered in well and truly.

True.

 

[tigersnake]

...............and good to to see everyone back on the topic again instead of resorting to personal abuse : oh hang on :

If you are referring to a certain person being called a racist as being personal abuse, that is not correct. We all know what the word refers to, and that is what he's shown himself to be over a sustained period. To say its personal abuse would be like saying you were abusing a 95 year old for calling them old.