There were no stolen generations says Keith Windschuttle

What do you think of his theory?

 

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2009/12/there-were-no-stolen-generations/

FirstPrev123(page 3/3)
41 comments

Isn't it a wonderfull recognition of Political correctness that a white Aborigine is anybody that accepts the Aborigine culture.  Especially the professional "white Aboriginal".  It would appear that the University qualified Anthropologists have all got it wrong.  They all seem to be of the understanding that Caucasoids & negroids have different bone structures.  I realise that our very few Forensic Scientists have no trouble recognising the remains of a deceased Aborigine as against a deceased Caucasian.  Another very odd thing about the study is that if they get the body early enough, they make reference to the fact that they have black skin.  What racist bastards they must be!!!                            

What's your definition of an Australian Aboriginal?

 

I also notice that nobody appears to have any desire to correctly differentiate the Aborigine from the Politically correct White Australian by mentioning that the Aborigine is actually an "Australoid" which is an anthropological description of the Australian Aborigine, together with New Guinea natives & some Melonesian people that are the closest living humans with a direct 5 million year old relationship to the missing link.  The Caucasian has only been dated back around 250,000 years.  Buggers up Adam & the spare rib a little bit.

In answer to your question Barak  The most acceptable description of an Australian Aborigine is an Indigenous Australian, which BTW includes Torres Strait Islanders.                        

The missing link?

WTF?

That's yet another archaic term. 

 

Re Definitions of Aboriginality

The legal historian, John McCorquodale, has reported that since the time of white settlement, governments have used no less than 67 classifications, descriptions or definitions to determine who is an Aboriginal person.
Original source: Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, National Report (1991), Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra [11.12.5].

Certainly a matter of continuous debate it seems according to the Australian Law Reform Association.

Full details and various interpretations at:
http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/36-kinship-and-identity/legal-definitions-aboriginality

Barak, are you now going to tell us that there is no such thing in Anthropology as the Missing Link".  You mean that it is now archaic or obsolute to believe in scientific fact?

Modern scientific theory has no place for the archaic missing link.

NO ONE on here, including myself have any idea what it is like to be an Aborigine.... many of you are sanctimonious and full of Aboriginal knowledge when WE, yes WE really don't have a clue... none of us do.

When I was involved as a consultant to State & Federal Dept (in a very limited area) Aboriginal people were part of the targetted group.  So useless ..... it wasn't about the Aboriginal people, it was about the NON Aboriginal people, their egos, their status, their bickering and their needs.

Sorry Shaggy Dog but the WHITE religious missionaries took their grant money but ONLY tended to the superfluous ...... goody, goody stuff. They effectively did nothing of any real consequence... leaving aside the areas in which they were actually detrimental to Aboriginal people.

A huge amount of the money for Aboriginal people went to WHITE contractors and even WHITE managers/administrators of Aboriginal organisations.  One bloody tin shed with one bedroom, kitchen and lounge room with NO double walls or even showers/toilets or laundry cost $200,000 and that was 20years ago.  These tin sheds were located only 20kms from town.

What it is, unfortunately, is LUCRATIVE.. for all people except Aboriginal people!!!  We can then complain how much money we good people are spending on Aboriginal people and how they are bludgers, drunks, addicts, abusers, etc, etc and nothing will help their 'cause'.

I had a window open just a crack once and only for a few seconds which was a revelation.....it showed me that I would never be able to understand Aboriginal people and their culture, as I was completely blinded by my own culture.  It was enough to ensure that I never assumed that I knew what was best for Aboriginal people but allowed me to have enormous respect for those within that culture who had suffered substantially but were there to improve the lives of all Aborigines.

Working on the ground with Aboriginal people ... not one but all of the people, forget the hierarchical structure that we use.  Don't do a state or nation application.... just take one location at a time.  Take the things that were positive for Aborigines and their communities and expand them to the next location.  Learning and adding with each new location.

There is so much that could be done that is productive and positive AND for less money than what is now spent on 'nothing' that worthwhile overall.  Even some health issues can be done on a community level.

 

 

Mussi,

What missions did you visit when you were a consultant ?

I was not saying they were great but that they left a space that has been a shambles ever since.

I have seen much of that you mention in your post. It has been going on for a very long time.

Take it easy

SD

 

Leave it alone Shaggy Dog.  Mussitate has spoken.  That is the end of the discussion.

Message from the moderator – please call members by their avatar name – as spelt on their avatar.

Innes,

Yes you are probably right.

Still raining here, heaps.

Take it easy.

SD

comment removed by the moderator – please call members by their avatar name – as spelt on their avatar.

 

 

Yes SD, good advice, end of discussion.

toot2000 (Sydney)

It's YOUR topic isn't it..... say no more!

Toot,

I am afraid my own beliefs and culture is who I am. To put them aside would make me someone else.

I see things through the lens of my own experience and up bringing as most of us do.

Sorry if I offended you.

I had better retreat as I said I would earlier.

Take it easy

SD

SD you haven't offended me, I enjoy your posts and learn a lot from them. Please don't stop posting.

HEY wait a minute---

1.  toot, nothing wrong with your thread. It's a great discussion, educational, informative and has every reason to be where it is.

2. innes, just ignore him, and carry on with whatever you were saying.I am sure many people find it interesting.

3.Shaggy, have read your post and know you have had a lot of first hand experience with Aboriginal people and have the right to pass on your opinions here.

I suspect mussitate's own"experience" is really what he obtained from some focus group which local councils have from time to time and I have attended quite a few during my day. Not worth a mention.

Bl**** hell people, don't let mussitate and barak run  any of you off and that goes for you  too THEA, enjoyed everything you wrote today. Keep writing.

Yes Ray, I find innes' posts interesting. They show that "scientific" views from a century ago are still active in some people's minds.

Amazing.

However, it's times like that that it depresses me that everyone gets a vote.

And you enjoyed seeing Thea make mistakes reading my posts, refuse to accept what I had actually written, and abuse me when I pointed that out? What a funny way to get enjoyment.

Barak, the fact is that you have never actually added anything to any post on YLC.  All you have ever done is deride any imput from any member that is not a member of your very small clique.  I have not implied any scientific views from a Century ago.  I have not offered any views at all.  The simple fact is that the skelital remains of any Aborigine have never changed.  They are Australoidel & differ from both Negroid African & Caucasion.  It makes no difference whatsoever whether a moronic school teacher accepts the difference or not.  They are still different.  The same fact remains that their is no possibility of regression of Aborigine skin colour.  It can't happen, & never has happened.  They are biologically incapable of regression.  That is a fact not opinion.  If you were the slightest bit intelligent, you would be curious, as I am, that the Aboriginal is believed to have originally come from Africa, BUT has no biological relationship to the negroid African of today?  If they left there before the arrival of the Negroid African, where did the Negroid African come from.  Maybe Christianity can come up with a second Adam & a spare rib !!!!  Messopotania is generally recognised as the oldest civilisation on Earth, but the Aborigine pre dates that by millions of years.  As 1 famous scientist was famous for saying, "Why is it so"?

Wow, what a ramble. 

This is the current official definition of Australian Aboriginality:

An Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander is a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent who identifies as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and is accepted as such by the community in which he (she) lives.

That has so little to do with whatever you're on about, I'm not even going to try to comment on it right now. Maybe later.

Barak, Your "Official definition of Australian Aboriginality" is a Political one, nothing more.  Please explain how & why we have so many "White" Aborigines in Tasmania where the white Australian actually became (but for 1 little girl) the only totally successful pervaders of Genicide in the history of the human race?  That was where the British supremists actually paid 2 shillings for a pair of black ears in order to save the hassle of dragging in the dead body of the murdered Aborigine.

 

That definition is not "mine".

The source is the Parliament of Australia publication "Defining Aboriginality in Australia" -  http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/CIB/cib0203/03Cib10

It's much more than a political definition. It's the only one I know that's used for all practical purposes in Australia today.

So what's your definition?

THE TOPIC is an insult to Aboriginal people and I find it distasteful that a bunch of old white people ... all of us.... should be discussing them as if they are something we are examining under a microscope and that we have the ability or wherewithall to know anything at all about them AND actually think that WE are a better civilisation than them.

Even according to Captain Cook... Aborigines lived better than some Kings in Europe.  Remembering of course that many lived on the coasts of Australia where life was so fruitful.

WHY do we want to win lottery.... to maybe live by the sea, never have to work, do some fishing (fish, oysters, crayfish), swim, meet up with our family and friends and interact and even party with them and sometimes with our neighbours in the 'country' further up the coast.  

Wow.. that is how coastal Aborigines lived before white caucasions came into their country, TOLD a lie about their existence, took over their land and their very lives, and then had no real regard for them ever since.

This topic is totally out of order....... really BAD FORM and should be taken down!

IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE TOPIC THEN DON'T CONTRIBUTE, THERE ARE OTHER READERS WHO FIND IT ENLIGHTENING.

Ray

I am not sure YOU could ever be enlightened, given your general attitude towards anything of relevance.... it's a wonder you didn't put up an insulting moving picture.

Mussi, this is a wonderful thing that is happening right now, we agree, what do we agree on?  We want our Aboriginal people to succeed, they deserve it, we need to give back what we took, and with our help and the education of their young people, they will prove us all wrong.  It will just take time and bucketloads of money.

toot2000 (Sydney)

Respect your response.

Toot,

I have a picture of two little blokes sharing a bed, fast asleep. My little bloke as fair as they come with almost white hair and his little mate about as dark as they come.

They were almost inseparable for some years.

Happy times, kids of all shades and backgrounds about the place, a bit noisy at times but a happy house.

I used to take the two little blokes out bush a bit, set up a camp for them and leave them there. Their idea. Sneaking back later to check on them. Most times they sat up all night with a good fire going pretending they were brave. They would  relate the big adventure on the way home in the car in the morning unaware Dad had been watching over them. They had to cook me breakfast over the camp fire first, part of the deal.

A bit off topic maybe but our kids grew up with little bias due to the variety of kids they socialised with.

Take it easy.

SD

Hey innes - you must have missed a post of mine earlier.

What's your definition of an Australian Aboriginal?

Barak, What is yours?

Already provided above - twice now, but here it is again:

"An Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander is a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent who identifies as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and is accepted as such by the community in which he (she) lives."

That's from the Parliament of Australia publication "Defining Aboriginality in Australia" -  http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/CIB/cib0203/03Cib10

No mention of skin colour anywhere.

 

So innes, I've done what you asked and provided the definition I use. Your turn now. What's your definition of an Australian Aboriginal?

And I suggest you avoid the use of the word "negroid". I just Googled it, and in the first hit I saw "relating to the division of humankind represented by the indigenous peoples of central and southern Africa".

The second hit told me "Negroid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and other -oid words, once widely used in anthropology, are now rarely used scientifically. The general nonscientific use of these words is often considered offensive and should be avoided."

The third hit said "Anthropology. (no longer in technical use) of, relating to, or characteristic of the peoples traditionally classified as the Negro race,especially those who originate in sub-Saharan Africa."

You have now told me all the words I can't use, but that doesn't interfere with my definition.  I simply call them the Indiginous Australians.  When I sit down to my regular wet lunch with my Barrister friend & my half Aboriginal Retired Judge friend, I usually refer to them as "your people" or to individuals that we both know, by their Christian names.  I am somewhat surprised that "Anthropology" is no longer of technical use.  My Company is an agent for a number of Universities & I can tell you that degree Courses in Anthropology are still run at Sydney, Macquarie, Melbourne, Curtin & Deakin Unis, as well as La Trobe, Monash & ANU.  BTW, the Sub-Saharan Africa area is roughly the Messopotanian region where mankind is supposed to have first derived from.

 

No it's not. 

From Wikipedia: "Mesopotamia...is a name for the area of the Tigris–Euphrates river system, roughly corresponding to modern-day Iraq, Syria and Kuwait." Not in Africa at all.  

If you look a little further, you will see that the Messopotamia is considered to take in the areas that you mention, but extends to the modern Egypt Libya & Sudan, which are all located in the sub continant of Africa.  Please do me & other members of YLC & leave it.  If I say that Caucasians are white skinned, you will say that the Greeks are not white skinned.  The fact is that the Sumerian King Lugalzagessi who is recognised as the founder of the first Empire including Mesopotania, by marching along the Euphrates & the Tigress to the "upper Sea" (the Mediterranian).  If you ignore modern political Countries & look at a map of the area, you will see that these areas are in the far North of Africa.

I've just done a lot more Googling. Nothing I found contradicts what I wrote above. But innes does.

So let me see. I have a choice here for my facts. Reliable sites like the British Museum, or innes.

Hmmm...... 

 

 

Barak, I am somewhat surprised that The British Museum gives out information different to The Encyclopedia Britannica.  Are you telling me that the British Museum states that King Lugalzagessi's Empire did not extend from the  Mesopotania area to the Mediterranian.  Are you also stating that the British Museum states that the Mediteranian Sea is not located to the North of the African sub Continant & is not part of the African land mass, which includes Egypt & Libya.  BTW, the distance from Qism Rafah in Egypt to Salkhad in Syria is less than 200 Ks'.  Is that not the same geological area?  If we were having this discussian in Egypt, would you insist that Newcastle is not in the same area of Australia as Sydney?  Sorry, silly question;  of course you would.

You can be as surprised as you like at what the British Museum says, but it matches my long term understanding of where Mesopotamia is.

I think it's time to get back to the topic.

Windschuttle is wrong. OK?

Please don't try to understand, Barak,  Just look at the bloody Atlas.

Nah. I know when I'm right.

Barak, The only way that you could know that you are right is to take the opposite to every one of your opinions.

Thank you for that wise and helpful advice.

 

Now...I had to return to this thread to set something right ...

Quote Barak...."The third hit said "Anthropology. (no longer in technical use) of, relating to, or characteristic of the peoples traditionally classified as the Negro race,especially those who originate in sub-Saharan Africa."

Normally...I ignore 99.9% of your inaccuracies..but this one I could not let pass. To say "Anthropology" is no longer in use is quite unbelievable.

I can assure you Anthropology is alive and kicking and wherever you got that astonishing idea is beyond my comprehension. For a start... last year I attended the Australian Anthopological Society's Conference at the University of Melbourne with my daughter. 

Secondly...there is a DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY at Sydney University which has been in existence since 1925. Many leading anthropologists in Australia and internationally have received their training at the University of Sydney...and still do to this day.



 

 

Thea,

That quote wasn't saying that the word "anthropology" was no longer in technical use, but that the word "negroid" was no longer in technical use within the obviously still current field of anthropology.

Also, given that what I posted was not my words, but a direct quote, to accuse me of inaccuracy is bloody insulting.

I await your apology.

(comment edited by the moderator)

Barak, did you or did you not say yesterday:-

"The third hit said "Anthropology. (no longer in technical use) of, relating to, or characteristic of the peoples traditionally classified as the Negro race,especially those who originate in sub-Saharan Africa."

I know I have it all wrong, BUT, doesn't    "Anthropology. (no longer in technical use)"  actually mean:-   "Anthropology. (no longer in technical use)"?

No. The post was about the word "negroid".

Think.

Nah, the  post wasn't about "negroid", you stuffed up, Thea corrected you.

Man up and apologise instead of back pedalling.

 

No. Of course the post was about the word "negroid". It's silly to say otherwise. That's what we were discussing. Innes' misuse of that word.

Accuracy is the twin brother of honesty;

Inaccuracy is the twin brother of dishonesty. 

Barak3 hrs ago

 

From the forum guidelines:

"We will not tolerate personal attacks..."

"Conversation is to be constructive and kept on topic..."


The same applies to you Barak and I have reported your post @ 11 rs to Thea. Hopefully it will be removed

Banjo - Thea was criticising me. She was wrong. I tried to explain. YOU criticised me. YOU were wrong too.

I hadn't written what Thea accused me of. She was blinded to the truth by her dislike of me, as were you. To report my post simply shows your inability to comprehend what I had written.

It's really hard to communicate facts and truth with some of you here. Why would would that be?

I'm beginning  to understand, EVERYONE IS WRONG, except for  you. So you  attack them and then spout your nonsense about  forum rules.

Something WRONG with that equation.

On that occasion I WAS right. Thea was wrong. So were you.  Any wise person carefully reading that content in context will see that. I didn't attack. I responded to an attack.

The forum rules aren't nonsense. I dont think you will get far arguing that.

I have been wrong on occasion. When it has been demonstrated I have accepted the fact and apologised. You?

Thank you Banjo....although I take no notice of what this person says anymore...it was nice to  see his post @ 1 day ago was edited.

Thea - you were simply wrong. I still await your apology.

And I assume you will all now report every post from innes where he calls me a moron. Right?

Barak,  You win,   I give up.

Thec 'Missing link" is in my opinion, fantasy.  Things can adapt, but not change form or structure.

Somewhere in this world is the biggest pile of bones from all creatures, including man, great and small who died while trying to change to a different form ?   Take the fish in Lake Eyre, how did they figure out the ability to comotose themselves at the end of the 'wet' and revive themselves when the "wet" returned ?  Where are the bones from all the missing links for this example ?

Maybe I am wrong as well ?

Yep.

The concept of missing links is meaningless.

many childish comments !

My response has already been written by someone more knowledgable than me.

Windschuttle’s book is based on astonishing ideological blindness and along the same theme as extremist Andrew Blot.

more at:

https://www.themonthly.com.au/nation-reviewed-robert-manne-comment-keith-windschuttle-2256

FirstPrev123(page 3/3)
41 comments



To make a comment, please register or login

Preview your comment