Genocide of Australian Aborigines successfully debunked

Roderick M ODonnell · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 2

"Neville Duguid" wrote in message%nevilled@bigpond.net.au...
>
> Given that many such reports had all the hallmarks of 'ripping yarns',
> one is left wondering why they all had their genesis in so relatively
> few real incidents, rather than drawing on a wider variety of stories
> one would expect to have been in circulation among the early settlers if
> hunting Aborigines been as commonplace as so many seemed keen to impute.
> The simplest explanation is that those few dramatic incidents were
> 'news' for precisely the same reason things make the news today, i.e.,
> the real incidents they were based on were unusual rather than
> commonplace events.
>

Speaking of 'ripping yarns' my own family has always handed down a few from
the very earliest days of Australian settlement. All of my ancestors have
been among the earliest settlers in the districts they went to.

This one concerns my O'Donnell forebears who were the 'farm servants' who
established Mt. Elephant station on the Victorian western plains.

A little after 1840 they had some kind of a dwelling there, presumably built
of mud, stones, sods & straw. There were little other building materials out
that way.
At the time of this confrontation with the untamed Aborigines, the men had
all gone away, probably to muster stock, leaving Margaret my great great
grandmother alone with her babies. A group of Aborigines turned up wanting
some food or other handouts, this was not unusual but this time the
station's store was empty. A more unusual occurence was that the Aborigines
were all grown men armed with spears & womeras, normally the visiting groups
would include women & children. On telling these warriors that she had
nothing to offer them they became angry so she retreated into the dwelling
& closed the door. These wild tribesmen gathered around the small building
trying to get in & climbed on the large stone chimney, then began to get
down it. Fortunately for Margaret she had inside the hut with her a large
kangaroo dog which she set onto the warriors coming down the chimney. This
upset their planned entry and they departed without causing any further
mischief.

This kind of incedent would never have made any kind of news publication but
on the rare occaisions when such happenings led to violence the news would
no doubt spread rapidly.

I hope you enjoy this little bit of early Aus. history.

RMOD

Archived from group: aus>history

Neville Duguid · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 16

Scott Steel wrote:
>
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 04:51:55 GMT, nevilled@bigpond.net.au
> (Neville Duguid) wrote:
> >
> >I would have to read Windschuttle's Vol.1 again to be sure of the
> >details, but I am of the distinct impression Windschuttle exhaustively
> >read whatever was available, with perhaps a bias towards those sources
> >favoured by the other historians he found himself increasingly checking
> >up on towards the end of his research. IOW any ultimate bias would have
> >been in favour of whatever straws other historians had clutched in their
> >attempts to bolster their contrary pov. With newspaper articles,
> >Windschuttle's typical response was to cross-check with other sources.
> >In that way he found that a lot of the 'massacres' were no more than
> >different renditions of the same story, sometimes having 'grown' in the
> >process of repitition to the point where some of the other historians
> >could almost be forgiven for failing to recognize them as harking back
> >to the same incident.
> >
> >Given that many such reports had all the hallmarks of 'ripping yarns',
> >one is left wondering why they all had their genesis in so relatively
> >few real incidents, rather than drawing on a wider variety of stories
> >one would expect to have been in circulation among the early settlers if
> >hunting Aborigines been as commonplace as so many seemed keen to impute.
> >The simplest explanation is that those few dramatic incidents were
> >'news' for precisely the same reason things make the news today, i.e.,
> >the real incidents they were based on were unusual rather than
> >commonplace events.
>
> Er .... sure.
>
> Dont you find using a death toll derived primarily from
> newspaper reports at the time, problematic?

The death toll due to violence was not "primarily" based on newspaper
reports iirc, but on all accessible written records. Windschuttle used
cross-checking between the various sources which included diaries and
letters from settlers as well as the most comprehensive official
archives of any frontier society anywhere in the world. IIRC
Windschuttle claims something to the effect that Van Diemens Land was
the most thoroughly documented society in existence at the time.

It could be *very* interesting if he would publish some stats on the
results of his crosschecking. Eg, if he found that (say) 15% of reports
of a particular incident were reported only in one source, then that
could give a good indication on the comprehensiveness of the written
record. (Because it should then be possible to graph incidents according
to the number of times reported in the available literature, from MAX
down to ONE, then extrapolate the graph to ZERO reports of presumably
unreported incidents, if any statistically valid pattern emerges).

Because newspapers were small local affairs, depending mainly on local
news to fill their pages, it should even be possible for someone with
good linguistic or English comprehension skills to make an assessment of
their comprehensiveness and forthrightness in reporting local
inter-racial violence.

For example if some reports were vague about names and places,
particularly when an incident occurred in their local area, one could
see if there was any tendency of some (or perhaps all) newspapers to
play down violence against Aborigines, perhaps for legal reasons. It
should also be possible to find out, by the topic matters covered,
whether the local reporter/editor had informants among 'the lower
orders' the way a good crime reporter would today, or was sealed off in
an upper-crust social cocoon. Unlikely in small towns, but possible in
the larger regional centres.

Another statistical anomoly to look out for would be a bias against
reporting local incidents. Eg if local incidents were conspicuously
absent or toned down in the local newspaper, that would tend to indicate
a culture of cover-up. Conversely if local newspapers consistently gave
the most thorough and prolonged coverage of their own area's local
incidents, that would indicate the absence of any tendency not to report
such incidents.

The primary qualification for doing that kind of research is
impartiality and a genuine interest in discovering as methodically and
accurately as possible the secrets of the past. Historians who see
themselves as 'gate minders' to ensure the secrets of our past remain
their exclusive property to edit and review as a way of manipulating the
present are the ones I am wary of. It is, after all, OUR past they are
keeping from us. Not only that, but have the Australian public been
duped into funding the people who deliberately seek to delude us? In any
other industry it would be called fraud, or at the very least,
incompetence or professional negligence. Anyone can make mistakes and
come up with crackpot theories, but with the number of people engaged in
history in Australia, the winnowing process of peer review should be
refining rather than obfuscating in perpetuity the subject matter of
their investigations.

Scott Steel · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 3

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 00:27:35 GMT, ops@hotmail.com (Aloysius
Jones) wrote:

>On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 09:22:46 +1000, Scott Steel
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:14:05 GMT, nevilled@bigpond.net.au
>>(Neville Duguid) wrote:
>>
>>>Roderick M ODonnell wrote:
>>>
>>>> Windschuttle's propaganda appears no worse than some of the "black armband"
>>>> stuff that has been around for years. He is merely taking the lowest
>>>> possible number of deliberate killings as his preferred figure.
>>
>>Spot on.
>
>I just can't see how it is propaganda to point out that Professor
>Lyndell Ryan (Head of the School of Humanities University of
>Newcastle) faked her research, fabricated her footnotes, and then have
>Ryan admit that she did this.

I dont think that's the propaganda which is being spoken of.

>I also cannot see how when it is pointed out that a historian has
>deliberately falsified their research, as Lyndall Ryan admitted doing,
>that any criticism of this falsfication is called 'Hansonite' .
>
>From my perspective, one side of this argument falsifies their
>research and admits doing it but argues that they are in the right
>because the other side is 'reactionary' and 'Hansonite' to point it
>out.
>
>This is how the looney left such as Ryan, Reynolds and Manne engage in
>academic argument. You point out they are lying. They admit they are
>lying, but they argue that they are right because there is something
>wrong with anyone who points out that they are lying. No wonder the
>humanities faculties in Australia are dying.

Once anyone picks a side to barrack for in this so called
debate, they cease to deal with reality.

We dont know and never will know how many Aboriginal deaths
there were through settler violence because the historical
record for the most part doesnt exist.

The reality of Australian history is somewhere between
Windshuttles denialism and Mannes hysterical
exaggeration.Since this shitfight is between those two
extreme groups, the moment anyone nails their colours to
eithers mast, they cease to deal with history and instead
engage in ideological piss and wind.

Sometimes facts cant be known and maybe a few more of us
should be able to deal with that just a little better than
we have.

Scott Steel

Scott Steel · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 3

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 04:51:55 GMT, nevilled@bigpond.net.au
(Neville Duguid) wrote:

>Scott Steel wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:14:05 GMT, nevilled@bigpond.net.au
>> (Neville Duguid) wrote:
>>
>> >Roderick M ODonnell wrote:
>> >
>> >> Windschuttle's propaganda appears no worse than some of the "black armband"
>> >> stuff that has been around for years. He is merely taking the lowest
>> >> possible number of deliberate killings as his preferred figure.
>>
>> Spot on.
>>
>> >Windschuttle's figures differ from other historians because they are not
>> >estimates, but a count of verified casualties of inter-racial violence
>> >in Tasmania during the period under consideration.
>>
>> Taken from the primary (only?) source of newspaper reports.
>>
>> Does that not strike you as being problematic?
>
>I would have to read Windschuttle's Vol.1 again to be sure of the
>details, but I am of the distinct impression Windschuttle exhaustively
>read whatever was available, with perhaps a bias towards those sources
>favoured by the other historians he found himself increasingly checking
>up on towards the end of his research. IOW any ultimate bias would have
>been in favour of whatever straws other historians had clutched in their
>attempts to bolster their contrary pov. With newspaper articles,
>Windschuttle's typical response was to cross-check with other sources.
>In that way he found that a lot of the 'massacres' were no more than
>different renditions of the same story, sometimes having 'grown' in the
>process of repitition to the point where some of the other historians
>could almost be forgiven for failing to recognize them as harking back
>to the same incident.
>
>Given that many such reports had all the hallmarks of 'ripping yarns',
>one is left wondering why they all had their genesis in so relatively
>few real incidents, rather than drawing on a wider variety of stories
>one would expect to have been in circulation among the early settlers if
>hunting Aborigines been as commonplace as so many seemed keen to impute.
>The simplest explanation is that those few dramatic incidents were
>'news' for precisely the same reason things make the news today, i.e.,
>the real incidents they were based on were unusual rather than
>commonplace events.

Er .... sure.

Dont you find using a death toll derived primarily from
newspaper reports at the time, problematic?

>> [...]
>>
>> > I think the actual
>> >figure is bound to be higher,
>>
>> Exactly, which is why this whole debate is little more than
>> an argument about the length of a piece of string.
>
>What you preceive as "this whole debate" is only one minor and
>diversionary aspect to anyone with a genuine interest in the history of
>early Australia.

Spot on there.

Has it occured to any of you folks that if it wasnt for News
Limited, this debate wouldnt be happening and that maybe
this "whole debate" is little more than a ratings vehicle
for the opinion pages in their broadsheets.?

What I find kind of bemusing is that nothing new is comming
out about the details of history.Just a reorganisation and
respin of existing knowledge by both sides.

>That is, if their interest is genuinely focussed on the
>past, rather than merely mining it for whatever serves to promote their
>political agenda in the present.

That excludes everyone of the main participants in this
fiasco then.

>> One bunch of cultural warrior rodents using spurious
>> bullshit to fight another bunch of cultural warrior rodents
>> doing exactly the same thing.
>>
>> I cant believe the country has descended to the level of
>> thinking that a shitfight between Robert Manne and Keith
>> Windshuttle is even remotely interesting when neither of
>> them are spearing each other to death.
>
>Amazingly reminiscent of what passes for typical and normal debate in
>aus.politics, wouldn't you think?

Pretty much.

>> [...]
>>
>> >Windschuttle's theories are quite feasible, and have the advantage that
>> >they are supported with solid documentary evidence.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Which brings us to another point about all this nonense.Its
>> not about evidence (if it was you couldnt say that basing a
>> death rate on newspaper articles was anything remotely
>> close to being "solid", anymore than Manning Clarke

That should have been Henry Reynolds, not Manning Clarke.

>>plucking
>> a number from a random orifice was), its about belief
>> systems.Windshuttle and Manne are little more than proxies
>> through which two ideological camps that hate each others
>> guts are fighting.
>>
>> The problem with both groups is that ideology isnt a very
>> good substitute for thought.
>>
>> It even makes for a dull circus.
>
>Given that I recall you defending the style of one poster who
>specialises in turning attempts at serious debate into circus,

If it aint serious, it may as well be amusing.

> I'll take
>that as your admission you prefer not to look any more closely at what
>you may already have glimpsed lurking beneath the surface of this
>particular issue Wink

I'd rather not look more closely at what is lurking behind
Keith Windshuttle thanks, for I have glimpsed before, the
face of Conservative innanity.

Scott Steel

Seppo Renfors · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 5

Neville Duguid wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors wrote:
>
> > Moses Lim wrote:
> > >
> > > William J. Wolfe wrote:
> > > > Moses Lim wrote in message
> > > > news:...
> > > >
> > > >>Neville Duguid wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>Moses Lim wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>Neville Duguid wrote
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>----snipped----
> >
> > Having looked back in the thread, I note that Nev is still pushing
> > that bloody Windschuttle's revisionist propaganda - no less abhorrent
> > than Irvin's revisionism. The man (Windschuttle that is - though it
> > probably applies to both) is a fraud. I have proven his revisionism to
> > be nothing more than clap-trap fabrications.
>
> You have? When? Where? All you do is classic ad hom. You avoid
> responding to the issues raised by dreaming up claptrap about the author
> instead.

Ah, I see you haven't got out od the habit of shooting yourself in the
foot! You signal very well indeed that you are well aware of where and
when I was referring to.

> > Windschuttle is no
> > scholar, never has been nor will he ever be. He hasn't published in
> > any peer reviewed papers - because he couldn't get them published in
> > such places as his yarns don't stand scrutiny.
>
> Since the "peer review" of history in Australia is monopolised by those
> Windschuttle is accusing of unprofessional standards, that is hardly
> surprising.

That IS the accepted method for scholars to publish academic
papers.... though it has to be said Windschuttle isn't a scholar!

> Now watch as Seppo once more indulges in the 'pushing' and 'revisionism'
> he assumes motivates everyone else, simply because that is the only use
> he has discovered for his own forked tongue:

UHU..... and your "proof" is...... where exactly? I note Nev is
resorting to the Windschuttle STYLE, accuse without any evidence,
because it doesn't SUIT the propaganda he wishes to push!

> > Neville is well aware of this, and has had it demonstrated to him. But
> > Nev, is a person who's has advocated SLAVERY as a "solution" to the
> > Aborigine's problems!! Neville is a supporter of One Nation and their
> > racist policies and has donated funds to Pauline to fight the charges
> > of fraud,
>
> This from someone who, I understand, has set himself up as a wood-duck
> lawyer in aus.legal. No sense of justice at all. He denigrates people
> for attempting to defend themselves under the law he feigns such
> devotion to.

....and participating in a news group is a "CRIME" all of a sudden is
it? But let me recall YOU and the "Townsville Taliban", plotting and
scheming behind the scenes to wrest control over act-b for your own
racist purposes, to propagate the kind of propaganda revisionists LIKE
Windschuttle engage in and also for the purpose of gratuitous "boong
bashing". THAT is "criminal"!!

> > for the criminal act which she is currently serving time. It
> > is part of Neville's POLITICAL agendas to propagate the revisionism by
> > Windschuttle!! It should NOT be in either a history OR an education
> > group - and should be left in the political forums.
>
> That is a classic Seppo drop-catch. Anything to do with Aborigines,
> according to Seppo, is politics, not history, even if it happened 200
> years ago. Makes it easier to revise on the fly, hey Sepp?

That last paragraph was 100% SPOT ON! Just look at that crazy-man
"Roderick M ODonnell" - who happens to support your notion of SLAVERY.
The mad man who portrays Aborigines as ANIMALS eg "...the untamed
Aborigines.."!! Yes THAT is the type people you go brown-nosing all
the time - the SICK in the mind types!

> > So much for the birth of this thread.
>
> And so much for its attempted cot death at Seppo's hand.

Apparently another in the plethora of your untrue statements. All I
advocated was it be REMOVED from Education and History forums, as this
is RACIST POLITICAL CLAP-TRAP that you are so fond of engaging in and
nothing to do with actual history and it certainly does nothing for
education!

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Neville Duguid · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 16

Seppo Renfors wrote:

> Apparently another in the plethora of your untrue statements. All I
> advocated was it be REMOVED from Education and History forums, as this
> is RACIST POLITICAL CLAP-TRAP that you are so fond of engaging in and
> nothing to do with actual history and it certainly does nothing for
> education!

I think teachers should be informed that such history as they may have
accepted at face value as suitable for teaching in the recent past might
not be what it seems. If accepted blindly and uncritically, it does
have the potential to deprive them of credibility in the eyes of their
students. They should be wary of being used as as a pawn for someone
else's partisan purposes when blindly accepting a worst-case version of
Australian history which has recently been seriously challenged, and is
controversial to say the least.

Moses Lim · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 3

Neville Duguid wrote:
> Seppo Renfors wrote:
>
>>Apparently another in the plethora of your untrue statements. All I
>>advocated was it be REMOVED from Education and History forums, as this
>>is RACIST POLITICAL CLAP-TRAP that you are so fond of engaging in and
>>nothing to do with actual history and it certainly does nothing for
>>education!
>
> I think teachers should be informed that such history as they may have
> accepted at face value as suitable for teaching in the recent past might

face value?? hhhmmm .. probably as much face value as any other
¨scienctifically¨ study/research quotes by anybody ... i guess

R.M. O'Donnell · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 1

"Seppo Renfors" wrote in message@not.pollis.net.au...
>
>
> >
> > Given that many such reports had all the hallmarks of 'ripping yarns',
>
> Yes those are the words by "Roderick M ODonnell " who classifies
> aborigines with animals... no wonder you have "borrowed" his
> terminology!
>

Oh Seppo, you old net-kook,
you do draw some strange conclusions.
Maybe in my litle aus.history type story you see me in referring to
Aborigines as "untamed" I was likening them to the level of animals. I
meant that they were relatively untouched by European civilisation then, I
suppose they were living very close to nature, so that could be seen as
something like the lifestyle of wild animals, if you really insist.
My story is certainly meant to illustrate the pioneering problem of
different groups of people understandig each other's ways.
Only an an ignorant wog almost straight off the boat such as yourself, would
see this bit of a historical minor confrontation as somehow making a
definite classification of Aborigines as animals.

Try not to be such a clot,
RMOD

Ned Latham · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 1

"L'acrobat" wrote in :
> Seppo Renfors wrote:

----snip----

> > Windschuttle hasn't done any "research" - he is a copier of
> > disreputable sources, while ignoring reputable papers/books by
> > qualified people.
>
> Oh good, defamation,

That what Renfors does. He's a stupid, abusive Australophobic bigot.
When those Leb rape gangs were a topic of "discussion" in these
newsgroups, his contribution was to call their victims "slags",
"scrubbers" and "street kids", and to imply that they were prostitutes
and druggies.

----snip----

Ned
--
* Democracy means "the people rule". *
* Fight for the power of assent. *

Seppo Renfors · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 5

Neville Duguid wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors wrote:
>
> > Neville Duguid wrote:
> > >
> > > Scott Steel wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:14:05 GMT, nevilled@bigpond.net.au
> > > > (Neville Duguid) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Roderick M ODonnell wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Windschuttle's propaganda appears no worse than some of the "black
> > > > >> armband" stuff that has been around for years. He is merely taking
> > > > >> the lowest possible number of deliberate killings as his preferred
> > > > >> figure.
> > > >
> > > > Spot on.
> >
> > WRONG - one thing Windschuttle does is DENY well established and known
> > to have occurred massacres. Others he claims as "justifiable" therefor
> > were not "massacres". He uses court findings from the time when
> > aborigines were considered savages and not "humans", to say "it didn't
> > happen".
>
> Hey, that's Scotty you just kneejerked at. Report to your gauleiter and
> do 50 one-arm pushups immediately.

He "the lowest possible number of deliberate killings" - is a
reference to "Windschuttle's propaganda". It is far worse than that.
He has deliberately IGNORED known mass murders, to my certain
knowledge. It is revising far more than merely using the "lowest
possible number".
>
> > > > >Windschuttle's figures differ from other historians because they are not
> > > > >estimates, but a count of verified casualties of inter-racial violence
> > > > >in Tasmania during the period under consideration.
> > > >
> > > > Taken from the primary (only?) source of newspaper reports.
> > > >
> > > > Does that not strike you as being problematic?
> > >
> > > I would have to read Windschuttle's Vol.1 again to be sure of the
> > > details, but I am of the distinct impression Windschuttle exhaustively
> > > read whatever was available, with perhaps a bias towards those sources
> > > favoured by the other historians he found himself increasingly checking
> > > up on towards the end of his research.
> >
> > Windschuttle hasn't done any "research" - he is a copier of
> > disreputable sources, while ignoring reputable papers/books by
> > qualified people.
>
> He investigated the same primary sources as the other historians claimed
> to base their conclusions on.

Oh.... and Rod Moran... the redneck JOURNALIST (so much of a redneck
ANOTHER redneck warns about his work being invalid and BOGUS) is a
"primary source" - PLEASE look up the meaning of the term in an
academic field.

> Having done so, his own book has similar
> status to any other contemporary history in that field.

I don't believe it! You say "writing a book makes history" - yeah THAT
is about your level of "education" - ZERO! First of all even IF (and I
know he doesn't) he relies on "primary" sources (look up the meaning),
the CONCLUSIONS DRAWN from the can be as bogus as a 3 dollar note -
and I know his are.

> IOW it would be
> equally valid to claim those other authors "ignored" Windschuttle as to
> say Windschuttle ignored them.

It isn't a matter of who ignores who - it is a matter of CREDIBILITY -
and the sources NOT ignored have to be credible. Windschuttle's are
not. I have provided proof of it already - you know the kind you
always ignore as it doesn't suit your agendas.

I have noted that Windschuttle does at times resort of the "citation"
of another author. Why do you think such citation are made? It is so
that they can be CHECKED for accuracy. So the question is, have you
ever bothered to CHECK any, hmmm? If not WHY NOT? I have and I found
that Windschuttle has re-interpreted the other authors statements to
fit his own agendas. That is to say they are NOT accurate nor
necessarily representative of the views of the author cited.

You see, he is writing NOT for academic purposes, but for MONEY for
himself and targeting the ignorant masses, like you. THEY won't even
know where to start looking for the citations to check them - even
less likely to bother doing so. Look at you. I provide a painless LINK
to primary sources, and you don't even look at them! Need I say more,
hmmm ?

> He was under no obligation to read everything that others have written.

Of course not - just look at you....! Though Windschuttle is fairly
well read, it doesn't mean he will take notice of the proof cited by
others for their work. Windschuttle simply ignores it as if it doesn't
exist, and goes his own way. It is this that set him apart from
academics and scholars and places him firmly among fiction writers.

> Those whose theories he did comment
> on, he investigated so thoroughly as to check their sources

Are you completely soft in the head? If he quoted Rod Moran as an
"authority", it is good evidence that what you say is pure fantasy.
Rod Moran is not a historian at all - he has no qualifications at all
for the field - not even common sense!

> - which is
> more than any other historian working in that field could be bothered
> doing, it now seems.

You just fell off the edge of the earth to another planet!
Windschuttle isn't a "historian" - he is a TEACHER only, who did teach
history in School. He is not a scholar or an academic, as it takes
certain amount of rigour and discipline to be one. He starts with a
finding, then goes out to "prove" that finding. Why do you think he
hasn't had anything published in peer reviewed magazines for, hmmm?

[..]
> > > Given that many such reports had all the hallmarks of 'ripping yarns',
> >
> > Yes those are the words by "Roderick M ODonnell " who classifies
> > aborigines with animals... no wonder you have "borrowed" his
> > terminology!
>
> I do not specifically recall his use of that fairly common expression.

....fairly common, among racists that is. I'm not at all surprised that
you consider it "normal" to equate aborigines to animals. I note that
"Roderick M ODonnell" has "explained" himself to say he didn't INTEND
referring to aborigines as animals, despite doing so. Still you found
nothing unusual in it.....

[..]
>
> Nothing happens in human affairs without a motive, Seppo.

....and your motive still is fomenting racism, I see.

[snip irrational nonsense]
>
> > http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/s277818.htm
> >
> > This is one the windbag is denying occurred.
> >
> > Read what one of your FAVOURITE redneck paper's journalists Ron
> > Brunton, of the Courier Mail, has to say about Windschuttle's sources:
> >
> > http://www.ipa.org.au/Media/rbcm161099.html
> > " It would be most unfortunate if Rod Moran's writings lead people to
> > believe that the Forrest River massacre is just another fabrication
> > perpetuated by the Aboriginal industry."
> >
> > Yes, that is from your favourite redneck paper, putting the boot into
> > Windschuttle's sources as being FABRICATION! The article below gives
> > an idea how people viewed such historical facts as Myall Creek
> > Massacre - sweep it under the carpet.... as you advocate even now!
> > That IS revisionism, nothing less!
>
> I am quite happy to reserve my judgment until Windschuttle gives his own
> considered (and maybe reconsidered) account of it in his Volume
> (probably 3, or maybe even 4, by the time he gets to that part of the
> land).

Ahh... but you already have, Nev, you already HAVE. Fact is YOU
yourself placed that scandalous effort by Windschuttle as "proof" of
how good and accurate Windschuttle was. It was in one of those
"quadrant" articles you LOVE so much as you find all sorts
disreputable stuff there. An article where he relied on absolute
fabrication by Rod Moran, as an "authority" to back up his own
fantasies. So your failing memory is letting you down again, Nev! I
deliberately pointed you to THIS source, as YOU should be well aware
of all the people mentioned. You have already proclaimed "Judgement"
(and undying admiration for the clap-trap garbage by Windschuttle).
Have you read anything written by a a REAL historian? Like Green, who
has done research on that exact same event and written a CREDIBLE book
about the subject. He is the person considered the Authority on that
incident at least.

> > http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6059/raceart73.html
> > "On display at the community hall were press clippings from the "Bingara
> > Advocate" in the "60s, fiercely opposing any recognition of the massacre,
> > and suggesting that it should be completely forgotten and not marked in
> > any way. This remained a prevailing view until a reconciliation conference
> > in 1998 decided to erect a permanent memorial."
>
> If you start reading the official accounts of the time,

Oh really..... you mean as "approved by Nev", right. HAH - I'm quoting
material and attitudes - the attitudes YOU show today, some 40 YEARS
later.

[snip dribble]

>
> > Some prime source documents are available here:
> > http://www.law.mq.edu.au/scnsw/html/featured_case__current.htm
> >
> >
> > This has some interesting points - denied by so many:
> > http://www.law.mq.edu.au/scnsw/html/r_v_bonjon__1841.htm
> >
> > Held:
> > 4. New South Wales was not acquired by conquest, or treaty. Nor was
> > it unoccupied at the time
> > the colony commenced.
> >
> > 5. Aborigines are distinct though dependent allies, not British
> > subjects. They have not consented
> > to British occupation or sovereignty. They are entitled to exercise
> > their own usages and laws.
> >
> > [end quote]
>
> That looks to me like you are trying to retrospectively apply the laws
> of a different time and place to Forrest River. I thought you might
> have become less sloppy after your stint as resident guru of aus.legal,
> but it seems you have instead continued to develop obtuseness into an
> artform.

You haven't even looked at the material have you. You have been CAUGHT
attempting to BULLSHIT your way out. That quoted material is from a
case involving a murder at Geelong!! Is it not true that you have just
now demonstrated your total disdain for FACTS and reality, and prefer
bogus propaganda garbage. So much so that you don't even DARE to read
actual material just in case you see what a revisionist Windschuttle
is! Note it says: "[1] This case is in a different form from the
others in this online collection, because it was prepared as a formal
law report." on that page.

What the hell do you think makes them "prime sources", eh? Your
language capabilities failing you again? They are the actual court
records of the day! They show an interesting view taken at the time.
NOTE the recognition of the fact "They have not consented to British
occupation or sovereignty".

[..]
> > > What you preceive as "this whole debate" is only one minor and
> > > diversionary aspect to anyone with a genuine interest in the history of
> > > early Australia. That is, if their interest is genuinely focussed on the
> > > past, rather than merely mining it for whatever serves to promote their
> > > political agenda in the present.
> >
> > Neither Reynolds or anyone else has actually come close to what the
> > actual numbers of deaths are due to European settlement of this place.
>
> You're the European.

No kidding.... so how black is your face again, hmmm?

[snip propaganda]
>
> > Massacres ands murders were not the main cause of death for
> > aborigines.
>
> So what are we arguing about?

I'm teaching you history - I know... I know... pearls before swine,
and all that, but then I have alwaYs been generous like that!

> That is what I said to start this thread
> in the first place.

You went on to rave about the REVISIONIST Windschuttle!

> > The diseases brought out by the colonialists were. The
> > official Aboriginal population estimate 1901 was 26,670 in Queensland,
> > 5261 in Western Australia, 8065 in New South Wales, 3070 in South
> > Australia, 23,363 in Northern Territories and 0 in Tasmania, making a
> > total of 66,900 (Chesterman & Galligan 1997:63). Although Chesterman
> > and Galligan points out that these figures represent underestimations.
> > How many people who actually lived in Australia at the time of contact
> > is unknown, the estimates vary, but are most frequently on a few
> > hundred thousands up to a million.
>
> Or, you could have cited the first post in this thread:

[..]

NO as it is made of bullshit and PROPAGANDA. It has no credibility,
isn't based on fact - only on your personal prejudices, which are very
UGLY!
>
> > So if Reynolds estimates some
> > 20,000 and the revisionist Windschuttle puts it at half that number,
> > BOTH or way, way out. If "a few hundred thousands" is said to be
> > 300,000 (the least possible for the terminology used), then the
> > European EFFECT has been the death of some 233,000 aborigines from
> > 1788 to 1901 - a tad over 100 years!! Up and until the arrival of
> > white settlers, the aborigine population had been stable. The only
> > change was the arrival of Colonialists - therefor it is the cause of
> > the extraordinarily rapid decline of the Aborigine population.
>
> So how do you reconcile that with your attitude that "racist" white
> Australians, having already witnessed the disastrous impact of disease
> on the native population, tried to restrict and quarantine new arrivals
> from those parts of the world where plagues were still endemic?

You are making unsupported assertions there.
1- "your attitude" = a statement that what I have posed is untrue as
it is an "attitude" not supported facts. Oh course that is seen to be
bogus instantly when you see I have cited the source document.
2- "having already witnessed" is pure speculation, and most unlikely
to be true. There was no census of aborigine people. There was no
contact with most of them.
3- The "tried to restrict and quarantine new arrivals", is written in
a deliberately misleading manner, you convey the implication that it
was done in order to protect the native population - which is a lie.
Nobody cared about them, as a people. The quarantine was for the
protection of the WHITE people present - nobody else.
4- You seem to believe the plague is no longer "endemic" - more fool
you. It is indeed so in the South East of the USA, as we speak. It is
one of the final few places on this globe where it exists unchecked.
Now don't be a bloody fool and start asking "why don't we hear about
the epidemics"!! "Endemic" isn't the same as "epidemic"!!

[snip more dribble - ending up on his T-shirt]
>
> It is the self-centeredness of your view which will always see it
> rejected as pathological by any person with a fully developed brain.

I left that to demonstrate the non information, and total lack of
quality and validity Nev manages to produce - hence it is snipped.
>
> > The data source from:
> > http://www.padrigu.gu.se/grundutbildning/uppsatser/Johanna_Dah
> > lin_IRCht01.pdf
>
> Why can't you just agree with other people who say the same thing,

YOU haven't said the same things I have. You support a REVISIONIST and
distortion of history for your own private agendas! There is the big
difference.

[snip more dribble]
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Seppo Renfors · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 5

Ned Latham wrote:
>
> "L'acrobat" wrote in :
> > Seppo Renfors wrote:
>
> ----snip----
>
> > > Windschuttle hasn't done any "research" - he is a copier of
> > > disreputable sources, while ignoring reputable papers/books by
> > > qualified people.
> >
> > Oh good, defamation,
>
> That what Renfors does. He's a stupid, abusive Australophobic bigot.
> When those Leb rape gangs were a topic of "discussion" in these
> newsgroups, his contribution was to call their victims "slags",
> "scrubbers" and "street kids", and to imply that they were prostitutes
> and druggies.
>
> ----snip----

Ahhh.... NEEDLENOSE crawled out from under a rock.... have you been
advocating any more secret parties with naked little boys lately, or
perhaps attacked and vilified some innocent person's kids (who doesn't
even know of your existence) on the net and point every weirdo and
sicko in their direction as before...

Oh well, never mind - just have another swig of that cheap plonk -
soon you will fell no pain again! Then get back under your rock to
sleep it off - till tomorrow at least.

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Neville Duguid · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 16

Seppo Renfors wrote:

> It was from the arse end of ill-educated patagonian plankton!

What have Patagonians ever done to you? Your racism gets worse every
day.

Seppo Renfors · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 5

Neville Duguid wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors wrote:
>
> > It was from the arse end of ill-educated patagonian plankton!
>
> What have Patagonians ever done to you? Your racism gets worse every
> day.

I see..... plankton are your BROTHERS, eh..... oh well whatever you
think Nev Smile

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Seppo Renfors · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 5

hyperoglyphe wrote:
>
> "Seppo Renfors" wrote in message
> @not.pollis.net.au...

[..]
> > I have never seen so much clap-trap sine Nev posted last! It is
> > written from a racists POV, and had very little connection to reality.
> > It was from the arse end of ill-educated patagonian plankton!

[snip - learn to snip other people's sig files, they are not YOU]
>
> Your reply was as expected and a bloody good laugh. No specific counter
> argument to the historical issues raised particularly in terms of the
> historical truth. By that I mean it is reasonable to establish whether
> alleged events in the past actually happened or not.

They had already "been raised" and pointed to. You saw the post, you
elected to respond to the one NOT containing those issues you are now
bleating like a stuck pig about. That gives a clear indication that
you are UNINTERESTED in history - only in racist propaganda. I would
almost guarantee you are also a HOMOPHOBE - and yet you have said
nothing about sexuality issues! How do I know these things.....

[..]
>
> I have read a lot of your material carefully ......

.....and learned absolutely ZERO. Further more it amounts to PROOF that
you have no interest in history, as you ELECTED to NOT respond to
historical issues already put, and evidence cited to back up the
claims made.

[..]

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

hyperoglyphe · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 1

"Seppo Renfors" wrote in message@not.pollis.net.au...
>
>
> hyperoglyphe wrote:
> >
> > "Seppo Renfors" wrote in message
> > @not.pollis.net.au...
>
> [..]
> > > I have never seen so much clap-trap sine Nev posted last! It is
> > > written from a racists POV, and had very little connection to reality.
> > > It was from the arse end of ill-educated patagonian plankton!
>
> [snip - learn to snip other people's sig files, they are not YOU]
> >
> > Your reply was as expected and a bloody good laugh. No specific counter
> > argument to the historical issues raised particularly in terms of the
> > historical truth. By that I mean it is reasonable to establish whether
> > alleged events in the past actually happened or not.
>
> They had already "been raised" and pointed to. You saw the post, you
> elected to respond to the one NOT containing those issues you are now
> bleating like a stuck pig about. That gives a clear indication that
> you are UNINTERESTED in history - only in racist propaganda. I would
> almost guarantee you are also a HOMOPHOBE - and yet you have said
> nothing about sexuality issues! How do I know these things.....
>
> [..]
> >
> > I have read a lot of your material carefully ......
>
> ....and learned absolutely ZERO. Further more it amounts to PROOF that
> you have no interest in history, as you ELECTED to NOT respond to
> historical issues already put, and evidence cited to back up the
> claims made.
>
> [..]
>
> --
> SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
> misled.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------

You are quite right in saying I have not responded to the claptrap and
various claims and supposed evidence you have raised about the place. I
will choose to comment in my own good time.

You go from one folly to another. Previously it was racist to nazi and now
another non issue, homosexuality. All you come up with is abuse. I noticed
you deleted specific historical issues I raised and then have the gall to
accuse me of not addressing historical issues.

You have not indicated in any way an acknowlegement of one of the central
points I am trying to make - It is possible for reasonable people to have
diametrically opposed views on historical matters.You contribute nothing to
the debate by using abuse like, racist, homophobe, revisionist, nazi,
Pauline Hanson, David Oldfield etc, etc.

Apart from the mild stuff I have thrown in your direction how would you like
to be called a tired old Stalinist hack, burnt out wreck from the 70's, drug
addled adolescent wanker or something equally demeaning. You certainly seem
to have fascist tendencies as evidenced by your desire to crush debate. On
that subject, why don't you organise a book burning for the works of Keith
Windschuttle, or your very own Chrystalnight, to break the windows of
newspapers which you hate.

Dave