‘Truth’ and Consequences

Hapless Indigenous Affairs Minister Linda Burney recently announced that, despite the emphatic rejection of the Voice, ‘truth telling’ would be progressed and that it would be included in school curricula. What is truth telling?  On the face of it, it might sound an admirable venture.  Surely, we must acknowledge the truth of our past?

But how do we know the truth of our past?  That, traditionally, has been the province of the discipline of history.  Of course, history does not always get it right, and two historians studying the same set of facts can reach quite different conclusions. History is never black and white. Just like science, it is never settled. 

So, the first thing to understand is that ‘truth telling’ is not history. History is not determined by a commission or a committee acting under terms of reference and/or rules of evidence.  It is a cut and thrust discipline which encourages (or should encourage) robust debate. Truth telling, on the other hand, as its name implies, seeks to set in concrete a version of history that cannot be refuted, no matter what subsequent evidence may come to light. ‘Truth telling’ belongs in George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Here is an extract from the Uluru Statement from the Heart that deals with truth telling:

The Dialogues raised truth-telling as important for the relationship between First Nations and the country. Many delegates at the First Nations Regional Dialogues recalled significant historical moments including the history of the Frontier Wars and massacres.

The importance of truth-telling as a guiding principle draws on previous statements such as the ATSIC report for the Social Justice Package. The Eva Valley Statement said that a lasting settlement process must recognise and address historical truths.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples enshrines the importance of truth-telling, as does the United Nations General Assembly resolution on the basic principles on the right to a remedy and reparation for victims of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law.

In its Resolution on the Right to the Truth in 2009, the Human Rights Council stressed that the victims of gross violations of human rights should know the truth about those violations to the greatest extent practicable, in particular the identity of the perpetrators, the causes and facts of such violations, and the circumstances under which they occurred.

It is clear from the above that truth telling is not about setting the historical record straight. It is about constructing a catalogue of grievance – a debit ledger – as a basis for reparations.  Reparations to be paid to people who did not personally suffer from the wrongs of the past by people who didn’t commit the wrongs of the past.  On this basis alone, the temptation to ‘gild the lily’ is overwhelming.  

How would truth telling work?  Well, we have a perfect example in Victoria, where the Andrews Labor government, supported by the Opposition, established a First People’s Assembly – a Voice to State Parliament – which will take guidance from the Yoorook Justice Commission.  From its website:

The Yoorrook Justice Commission is the first formal truth-telling process into historical and ongoing injustices experienced by First Peoples in Victoria. Yoorrook will look into both past and ongoing injustices experienced by First Peoples in Victoria in all areas of life since colonisation. Yoorrook will:

Establish an official record of the impact of colonisation on First Peoples in Victoria.

Develop a shared understanding among all Victorians of the impact of colonisation, as well as the diversity, strength and resilience of First Peoples’ cultures …

Yoorrook will:

Hear stories and gather information from First Peoples in Victoria on their experience of past and ongoing injustices and how their cultures and knowledge has survived.

Support First Peoples to choose how they wish to share their experiences and to avoid experiencing further trauma.

Closely examine information that is already available and seek new information in areas where there are gaps in knowledge …

Yoorook is headed by four Commissioners, all of them proud Aboriginal Australians:

Chair Professor Eleanor Bourke AM, Adjunct Professor Sue-Anne Hunter, Travis Lovett, and Distinguished Professor Maggie Walter. The commissioners are assisted by six Truth Receivers, all proud Aboriginal Australians: Lisa Thorpe, Shayne Morrall, Tara Fry, Joseph Saunders, Stephen Thorpe, and Aunty Colleen Harney.

They are described as ‘trusted community members who can help First Peoples make a submission’.  The very title ‘truth receivers’ suggests that academic rigour or historical accuracy will not form any part of their remit.  They will not be there to assess the veracity or likelihood of incidents of racism, injustice or atrocity.  Their job will be to put some polish on submissions and paper over any obvious cracks in the narrative. 

Here we are talking about an organisation, fully staffed by Aboriginal people, establishing a basis for reparations to be paid to Aboriginal people.  Certainly, they can only make recommendations.  Ultimately governments must approve such expenditure.  But what would be the point of setting up such a regime, if government did not intend to honour its recommendations? 

By now, alert readers might be asking, ‘What is this history of oppression and injustice that we don’t already know about?’.  Since the 1980s we have had a royal commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, a national inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families (Stolen Generations) and Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse (Little Children are Sacred). In addition, historians have complied an impressive anthology of mistreatment, including massacres, of Aborigines. These include Blood on the Wattle by Bruce Elder, published in 1988. Beyond that, a team of researchers at the University of Newcastle has compiled a national map purporting to detail massacres of Aborigines since 1788 and which claims some 11,000 individuals were killed in 400-odd incidents. Quadrant‘s Michael Connor has taken strong exception to the map and raised serious questions about its methodology and conclusions, but the fact that it has been compiled at all further testifies to my point that there is no a culture of cover-up, not then and not now.

As a result of these initiatives, we, as Australians, seem to have already embraced a number of ‘truths’.  Among them are:

♦ That, from 1910 to 1970, up to 50,000 Aboriginal children were stolen from their parents simply in order to eradicate their Aboriginality. Some activists even call this genocide.

♦ That up to 100,000 Aboriginal ‘warriors’ were killed in a series of ‘wars of resistance’.

♦That Aboriginal people are dying disproportionately to white people in custody.

Let’s have a look at the most sacred of these cows.  I’m talking, of course, about the Stolen Generations.  I have chosen this one because PM Albanese, cynically in my view, recently chose to deliver the government’s ‘Bridging the Gap’ report on the anniversary of the Apology, implying that the lamentable failure to bring dysfunctional remote Aboriginal communities into the modern world is somehow linked to this narrative. (see The Myth of Intergenerational Trauma)

There is probably no part of our history as well known and accepted as the Stolen Generations. Kevin Rudd even made a formal apology for this shameful chapter in our history in the Australian Parliament in 2008.  No one questions it or thinks about what it means. Keith Windschuttle has provided the most forensic response in his book The Fabrication of Aboriginal History Volume Three 618 pages of meticulous research and well-reasoned argument.

In short, the stolen generations is a myth, a gross insult to the nation and the people of Australia.  But, increasingly, critical thinking has been replaced by critical theory. The following extract from the Stolen Generations Report, co-authors Ronald Wilson and Mick Dodson, encapsulates the enormity of the deception.

The policy of forcible removal of children from Indigenous Australians to other groups for the purpose of raising them separately from and ignorant of their culture and people could properly be labelled genocidal in breach of binding international law.

What Keith Windschuttle has shown is that Aboriginal children were not forcibly removed, i.e., against the wishes of their parents, in numbers any different from white children at the time.  Indeed, Windschuttle concludes that fewer Aboriginal children were removed for their own welfare than would have been justified.  And, critically, he also shows they were not removed ‘for the purposes of raising them separately from and ignorant of their culture’.  

According to Wikipedia, in 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of five “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group”. These five acts were: killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group. Victims are targeted because of their real or perceived membership of a group, not randomly.

So here we have a judge of the High Court of Australia (Wilson) and a legally qualified senior representative of the Aboriginal community (Dodson), ascribing to Australian State governments over many years, a policy of deliberately setting out to destroy the Aboriginal people.  Certainly, it is not claimed that they instituted a program of killing, such as the Nazis inflicted on the Jewish people.  The suggestion is that children were removed with the intention of marrying them off to white people and thus ‘breeding out the colour’, the ultimate aim being the elimination of the Aboriginal people as a distinct race.   

That is the ‘truth’ you are being asked to apologise for whenever you are asked to acknowledge the stolen generations, that Australia was a genocidal regime.

The stolen generations narrative holds that children were removed at as young an age as possible, to be educated in white ways, and that they should never return to the reserve or stations from which they were removed, in order to ensure that they did not regress. In other words, to eliminate their ‘Aboriginality’.

Despite the emergence of an Aboriginal activist class between the two World Wars – a time when these ‘atrocities’ were purportedly occurring – not one of them called this out.  It was not until 1983, when white historian Peter Read published an academic paper’ ‘The Stolen Generations’, that anyone heard of this stain on our nation.  Read has built his career on this and was swiftly followed by many others, such as Heather Goodall and Anna Haebich, who all contributed to the narrative.  This then led to the Wilson/Dodson enquiry which established the Stolen Generations as an article of faith.  Windschuttle highlights that the Wilson/Dodson enquiry gave unquestioning acceptance to oral testimony and paid virtually no regard to the written record.  Nor did it seek testimony from any of the then still-living welfare officers who supposedly perpetrated this ‘genocide’.

In fact, Windschuttle has shown that probably less than 10,000 children were ‘removed’ over nearly a century.  They were exclusively (or almost exclusively) ‘half -caste’ children who were removed at the request of one or both of their parents because they could not care for them; they were orphans; not accepted by the tribe; they were at risk of sexual predation by white men, or because their parents wanted them apprenticed in some form of work.

Windschuttle has shown that the largest single cohort of children removed from reserves or stations were teenagers, both boys and girls, who were sent to various apprenticeship schemes, generally with the consent of one or both parents.  At the conclusion of their apprenticeships, they were free to go wherever they liked, including back to their families, which many of them did.

Many Aboriginal people now claim to be members of the Stolen Generation, or, as descendants of such people, they claim to be victims of inter-generational trauma.  Governments in all states and territories have made ex-gratia compensation payments to some.

It is telling that despite his devastating criticism of Peter Read, and all his fellow travellers, not one of them has responded to Keith Windschuttle in the form of a book or published paper.  His book is now, more than ever, essential reading for all Australians.  Many Quadrant readers will have read it, and those who haven’t should get hold of a copy.  It will give you the truth about truth telling.  And like all Keith’s work it is eminently readable.  You won’t have to struggle through pedantic and pretentious gobbledygook.

To borrow from the immortal words of Colonel Nathan Jessop in A Few Good Men, ‘How much more of Minister Burney’s truth can we handle?’

42 thoughts on “‘Truth’ and Consequences

  • nfw says:

    Well if Ms Burney doesn’t like the truth about how white settlers brought clean water, stable food suppplies, the spoken and WRITTEN English language, abolished infanicide, handed out medical trteatment and medicines, did their best to abolish tribal warfare, (How many first nations is that? Written in aborigine without white man alphabet please) and all those other atrocious white man things, then she and her supporters can go and live in the bush in poverty, filth and ignorance without any welfare payments or other freebies.

  • RobyH says:

    There were over 500,00 children taken into welfare from 1910 to 1970 – up to 10,000 of those were Aboriginal or partial descent children almost all of which were living within the bounds of western civilisation taken into welfare under general welfare laws that applied to all citizens.

    From1950 to 1975 there were over 150,000 forced adoptions – a tiny fraction of this number were partial descent Aboriginals.

    There is no Stolen Generation – the children are not different or distinct from the vast numbers of other children – they were the unfortunate children of neglectful, derelict and abusive parents just like every other race. The State performed a sad, difficult and necessary duty. That is
    the truth of Unstolen – or is it the untruth of the Stolen

  • Lawriewal says:

    Let Ms Burney show Australia her true loss of culture by dressing in Parliament as say her grandmothers did on that dreadful “Invasion” day.


    Indigenous Affairs Minister Linda Burney’s ‘Truth Telling’ malarky has more holes than the Rabbit Proof Fence.

    • cbattle1 says:

      Regarding the “Rabbit Proof Fence” movie, shouldn’t those responsible for producing it be held to account by law for defaming and disparaging the good name of the Commonwealth of Australia? Why are people allowed to damage the reputation of Australia with impunity?

  • Daffy says:

    The rescued generations: when the only people who cared for Aboriginal, and part Aboriginal children were selfless missionaries and dedicated government officials. NO ONE ELSE CARED!

    ‘Sorry day’ is Rescue Day

    Australia day is Emancipation Day.

  • Stephen Due says:

    It’s great that Yoorrook will “establish an official record of the impact of colonisation on First Peoples [i.e. Aborigines] in Victoria”. An official record, mind. Not just any old unofficial record. Presumably the “impact” to be recorded will include the provision of houses, modern medical care, schooling, mobile phones, air travel. the motorcar, and my grandmother’s favourite – the water closet.

    • Katzenjammer says:

      And thanks colonialism for personal multiculturism – most are multicultural (for instance) Irish, Greek, Chinese, as well as Indigenous.

  • Peter Smith says:

    You mentioned Orwell’s 1984 Peter. The telling quote is “He who controls the past controls the future.” Victimhood pays off bigtime.

    • David Isaac says:

      “Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past. “
      “The sovereign is he who decides on the state of exception”
      – Carl Schmitt
      History is controlled by those who control the present. Aspects of true history which it is crucial should not be known will remain unknown at the behest of the sovereign.

  • Peter Marriott says:

    Thanks Peter, good piece.
    On Keith Windschuttle’s volume 3 ‘The Fabrication of Aboriginal History ‘ I tried to order it on Amazon and it states ‘currently unavailable, we don’t know when or if this item will be back in stock’. Are they trying to ‘de-platform’ it I wonder.
    I should add that after buying Volume 1 some years ago I tried to buy Volume 2 and wasn’t able to source it either ?

    • pgang says:

      Out of print would be my guess.

    • cbattle1 says:

      Yes, a couple years ago I went on a long quest and odyssey to find the two volumes of the “Fabrication” series (Vol 1 Tasmania and Vol 3 Stolen Generations), and the only copy I could find was on eBay in the USA, used, for more than $200! This is insane! I did write to Quadrant, and so did manage to purchase the books. During the “Voice” referendum campaign, I did via email urge the Editor, Windschuttle, to republish the books, and particularly also a paperback budget version, so such a vital resource could be more generally available to the public, but no response. Are the “History Wars” a long lost battle of the conservatives? We need to be more pro-active in this era of “Truth-Telling!
      So, Peter Merriott, I suggest you get into contact with Quadrant personally, because they may still have a couple of “Fabrication” copies stashed away. That’s how I got mine.

      • Tony Thomas says:

        “I did via email urge the Editor, Windschuttle, to republish the books, and particularly also a paperback budget version, so such a vital resource could be more generally available to the public, but no response.”
        Hey, in 2010 I created a 94-page pocket or condensed version (indexed) of the 650 page Volume 111 “The Stolen Generation”. Keith W published this precisely for those for whom his Vol 111 was too massive to digest. Originally (as I understand) he provided this pocket edition free to buyers of his Vol 111, as a sort of bonus. Bought solo, I think the price was $10. I have only one copy left and haven’t had any luck at Quadrant with getting more.

    • Timothy Cootes says:

      Hi Peter (and others who might be interested)
      I found a reasonably priced hardback edition of Vol 3 ($59.95) online from Light Educational Ministries in Canberra. (Put that and the title into Google and it should come up).
      Agreed, it would be great for Quadrant Books to reprint the earlier volumes.

  • Maryse Usher says:

    Insanity rules. We have cultural anarchy filling the vacuum left by the repudiation of the Ten Commandments. Who do we worship now? Satan of course.

    • cbattle1 says:

      Maryse Usher: This seems to be the fate of the free, open, secular and democratic states, that they provide a rich fertile soil for the Left to germinate and thrive!

  • oldsy says:

    Where can one obtain a copy of Windshuttle’s book? It seems everywhere to be out of print or unavailable?

  • Peter Marriott says:

    Thanks cbattle1, am following up on it.

  • lenton1 says:

    If Burney et al accuse the Commonwealth of systematically “stealing” aboriginal children with the mind to breeding them out with whites to eliminate their race, then why do so many of these activists choose to marry white partners? Choice, something alien to their own culture.

    On this one hypocritical absolute truth alone their entire edifice of lies collapse.

    My questions to the white partners are; how do you feel when your spouses speak of your culture in such ways? Do you not dare to speak up for your white heritage at home? If not why not? Do you not feel safe to do so? If not, what does that say?

    We have much much bigger global fish to fry than to waster precious time and resources, let alone countless billions of dollars on this ultimately futile, divisive navel gazing. Time to toughen up and just say no to this and all forms of so-called multiculturalism. Indeed all “isms”. For no amount of appeasing will ever satisfy. Ever! If anyone hasn’t gathered that fundamental by now then you’ve not been paying attention.

  • wdr says:

    Given that in the 65,000 years until white settlement the Aborigines never built a single permanent structure of any kind, never invented the wheel or built a wheeled vehicle, never developed a written language – Australia is presumably the only continent whose indigenous inhabitants never developed a written language – never grew crops for food or domesticated livestock, the Aborigines ought to be paying reparations to the white man for bringing them from the Stone Age to the twenty-first century. The white liberals and leftists who think that we stole an entire continent from them should be required to put their money where their mouths are, and give their houses in Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide, or wherever back to the Aboriginal tribe they stole it from. Somehow, I don’t think that the Aborigines will be receiving even a dog house from our white liberals.

  • mariehfels says:

    There is another issue which is quite absent now, from the discussion about truth in the past. Bain Attwood wrote about it in his 2005 book entitled “Telling the truth about Aboriginal History”. He lists a number of historians who by the mid 1980s challenged the prevailing conflict/massacre interpretation as the only nterpretation, and put forward the evidence of co-operation. Attwood listed the work of Beverley Nance, Marie Fels, Ann Mc Grath, Jan Critchett. The very notion of frontier co-operation seems to be anathema to indigenous truth telling at present.

  • Blair says:

    “…up to 50,000 Aboriginal children were stolen from their parents simply in order to eradicate their Aboriginality.”
    Surely a cheaper way to eradicate their Aboriginality would have been to leave them there.

  • Max Chugg says:

    The “Bringing Them Home Report” appeared after a lengthy inquiry described in an article in the “Examiner” newspaper of 21/12/1995 as “a kind of Round-Australia Recrimination Rally.”
    The article comments that at the first session at Wyballenna on Flinders Island, “it was extraordinary to hear the inquiry’s lawyer, David Allen, announce a) that there had been a policy of separation, b) its purpose (to remove children from their culture), and c) what one of the inquiry”s recommendations would be (to rebuild Aboriginal cultural ties.)”
    The report states that “although the Tasmanian Government did not formally adopt a policy of removing indigenous children from the island, the Infants Welfare Act 1935 was used to separate these children from their families. That it was applied equally to all children is overlooked.
    Comment is made that “the government sought to control the lifestyle of the people ……and force the island to become self-sufficient.” Also, the Act required the residents to construct buildings, fenced and cultivated land.
    What is not mentioned is that the Act followed a visit to the Island by Police Commissioner J.E.C. Lord who commented adversely on appalling living conditions, dilapidated houses without garden or cultivation, badly ventilated and lighted, no drainage or sufficient sanitary arrangements, but badly overcrowded.
    Lord commented, presciently, that “were disease to occur there is material for an epidemic on wholesale scale.”
    The Act was ignored with impunity, outbreaks of tuberculosis and poliomyelitis followed..
    Even the BTH Report admits that after the Act, “Poverty, alcohol abuse and the refusal of the Islanders to adopt an agricultural lifestyle (nothing to do with race) put indigenous families at risk of losing their children.”
    In 1929 a follow-up visit was made by A. W. Burbury. who reported that “provision was made for the supply of building and fencing material and livestock to the value of fifty pounds to each licencee.” “Six thousand acres became a Reservation, with necessary wire provided for fencing, the local people to provide posts and labour.
    Burbury reported that progress was “disappointing and unsatisfactory.” Likewise, housing had not improved. This, combined with no provision to train the young people meant that amended legislation was required. The previous legislation was “doomed to fail…success could only have been achieved under its provision by a thrifty and hard-working tenantry who would develop and improve the land.”
    The Cape Barren Island Reserve Act 1945 followed. It was also ignored with impunity.
    For a child to be declared by a magistrate to be a Ward of State and taken into care, it was necessary for that child to bee putt before a court, charged with being neglected,. Obviously, not difficult to persuade a magistrate to decide that a mal-nourished child was neglected, and there were many such children to be found on Cape Barren Island.
    So, did the government exploit this situation to easily remove clearly malnourished children?
    The BTH report says that nutritional supplements were provided to the children by the Health and Education Departments, and the Save the Children Fund.
    Truth telling is wanted, so bring it on!
    Tell the truth about the Risdon Massacre where a three-hour long battle between over 300 Aborigines and about a dozen soldiers wound up with 50 dead Aborigines, not one death or even injury to the soldiers, settlers and convicts on site.
    But what about the opposite truth?
    Oatlands Coroner Thomas Anstey reporting for the period 8/11/1826 to 31/12/1830, listing names of 22 people whose deaths had been followed by inquisitions held by Anstey.
    Anstey also provides a list of 121 names of people whose deaths “could be authenticated, many were forgotten.” (Just in the District of Oatlands, 8/11/1826 – 31/12/1830)

  • David Isaac says:

    Britain took over the continent of Australia and pacified the natives with the force felt to be necessary by local governors and police commanders. Many were killed. Australians initially jealously guarded the magnificent patrimony which they had won but in incremental steps leading up to the current headlong slide they have have given up their stake in and control of this priceless jewel to supranational anti-White bodies and ideologies. The endless handwringing over the aborigines is just another sign of the mental enfeeblement brought on by liberalism. Similar processes are underway in every Western country.

    • wdr says:

      The notion that an entire continent, inhabited by 350,000 pre-literate nomadic hunter-gatherers, would remain permanently unclaimed is absurd, and the UK was obviously the best major power to take it over.

      • David Isaac says:

        It was clearly a race between France and Britain, the only two powers at the time with the wherewithal to reach and supply New South Wales One can wonder at the good fortune for the British Crown of France being plunged into chaos by the revolution and then finding itself embroiled in twenty years of continental warfare, just as she might have been poised to contest possession of this land.

  • GG says:

    Did anyone else notice the one word that is missing from the ‘Uluru statement’ and Yoorook nonsense? That word is: evidence.
    That’s because there is none.

  • Merril says:

    Linda Burney is on record as supporting Bruce Pascoe’s version of Aboriginal history. That says it all.

  • pmprociv says:

    Thanks yet again, Peter, for your typically lucid articulation of this important matter. Fully agree about Keith Windschuttle’s monumental work — why has nobody thought to republish his books, or at least Tony Thomas’s summary of one? The need now is greater than ever, and there must be a market for it.

    It seems that most of this “truth” derives from highly malleable (and hence forever changing, and embellished) oral history, whose reliability is well known to some of us, at least. Its express purpose is to set victimhood in concrete, as a tool for extracting reparations in perpetuity. Humbugging on a national scale, promoted by a government-funded industry.

    So sad to see Linda Burney, on her ministerial salary with additional allowances and perks, on top of her very healthy investment portfolio, still going on about being a victim (I suppose, in her position, she sees no other choice?). Why does she not reveal her secrets to success to the rest of us, or at least to her fellow First Nations Victims? Was she also “stolen”? How did she escape “The Gap”?

  • Peter OBrien says:

    Thank you all for your comments and support. Keith Windschuttle has told me is planning a new updated edition of Volume 3 to come out in 2025.

    • John Wetherall says:

      The Elder

      Great article Peter as usual. I fear it will take an international crisis for Australia to awaken from the dystopian ill effects of postmodernism and critical theory. The present woke world is too unstable to survive. On Keith Windschuttle’s ‘The Fabrication of Aboriginal History”: I have been looking for copies without success and would be happy to support their republication (and possible updating). They are more important now than ever.

  • en passant says:

    I am looking forward to reading how ‘Truth-telling’ deals with the ‘Wills Massacre’ of 1861: https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=88398a10d58c2ee2JmltdHM9MTcwOTg1NjAwMCZpZ3VpZD0xZDUwNmE1OC03ODYwLTY3MTktMjYyMi03ZTdlNzk2ZjY2NjYmaW5zaWQ9NTIyMg&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=1d506a58-7860-6719-2622-7e7e796f6666&psq=wills+massacre&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9lbi53aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnL3dpa2kvQ3VsbGluLWxhLXJpbmdvX21hc3NhY3Jl&ntb=1

  • john.singer says:

    I have just this afternoon received a copy of the latest rebuttal of the Stolen Generation in its accusations against Millie Shankelton. It is a book entitled “Placed in Our Care” by Douglas Brown.

    Careful what words or terms you appropriate. Truth, as in any form of Truth Telling, can only be arbitrated by a Court. Bureaucrats and Politicians would be the last persons possessing the ability to search it out or the history of telling it.

    Lastly if the laws which now grant Native Title are only based on an unbroken identification with particular tracts or parcels of land. If such holdings had been treated as every other piece of land, that is subjected to Death Duties and Inheritance Taxes. Taxes which operated from about 1880 until the great work of Joh Bjelke Petersen saw them out in 1977. Taxes which if levied would have seen original family interests wiped out in less than five generations.

    Time for some proper history?

  • DougD says:

    A curiosity of the Stolen Children Myth is the way Ronald Wilson, co-author, of the report, was able to expiate his own involvement in the genocide he and Mick Dodson invented. Wilson as a board member of the Sister Kate Home in Perth to which many of his “stolen children” were sent was, as he admitted, involved in his genocide. He was able to atone for his own role in this “worst crime against humanity” with a “heart-felt apology” on ABC Radio. Those involved in the Holocaust genocide were required to atone in a much harsher way at Nuremberg.

Leave a Reply