Keith Windschuttle: Doctored evidence in Aboriginal historiography
Peter Hodges
Aboriginal historiography
Keith Windschuttle
Paper to conference on Frontier Conflict, National Museum of Australia, December 13-14, 2001
For the past eighteen months I have been arguing that no one should put any faith in the
story told by the orthodox school of Aboriginal historiography that has prevailed over the
past thirty years. There have been so many cases where evidence has been doctored and
manipulated, where events that never occurred have been fabricated into existence, and
where traditional standards of historical methodology have been abandoned, that I no
longer believe anything said by the members of this school until I've confirmed their claims
in the archives. However, I don't expect many of the true believers here will agree with me
until I've published a much more empirically detailed critique on which I am now working.
Nonetheless, the very fact that the orthodox school has at last been publicly subjected to
some sceptical questioning over this brief period has already led some of its practitioners
to abandon some of their more outlandish claims, such as:
In his latest book, An Indelible Stain?, Henry Reynolds has conceded that what
happened to the Aborigines in Tasmania in no way amounted to genocide. [1]
Reynolds has also publicly conceded that his 1981 claim that 10,000 Aborigines
were shot dead in Queensland was only a guess. [2]
He has agreed that large-scale massacres of Aborigines were not typical of
Australian frontier history, as the school once claimed, and that most of the killings
that did occur were in ones and twos. [3]
I also think that anyone who has read with an open mind my articles in Quadrant
last year and the work of Rod Moran in Perth will probably concede that two of the
most frequently cited sources about massacre stories, the missionaries Lancelot
Threlkeld in New South Wales and Ernest Gribble in Western Australia, can no
longer be treated as the reliable authorities they once routinely were. [4]
In the very brief time I have been allocated at this conference, let me take this opportunity
to add a few more samples of evidence doctored and incidents invented by some of the
speakers who are here today.
For several years now, Henry Reynolds has been trying to persuade the Australian
National War Memorial in Canberra to mount a display honouring what he calls the
Aboriginal "guerilla fighters" of Van Diemen's Land. Reynolds has described the so-called
guerilla war waged by the Tasmanian Aborigines as a struggle of momentous proportions.
He claims: "It was the biggest internal threat that Australia has ever had". [5] The
Tasmanians of the so-called Black War of 1824-1830, he says, were a superior force
whose guerilla tactics outclassed the bumbling, red-coated British soldiers.
The concept of "guerilla warfare", which Reynolds claims was waged by the Aborigines in
Van Diemen's Land, derived from the tactics of the Spanish forces on the Iberian
Peninsula during the Napoleonic wars. Instead of large, set piece battles, small groups of
Spaniards would attack French forces and then quickly withdraw. Repeated over a long
period, the tactic was a way for a small force to damage and demoralise a much larger
one. Reynolds states that Lieutenant-Governor George Arthur, like many other officers in
Van Diemen's Land, had fought in Spain and recognised he faced the same military tactic.
[6] This is not true. Arthur's military career included Italy, Sicily, Egypt and the
Netherlands, but never Spain. [7] Nonetheless, there is one passage written by Arthur
about conflict with the Aborigines that Reynolds interprets as confirmation of his theory.
Arthur wrote:
The species of warfare which we are carrying on with them is of the most distressing
nature; they suddenly appear, commit some act of outrage and then as suddenly
vanish: if pursued it seems impossible to surround and capture them. [8]
Reynolds claims that this description anticipates the anti-colonialist tactics of the twentieth
century: it "could have come from the manuals of guerilla warfare which proliferated in the
1960s." [9] He says it shows Arthur had grasped the military problem confronting him. It
was "a classic statement of the frustrations of a commander of conventional forces facing
elusive guerilla bands". [10] However, the full text of this statement reveals that Arthur was
not talking about confrontations between conventional forces and guerillas at all. He was
discussing assaults by Aborigines on isolated stockmen on the fringes of white settlement.
Just before the statement Reynolds quotes, Arthur gave the context for what he said:
"Whenever they can successfully attack a remote hut, they never fail to make the attempt,
and seldom spare the stockkeepers when they can surprise them." Reynolds omits this
part of the text to give the false impression that Arthur was talking about troops coming
under surprise attack by Aboriginal warriors. He misrepresents Arthur's concerns, which
were reserved entirely for isolated, unprotected civilians.
Reynolds also claims Arthur looked upon the Aborigines as his warrior equivalent.
"Governor Arthur showed an old soldier's respect for his Aboriginal adversaries." [11] But
Reynolds omits to tell his readers that Arthur specifically denied that Aboriginal tactics
amounted to anything that resembled real warfare. In November 1828, Arthur wrote to
London:
It is doubtless very distressing that so many murders have been committed by the
Natives upon [the] stockmen, but there is no decided combined movement among the
Native tribes, nor, although cunning and artful in the extreme, any such systematic
warfare exhibited by any of them as need excite the least apprehension in the
Government, for the blacks, however large their number, have never yet ventured to
attack a party consisting of even three armed men. [12]
Arthur repeated these sentiments several times. Nothing here resembles the grudging
respect of an old soldier. None of the historians who support the guerilla warfare thesis
have ever shown Arthur was mistaken. The Aborigines never developed any of the forms
of organization, command, strategy, intelligence or weapons supply that have been
associated with genuine guerilla warfare in other countries over the past two hundred
years. Even though the historians of Tasmania use the term, none of them have ever
discussed its meaning in any detail to demonstrate what they are trying to prove. They
have never advanced any criteria by which an action could be judged as guerilla warfare.
Any kind of black hostility from 1824 onwards is automatically labelled this way, with no
critical analysis ever thought necessary.
The strategy of guerilla warfare was adopted by European nationalists in the early
nineteenth century. In the nineteen fifties and sixties it was taken up by a number of
anti-colonial groups in Africa, Latin America and South-East Asia. The orthodox
historians of Tasmania want us to believe that the Aborigines intuitively anticipated all this
by spontaneously adopting a form of combat that was not a part of their pre-colonial
cultural repertoire and whose methods and objectives they had never read about or heard
explained. This is not historical analysis; it is the imposition onto Aboriginal history of an
anachronistic and incongruous piece of ideology.
It is also accompanied by a great deal of fabricated and invented evidence about the scale
of the violence. I will publish a long catalogue of these misrepresentations in the book I am
currently preparing on this subject. Today, the organisers of this conference have given me
enough time to discuss only two of them. In November 1828, after 26 Tasmanian
colonists had been murdered by Aborigines over a period of ten months,
Lieutenant-Governor Arthur declared martial law and appointed "roving parties" to
capture any Aborigines they could and to drive the rest from the settled districts.
According to Lyndall Ryan, they wreaked carnage throughout the colony.
Between November 1828 and November 1830 the roving parties captured about twenty
Aborigines and killed about sixty. The settlers also began to exploit their knowledge of
the Aborigines' seasonal patterns of movement. When a band of the Oyster Bay tribe
visited Moulting Lagoon in January 1829, they found the settlers waiting for them. Ten
were shot dead and three taken prisoner. When a band of Big River people reached the
Eastern Marshes in March en route to the east coast, Gilbert Robertson's party was
waiting and killed five and captured another.[13]
Ryan backs her claim that sixty Aborigines were killed by the roving parties with a
footnote that contains three references. The first is a letter from Governor Arthur to the
Colonial Secretary on 27 May 1829. Arthur did write a letter on this date and it was
about the roving parties. It is in the archive location were Ryan indicates: volume 1/317,
file 7578, of the Colonial Secretary's Office papers, on pages 15-18. Its subject matter,
however, is the number of men that should comprise Gilbert Robertson's parties, whether
they should all be due for a ticket-of-leave as a result of their service, and about the
rations that should be provided for them. It does not mention any Aborigines being killed,
let alone sixty. Her other two references are commentaries by Brian Plomley in Friendly
Mission, his edition of the journals of G. A. Robinson. One of these does discuss the
reports of the roving parties, but has this to say: "How many natives were killed in all these
operations is hardly mentioned." [14] The other commentary does not mention any
Aborigines killed by the roving parties but at one stage it does say that John Batman's
party captured eleven natives in September 1829. [15] In short, none of Ryan's footnotes
support her assertion about the killing of sixty Aborigines.
Apart from Ryan, no other historian who has investigated the primary sources has ever
claimed the roving parties killed sixty, or anything like this number. The truth is that the
roving parties were widely regarded at the time as ineffectual, either in capturing
Aborigines or in removing them from the scene. The report of the Aborigines Committee
of 1830 declared them "worse than useless". [16] My own assessment is that the roving
party of John Batman killed two Aborigines and captured thirteen, while Gilbert
Robertson's party captured six but killed none. This was the sum total of their haul.
Ryan's claim that Gilbert Robertson's party killed five Aborigines at the Eastern Marshes in
March is another piece of invention. The diaries of the parties Robertson commanded
from November 1828 until February 1830 are held by the Archives Office of Tasmania.
[17] Nowhere do they mention any killings at Eastern Marshes or, indeed, anywhere else.
The only Aborigine they came across was one old, unarmed man and his dog living on
their own in the bush near George's River in the north east of the island. [18] For all of
1829 and 1830, he was their sole captive. I should point out that the roving parties had no
reason to conceal their actions and every reason to publicise them. In the prevailing
atmosphere of consternation among the settlers about Aboriginal atrocities, stories about
white retaliations would have made the men of the roving parties popular heroes. If any of
the roving party leaders had success stories to report they would have done so.
The incident Ryan mentions at Moulting Lagoon in January 1829, where she says settlers
in the district killed ten Aborigines and took three prisoners, is yet more fiction. She cites
three newspaper reports and a letter to the Governor from James Simpson as her sources
for this and related events in the same paragraph. [19] But when you check the sources
you find none of them mention any conflict with Aborigines at Moulting Lagoon, let alone
any killings there. There were some newspaper reports of other incidents on the east coast
at the same time, but nothing at Moulting Lagoon. In short, none of Ryan's references
confirm the claims she makes in her text. She has invented these incidents.
Let me move away from Tasmania to discuss the work of Raymond Evans, whose 1999
book Fighting Words provides another example of what now passes for academic
scholarship in Aboriginal history. Fighting Words recounts the now forgotten Battle of
Patonga. On the Hawkesbury River, north of Sydney, Evans writes, "the indigenous
inhabitants, the Dhurag, had once waged there a war of no quarter lasting more than two
decades as they were slowly obliterated. Silent Patonga hid its secrets well." [20]
The source Evans relied upon for this story was journalist John Pilger's 1986 book
Heroes. Pilger, who used to holiday at Patonga as a child, had taken the story from David
Denholm's 1979 history, The Colonial Australians. Denholm himself also relied on
secondary sources. Evans's account is therefore four times removed from the original
evidence, and it shows. For a start, despite the reverence both express for Aboriginal
people, neither Evans nor Pilger took the trouble to get their name right. They were the
Dharug, not the Dhurag. Secondly, David Denholm was describing a conflict in the 1790s
on the Hawkesbury River near Windsor. None of this happened anywhere near Patonga,
which is near the mouth of the Hawkesbury in territory of the Guringai tribe, not the
Dharug people. A war there in the 1790s was unlikely since the first whites did not settle
at Patonga until 130 years later.
In short, Evans does not have a clue what he is talking about. Patonga is a holiday village
with a few dozen houses, a caravan park and a beach surrounded by a national park. It
never had any settlers in the colonial period to provoke a war with the Aborigines. It was
not subdivided until the 1920s and housing has never extended more than one hundred
metres inland from the beach. In short, what Evans claims as a two-decade long "war of
no quarter" is yet another piece of invention.
Unfortunately, the fictions and fabrications of our academic historians are more than
matched by those created by the Aborigines themselves. Because Aborigines in the
colonial period were illiterate and kept no written records, we are urged today to accept
the oral history of their descendants as an authentic account of what happened in the past.
My view is that Aboriginal oral history, when uncorroborated by documents, is completely
unreliable, just like the oral history of white people. Let me illustrate this with an account of
the infamous Mistake Creek Massacre in the Kimberley district.
There are at least four versions of Aboriginal oral history about this incident that have
made their way into either print or television, and all of them are different. [21] The former
Governor-General, Sir William Deane, used his last days in office to apologise to the Kija
people for this incident and for all those that Aborigines had suffered at the hands of white
settlers. "What is clear," Deane said, "is there was a considerable killing of Aboriginal
women and children … It's essential that we hear, listen to and acknowledge the facts of
what happened in the past, the facts of terrible events such as what happened here at
Mistake Creek in the 1930s, which is in my lifetime." [22]
However, what actually is clear is that by relying upon Aboriginal oral history, Deane got
the facts of the case completely wrong. According to the Western Australian police
records, the incident took place in 1915, not the 1930s. [23] It was not a massacre of
Aborigines by white settlers at all, but a killing of Aborigines by Aborigines in a dispute
over a woman who had left one Aboriginal man to live with another. The jilted lover and
an accomplice rode into the Aboriginal camp of his rival and shot eight of the people there.
However, Aboriginal oral history later implicated the white overseer of the station
concerned, a man named Mick Rhatigan. This is the same oral history that Deane relied
upon to say the event took place in the 1930s. However, it would have been difficult for
Mick Rhatigan to have been one of the killers at this time. According to both his family and
the headstone on his grave at Wyndham, he died in 1920, ten years before the date the
Aborigines claim the event occurred. [24] Another version of this same oral history was
provided on ABC Television's 7:30 Report. A woman named Peggy Patrick said her
mother and father and brothers and sisters had all been massacred in this incident. [25]
The program's presenter, Kerry O'Brien, said she was 70 years of age. This means she
was born in 1930 or 1931. But the killings took place in 1915, which means she was born
fifteen years after the death of her parents, which must be a world record for a
posthumous birth.
By relying on Aboriginal oral history, and by failing to do the most elementary research
into this matter, Sir William Deane made a fool of himself in what was supposed to be the
final, grand reconciliatory gesture of his term of office. I would suggest that anyone else
who relies upon uncorroborated oral history of Aborigines -- or indeed the oral history of
anyone else -- is likely to embarrass themselves in exactly the same way. Stories passed
down verbally over three or four generations are more likely than not to get some of their
facts wrong, whatever the ethnic background of the story tellers. Once the facts have gone
awry, so will the interpretations. By pretending to Aborigines that their oral histories have
some kind of historical authenticity, academic historians do them no favours. It is in
nobody's interest, and certainly not those of Aboriginal people, for completely false stories
like the one about Mistake Creek to continue to be taken seriously, generating an
unwarranted bitterness on one side and a sanctimonious sense of blame allocation on the
other.
I am well aware that there is often a postmodernist spin put on oral history and ethnic
legends. This position claims that traditional notions of history have been undermined by
recent epistemological critiques, and that all cultures are authentic in their own terms, and
that all legends are therefore true for their believers. The advocates of this view often apply
it to such worthy cultures as those of ethnic and indigenous minorities, as well as other
fashionable political interest groups. They rarely recognise that the same argument confers
authenticity on the claims of cultures of which they might not approve, such as those of
neo-Nazis, white supremacists, Islamic jihadists and other species of political depravity.
The critique of traditional empirical history leads to cultural relativism in which the legends,
myths and prejudices of any culture become legitimate. It is a philosophy of anything goes.
If you abandon the principles of empirical history -- that evidence is independent of the
observer and that truth is discovered rather than invented -- you consign everyone to their
own cultural cocoons, from which all they can do is talk past one another. No debate can
ever be resolved. All you can do is call your opponents political names. Some postmodern
theorists might welcome this but outside the university this position is seen for what it is --
the replacement of history by mythology.
A public institution like the National Museum does not have the right to pander to
theoretical fashions in this way. As it stands now, the museum's frontier conflict display is
dominated by such thinking with the prominence it gives to the Bells Falls Gorge Massacre
-- a completely mythical event [26] -- and the romantic treatment it gives to Jandamarra,
an Aboriginal murderer who has as much claim to be a patriotic freedom fighter as Henry
Reynolds's mythical guerilla warriors of Van Diemen's Land.
Let me finish with some recommendations to the board of directors about the construction
of the building itself. As is now well known, Howard Raggatt borrowed the idea for its
central structure -- shaped as a lightning bolt striking the land -- from the Jewish Museum
in Berlin. The intention was plainly to signify that the Aborigines suffered the equivalent of
the Holocaust.
I would advise the board to reconstruct that part of the building that provides the lightning
bolt symbol. This would remove the current connection between the fate of the Aborigines
and the fate of the Jews of Europe. The Aborigines did not suffer a Holocaust. To
compare the policies towards Aborigines of Governor Phillip or Lieutenant-Governor
Arthur, or any of their successors, with those of Adolf Hitler towards the Jews, is not only
conceptually odious but wildly anachronistic.
There were no gas ovens in Australia or anything remotely equivalent. The colonial
authorities wanted to civilise and modernise the Aborigines, not exterminate them. Their
intentions were not to foster violence towards the Aborigines but to prevent it. They
responded to violence by the Aborigines towards white settlers cautiously and reluctantly,
and their overriding concern was to prevent retaliatory violence by settlers and convicts
from getting out of hand. None of this is remotely comparable to what happened in Europe
during the Second World War.
For the Australian government to construct a permanent, national structure that advertises
such a grotesque historical misinterpretation is an insult to the nation and to all its members,
white and black. It is a monument to nothing more than the politically motivated allegations
of one particular school of historiography whose former dominance of the field is now
visibly eroding. The interpretations of this school should not be taken seriously by an
institution set up by the government to be a national museum.
Endnotes
1. Henry Reynolds, An Indelible Stain? The Question of Genocide in Australia's
History, Viking, Ringwood, 2001, Chapters Four and Five
2. Bruce Montgomery, 'Historian Defends His Best Guess', The Australian, 12
September 2000, p 6
3. Henry Reynolds, 'The Perils of Political Reinterpretation', Sydney Morning Herald,
September 25 2000, p 10
4. 'The Myths of Massacres in Australian Frontier History', Parts I, II and III, Quadrant,
October, November, December 2000; Rod Moran, Massacre Myth, Access Press,
Bassendean, 1999
5. Bruce Montgomery, 'The First Patriots', The Australian, 3 April 1995, Features p 10;
Henry Reynolds, 'A War to Remember', The Weekend Australian, 1-3 April 1995,
Features p 3
6. Henry Reynolds, Fate of a Free People, Penguin Books, Ringwood, 1995, p 66
7. A. G. L. Shaw, Sir George Arthur, Bart, 1784-1854, Melbourne University Press,
1980, pp 5-16
8. Reynolds cites this passage (Fate of a Free People, p 223, n 59) from Arthur to
Murray, 12 September 1829, Historical Records of Australia, I, XIV, p 446. This is the
wrong volume; it is in XV, same page.
9. Henry Reynolds, 'The Black War: A New Look at an Old Story', Tasmanian
Historical Research Association, Papers and Proceedings, 31, 4, December 1984, p
2.
10. Reynolds, Fate of a Free People, p 66
11. Reynolds, Fate of a Free People, p 36
12. Arthur to Murray, 4 November 1828, British Parliamentary Papers, Colonies,
Australia, 4, p 181
13. Lyndall Ryan, The Aboriginal Tasmanians, (1981) Allen and Unwin, Sydney, 1996,
p 102
14. Brian Plomley, Friendly Mission: The Tasmanian Journals and Papers of George
Augustus Robinson 1829-1834, Tasmanian Historical Research Association, Hobart,
1966, p 30
15. Plomley, Friendly Mission, pp 472-4
16. Report of the Aborigines Committee 1830, British Parliamentary Papers, Colonies,
Australia, 4, p 217
17. Journal of the proceedings of a party employed under the direction of Gilbert
Robertson, 1 January 1829-13 March 1829, CSO 1/332/7578, pp 114-31; Journal of a
party under the immediate orders of Gilbert Robertson, 2 February 1829-27 February
1829, CSO 1/332/7578, pp 132-44; Memorandum for a journal of the proceedings of a
party under my charge in pursuit of the Aborigines, 27 February 1829-13 February 1830,
CSO 1/331/7578, pp 79-92
18. Robertson, Journal of the proceedings, 13 February 1829, p 126
19. Ryan, Aboriginal Tasmanians, p 104, p 113 n 4
20. Raymond Evans, Fighting Words: Writing About Race, University of Queensland
Press, St Lucia, 1999, p 111
21. David Burke, Dreaming of the Resurrection: A Reconciliation Story, Sisters of St
Joseph, Mary MacKillop Foundation, North Sydney, 1998, pp 33-5; William Deane, 'A
Few Instances of Reconciliation', address to Southern Queensland Theology Library,
Toowoomba, 5 November 1999; Charlene Carrington, 'Mistake Creek Massacre',
heritage statement on 1999 painting; 'A look at Sir William Deane's term as
Governor-General', transcript, The 7:30 Report, ABC-Television, 11 June 2001
22. transcript, The 7:30 Report, ABC-Television, 11 June 2001
23. Report of Const. Flinders and statements of witnesses, 4 June 1915, Western
Australian Police, Colonial Secretary's Department, CO 1854/15
24. Rod Moran, 'Mistaken Identity', West Australian, 17 November 2001, Big
Weekend section, p 3
25. transcript, The 7:30 Report, ABC-Television, 11 June 2001
26. David Roberts, 'Bells Falls Massacre and Bathurst's History of Violence: Local
Tradition and Australian Historiography', Australian Historical Studies, 105, October
1995, pp 615-33
Rebecca
"Peter Hodges" <pet...@chariot.net.au> wrote in message
news:3c995377...@news.chariot.net.au...
> Doctored evidence and invented incidents in
> Aboriginal historiography
>
> Keith Windschuttle
>
> Paper to conference on Frontier Conflict, National Museum of
Australia, December 13-14, 2001
>
>
>
> In his latest book, An Indelible Stain?, Henry Reynolds has
conceded that what
> happened to the Aborigines in Tasmania in no way amounted to
genocide. [1]
> Reynolds has also publicly conceded that his 1981 claim that
10,000 Aborigines
> were shot dead in Queensland was only a guess. [2]
> He has agreed that large-scale massacres of Aborigines were not
typical of
> Australian frontier history, as the school once claimed, and that
most of the killings
> that did occur were in ones and twos. [3]
<snip>
In her book "Men of Yesteryear: A social history of the Western District of
Victoria 1834-1890" (Melbourne University Press, 1980 ed., p. 124), Margaret
Kiddle Points out that "Driven from familiar hunting grounds into strange
territory where they lost the protection of their own spirit world, the
tribes began fighting among themselves. If they stayed where the white men
settled they had to take sheep because the kangaroos and other game they
depended on were slaughtered. Being 'untutored savages' they took many more
sheep than they needed, and being men they resented the treatment given both
to themselves and their women. By the early forties revengeful forays by the
blacks and exasperated retaliation by the whites were reported almost
daily".
Kiddle then goes on to list a series of pgten-fatal attacks on whites
published in the April 1842 "Geelong Advertiser". Most of the victims were
isolated shepherds and hut-keepers. No doubt the "retaliation" was on a
similar small-scale basis.
Lest anyone should mistakenly assume that Margaret Kiddle's history is in
any way "right-wing", I should point out that Manning Clark endorsed her
book as "One of the finest pieces of historical scholarship ever written in
this country" - according to the back cover of the 1980 edition.
As far as Henry Reynolds is concerned, an indispensable booklet on his
historical "methods" is Dr Geoffrey Partington's "The Australian History of
Henry Reynolds" (1994, Falcon Print, ISBN 0 646 21975 8). It should also be
noted that Henry's wife is (or at least was) Senator Margaret Reynolds, who
was PM Keating's representative on the Council for Aboriginal
Reconciliation. Senator Reynolds, as Partington has revealed, "... called
for [black] self-government in areas such as the Torres Strait, Kimberley
and Arnhem Land, although she is a strong opponent of the rights given the
existing states in the Australian constitution".
Ned Latham
Thanks, Peter. This is also relevant to aus.history, so I've edited it for
readability in text-only news clients and crossposted it.
> considerable killing of Aboriginal women and children. It's essential
Ned
--
The aus.culture.true-blue Website
http://www.aussie-culture.net
FAQ: http://www.aussie-culture.net/faq.html
To reply, cut out my nose and make the met a net.
Ned Latham
> Peter Hodges wrote:
----snip----
> In her book "Men of Yesteryear: A social history of the Western District
> of Victoria 1834-1890" (Melbourne University Press, 1980 ed., p. 124),
> Margaret Kiddle Points out that "Driven from familiar hunting grounds
> into strange territory where they lost the protection of their own spirit
> world, the tribes began fighting among themselves. If they stayed where
> the white men settled they had to take sheep because the kangaroos and
> other game they depended on were slaughtered. Being 'untutored savages'
> they took many more sheep than they needed,
I've heard that one before, and never understood it. They were hunters:
they *never* took more than they needed. Where did she get that piffle?
----snip----
Seppo Renfors
Peter Hodges wrote:
>
> Doctored evidence and invented incidents in
> Aboriginal historiography
>
Ahhhhh..... does the man know irony or what! And the guilty person is
named below!!
> Keith Windschuttle
[..]
--
SIR -Philosopher Unauthorised
------------------------------------------------------------------
" Don't resent getting old. A great many are denied that privilege "
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ned Latham
> Peter Hodges wrote:
> >
> > Doctored evidence and invented incidents in
> > Aboriginal historiography
>
> Ahhhhh..... does the man know irony or what! And the guilty person
> is named below!!
>
> > Keith Windschuttle
... named Henry Reynolds, Lyndall Ryan and Raymond Evans, and cited and
quoted evidence of their fabrications. He did *not* name you, Renfors,
presumably because no-one sane accepts your ranting as having any
historical value.
----snip----
> SIR -Philosopher Unauthorised
Says Seppo Renfors, the evidence doctorer Windschuttle did *not* name.
fasgnadh
> Peter Hodges wrote:
Actually its a cut and paste job, neither he or Ned will
risk having an opinion which could be challenged on the facts! B^D
> >
> > Doctored evidence and invented incidents in
> > Aboriginal historiography
> >
> Ahhhhh..... does the man know irony or what! And the guilty person is
> named below!!
>
> > Keith Windschuttle
> [..]
ROFLMAO! B^D
I agree, the subject says it all!
"Keith Windschuttle: Doctored evidence in Aboriginal historiography"
B^D
Windshuffle is the Christopher Pearson/ Piers Akkerman of
Aussie History, an establishment tool trotted out to promote
Howard's White Eyepatch denial of history.
His modus operandi is like Howard's, (and Latham's); semantic
quibbles at the periphery, to deny the core issues:
eg "Stolen generation" - shift the debate to ONE narrow definition
of the word 'generation' then say "but it wasn't the WHOLE
'GENERATION'!?
and ignore the reality of the policy. (This deliberate pedantry is
not similarly applied when the same people refer to Generation X
the Beat Generation, etc. there normal english usage is tolerated B^p)
He makes a career out of the same sort of character assasination
Ned tried with Larry Cook, only poor old Windshuffle tried to
take on the reknowned historian in the field, Henry Reynolds,
and in the process comes off looking like a bovver boy.
One quick example: He tries to deny the well documented history
of massacres (including a variety of eyewitness settler accounts),
by making a strawman of Reynolds figure for casualties.
Reynolds carried out the detailed reviews of the historical primary
sources and gave what he ALWAYS SAID was an ESTIMATE of the indigenous
casualties. He made a point of drawing attention to the fact that
deaths of blacks was FREQUENTLY NOT EVEN RECORDED!!!
But his figures are entirely consistent with the historical
record, eyewitness acounts of massacres and widespread attitudes
at the time, AND THE INDIGENOUS POPULATION DECLINE over the period.
Windshuffle's slimy spin is to treat an aknowledged *estimate*
as a *guess*: "Reynolds has also publicly conceded that his
1981 claim that 10,000 Aborigines were shot dead in
Queensland was only a guess." Pffft!
So where is windshuffles scholarly counter-estimate?
Oh no, instead he has mad a career demanding death certificates
for 10,000 dead blacks, as his way of attacking the work of
Reynolds, a man whose historical boots he is not worthy to lick.
Cheap tricks, only good enough to have the racists and xenophobes
gibbering.
Go to your library, any library, and look up Reynolds, you will
find a half dozen of his serious and well regarded works.
He is a respected giant in the field.
Now go to your local National Action branch, (You can't go to
One Nation, they are defunct) and ask for some Windshuffle
pamphlets. The man is a joke.
The really funny thing is, Latham has previously acknowledged
the massacres of indiginous people, but then he blamed it on the
"Establishment" 8^o
From: Ned Latham (nen...@news.apex.met.au)
Subject: Re: Ned's Cultural Catastrophe Revealed!
Newsgroups: aus.culture.true-blue, aus.net.news
Date: 2001-07-09 06:53:58 PST
My guess is that Ned hadn't heard of Windshuffle then. ;-)
Windshuffle's revisionism looks bookish enough for an intellectual
midget like Ned to do some revision of his own. B^p
Rebecca
"Ned Latham" <nen...@news.apex.met.au> wrote in message
news:slrna9j6p4....@arthur.valhalla.net.oz...
> Rebecca wrote in <IYfm8.16547$uR5....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>:
> > Peter Hodges wrote:
>
> ----snip----
>
> > In her book "Men of Yesteryear: A social history of the Western District
> > of Victoria 1834-1890" (Melbourne University Press, 1980 ed., p. 124),
> > Margaret Kiddle Points out that "Driven from familiar hunting grounds
> > into strange territory where they lost the protection of their own
spirit
> > world, the tribes began fighting among themselves. If they stayed where
> > the white men settled they had to take sheep because the kangaroos and
> > other game they depended on were slaughtered. Being 'untutored savages'
> > they took many more sheep than they needed,
>
> I've heard that one before, and never understood it. They were hunters:
> they *never* took more than they needed. Where did she get that piffle?
With all respect, Ned, I don't think it's "piffle".
According to the Geelong Advertiser (from which Kiddle quotes, and to which
I think I referred in my original post), in separate incidents over a
two-month period they reportedly took 200 sheep from a Mr Campbell, 600
sheep from Mr Loughnan, 200 sheep from Mr Muston, 30 sheep from Messrs Kemp,
50 sheep from Mr Farie, 350 sheep from Capt. Webster, 50 sheep from Mr
Black, 260 sheep from Mr Thompson, 300 sheep from Mr Gill, 700 sheep from Mr
Cameron (but mostly recovered), 180 sheep from Mr Bromfield, 350 sheep from
Mr Aylman, and 450 sheep from Mr Barnet. In several of these depradations
they also killed isolated shepherds.
This was in the Western Districts of Victoria, which cannot have sustained
an Aboriginal population that *required* so many sheep for food. After all,
this region ("Australia Felix") was prized by the early settlers because it
was good sheep-grazing, relatively free of trees; and the local fauna was
too sparse to support many hunter-gatherers.
Another interesting account from the Geelong Advertiser of the same period
states that 10 cows and 40 calves belonging to the Messrs Bolden were
"killed" - as distinct from "taken".
It seems likely to me that the Aborigines were *not" "hunting" by this
stage.
Nevertheless, despite Henry Reynolds' fantasies, it is clear that these were
small-scale raids. They most certainly didn't amount to "guerilla warfare",
and I posted this information from Margaret Kiddle because I think it
supports Keith Windschuttle against Henry Reynolds.
Rebecca
"fasgnadh" <fasg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9617651d.02032...@posting.google.com...
> Seppo Renfors <Sen...@not.ollis.com.au> wrote in message
news:<3C99EFDE...@not.ollis.com.au>...
>
> > Peter Hodges wrote:
>
> Actually its a cut and paste job, neither he or Ned will
> risk having an opinion which could be challenged on the facts! B^D
>
> > >
> > > Doctored evidence and invented incidents in
> > > Aboriginal historiography
> > >
> > Ahhhhh..... does the man know irony or what! And the guilty person is
> > named below!!
> >
> > > Keith Windschuttle
> > [..]
>
> ROFLMAO! B^D
>
> I agree, the subject says it all!
>
> "Keith Windschuttle: Doctored evidence in Aboriginal historiography"
> B^D
>
> Windshuffle is the Christopher Pearson/ Piers Akkerman of
> Aussie History, an establishment tool trotted out to promote
> Howard's White Eyepatch denial of history.
Windschuttle is, of course, an opponent of those who currently support the
dominant paradigm in Australian "frontier" studies. People like Reynolds are
the tools of the current establishment. People like Windschuttle and
Partington and (even) Blainey are the radicals who are saying that the
emperor has no clothes.
>
> His modus operandi is like Howard's, (and Latham's); semantic
> quibbles at the periphery, to deny the core issues:
> eg "Stolen generation" - shift the debate to ONE narrow definition
> of the word 'generation' then say "but it wasn't the WHOLE
> 'GENERATION'!?
> and ignore the reality of the policy. (This deliberate pedantry is
> not similarly applied when the same people refer to Generation X
> the Beat Generation, etc. there normal english usage is tolerated B^p)
>
> He makes a career out of the same sort of character assasination
> Ned tried with Larry Cook, only poor old Windshuffle tried to
> take on the reknowned historian in the field, Henry Reynolds,
> and in the process comes off looking like a bovver boy.
>
> One quick example: He tries to deny the well documented history
> of massacres (including a variety of eyewitness settler accounts),
> by making a strawman of Reynolds figure for casualties.
> Reynolds carried out the detailed reviews of the historical primary
> sources and gave what he ALWAYS SAID was an ESTIMATE of the indigenous
> casualties. He made a point of drawing attention to the fact that
> deaths of blacks was FREQUENTLY NOT EVEN RECORDED!!!
Anyone who wants to put on a black armband can use that tactic. "We don't
know how many deaths there were because they "WEREN'T EVEN RECORDED", they
wail. But usually whenever there was so much as a hint of any such scandal,
the colonial authorities came down heavily on the side of the Aboriginals
rather than the settlers. For example, look at how they persecuted the Henty
family, the foundation settlers of Portland.
> But his figures are entirely consistent with the historical
> record, eyewitness acounts of massacres and widespread attitudes
> at the time, AND THE INDIGENOUS POPULATION DECLINE over the period.
>
> Windshuffle's slimy spin is to treat an aknowledged *estimate*
> as a *guess*: "Reynolds has also publicly conceded that his
> 1981 claim that 10,000 Aborigines were shot dead in
> Queensland was only a guess." Pffft!
>
> So where is windshuffles scholarly counter-estimate?
Well, if you think Reynolds is entitled to just "guess", I don't suppose a
"scholarly counter-estimate" is required. Just another guess ought to do. My
neighbour Francesca just dropped in, so I asked her to guess. She said
"zilch". She's only been here for about forty years, and she really doesn't
speak English very well, but I doubt that her "guess" would be any weaker
than Henry Reynolds' "guess".
> Oh no, instead he has mad a career demanding death certificates
> for 10,000 dead blacks, as his way of attacking the work of
> Reynolds, a man whose historical boots he is not worthy to lick.
>
> Cheap tricks, only good enough to have the racists and xenophobes
> gibbering.
I think the "racists and zenophobes" here are the ones who can't acknowledge
that the violence was two-way.
Ned Latham
in <9617651d.02032...@posting.google.com>:
----snip----
> Windshuffle is the Christopher Pearson/ Piers Akkerman of
> Aussie History, an establishment tool trotted out to promote
> Howard's White Eyepatch denial of history.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! You idiot. Windschuttle's kicking establishment arse,
you moron.
Your accusation that he's an establishment tool is about as convincing
as your other idiotic misrepresentations.
----snip----
> One quick example: He tries to deny the well documented history
> of massacres (including a variety of eyewitness settler accounts),
> by making a strawman of Reynolds figure for casualties.
> Reynolds carried out the detailed reviews of the historical primary
> sources and gave what he ALWAYS SAID was an ESTIMATE of the indigenous
> casualties. He made a point of drawing attention to the fact that
> deaths of blacks was FREQUENTLY NOT EVEN RECORDED!!!
> But his figures are entirely consistent with the historical
> record, eyewitness acounts of massacres and widespread attitudes
> at the time, AND THE INDIGENOUS POPULATION DECLINE over the period.
Quick example, huh? Too quick for quoting evidence ot citing sources,
I see. Windschuttle does both: you do neither; all you do is spew
allegations.
----snip----
> The really funny thing is, Latham has previously acknowledged
> the massacres of indiginous people, but then he blamed it on the
> "Establishment" =*=
I didn't acknowledge *those* so-called massacres, you lying snake.
The message ID is <slrn9kje5n....@arthur.valhalla.net.au>.
When are you going to post definitve references, slimeball?
> * > Or is much of it the
> * > indigenecide which occurred during that period, and not very
> * > true-blue at all?
> *
> * You got something right for once. What happened? You forget that
> * we were never the whole population?
If you really want to give me a hard time, Guano, try the truth.
Ned Latham
> Ned Latham wrote:
I think you need to consider whether or not those newspaper reports can
be credited. "Stolen" implies that the Aborigines took the carcasses away
(had they not, the report would say "killed", don't you think?). That in
turn implies that either the Aboriginal population was very large, or the
reports are (to say the least) exaggerations.
And the latter is a distinct possibility, wouldn't you agree?
Keep in mind that no matter how easy it is, a hunter isn't going to waste
effort killing a food animal that he can't use.
Well, put it this way: it makes no sense to *me*. I used to shoot for
the pot. I wouldn't waste a bullet, let alone expend the kind of effort
involved in pushing a stick into a sheep and then tracking the wounded
animal until it dropped if I had already taken all I could use.
Peter Wilks
> "fasgnadh" <fasg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9617651d.02032...@posting.google.com...
> > Seppo Renfors <Sen...@not.ollis.com.au> wrote in message
> news:<3C99EFDE...@not.ollis.com.au>...
> >
> > > Peter Hodges wrote:
> >
> > Actually its a cut and paste job, neither he or Ned will
> > risk having an opinion which could be challenged on the facts! B^D
> >
> > > >
> > > > Doctored evidence and invented incidents in
> > > > Aboriginal historiography
> > > >
> > > Ahhhhh..... does the man know irony or what! And the guilty person is
> > > named below!!
> > >
> > > > Keith Windschuttle
> > > [..]
> >
> > ROFLMAO! B^D
> >
> > I agree, the subject says it all!
> >
> > "Keith Windschuttle: Doctored evidence in Aboriginal historiography"
> > B^D
> >
> > Windshuffle is the Christopher Pearson/ Piers Akkerman of
> > Aussie History, an establishment tool trotted out to promote
> > Howard's White Eyepatch denial of history.
You have told us who the 'tools' are, but who is the
'establishment'?
(snip)
> People like Reynolds are the tools of the current establishment.
(snip)
You both use the term 'establishment".
Who are they? Political leaders? Business Leaders?
Can you both define what you mean by the term and give some
examples?
i.e. Name some component groups and individual members
of the 'establishment', not just their 'tools'
Then others might have a clue what you ar talking about,
if you are talking about the same, or different things.
Peter Wilks
> Peter Wicks (aka "Che Guava"), posting as "fasgnadh", wrote
> in <9617651d.02032...@posting.google.com>:
>
> ----snip----
>
> > Windshuffle is the Christopher Pearson/ Piers Akkerman of
> > Aussie History, an establishment tool trotted out to promote
> > Howard's White Eyepatch denial of history.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHA! You idiot. Windschuttle's kicking establishment arse,
Then I ask you the same question i asked fasgnadh and Rebecca,
who do you think the establishment are?
There must be some names and some positions that can be identified.
(SNIP)
fasgnadh
> news:9617651d.02032...@posting.google.com...
> > Seppo Renfors <Sen...@not.ollis.com.au> wrote in message
> news:<3C99EFDE...@not.ollis.com.au>...
> >
> > > Peter Hodges wrote:
> >
> > Actually its a cut and paste job, neither he or Ned will
> > risk having an opinion which could be challenged on the facts! B^D
> >
> > > >
> > > > Doctored evidence and invented incidents in
> > > > Aboriginal historiography
> > > >
> > > Ahhhhh..... does the man know irony or what! And the guilty person is
> > > named below!!
> > >
> > > > Keith Windschuttle
> > > [..]
> >
> > ROFLMAO! B^D
> >
> > I agree, the subject says it all!
> >
> > "Keith Windschuttle: Doctored evidence in Aboriginal historiography"
> > B^D
> >
> > Windshuffle is the Christopher Pearson/ Piers Akkerman of
> > Aussie History, an establishment tool trotted out to promote
> > Howard's White Eyepatch denial of history.
>
> Windschuttle is, of course, an opponent of those who currently support the
> dominant paradigm in Australian "frontier" studies.
Known to the professionals whose objective research has
carefully constructed the dominant paradigm as 'the truth'.
> People like Reynolds are
> the tools of the current establishment.
ROFLMAO!
Until Trevor Reese wrote 'Australia in the 20th Century' with
it's whole chapter on aboriginals and conditions stretching
back to the first years of settlement, the typical 'voice
of the establishment' for the first half of that century
was well described by the reknowned Walter Murdoch as
"When people talk about the history of Australia they mean the
history of the white people who have lived here in Australia"
- W Murdoch "The making of Australia, an Introductory History" p 9
In what the distinguished anthropologist W.E.H. Stanner
described in the 1968 Boyer Lecture as "The Great Australian
Silence", aborigines were dispersed from the pages of history
during the first half of the 20th century as effectively as
frontier squatters had dispersed them from inland plains a century before.
In 1959 Profesor J A La Nauze, surveying thirty years of national
histiriography, observed 'unlike the Maori, the American Indian
or the South African Bantu, the Australian Aboriginal is noticed
in history only in a melancholy anthropological footnote"
- La Nauze "The Study of Australian History 1929-59"
Historical studies Vol IX No 33 Nov 1959, p11.
It was into this "History of Lions, by the Hunter" mileau that
Reynolds, linking back to primary sources and the few great
historical works produced before 1900, helped end "The
Great Australian Silence" and replace its 'political
correctness with a renewed pursuit of the WHOLE truth.
Windshuffle is merely re-asserting the Silence Howard
and the political elites would prefer...
Is everyone relaxed and comfortable? B^p
Try not to think about the nasty past. B^p
> People like Windschuttle and
> Partington and (even) Blainey are the radicals who are saying that the
> emperor has no clothes.
The emporer? John Howard is removing a lot of our
traditional Magna Carta rights, to legal representation, to
not be held without charges or trial, but I don't think
he's quite made his horse a member of the Senate yet!
fasgnadh
> news:9617651d.02032...@posting.google.com...
> > Seppo Renfors <Sen...@not.ollis.com.au> wrote in message
> news:<3C99EFDE...@not.ollis.com.au>...
> >
> > > Peter Hodges wrote:
> >
> > Actually its a cut and paste job, neither he or Ned will
> > risk having an opinion which could be challenged on the facts! B^D
> >
> > > >
> > > > Doctored evidence and invented incidents in
> > > > Aboriginal historiography
> > > >
> > > Ahhhhh..... does the man know irony or what! And the guilty person is
> > > named below!!
> > >
> > > > Keith Windschuttle
> > > [..]
> >
> > ROFLMAO! B^D
> >
> > I agree, the subject says it all!
> >
> > "Keith Windschuttle: Doctored evidence in Aboriginal historiography"
> > B^D
> >
> > His modus operandi is like Howard's, (and Latham's); semantic
> > quibbles at the periphery, to deny the core issues:
> > eg "Stolen generation" - shift the debate to ONE narrow definition
> > of the word 'generation' then say "but it wasn't the WHOLE
> > 'GENERATION'!?
> > and ignore the reality of the policy. (This deliberate pedantry is
> > not similarly applied when the same people refer to Generation X
> > the Beat Generation, etc. there normal english usage is tolerated B^p)
> >
> > He makes a career out of the same sort of character assasination
> > Ned tried with Larry Cook, only poor old Windshuffle tried to
> > take on the reknowned historian in the field, Henry Reynolds,
> > and in the process comes off looking like a bovver boy.
> >
> > One quick example: He tries to deny the well documented history
> > of massacres (including a variety of eyewitness settler accounts),
> > by making a strawman of Reynolds figure for casualties.
> > Reynolds carried out the detailed reviews of the historical primary
> > sources and gave what he ALWAYS SAID was an ESTIMATE of the indigenous
> > casualties. He made a point of drawing attention to the fact that
> > deaths of blacks was FREQUENTLY NOT EVEN RECORDED!!!
>
> Anyone who wants to put on a black armband can use that tactic. "We don't
> know how many deaths there were because they "WEREN'T EVEN RECORDED", they
> wail.
Perhaps you might, but real historians like Reynolds make
estimates based on research. As long as they are identified as
estimates, and the methodology is both transparent(known) and
rigorous (sound) then everyone knows where that stand.
Discussion conducted with integrity then proceeds to critically
examin the estimates, question the methodology in detail,
or the underpinning data, and suggest how the estimate should be
varied, or propose new ones.
Then there are the politically motivated who are just looking to
push their own bias and prejudices, they compare it to ill-informed
guesses, which is their familiar home turf, and cast aspersions. B^p
As your comments below indicate, you don't understand this basic
process, and thus foolishly confuse
it with asking your neighbour to pluck figures from the air
between her ears, which may be only marginly denser than your own.
> But usually whenever there was so much as a hint of any such scandal,
> the colonial authorities came down heavily on the side of the Aboriginals
> rather than the settlers.
You can't be serious. Please provide some hard evidence.
> For example, look at how they persecuted the Henty
> family, the foundation settlers of Portland.
See, your lack of sound methodology creates problems.
Are you claiming settlers persecuted the Henty family?
or that colonial authorities did?
or that aboriginals did.
Your thesis is unsound and unclear, you cite no references
and make no intelligible or relevant point.
>
> > But his figures are entirely consistent with the historical
> > record, eyewitness acounts of massacres and widespread attitudes
> > at the time, AND THE INDIGENOUS POPULATION DECLINE over the period.
> >
> > Windshuffle's slimy spin is to treat an aknowledged *estimate*
> > as a *guess*: "Reynolds has also publicly conceded that his
> > 1981 claim that 10,000 Aborigines were shot dead in
> > Queensland was only a guess." Pffft!
> >
> > So where is windshuffles scholarly counter-estimate?
>
> Well, if you think Reynolds is entitled to just "guess",
I thought you claimed to be able to assess historical methodology,
at least sufficiently well to pass judgement on Henry Reynolds! B^p
Your apparent inability to understand the concept of research/
well founded estimation based on that research, indicators
which confirm or challenge that estimate, on the one hand,
and the ill-informed opinions of you or your friend is
rather revealing of your whole lack of understanding, and
underlying political motivation.
> I don't suppose a "scholarly counter-estimate" is required.
You certainly don't provide one, or demonstrate any understanding
of what it might be based on.
> just another guess ought to do.
By someone as ignorant of aboriginal history as yourself?
Sorry, most sane people would prefer a bridge built by an engineer,
not by an arrogant know-it-all whose neighbour has Lego blocks! pffft!
> My neighbour Francesca just dropped in,
Get her to give you a brain transplant, not the sort of thing
YOU need a doctor fro! B^D
Perhaps you could get her to do your tax, an accountant couldn't
possibly have gained her expertise in counting sheep.
Or maybe she could represent you in court, a polymath like you
doesn't need any of that PC legal expertise!
> so I asked her to guess.
We thought as much from your previous posts..
"Rocket science - By the Blondes with Gunpowder" B^D
> She said "zilch".
Very wise for her to remain silent in the face of such
embarassing ignorance on your part.
> She's only been here for about forty years, and she really doesn't
> speak English very well, but I doubt that her "guess" would be any weaker
> than Henry Reynolds' "guess".
The concept of 'reliable sources' really goes right over your
head, doesn't it! B^D
What ARE the schools turning out these days,
perhaps you will understand better when you leave
adolescence.
>
> > Oh no, instead he has mad a career demanding death certificates
> > for 10,000 dead blacks, as his way of attacking the work of
> > Reynolds, a man whose historical boots he is not worthy to lick.
> >
> > Cheap tricks, only good enough to have the racists and xenophobes
> > gibbering.
>
> I think the "racists and zenophobes" here are the ones who can't acknowledge
> that the violence was two-way.
I suspected you wouldn't know the meaning of basic terms.
Go stand with Ned and swap notes on 'multiculturated' ROFLMAO!
Ned Latham
in <666137.020322...@posting.google.com>:
----snip----
> You have told us who the 'tools' are, but who is the
> 'establishment'?
Check the tattoo on your forehead, Guano. It's a clue to your master's
identity.
Ned Latham
in <666137.020322...@posting.google.com>:
----snip----
> who do you think the establishment are?
>
> There must be some names and some positions that can be identified.
Sure thing, Guano. Next time your master allows you to kiss his arse,
read the laundry label on his daks.
fasgnadh
> in <9617651d.02032...@posting.google.com>:
>
> ----snip----
>
> > The really funny thing is, Latham has previously acknowledged
> > the massacres of indiginous people, but then he blamed it on the
> I didn't acknowledge *those* so-called massacres,
Read below where you tell Hartley he is right about indigenidice,
and you merely dispute whose fault it is!
Game set match:
# From: Ned Latham (nen...@news.apex.met.au)
# Subject: Re: Ned's Cultural Catastrophe Revealed!
# Newsgroups: aus.culture.true-blue, aus.net.news
# Date: 2001-07-09 06:53:58 PST
# "Hartley" wrote in <4a58fe31.01070...@posting.google.com>:
# > "Che Guava" wrote:
# > >
# > > For some time now we have been trying to find out the mysterious
# > > event which, according to Ned, ended True-blue culture in 'the
# > > recent past'
# >
# > My own theory is that he wishes to discuss colonial history,
# > which is fine in itself, but not really fully congruent with culture.
# >
# > Central to the history Mr Latham claims as his core
# > definition of true-blue is this, a reference which causes
# > one to enquire: "Is all the history you claim, from 'setttlement'
# > to 'recent past' that of trueblues?
#
# No. We are not the establishment or their flunkies or their goons.
Here Ned tels us that in his view much of early aussie history
is the product of 'the establishment or their flunkies'.
(whenever pressed with actual historical data, Neds version
of true-blues seem to disappear, or at the very least,
play a minor role! 8^o )
# >
# > Or is much of it the
# > indigenecide which occurred during that period, and not very
# > true-blue at all?
#
# You got something right for once.
Clearly Ned ACKNOWLEDGES the "indiginecide"
# > What happened? You forget that
# we were never the whole population?
.. you can all ask him 'who he blames' for it,
(if anyone really cares about Neds fantasies,
i've had enough of his facile
bullshit and lies for one night.
> you lying snake.
Stupid Troll Tricks
--> 2. The Mirror Trick. Notice how the troll will fire back an
accusation that his opponent has accused him/her of.
Ned Latham
in <9617651d.02032...@posting.google.com>:
----snip----
> In what the distinguished anthropologist W.E.H. Stanner
> described in the 1968 Boyer Lecture as "The Great Australian
> Silence", aborigines were dispersed from the pages of history
> during the first half of the 20th century as effectively as
> frontier squatters had dispersed them from inland plains a
> century before.
Well, well. Here's Guano quoting with approval an assertion that the
establishment record is incomplete, biassed and inaccurate.
----snip----
Ned Latham
in <9617651d.02032...@posting.google.com>:
----snip----
> Perhaps you might, but real historians like Reynolds make
> estimates based on research. As long as they are identified as
> estimates, and the methodology is both transparent (known) and
> rigorous (sound) then everyone knows where that stand.
As in his describing the killing of an occasional isolated shepherd
and the taking of some sheep as "guerrilla warfare". ROTFL!
Ned Latham
in <9617651d.02032...@posting.google.com>:
> > Peter Wicks (aka "Che Guava"), posting as "fasgnadh", wrote:
(Guano's forgery of my attribution line undone.)
> > ----snip----
> >
> > > The really funny thing is, Latham has previously acknowledged
> > > the massacres of indiginous people, but then he blamed it on the
> > > "Establishment" =*=
> >
> > I didn't acknowledge *those* so-called massacres, you lying snake.
> * The message ID is <slrn9kje5n....@arthur.valhalla.net.au>.
> * When are you going to post definitve references, slimeball?
>
> Read below where you tell Hartley he is right about indigenidice,
> and you merely dispute whose fault it is!
It's not an acknowledgement of those so-called massacres.
Do try to keep up.
----snip----
> # > Or is much of it the
> # > indigenecide which occurred during that period, and not very
> # > true-blue at all?
> #
> # You got something right for once.
>
> Clearly Ned ACKNOWLEDGES the "indiginecide"
So? Blacks were killed by whites. I've never disputed that.
Your efforts to make it appear otherwise just emphasize your moral
turpitude.
If you really want to give me a hard time, Guano, try the truth.
----snip----
fasgnadh
> Peter Wicks (aka "Che Guava"), posting as "Peter Wilks", wrote
> in <666137.020322...@posting.google.com>:
>
> ----snip----
>
> > You have told us who the 'tools' are, but who is the
> > 'establishment'?
>
> Check the tattoo on your forehead, Guano. It's a clue
> to your master's identity.
Clearly Ned has no idea who 'the Establishment' is,
that must be why he uses the term all the time! B^D
He's playing his little private game of call people guano! B^D
Anyone else like to answer the question?
Ladies first?
Or can us genuine true-blues lead the way? B^D
>
> ----snip----
>
> Ned
Ned Latham
in <9617651d.02032...@posting.google.com>:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> >
> > ----snip----
> >
> > > You have told us who the 'tools' are, but who is the
> > > 'establishment'?
> >
> > Check the tattoo on your forehead, Guano. It's a clue
> > to your master's identity.
>
> Clearly Ned has no idea who 'the Establishment' is,
Clearly Guano's pretending he doesn't see what I mean.
Oh yes: Stupid Troll Trick 12.
> that must be why he uses the term all the time! =*=
ROTFL! He's speculating, folks. I'm pretty sure I didn't use the
term at all on the 23rd of April 1951.
> He's playing his little private game of call people guano! =*=
Just one person, Guano.
> Anyone else like to answer the question?
Oh, why be bashful, Guano? Why not just point us to your
little lesson on social classes for "Grabes" in message
<9617651d.0203...@posting.google.com>?
> Ladies first?
> Or can us genuine true-blues lead the way? =*=
You are neither True Blue nor capable of leading, Guano. You're a
liar, a braggart, a coward, an abuser of women, and an establishment
flunky, a follower.
fasgnadh
> "Ned Latham" <nen...@news.apex.met.au> wrote in message
> news:slrna9j6p4....@arthur.valhalla.net.oz...
> > Rebecca wrote in <IYfm8.16547$uR5....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>:
> > > Peter Hodges wrote:
> >
> > ----snip----
> >
> > > In her book "Men of Yesteryear: A social history of the Western District
> > > of Victoria 1834-1890" (Melbourne University Press, 1980 ed., p. 124),
> > > Margaret Kiddle Points out that "Driven from familiar hunting grounds
> > > into strange territory where they lost the protection of their own
> spirit
> > > world, the tribes began fighting among themselves. If they stayed where
> > > the white men settled they had to take sheep because the kangaroos and
> > > other game they depended on were slaughtered. Being 'untutored savages'
> > > they took many more sheep than they needed,
> >
> > I've heard that one before, and never understood it. They were hunters:
> > they *never* took more than they needed.
Evidence? None? just a guess then, and a rather stupid one.
> Where did she get that piffle?
>
> With all respect, Ned, I don't think it's "piffle".
Ned doesn't need evidence like mere mortals do.
>
> According to the Geelong Advertiser (from which Kiddle quotes, and to which
> I think I referred in my original post), in separate incidents over a
> two-month period they reportedly took 200 sheep from a Mr Campbell, 600
> sheep from Mr Loughnan, 200 sheep from Mr Muston, 30 sheep from Messrs Kemp,
> 50 sheep from Mr Farie, 350 sheep from Capt. Webster, 50 sheep from Mr
> Black, 260 sheep from Mr Thompson, 300 sheep from Mr Gill, 700 sheep from Mr
> Cameron (but mostly recovered), 180 sheep from Mr Bromfield, 350 sheep from
> Mr Aylman, and 450 sheep from Mr Barnet. In several of these depradations
> they also killed isolated shepherds.
"considering the advantages posessed by the Europeans, Aboriginal
resistance was surprisingly prolonged and effective, extracting a high
price
from many pioneer communities in tension and insecurity as much as in
property loss, injury or death.
Aboriginal attacks on property had devastating effects on the fortunes
of
individual settlers, and at times appeared to threaten the economic
viability of pioneer industries - squatting, farming, mining and
pearling"
- Henry Reynolds "The breaking of the Great Australian Silence:
Aborigines in Australian Historiography 1955-1983" p 15.
University of London, 1984
>
> This was in the Western Districts of Victoria, which cannot have sustained
> an Aboriginal population that *required* so many sheep for food. After all,
> this region ("Australia Felix") was prized by the early settlers because it
> was good sheep-grazing, relatively free of trees; and the local fauna was
> too sparse to support many hunter-gatherers.
You mount a very good argument for Reynolds proposition that
the Aboriginals, after a period, targeted the settlers economic base.
> Another interesting account from the Geelong Advertiser of the same period
> states that 10 cows and 40 calves belonging to the Messrs Bolden were
> "killed" - as distinct from "taken".
>
> It seems likely to me that the Aborigines were *not" "hunting" by this
> stage.
Hold that thought. Reynolds had it twenty years before you...
>
> Nevertheless, despite Henry Reynolds' fantasies,
evidence for your claim of these 'fantasies'? None?
Just a guess then, B^p
> it is clear that these were small-scale raids.
'Clear' that you are begging-the-question?, with no proof?
Just another guess then! B^p
Lets see what the locals thought AT THE TIME, of your theory
(well, unsubstantiated GUESS, really ;-) that it was all 'small
scale';
An editorial in Queenslands leading Newspaper in 1879 assessed
the impact of aboriginal resistance in the colony thus:
" During the last four or five years the human life and property
destroyed
by the aboriginals in the North totals up to a serious amount..
settlement on the land, and the development of the mineral and
other resources of the country, have been in a great degree
prohibited by the hostility of the blacks, which still continues
with undiminished spirit." - Queenslander 15 Feb 1879
> They most certainly didn't amount to "guerilla warfare",
What DO you call it, diplomacy?
ROFLMAO!
2,920 sheep from 13 farms in one area!
The settlers would laugh in your face if you called it 'small scale'.
And 'isolated shepherds killed' in further hit and run raids,
which as you have already acknowledged, cannot be explained
simply by the need for food. They were fighting the interlopers.
They were up against superior and, to them, magical technology that
killed at a distance, but they WERE waging a resistance.
Who wouldn't.
The typical reaction was described after the Campaspie Creek massacre
by the
assistant protector for Aborigines for the district:
"it was a deliberately planned illegal reprisal on the aborigines,
conducted on the principle advocated by many persons in this colony,
that when any offence is committed by unknown individuals, the tribe
to which they belong should be made to suffer for it" - Judkins to
Thomas, 28 feb 1862,
Royal Comission 1877, p 31.
> and I posted this information from Margaret Kiddle because I think it
> supports Keith Windschuttle against Henry Reynolds.
That is your problem, you are not objectively analysing the data
and dispassionately drawing informed judgements,
you are trying to prove a case.
Neville Duguid
wrote:
> It was into this "History of Lions, by the Hunter" mileau that
> Reynolds, linking back to primary sources and the few great
> historical works produced before 1900, helped end "The
> Great Australian Silence" and replace its 'political
> correctness with a renewed pursuit of the WHOLE truth.
>
> Windshuffle is merely re-asserting the Silence Howard
> and the political elites would prefer...
Get your facts right, Peter. Here is what Henry Reynolds said to Tony
Jones on ABC LATELINE last year re Windschuttle's interest in his work:
Ref: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/s277827.htm
HENRY REYNOLDS: I have absolutely no problem with this debate.
Some people say, shock horror how dare he.
I don't say that at all.
This is in my case this is work I did 20 years ago.
It's something that I have long left behind.
But it is important that it is dealt with, and of course
one of the problems is that history, as Keith himself
has argued, to some extent gave up empirical sort of
research.
So no-one bothered to go on with this sort of work.
I.e., both Reynolds and Windschuttle are making the same complaint about
the way Reynolds' pioneering overview of Qld frontier history was
accepted so uncritically by the people he would normally have expected
to debate it more rigorously at the time. Windschuttle, apparently, was
the first credentialled historian with the means or the courage to make
himself heard to take Reynolds' work beyond the level of uncritical cut
and paste.
I pointed out in a post in aus.politics years ago that Reynolds in his
book 'Why Weren't We Told' was similarly appalled at the partisanship of
those who tried to silence Geoffrey Blainey by simiilar methods a decade
earlier. I praised Reynolds for it at the time, and I continue to
appreciate what he did towards helping fill that gap in our history you
just made such a show of complaining about. Reynolds was only trying to
fill in the gaps in Queensland's history like we were paying him to when
we set up a university with a history dept in Townsville. Queenslanders
have always resented how all the history books get written by Victorians
who have yet to discover Queensland exists except as a spittoon for
things they can't say about other Victorians for fear of being socially
ostracised or sued.
(a la:
"You look after my grant, and I'll look after yours.
Blame it all on Queensland, the money will be ours."
We can understand YOUR objections to what it now appears you and Seppo
have known about all along, but have tried to keep quiet about until
someone else stumbled on it. Then you come in ranting and raving in your
usual style to 'defend our freedom of speech' as you shout down anyone
other than yourselves who tries to keep talking after you've arrived.
You are a disgrace to your profession, and a manace to anyone else
trying to converse freely and openly with their peers on the Internet.
--
Neville Duguid *"What all the wise men promised has not *
True Blue Aussie Web Site * happened, and what all the damned fools*
http://www.aussie-culture.net * said has come to pass." Lord Melbourne *
Neville Duguid
> Perhaps you might, but real historians like Reynolds make
> estimates based on research. As long as they are identified as
> estimates, and the methodology is both transparent(known) and
> rigorous (sound) then everyone knows where that stand.
> Discussion conducted with integrity then proceeds to critically
> examin the estimates, question the methodology in detail,
> or the underpinning data, and suggest how the estimate should be
> varied, or propose new ones.
> Then there are the politically motivated who are just looking to
> push their own bias and prejudices, they compare it to ill-informed
> guesses, which is their familiar home turf, and cast aspersions. B^p
EXCEPT, as Reynolds himself told LATELINE last year, he is still waiting
for that essential debate to occur. He acknowledges that Windschuttle is
the first historian with enough courage to have a crack at it:
From ABC LATELINE, 2001: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/s277827.htm
HENRY REYNOLDS: I have absolutely no problem with this debate.
Some people say, shock horror how dare he.
I don't say that at all.
This is in my case this is work I did 20 years ago.
It's something that I have long left behind.
But it is important that it is dealt with, and of course
one of the problems is that history, as Keith himself
has argued, to some extent gave up empirical sort of
research.
So no-one bothered to go on with this sort of work.
> As your comments below indicate, you don't understand this basic
> process, and thus foolishly confuse
> it with asking your neighbour to pluck figures from the air
> between her ears, which may be only marginly denser than your own.
It seems you are the one who should have looked before you leaped to
wrong conclusions (see above) LOL!
--
Neville Duguid * PC Political Science: "The insane should have *
True Blue Aussie Web Site * the same rights as everyone else. Anyone *
http://www.aussie-culture.net * who disagrees with them should not." *
Ned Latham
in <9617651d.02032...@posting.google.com>:
----snip----
> You mount a very good argument for Reynolds proposition that
> the Aboriginals, after a period, targeted the settlers economic base.
Yair, right. They'd been reading up on Reaganomics.
Get your hand off it, you moron.
fasgnadh
council;
(a role Nev takes up as well)
"HENRY REYNOLDS: The trouble is with Keith that anyone at all who
suggests there was killing on the frontier, he finds some reason he
dredges up something to try and discredit them.
He is acting as a defence counsel for the settlers and the Government.
Now that's alright.
I don't mind him doing that.
But it is a very selective way that anyone who stands up and says,
"They're killing blacks out there," he finds some reason to say, "No,
they can't be believed."
Whereas those who say there weren't any massacres he says, "These are
the people we should believe."" -
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/s277827.htm
That about sums up the SELECTIVE bias of Windshuttle, and people like
Rebecca who admits she chooses her sources on the basis of partisan
support
for him, and Ned, (well, ned can't even define the key terms, like
establishment B^) and Nev, who gives us a textbook example of
SELECTIVE distortion of the opponents position below.
It's only day one, and already the Townsville Talibans White Australia
Policy Brigade have abandoned the historical argument and are merely
misrepresenting Reynolds and the other genuine historians;
I'd say they are already on the run! B^D
nevi...@bigpond.net.au (Neville Duguid) wrote in message news:<1f9iqct.o7zq5ppewdvkN%nevi...@bigpond.net.au>...
> fasgnadh <fasg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps you might, but real historians like Reynolds make
> > estimates based on research. As long as they are identified as
> > estimates, and the methodology is both transparent(known) and
> > rigorous (sound) then everyone knows where that stand.
> > Discussion conducted with integrity then proceeds to critically
> > examin the estimates, question the methodology in detail,
> > or the underpinning data, and suggest how the estimate should be
> > varied, or propose new ones.
> > Then there are the politically motivated who are just looking to
> > push their own bias and prejudices, they compare it to ill-informed
> > guesses, which is their familiar home turf, and cast aspersions. B^p
>
> EXCEPT, as Reynolds himself told LATELINE last year, he is still waiting
> for that essential debate to occur.
No, READ the transcript instead of falsifying it!
He was asked about the debate CONTINUING, NOT 'starting'!
Tony Jones:
"How important is it that this process of questioning historical
truths continue that this debate continue in your opinion?
^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
And he replied he had no problem with what he had been
already doing for years, seeking the truth and questioning:
"This is in my case this is work I did 20 years ago."
He doesn't even mind Windshuttle being an apologist for
the government, (an establishment flunky), and an inheritor
of the Great Australian Silence, the tradition of denial.
What he does mind is that Windshuttle is biased and selective,
doing what Rebecca claimed to do - selecting material to support
a cause.
"But it is a very selective way that anyone who stands up and says,
"They're killing blacks out there," he finds some reason to say, "No,
they can't be believed."
Whereas those who say there weren't any massacres he says, "These are
the people we should believe."
Thats not history, thats ideology!
> He acknowledges that Windschuttle is
> the first historian with enough courage to have a crack at it:
Where? Quote him saying it, because your lies and distortions are
now famous.
Here's what he says about Windshuffle;
______________________
Reynolds:
The trouble is with Keith that anyone at all who suggests there was
killing on the frontier, he finds some reason he dredges up something
to try and discredit them.
He is acting as a defence counsel for the settlers and the Government.
Now that's alright.
I don't mind him doing that.
But it is a very selective way that anyone who stands up and says,
"They're killing blacks out there," he finds some reason to say, "No,
they can't be believed."
Whereas those who say there weren't any massacres he says, "These are
the people we should believe."
____________________________________
Now lets look at where Nev claims Reynolds credits windshuffle
with 'starting' the debate that jones says is continuing, and
Reynolds agrees he has been doing for 20 years! B^D
>
> From ABC LATELINE, 2001: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/s277827.htm
Tony Jones:
"..How important is it that this process of questioning historical
truths continue that this debate continue in your opinion?
^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
>
> HENRY REYNOLDS: I have absolutely no problem with this debate.
Thats the CONTUINUING debate, Nev, you dolt.
>
> Some people say, shock horror how dare he.
>
> I don't say that at all.
>
> This is in my case this is work I did 20 years ago.
Thats the debate Reynolds has ben CONTINUING for 20 years, Nev, you
dolt,
the one you claim Windshuttle has 'begun'
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!
How can you show your face in a serious discussion when your
track record is distotions, dissembling and misrepresentation?
>
> It's something that I have long left behind.
>
> But it is important that it is dealt with, and of course
> one of the problems is that history, as Keith himself
> has argued, to some extent gave up empirical sort of
> research.
>
> So no-one bothered to go on with this sort of work.
>
>
> > As your comments below indicate, you don't understand this basic
> > process, and thus foolishly confuse
> > it with asking your neighbour to pluck figures from the air
> > between her ears, which may be only marginly denser than your own.
>
> It seems you are the one who should have looked before you leaped to
> wrong conclusions (see above) LOL!
"DaDuuuuh"! Next contestant please! Nev has just humiliated
himself in front of the entire audience by trying to
enter a most complex and difficult debate via a TV show,
and demonstrated he can't even read a transcript without his
bias ooozing all over it.
Ah well, at least this one didn't cost you forty bucks like your
famous fan club tape of your hero, Che, on the ABC, eh Nev? B^)
fasgnadh
You mount a very good argument for Reynolds proposition that
the Aboriginals, after a period, targeted the settlers economic base.
> Another interesting account from the Geelong Advertiser of the same period
fasgnadh
fasgnadh
response to every point? My, how quickly the White
Australia Policy advocates run out of arguments!
nevi...@bigpond.net.au (Neville Duguid) wrote in message news:<1f9imjz.1vrivcta2auz6N%nevi...@bigpond.net.au>...
> fasgnadh wrote:
>
> > It was into this "History of Lions, by the Hunter" mileau that
> > Reynolds, linking back to primary sources and the few great
> > historical works produced before 1900, helped end "The
> > Great Australian Silence" and replace its 'political
> > correctness with a renewed pursuit of the WHOLE truth.
Nev and his cronies instead rely on tertiary sources, and
CAN'T EVEN DEAL HONESTLY WITH THEM!
> >
> > Windshuffle is merely re-asserting the Silence Howard
> > and the political elites would prefer...
>
> Get your facts right, Peter. Here is what Henry Reynolds said to Tony
> Jones on ABC LATELINE last year re Windschuttle's interest in his work:
HENRY REYNOLDS: "The trouble is with Keith that anyone at all who
suggests there was killing on the frontier, he finds some reason he
dredges up something to try and discredit them.
He is acting as a defence counsel for the settlers and the Government.
Now that's alright.
I don't mind him doing that.
But it is a very selective way that anyone who stands up and says,
"They're killing blacks out there," he finds some reason to say, "No,
they can't be believed."
Whereas those who say there weren't any massacres he says, "These are
the people we should believe."
and,
"Keith is telling me and telling your viewers the way I do history.
Keith doesn't know how I do history.
He never bothered to ask me.
He has read an article I wrote about 25 years ago, or 20 years ago and
makes assumptions about how it was put together.
And most of those assumptions are wrong "
(sounds exactly like Nev! B^)
>
> Ref: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/s277827.htm
>
>
Lets help Nev understand the question he quotes Reynolds as answering;
(so he can't lie about it any more ;-)
TONY JONES: Henry Reynolds you've said Keith Windschuttle is like a
Holocaust denier but his questioning of the established orthodoxy does
indicate some courage.
How important is it that this process of questioning historical truths
continue that this debate continue in your opinion?
> HENRY REYNOLDS: I have absolutely no problem with this debate.
>
> Some people say, shock horror how dare he.
>
> I don't say that at all.
>
> This is in my case this is work I did 20 years ago.
>
> It's something that I have long left behind.
>
> But it is important that it is dealt with, and of course
> one of the problems is that history, as Keith himself
> has argued, to some extent gave up empirical sort of
> research.
>
> So no-one bothered to go on with this sort of work.
Reynolds has no problems with the continuing rigorous debate,
he began his career by helping to end 50 years of denial and
cover-up.
What he objects to is the SELECTIVE bias Windshuttle exhibits
(as with Rebecca who frankly admitted she chooses sources which
support
her bias);
"HENRY REYNOLDS:
The trouble is with Keith that anyone at all who suggests there was
killing on the frontier, he finds some reason he dredges up something
to try and discredit them.
He is acting as a defence counsel for the settlers and the Government.
Now that's alright.
I don't mind him doing that.
But it is a very selective way that anyone who stands up and says,
"They're killing blacks out there," he finds some reason to say, "No,
they can't be believed."
Whereas those who say there weren't any massacres he says, "These are
the people we should believe.""
>
> I.e., both Reynolds and Windschuttle are making the same complaint about
> the way Reynolds' pioneering overview of Qld frontier history was
> accepted so uncritically by the people he would normally have expected
> to debate it more rigorously at the time. Windschuttle, apparently, was
> the first credentialled historian with the means or the courage to make
> himself heard to take Reynolds' work beyond the level of uncritical cut
> and paste.
Either you can't read, or you can't comprehend, or you
are dishonest.
Reynolds did NOT say Windshuttle was the *first* to do
what he himself has done for 20 years, (and is *continuing*),
but that 'to some extent' empirical work fell into disuse.
ie, he is happy to have people do emperical work, encourages it,
but doesn't like Windshuffles SELECTIVE approach, which is readily
seen as bias and defence of the government (establishment) denial.
>
> I pointed out in a post in aus.politics years ago that Reynolds in his
> book 'Why Weren't We Told' was similarly appalled at the partisanship of
> those who tried to silence Geoffrey Blainey by simiilar methods a decade
> earlier.
Naturally, Reynolds is a serious scholar, with enormous integrity.
> I praised Reynolds for it at the time, and I continue to
> appreciate what he did towards helping fill that gap in our history you
> just made such a show of complaining about.
Thanks Nev, I believe in making positive contributions to
understanding, perhaps you might like to try and do the same
instead of distorting Reynolds and pretending he endorses
Windshuttles selective historiography!
> Reynolds was only trying to
> fill in the gaps in Queensland's history like we were paying him to when
> we set up a university with a history dept in Townsville. Queenslanders
> have always resented how all the history books get written by Victorians
That sounds just like you, resent the work of others rather than
DO YOUR OWN to try and catch up!
> who have yet to discover Queensland exists except as a spittoon for
> things they can't say about other Victorians for fear of being socially
> ostracised or sued.
would you like a tissue? violin music?
Beattie doesn't bleat like you, so not all Queenslanders can be
feeble whiners.
>
> (a la:
> "You look after my grant, and I'll look after yours.
> Blame it all on Queensland, the money will be ours."
you are slipping into la la land again...
"earth calling Nev, ...Earth calling nev!"
>
> We can understand YOUR objections to what it now appears you and Seppo
> have known about all along, but have tried to keep quiet about until
> someone else stumbled on it.
uh oh, Nevs in orbit! B^D
"Keith is telling me and telling your viewers the way I do history.
Keith doesn't know how I do history.
He never bothered to ask me.
He has read an article I wrote about 25 years ago, or 20 years ago and
makes assumptions about how it was put together.
And most of those assumptions are wrong "
(sounds exactly like Nev! B^)
> Then you come in ranting and raving in your
> usual style to 'defend our freedom of speech' as you shout down anyone
> other than yourselves who tries to keep talking after you've arrived.
I came in doing what you all pretended to praise windshuttle for,
I QUOTED PRIMARY SOURCES, WITH FULL CITATIONS.
where's yours? I see only your misrepresentation of an ABC
transcript,
and these 'projections' where you claim to interpret the MOTIVES
of others.
Poor Windshuffle, one of his acolytes can only cut and past his sacred
scriptures, others merely add their delirious joy at having their
prejudices
supported by a real live academic, some like Rebecca admit to adopting
his selective partisan style, and Nev just 'channels' the vibes from
the only people who show some knowledge of the evidence! B^D
>
> You are a disgrace to your profession,
You don't even know what it is, you big slandering sook.
> and a manace to anyone else
> trying to converse freely and openly with their peers on the Internet.
Says the suypporter of giving Nod Lithium control over free speech!
B^D
What did Che famously impale you with? Oh yes, YOUR OWN WORDS:
"True Blue Australians believe in free speech,
hence the newsgroup is unmoderated. "
- The Townsville Taliban's 'Sacred Creed'
They mouth the words, but betray the deed
Oh, I forgot the citation: THE GENUINE, ORIGINAL, OFFICIAL
aus.culture.true-blue FAQ at the NG website
http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/
Its where peopel find out the TRUTH about you lying hypocrites.
I knew when I quoted primary citations that none of you
Taliban hypocrites would be able to rise above Windshuffle style
character atttacks.
Fine, leave the field to the genuine historians, you clearly
lack the requisite integrity and rigour;
___________________
HENRY REYNOLDS: I am quite convinced, after the work I've done, that
my estimate of 20,000 Aborigines killed on the frontier will be borne
out.
I have no doubt about it.
I don't think 20,000 is the precise figure.
It may have been a little less or a little more.
But there was substantial killing as you would expect as settlers came
into Aboriginal country without any respect to their ownership or
traditions.
What else would we have expected.
_____________________
Ned Latham
in <9617651d.02032...@posting.google.com>:
>
> council;
> (a role Nev takes up as well)
>
> "HENRY REYNOLDS: The trouble is with Keith that anyone at all who
> suggests there was killing on the frontier, he finds some reason he
> dredges up something to try and discredit them.
>
> He is acting as a defence counsel for the settlers and the Government.
>
> Now that's alright.
>
> I don't mind him doing that.
>
> But it is a very selective way that anyone who stands up and says,
> "They're killing blacks out there," he finds some reason to say, "No,
> they can't be believed."
>
> Whereas those who say there weren't any massacres he says, "These are
> the people we should believe."" -
> http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/s277827.htm
And Winschuttle says "that's completely false. There was a Mile Creek
massacre where 28 innocent Aborigines were killed. You have to remember
that the rule of law on which British society was founded did operate
there and seven of those responsible were executed for the crime".
No "they can't be believed" there, Guano.
Seems you and Reynolds are alike: you both accuse others of your own
villainies, in this case "selective" use of the evidence to support
your aganda.
> That about sums up the SELECTIVE bias of Windshuttle,
ROTFL! You sure are a pathetic little snake, Guano.
Ned Latham
in <9617651d.02032...@posting.google.com>:
----snip----
> You mount a very good argument for Reynolds proposition that
> the Aboriginals, after a period, targeted the settlers economic base.
Yair, right. They'd been reading up on Reaganomics.
Get your hand off it, you trolling moron.
Ned Latham
in <9617651d.02032...@posting.google.com>:
----snip----
> You mount a very good argument for Reynolds proposition that
> the Aboriginals, after a period, targeted the settlers economic base.
Yair, right. They'd been reading up on Reaganomics.
Get your hand off it, you moronic troll.
Ned Latham
in <9617651d.02032...@posting.google.com>:
>
> response to every point?
You should stop doing it, Gunao. You're boring everyone.
Except yourself, maybe: but then, you're easily amused, aren't you?
Neville Duguid
> for him, and Ned, (well, ned can't even define the key terms, like
> establishment B^) and Nev, who gives us a textbook example of
> SELECTIVE distortion of the opponents position below.
What 'textbook' could possibly carry Windschuttle's POV under the
current 'rule-via-the-curriculum' academic regime?
Neville Duguid
> ____________________________________
>
> Now lets look at where Nev claims Reynolds credits windshuffle
> with 'starting' the debate that jones says is continuing, and
> Reynolds agrees he has been doing for 20 years! B^D
>
> >
> > From ABC LATELINE, 2001: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/s277827.htm
>
>
> Tony Jones:
>
> "..How important is it that this process of questioning historical
> truths continue that this debate continue in your opinion?
> ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
>
> >
> > HENRY REYNOLDS: I have absolutely no problem with this debate.
>
> Thats the CONTUINUING debate, Nev, you dolt.
>
> >
> > Some people say, shock horror how dare he.
> >
> > I don't say that at all.
> >
> > This is in my case this is work I did 20 years ago.
>
> Thats the debate Reynolds has ben CONTINUING for 20 years, Nev, you
> dolt,
> the one you claim Windshuttle has 'begun'
No, charlatan. It refers to the debate between Windschuttle and Reynolds
which Tony Jones was adjudicating in the transcript it was quoted from.
--
Neville Duguid * Talk sense to a fool and *
True Blue Aussie Web Site * he calls you foolish!! *
http://www.aussie-culture.net * - Euripides *
Neville Duguid
> nevi...@bigpond.net.au (Neville Duguid) wrote in message
> news:<1f9imjz.1vrivcta2auz6N%nevi...@bigpond.net.au>...
> > fasgnadh wrote:
> > >
> > > Windshuffle is merely re-asserting the Silence Howard
> > > and the political elites would prefer...
> >
> > Get your facts right, Peter. Here is what Henry Reynolds said to Tony
> > Jones on ABC LATELINE last year re Windschuttle's interest in his work:
>
> HENRY REYNOLDS: "The trouble is with Keith that anyone at all who
> suggests there was killing on the frontier, he finds some reason he
> dredges up something to try and discredit them.
>
> He is acting as a defence counsel for the settlers and the Government.
>
> Now that's alright.
>
> I don't mind him doing that.
>
> But it is a very selective way that anyone who stands up and says,
> "They're killing blacks out there," he finds some reason to say, "No,
> they can't be believed."
But that is clearly an exaggeration on Reynolds' part. I have just read
one of the Quadrant articles that I have been led to believe started the
fracas. In it, Windschuttle was merely questioning the accuracy of the
statistics employed (and the related use of emotive terms like
'massacre' in cases where 'killing' would have been the more objective
and appropriate term to use).
In it, Windschuttle questioned the numbers of Aboriginals estimated
killed being reproduced as fact in another book by a third author who
selectively chose the four examples that Windschuttle then proceeded to
reexamine in the light of alternative sources. One of them Windschuttle
calls a 'massacre' himself. The other three, he questions the
applicability of that word within the paramaters of the legalistic-based
preoccupations of today's crop of 'experts' on frontier settlement
(totally anachronistic IMV). I.e., were those responses to individual
cases of Aboriginals killing white people 'police' or 'military' in
style and scope? Considering that 'police' had not long been invented
(and by the country they accuse in other circumstances of trying to
impose its social innovations on the rest of the world), I find the
whole preoccupation with legal definitions by both historians rather
laughable in an Australian frontier situation, considering the common
understanding prevalent at the time among our ancestors that they had
just been granted self-government to supposedly make their own laws
tailored to their own unique local circumstances.
> Whereas those who say there weren't any massacres he says, "These are
> the people we should believe."
>
> and,
>
>
> "Keith is telling me and telling your viewers the way I do history.
>
> Keith doesn't know how I do history.
>
> He never bothered to ask me.
>
> He has read an article I wrote about 25 years ago, or 20 years ago and
> makes assumptions about how it was put together.
>
> And most of those assumptions are wrong "
Maybe Reynolds is discussing something both he and you know about, when
the rest of us don't know what he is referring to here? If it is
relevant to what we are discussing in this thread, it doesn't fit what I
have read written by Windschuttle himself. Windschuttle was criticising
the uncritical acceptance BY OTHERS of what Reynolds wrote, and their
tendency to exaggerate even that in a consistent and accumulative
manner. I.e., the same way that a rumour spreads, being exaggerated in
the process - something that would not have happened had the information
been handled by *real* professional historians rather than budding
writers using sensationalism to magnify their case and/or attract
attention to their own shot at becoming a best-selling writer to their
own socially engineered captive education market.
> (sounds exactly like Nev! B^)
Can't you leave the ad hom out of it? If the only way you can win an
argument is by associating someone you are trying to 'create' as a bad
guy with someone you have already previously 'reinvented' as one, then
why even bother with a pseudo-argument? Why not just keep repeating
what colour hat you have redesigned him to wear, as in: 'Neville is
known to have lived in the same state as Windschuttle is suspected of
once visiting. That makes him an imperialistic everything-else-istic
'anglophile' too. WAIL! HOWL! How could any human being show such
flagrant disrespect for the sacred universal traditions of Magna
Carta...
> >
> > Ref: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/s277827.htm
> >
> >
>
> Lets help Nev understand the question he quotes Reynolds as answering;
> (so he can't lie about it any more ;-)
>
>
> TONY JONES: Henry Reynolds you've said Keith Windschuttle is like a
> Holocaust denier but his questioning of the established orthodoxy does
> indicate some courage.
Again, you are reporting what someone else said about Windschuttle. In
order to hang the guy you have to base it on what he, and not his
accuser, has said. That is the very basis of your general technique in
these newsgroups. You, or a crony, accuse people of things they have
never said nor done, then you quote your own accusations as your mob's
'evidence' (really just more accusations) or 'proof'. All you are doing
is 'painting' people the colour you want them so you can attack them for
supposedly 'being' that colour!
I can well understand why you fear Windschuttle. He is into exposing
such dishonest tactics of historical charlatanship.
> How important is it that this process of questioning historical truths
> continue that this debate continue in your opinion?
>
>
> > HENRY REYNOLDS: I have absolutely no problem with this debate.
> >
> > Some people say, shock horror how dare he.
> >
> > I don't say that at all.
> >
> > This is in my case this is work I did 20 years ago.
> >
> > It's something that I have long left behind.
> >
> > But it is important that it is dealt with, and of course
> > one of the problems is that history, as Keith himself
> > has argued, to some extent gave up empirical sort of
> > research.
> >
> > So no-one bothered to go on with this sort of work.
>
> Reynolds has no problems with the continuing rigorous debate,
> he began his career by helping to end 50 years of denial and
> cover-up.
>
> What he objects to is the SELECTIVE bias Windshuttle exhibits
> (as with Rebecca who frankly admitted she chooses sources which
> support
> her bias);
Windschuttle was not attacking Reynolds' own work so much as the
uncritical acceptance (and often selective exaggeration) by others
passing themselves off as 'historians'. In both Windschuttle's and
Reynolds' view those mindless replicators were bypassing a necessary
process to establishing 'history'. One book and endless repetition of it
might be ok for a Bible or a Koran, but history does not become
'history' except by being subjected to a process of critical dissection,
probing and review by other historians.
> "HENRY REYNOLDS:
>
> The trouble is with Keith that anyone at all who suggests there was
> killing on the frontier, he finds some reason he dredges up something
> to try and discredit them.
>
> He is acting as a defence counsel for the settlers and the Government.
>
> Now that's alright.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (and fully in accord with what I have just said
above)
> I don't mind him doing that.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ nb!
> But it is a very selective way that anyone who stands up and says,
> "They're killing blacks out there," he finds some reason to say, "No,
> they can't be believed."
>
> Whereas those who say there weren't any massacres he says, "These are
> the people we should believe.""
You have just quoted Reynolds casting Windschuttle as his own devil's
advocate and not objecting to it. And here you quote him objecting to it
in ostensibly the same passage. Either you are quoting Reynolds out of
context, or he himself is not being consistent, or explaining himself
inadequately.
> > I.e., both Reynolds and Windschuttle are making the same complaint about
> > the way Reynolds' pioneering overview of Qld frontier history was
> > accepted so uncritically by the people he would normally have expected
> > to debate it more rigorously at the time. Windschuttle, apparently, was
> > the first credentialled historian with the means or the courage to make
> > himself heard to take Reynolds' work beyond the level of uncritical cut
> > and paste.
>
> Either you can't read, or you can't comprehend, or you
> are dishonest.
>
> Reynolds did NOT say Windshuttle was the *first* to do
> what he himself has done for 20 years, (and is *continuing*),
> but that 'to some extent' empirical work fell into disuse.
>
> ie, he is happy to have people do emperical work, encourages it,
> but doesn't like Windshuffles SELECTIVE approach, which is readily
> seen as bias and defence of the government (establishment) denial.
IIRC (ref back to Quadrant articles which started it) Windschuttle was
criticising the people who uncritically accepted Reynolds'
investigations as established history. (That included overseas
encyclopedias BTW). The only direct criticism he made of Reynolds was
wrt his estimates of the *total numbers* of aboriginals killed, and the
use of formulas to 'calculate' how many of that total had been killed in
various specific instances. The use of formulae he found to have become
circular by derivative 'historians'. In other words people were using
the output of Reynolds tentative formula as if it had the status of
real-world data, for basing their own derivative estimates and formulae
on. Such might have been valid within Reynolds' work itself (where the
derivation of his formulae and his reliance on educated guesses were
clearly explained) but not when other people begin repeating the results
as historical fact without even mentioning the speculative unproven
nature of those estimates.
Anyway, I have no intention of getting into a long convoluted argument
about that. If anyone really wants to know, they can investigate it
first hand by reading Windschuttle and Reynolds themselves.
> > I pointed out in a post in aus.politics years ago that Reynolds in his
> > book 'Why Weren't We Told' was similarly appalled at the partisanship of
> > those who tried to silence Geoffrey Blainey by simiilar methods a decade
> > earlier.
>
> Naturally, Reynolds is a serious scholar, with enormous integrity.
>
> > I praised Reynolds for it at the time, and I continue to
> > appreciate what he did towards helping fill that gap in our history you
> > just made such a show of complaining about.
>
> Thanks Nev, I believe in making positive contributions to
> understanding, perhaps you might like to try and do the same
> instead of distorting Reynolds and pretending he endorses
> Windshuttles selective historiography!
The way I understand it, both Windschuttle and those he criticised came
AFTER Reynolds in the historiography (if we exclude Windschuttle's
criticism of Reynolds' formula generation methods). Windschuttle at
least has proffered a tentative alternative historiography. Those he
criticised, he was partly criticising for failing to have bothered
providing alternative histiographies of their own!
> > Reynolds was only trying to
> > fill in the gaps in Queensland's history like we were paying him to when
> > we set up a university with a history dept in Townsville. Queenslanders
> > have always resented how all the history books get written by Victorians
>
> That sounds just like you, resent the work of others rather than
> DO YOUR OWN to try and catch up!
[...]
[ COMMENTING HENRY REYNOLDS to 'fasgnadh':
> ___________________
>
> HENRY REYNOLDS: I am quite convinced, after the work I've done, that
> my estimate of 20,000 Aborigines killed on the frontier will be borne
> out.
So far the only way it has been borne out is the same way that "Jesus
rose on the Third Day of Easter" has been borne out - by endless
assertion and repetition.
That may be the basis of religion, but not history. Or at least not the
way real Aussie historians practice history.
> I have no doubt about it.
>
> I don't think 20,000 is the precise figure.
>
> It may have been a little less or a little more.
It's a working estimate. I am prepared to accept it tentatively (in
spite of its anti-Qld bias) until the estimate is refined as a result of
further feedback from historians who investigate it further.
I have recently been looking at some pre-Independence history of
colonial USA (before it became the USA). I am amazed at the amount of
time and effort historians over there have put into scientifically
verifying battles between rival colonies like Virgina and ..... which
the rest of the world have never even heard about. They don't just
guesstimate, they sift the ground of the battlefields with the
thoroughness of a murder investigation, and chart where they found each
bullet and arrowhead. In the end they are able to reconstruct the entire
battle using hard physical evidence. Australia, like America, had as
much of its history before Independence (Federation in our case)
as it has had since, and our 'life in the womb' phase is really no one's
business but our own. To the rest of the world it is just theme park
set-dressing, but not to us locals who have a right to know as long as
we are capable of paying someone to research it for us, or have the
time, inclination, skill and honesty to voluntarily research it
ourselves.
If we are just going to make up stories about our own supposed history
for conning tourists, why not go the whole hog to maximise
sensationalism, and write Martians into it as well?
I, like Windschuttle would prefer methodical scholars dedicated to
uncovering the truth in as professional a manner as the technology of
our times will allow. If it was just your own family's history you were
paying some 'expert' to uncover, would you be satisfied with whatever
fiction he was capable of inventing off the top of his head? Or, like
me, would you insist he do the job you were paying him to do properly?
> But there was substantial killing as you would expect as settlers came
> into Aboriginal country without any respect to their ownership or
> traditions.
>
> What else would we have expected.
That's right. Ask anyone else the same question. How did the Franks
establish themselves in France, or the Lombards in Lombardy? How did
the Turks come to occupy Turkey, and the Bantu South Africa? (without
conveniently disregarding the memory of those Hottentots and Bushmn who
preceded them in that area.)
Trying to make out we were somehow different from everyone else in
acquiring our homeland by means other than serenading the previous
inhabitants, has to be the biggest con-job of the age we now find
ourselves living in.
> _____________________
fasgnadh
interested in a serious discussion of the issues, there
was considerable huffing and puffing about 'citations'
and 'serious historical study' (there was even favourable
comment about the in-House Academic B^) but I see no
intelligent response to My Country other than idiotic
vilification (just what I accused the Windshuttle
revisionists of practising), not one citation in any
of Neds posts, just venom and bile. And this example
from Nev, based entirely on his partial quotes from
Lateline does little to explore the issues:
Nevi...@bigpond.net.au (Neville Duguid) wrote in message news:<1f9k2an.1dvlavx1giz01nN%nevi...@bigpond.net.au>...
> fasgnadh <fasg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ____________________________________
> >
> > Now lets look at where Nev claims Reynolds credits windshuffle
> > with 'starting' the debate that jones says is continuing, and
> > Reynolds agrees he has been doing for 20 years! B^D
> >
> > >
> > > From ABC LATELINE, 2001: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/s277827.htm
> >
> >
> > Tony Jones:
> >
> > "..How important is it that this process of questioning historical
> > truths continue that this debate continue in your opinion?
> > ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > >
> > > HENRY REYNOLDS: I have absolutely no problem with this debate.
> >
> > Thats the CONTUINUING debate, Nev, you dolt.
> >
> > >
> > > Some people say, shock horror how dare he.
> > >
> > > I don't say that at all.
> > >
> > > This is in my case this is work I did 20 years ago.
> >
> > Thats the debate Reynolds has ben CONTINUING for 20 years, Nev, you
> > dolt,
> > the one you claim Windshuttle has 'begun'
>
> No, charlatan. It refers to the debate between Windschuttle and Reynolds
> which Tony Jones was adjudicating in the transcript it was quoted from.
How can 'the debate' refer to the Lateline program itself when Reynolds
refers to it saying:
**this is work I did 20 years ago**!!!!
Are you now claiming Reynolds thinks that Lateline
has been going for 20 years? B^p
Neville, you began by snipping Tony Jones question
(which I have included to provide the essential context)
and asserting that
"as Reynolds himself told LATELINE last year, he is
still waiting for that essential debate to occur. "
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Now you are trying to tell us that the 'debate' referred to
is the one they were having on lateline!
'Still waiting' for the debate he was having right then on TV(?),
and which he claims he did 20 years ago?????????????????
I don't think you have that right, Neville.
You also claimed that Reynolds
"acknowledges that Windschuttle is
the first historian with enough courage to have a crack at it"
When he clearly claims to have been doing that work for 20 YEARS.
You have misread, or misrepresented, Reynolds views.
I agree with you that he welcomes Windshuttles critical
analysis, and wants to encourage empirical research
in the study of History, as any serious historian would,
in return I ask you to note that he in no way endorses
Windshuttles conclusions, and still stands by his now
20 year old assessment of some 20,000 aboriginal deaths.
I personally do not regard the quantum as the significant
issue, and certainly do not intend to spend months in the sort
of "Is".. "Is Not"... "IS"... "IS NOT".. bunfight that Ned
(and it seems, Windshuttle), think passes for an understanding
of Australian history.
I suggest you reflect on the patent absurdity of claiming
that reynolds was telling us on lateline that he was waiting
for the Lateline debate to occur, while having it, and having been
doing it for 20 years! B^p
Now, the truth is simple. The 'continuing debate' is the
one over historical accuracy, particularly relating to aboriginal
deaths. Reynolds has been dealing with it for over 20 years,
he has no problem with Windschuttle continuing to do so.
It is the essence of Windshuttles attack upon Reynolds.
One which he prosecutes in much the same dubious manner
as Rebecca, by denigrating a well researched and scholarly
estimate as "A guess".
It will not be resolved in the next 20 years.
You don't help by being confused .
Please go back, read what you first posted, what you
have just posted, and consider how you can resolve
the contradiction.
You have already moved so far from any significant issue,
I will not go round and round with you over inanity.
You have a longer, more thoughtful post which I will respond to
in a few days, my schedule is very busy.
Your mate Ned is nothing but rabid noise and will be ignored until
he posts something of substance.
I note neither he nor Rebecca feel confident enough of their
theories to venture a definition of Neds Key Concept, 'the Establishment'.
I will deal with that presently as well.
________Begin Nevs contradictory transcript _________________
From: Neville Duguid (nevi...@bigpond.net.au)
Subject: Re: Keith Windschuttle: Doctored evidence in Aboriginal historiography
Newsgroups: aus.culture.true-blue, aus.history
View this article only
Date: 2002-03-23 07:16:31 PST
fasgnadh <fasg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps you might, but real historians like Reynolds make
> estimates based on research. As long as they are identified as
> estimates, and the methodology is both transparent(known) and
> rigorous (sound) then everyone knows where that stand.
> Discussion conducted with integrity then proceeds to critically
> examin the estimates, question the methodology in detail,
> or the underpinning data, and suggest how the estimate should be
> varied, or propose new ones.
> Then there are the politically motivated who are just looking to
> push their own bias and prejudices, they compare it to ill-informed
> guesses, which is their familiar home turf, and cast aspersions. B^p
EXCEPT, as Reynolds himself told LATELINE last year, he is still waiting
for that essential debate to occur. He acknowledges that Windschuttle is
the first historian with enough courage to have a crack at it:
_______ End Nevs contradictory transcript ________
" No, charlatan. It refers to the debate between Windschuttle and Reynolds
which Tony Jones was adjudicating in the transcript it was quoted from."
- also Nev
'Still waiting', 'currently having', 'doing for 20 years'
Think about it, Nev.
fasgnadh
> Peter Wicks (aka "Che Guava"), posting as "fasgnadh", wrote
> in <9617651d.02032...@posting.google.com>:
>
> ----snip----
>
> > You mount a very good argument for Reynolds proposition that
> > the Aboriginals, after a period, targeted the settlers economic base.
>
> Yair, right. They'd been reading up on Reaganomics.
" During the last four or five years the human life and property
destroyed by the aboriginals in the North totals up to a serious amount..
settlement on the land, and the development of the mineral and
other resources of the country, have been in a great degree
prohibited by the hostility of the blacks, which still continues
with undiminished spirit." - Queenslander 15 Feb 1879
>
> Get your hand off it, you trolling moron.
Ned, just because the evidence for serious guerrilla
activity by indigenous groups resisting encroachment
of their lands shows you to be, once again, raving,
is no reason to lapse into your usual dummy spit.
>
> ----snip----
>
> Ned
Ned has left the field in disgrace, unable to mount
a single sensible point in rebuttal, no citations,
no ability to discuss History in any meaningful way,
mere idiotic abuse.
Why would any people who understand the role of
animals as food need to read 'Reagonomics' in order
to strike at the settlers livestock?
And why, in all his hysterical adolescent spleen does Ned
continue to ignore the killing of shepherds?
His attempts to trivialise the conflicts which are
clearly and comprehensively documented is absurd,
and he has demonstrated his inability to rationally
discuss ealy Australian, or Ancient Greek, history.
You mount a very good argument for Reynolds proposition that
the Aboriginals, after a period, targeted the settlers economic base.
> Another interesting account from the Geelong Advertiser of the same period
Ned Latham
----snip----
> I see no
> intelligent response to My Country
That's because you haven't got the wherewithal to recognise
intelligence.
> other than idiotic
> vilification (just what I accused the Windshuttle
> revisionists of practising), not one citation in any
> of Neds posts, just venom and bile.
Guano's lying again. Gosh, wadda surprise. You wanna explain
how my message <slrna9r8rk....@arthur.valhalla.net.oz>
is "venom and bile", you lying skank?
> * Something interesting at last, Guano. Who do you suppose those
> * English-speaking Aborigines "foreign to the district" were?
That's the what I wrote, you scumbucket. Do free free to show us
your "reasoning".
> And this example
> from Nev, based entirely on his partial quotes from
> Lateline does little to explore the issues:
It does what's necessary.
----snip----
> > No, charlatan. It refers to the debate between Windschuttle and
> > Reynolds which Tony Jones was adjudicating in the transcript it
> > was quoted from.
That's quite sufficient for dealing with the issues raised by your
posting habits.
----snip----
> Your mate Ned is nothing but rabid noise and will be ignored until
> he posts something of substance.
Translation: Guano can't handle having his lies and other bullshit
contested.
Ned Latham
in <9617651d.02032...@posting.google.com>:
> > Peter Wicks (aka "Che Guava"), posting as "fasgnadh", wrote
> >
> >
> > > You mount a very good argument for Reynolds proposition that
> > > the Aboriginals, after a period, targeted the settlers economic base.
> >
> > Yair, right. They'd been reading up on Reaganomics.
>
> "During the last four or five years the human life and property
> destroyed by the aboriginals in the North totals up to a serious
> amount..
> settlement on the land, and the development of the mineral and
> other resources of the country, have been in a great degree
> prohibited by the hostility of the blacks, which still continues
> with undiminished spirit." - Queenslander 15 Feb 1879
Let me guess, Guano. You're now saying that there was good reason for
all those "massacres" that you black-armband junkies alledge?
> > Get your hand off it, you trolling moron.
>
> Ned, just because the evidence for serious guerrilla activity
Piffle. The exaggerations of a few get-even-richer-real-quick squatters
are evidence of nothing but their own greed.
----snip----
> Why would any people who understand the role of
> animals as food need to read 'Reagonomics' in order
> to strike at the settlers livestock?
BWAHAHAHAHA! You moron!
Ned Latham
in <9617651d.02032...@posting.google.com>:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> >
> > ----snip----
> >
> > > You have told us who the 'tools' are, but who is the
> > > 'establishment'?
> >
> > Check the tattoo on your forehead, Guano. It's a clue
> > to your master's identity.
>
> Clearly Ned has no idea who 'the Establishment' is,
Clearly Guano's pretending he doesn't see what I mean.
Oh yes: Stupid Troll Trick 12.
> that must be why he uses the term all the time! =*=
ROTFL! He's speculating, folks. I'm pretty sure I didn't use the
term at all on the 23rd of April 1951.
> He's playing his little private game of call people guano! =*=
Just one person, Guano.
> Anyone else like to answer the question?
Oh, why be bashful, Guano? Why not just point us to your
little lesson on social classes for "Grabes" in message
<9617651d.0203...@posting.google.com>?
> Ladies first?
Or you could tell us who you were referring to in message
<9617651d.02031...@posting.google.com>:
* It's amazing how easily the establishment can turn the small minded
* against those who are even worse off than them, the classic
* One Nation scapegoatism. And it is this divisiveness which
* has enabled he ruling class to run right over you.
So why are you asking, Guano? Don't you know who you were talking
about? Or is it just that you were out to lunch, and the above
was written by one of the Voices in your head?
<chuckle> They sure have got you running around in circles, ay.
> Or can us genuine true-blues lead the way? =*=
You are neither True Blue nor capable of leading, Guano. You're a
liar, a braggart, a coward, and an abuser of women; an establishment
flunky and toady: a follower.
Neville Duguid
> How can 'the debate' refer to the Lateline program itself when Reynolds
> refers to it saying:
>
> **this is work I did 20 years ago**!!!!
>
> Are you now claiming Reynolds thinks that Lateline
> has been going for 20 years? B^p
>
> Neville, you began by snipping Tony Jones question
> (which I have included to provide the essential context)
> and asserting that
>
> "as Reynolds himself told LATELINE last year, he is
> still waiting for that essential debate to occur. "
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Reynolds claimed that his work in that field was 20 years IN THE PAST.
(I.e., it had concluded 20 years ago until Windschuttle took a closer
look at his work quite recently). Thus any 'debate' Reynolds was
referring to in the present could not have spanned the intervening 20
years. So, whatever debate he is referring to cannot be earlier than the
one kicked off by Windschuttle's Quadrant articles at the end of 2000.
If you used that date as your starting point you might have a case.
See the second quoted Reynolds' which you yourself quoted above.
--
Neville Duguid * "To see what is in front of one's nose *
True Blue Aussie Web Site * needs a constant struggle." *
http://www.aussie-culture.net * - George Orwell. *
fasgnadh
We have all seen that your limited skills at accurately roporting
the text of others, let alone analysing it, means you cant
be trusted, and the source materials you refer to must be
examinable.
nevi...@bigpond.net.au (Neville Duguid) wrote in message news:<1f9jxms.1oob70iay0cxsN%nevi...@bigpond.net.au>...
> fasgnadh <fasg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > nevi...@bigpond.net.au (Neville Duguid) wrote in message
> > news:<1f9imjz.1vrivcta2auz6N%nevi...@bigpond.net.au>...
> > > fasgnadh wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Windshuffle is merely re-asserting the Silence Howard
> > > > and the political elites would prefer...
> > >
> > > Get your facts right, Peter. Here is what Henry Reynolds said to Tony
> > > Jones on ABC LATELINE last year re Windschuttle's interest in his work:
> >
> > HENRY REYNOLDS: "The trouble is with Keith that anyone at all who
> > suggests there was killing on the frontier, he finds some reason he
> > dredges up something to try and discredit them.
> >
> > He is acting as a defence counsel for the settlers and the Government.
> >
> > Now that's alright.
> >
> > I don't mind him doing that.
> >
> > But it is a very selective way that anyone who stands up and says,
> > "They're killing blacks out there," he finds some reason to say, "No,
> > they can't be believed."
>
> But that is clearly an exaggeration on Reynolds' part. I have just read
> one of the Quadrant articles that I have been led to believe started the
> fracas. In it, Windschuttle was merely questioning the accuracy of the
> statistics employed (and the related use of emotive terms like
> 'massacre' in cases where 'killing' would have been the more objective
> and appropriate term to use).
And that is the problem with peoiple like Windshuffle and Ned
who like to play semantic games and avoid reality:
"In 1967 the head stockman at Forest River was Ronald Woodland,
an ex-policeman who had served in the Kimberly - "They asked me
if I could ride and shoot. I said "Yes", and I was in. Woodland
was born and raised in the east Kimberley June 1926 fourteen people,
led by two young police constables,
rode onto the
"In 1967 the head stockman at Forrest River was Ronald Woodland, an
ex- policeman who had served in the Kimberley -'They asked me if I
could ride and shoot. I said "Yes," and I was in. Woodland was born
and raised in the east Kimberley. His father, Tom, had worked stock
for the Durack family and later made a great success of Moola Bulla,
the government station for Aborigines near Halls Creek.
'Was there any truth in the Aboriginal claims of massacres on the
reserve?' I asked one day as the stockman sat on our porch.
He thought for a long while and replied, 'Some things should be left
alone.'
'But were there massacres on this side of the Gulf?' I persisted. His
response was reluctant. 'There were blackfellas shot in this area in
1922 and more in 1926. When I take the cattle around to Wyndham in a
few months time I'll photograph a cairn on the Durack River that marks
the site of tne massacre. Would that make you happy?'
'You must realise,' he continued, 'that times were different then, and
police methods were not always carried out by the book.
.....
There seemed no doubt that the Forrest River massacres were not mere
rumours -and that the killing of Aborigines in the north Kimberley was
more widespread than I ever realised. "
- Neville Green, The Forrest Rive Massacres
Freemantle Arts Centre Press, 1995, p 16
> In it, Windschuttle questioned the numbers of Aboriginals estimated
> killed being reproduced as fact in another book by a third author
The same sci-fi book from which Ned gets his terminology? B^D
How could anyone tell, you hide the source from scrutiny!
Perhaps you just invented it, Like Ned did Larry Cook?
> who
> selectively chose the four examples that Windschuttle then proceeded to
> reexamine in the light of alternative sources. One of them Windschuttle
> calls a 'massacre' himself. The other three, he questions the
> applicability of that word
Ronald Woodland, Reverend Ernest Gribble, et al confirm that there
were more than the ONE you and Windshuffle have acknowledged.
And that is just one stockman an cleric in ONE area who's
testimony dares to refute Windshuffles PC on behalf of the
Howard government deniers, (people whose integrity is revealed
by Truth Overboard, Hollingsworthless, Reith and Heffernan).
Clearly Windshuffles tactic of acknowledging *only one*
token massacre, and redefining others as mere 'killings'
is not shared by people on the ground.
And we haven't even begun to look at Myall Creek,
or the Faithful massacre which followed the massacre
of convict servants, or this one:
"Early in March, 1840 Aboriginals raided the Whyte brothers'
run near Coleraine, taking more than 100 sheep. In retaliation
the Whytes and their men admitted, they killed more than thirty
blacks in a two hour battle"
- Michael Cannon, Who Killed the Koories
Heinemann, Vic 1990, p 49
A "battle" over Sheep??? Sounds like the guerrilla warfare
was a serious concern to the settlers,
And most sportsmen would describe any uneven contest
between spears and firearms as a massacre.
But so long as the facts are acknowledged, we will leave it
to the petty tools of the establishment revisionists to
quibble over the semantics. B^p
We have not even begun to touch on the massacres documented
by primary sources... of blacks by whites, and whites by
blacks. But of course the Politically Correct want to
sanitise our history for their politicla purposes.
And it is the survey of all those hundreds of accounts on
which Reynolds bases his ESTIMATE!
Find some citations of REAL Historical work, and get back to me.
Ned Latham
in <9617651d.0203...@posting.google.com>:
----snip----
> And that is the problem with peoiple like Windshuffle and Ned
> who like to play semantic games and avoid reality:
You misspelt "expose the semantic bullshit employed by black-armband
propagandists", moron.
----snip----
fasgnadh
evidence.
What can you expect from Townsville Taliban Liars and
hypocrites who proclaim their support of true-blue free speech
and then try and curb it!
nevi...@bigpond.net.au (Neville Duguid) wrote in message news:<1f9ktbc.1cjkhc01glccslN%nevi...@bigpond.net.au>...
> fasgnadh <fasg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > How can 'the debate' refer to the Lateline program itself when Reynolds
> > refers to it saying:
> >
> > **this is work I did 20 years ago**!!!!
> >
> > Are you now claiming Reynolds thinks that Lateline
> > has been going for 20 years? B^p
> >
> > Neville, you began by snipping Tony Jones question
> > (which I have included to provide the essential context)
> > and asserting that
> >
> > "as Reynolds himself told LATELINE last year, he is
> > still waiting for that essential debate to occur. "
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Reynolds claimed that his work in that field was 20 years IN THE PAST.
> (I.e., it had concluded 20 years ago until Windschuttle took a closer
> look at his work quite recently). Thus any 'debate' Reynolds was
> referring to in the present could not have
..nominated Windshuffle as "the first historian with enough
courage to have a crack at it" as you have claimed. B^p
Your dishonesty in this matter is now complete, and
cannot be described as 'misunderstanding'.
It is now seen for what it is, misrepresentation,
and proof that no one should take your word on anything
without checking the citations (which is why you
typically provide none.)
"EXCEPT, as Reynolds himself told LATELINE last year, he is still waiting
for that essential debate to occur. He acknowledges that Windschuttle is
the first historian with enough courage to have a crack at it:"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How could Windshuffle be the FIRST as you claim, if Reynolds was!? B^p
Sort yourself out, you madman.
> spanned the intervening 20
> years. So, whatever debate he is referring to cannot be earlier than the
> one kicked off by Windschuttle's Quadrant articles at the end of 2000.
> If you used that date as your starting point you might have a case.
>
> See the second quoted Reynolds' which you yourself quoted above.
No Nev, you have to see ALL the quotes, to understand ALL of
the misrepresentaions you have successively made.
You are not capable of serious debate.
Neville Duguid
> No citations?
>
> We have all seen that your limited skills at accurately roporting
> the text of others, let alone analysing it, means you cant
> be trusted, and the source materials you refer to must be
> examinable.
That is a demonstrably accurate description of *your own* accuracy and
total lack of analysis of text you gratuitously "report" below.
All you are doing here is exactly what Windschuttle complained about at
the outset. You are mindlessly selecting text based on its usefulness at
maximising body count - neither knowing nor caring if the same bodies
are being counted over and over again. The overall effect is to give an
impression of an uninterrupted killing spree that doesn't end until
you've reached the count you are trying to 'prove'.
You should work as a salesman for the Lottery. I am sure you would have
no trouble 'demonstrating' that every ticket ever purchased has always
won first prize!
Are you sure you are not making these 'quotes' up? Your first attempt
(above) deviates from the second (below):
> "In 1967 the head stockman at Forrest River was Ronald Woodland, an
> ex- policeman who had served in the Kimberley -'They asked me if I
> could ride and shoot. I said "Yes," and I was in. Woodland was born
> and raised in the east Kimberley. His father, Tom, had worked stock
> for the Durack family and later made a great success of Moola Bulla,
> the government station for Aborigines near Halls Creek.
> 'Was there any truth in the Aboriginal claims of massacres on the
> reserve?' I asked one day as the stockman sat on our porch.
> He thought for a long while and replied, 'Some things should be left
> alone.'
> 'But were there massacres on this side of the Gulf?' I persisted. His
> response was reluctant. 'There were blackfellas shot in this area in
> 1922 and more in 1926. When I take the cattle around to Wyndham in a
> few months time I'll photograph a cairn on the Durack River that marks
> the site of tne massacre. Would that make you happy?'
> 'You must realise,' he continued, 'that times were different then, and
> police methods were not always carried out by the book.
> .....
> There seemed no doubt that the Forrest River massacres were not mere
> rumours -and that the killing of Aborigines in the north Kimberley was
> more widespread than I ever realised. "
>
> - Neville Green, The Forrest Rive Massacres
> Freemantle Arts Centre Press, 1995, p 16
So? IIRC Neville Green was one of the authors already taken into account
by Windschuttle.
You neither reported it "accurately" (since the first copy doesn't match
the second) not do you even start to "analyse" it. Therefore, by your
own opening criteria as stated above, you "can't be trusted".
>
> > In it, Windschuttle questioned the numbers of Aboriginals estimated
> > killed being reproduced as fact in another book by a third author
>
> The same sci-fi book from which Ned gets his terminology? B^D
>
> How could anyone tell, you hide the source from scrutiny!
>
> Perhaps you just invented it, Like Ned did Larry Cook?
>
> > who
> > selectively chose the four examples that Windschuttle then proceeded to
> > reexamine in the light of alternative sources. One of them Windschuttle
> > calls a 'massacre' himself. The other three, he questions the
> > applicability of that word
>
> Ronald Woodland, Reverend Ernest Gribble, et al confirm that there
> were more than the ONE you and Windshuffle have acknowledged.
>
> And that is just one stockman an cleric in ONE area who's
> testimony dares to refute Windshuffles PC on behalf of the
> Howard government deniers, (people whose integrity is revealed
> by Truth Overboard, Hollingsworthless, Reith and Heffernan).
It is not the existence of historical records, but the selectivity in
choosing which ones to believe when they contradict each other that
Windschuttle was talking about. You did not give your reasons for
choosing the ones you choose. They can't support your argument if you
don't even have an argument. You couldn't have illustrated
Windschuttle's point any better if you tried.
> Clearly Windshuffles tactic of acknowledging *only one*
> token massacre, and redefining others as mere 'killings'
> is not shared by people on the ground.
>
> And we haven't even begun to look at Myall Creek,
> or the Faithful massacre which followed the massacre
> of convict servants, or this one:
As already pointed out, Windschuttle took a second more detailed look at
four examples chosen by the specific author whose own selection of those
incidents he was questioning.
> "Early in March, 1840 Aboriginals raided the Whyte brothers'
> run near Coleraine, taking more than 100 sheep. In retaliation
> the Whytes and their men admitted, they killed more than thirty
> blacks in a two hour battle"
> - Michael Cannon, Who Killed the Koories
> Heinemann, Vic 1990, p 49
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Anyone can create the same sort of overall impression
by going through the homocide files. (There's an idea for your next
book, Guano. A collage of frontier violence incidents pre-sorted in
descending order of numbers killed, using maximum 'estimates' of course,
to save your fellow 'historians' the trouble of scanning through the
text looking for whatever totals they want). If I were like you, I could
have already pointed out that not only was Henry Reynolds born in
Tasmania where they "genocided" ALL their Aborigines (implying he moved
to Townsville looking for more), but he returned to Tassie of his own
volition not long after finding out about fellow Tasmanian Martin
Bryants record-breaking revival of the 'old ways' at Port Arthur...
Cheap shots, Guava. Anyone can do it. The difference is that decent
people don't.
> A "battle" over Sheep??? Sounds like the guerrilla warfare
> was a serious concern to the settlers,
>
> And most sportsmen would describe any uneven contest
> between spears and firearms as a massacre.
Didn't the full report speak of the Aborigines waving their spears and
taunting the white men to 'have a go'? That is warfare regardless of how
foolish or ill advised they were in calling for it.
You forget that it was standard practice in warfare in those days to
follow up breaking any enemy's formation by pursuing them. Look up any
of your kids' encyclopedias and find out what the ubiquitous 'lancers'
were for. Your revisionist idea of 'history' is so cynical, and
deliberately relies on perpetuating the ignorance of those you pretend
to teach. You, in effect, take a bunch of schoolkids or uni students,
teach them that white people were 'murderers' or 'racists' for failing
to have taken your own postgrad course 100 years before you and your
social engineering mates dreamed it up over their communal hookah. ALL
warfare in those days was based on the destruction of as many of the
enemy as possible once their formation had been broken. Including white
man vs white man, and many of those men were veterans of the Napoleonic
Wars. You are criticising them for not practicing 'reverse
discrimination' 100 years before you first dreamed it up!
Your attempts to condemn semi-literate stockmen for not having 1980
Social Science degrees like your own is truly sickening. Sickening
because you are *allowed* to get away with, let alone were typically
subsidised by the government of those you defame to do it.
> But so long as the facts are acknowledged, we will leave it
> to the petty tools of the establishment revisionists to
> quibble over the semantics. B^p
Guano's legacy: Guano-inspired textbook about the early 2000s for
corrupting the minds of 22nd century students long after he is gone:
"People living in the early 21st century were murderers. This is
attested by their practice of crashing jet airliners full of passengers
into skyscrapers during working hours..." Assignment: Using archival
newspaper clippings from 11-14 Sept 2001, show how unconscionably
murderous towards their fellow human beings American trainee pilots were
during the early 2000's. (Don't overlook that this practice was so
widespread that they didn't even have to work for the airline nor even
wait to become an American citizen before doing it!)...
Pull the other one, charlatan. I hope the generation of schoolkids and
uni students you have helped render unfit for any useful occupation get
a chance to show their appreciation some day.
> We have not even begun to touch on the massacres documented
> by primary sources... of blacks by whites, and whites by
> blacks. But of course the Politically Correct want to
> sanitise our history for their politicla purposes.
>
> And it is the survey of all those hundreds of accounts on
> which Reynolds bases his ESTIMATE!
>
> Find some citations of REAL Historical work, and get back to me.
What are you claiming now? That Henry Reynolds is not a 'real
historian'?
You won't be satisfied until students have to buy a new textbook every
day just to keep up with your latest reversals of "their" "history"!
Neville Duguid
> "EXCEPT, as Reynolds himself told LATELINE last year, he is still waiting
> for that essential debate to occur. He acknowledges that Windschuttle is
> the first historian with enough courage to have a crack at it:"
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> How could Windshuffle be the FIRST as you claim, if Reynolds was!? B^p
Reynolds can't debate it with himself, idiot. Nor do earlier
'historians' quoting Reynolds uncritically as their source material
amount to 'debating' it with him.
Rebecca
"fasgnadh" <fasg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9617651d.02032...@posting.google.com...news:<3tzm8.17259$uR5....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...
> > "fasgnadh" <fasg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:9617651d.02032...@posting.google.com...
> > > Seppo Renfors <Sen...@not.ollis.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:<3C99EFDE...@not.ollis.com.au>...
> > >
<snip>
> > People like Windschuttle and
> > Partington and (even) Blainey are the radicals who are saying that the
> > emperor has no clothes.
>
> The emporer? John Howard is removing a lot of our
> traditional Magna Carta rights, to legal representation, to
> not be held without charges or trial, but I don't think
> he's quite made his horse a member of the Senate yet!
The emperor with no clothes is the PC cause.
fasgnadh
> "fasgnadh" <fasg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9617651d.02032...@posting.google.com...
> > "Rebecca" <rebe...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:<3tzm8.17259$uR5....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...
> > > "fasgnadh" <fasg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:9617651d.02032...@posting.google.com...
> > > > Seppo Renfors <Sen...@not.ollis.com.au> wrote in message
> news:<3C99EFDE...@not.ollis.com.au>...
> > > >
> <snip>
>
> > > People like Windschuttle and
> > > Partington and (even) Blainey are the radicals who are saying that the
> > > emperor has no clothes.
> >
> > The emporer? John Howard is removing a lot of our
> > traditional Magna Carta rights, to legal representation, to
> > not be held without charges or trial, but I don't think
> > he's quite made his horse a member of the Senate yet!
>
> The emperor with no clothes is the PC cause.
And, as I pointed out, John Howard is the dominant politician
driving that Political Correctness. He even gagged our servicemen
from speaking out about his Truth Overboard lies, and refused to
let key witnesses testify to the committee of inquiry set up
by our elected watchdog, the Senate.
In your case, no effort to ensure adherence to the Great
Australian Silence, was required, you are already a "spokes-orc"
for Howards White Australia establishment views, and, moreover,
have been stunned into silence by references to the Real Historical
Record:
"Rebecca" <rebe...@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:<3tzm8.17259$uR5....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...
> "fasgnadh" <fasg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9617651d.02032...@posting.google.com...
> > Seppo Renfors <Sen...@not.ollis.com.au> wrote in message news:<3C99EFDE...@not.ollis.com.au>...
> >
> > > Peter Hodges wrote:
> >
> > Actually its a cut and paste job, neither he or Ned will
> > risk having an opinion which could be challenged on the facts! B^D
> >
> > > >
> > > > Doctored evidence and invented incidents in
> > > > Aboriginal historiography
> > > >
> > > Ahhhhh..... does the man know irony or what! And the guilty person is
> > > named below!!
> > >
> > > > Keith Windschuttle
> > > [..]
> >
> > ROFLMAO! B^D
> >
> > I agree, the subject says it all!
> >
> > "Keith Windschuttle: Doctored evidence in Aboriginal historiography"
> > B^D
> >
> > Windshuffle is the Christopher Pearson/ Piers Akkerman of
> > Aussie History, an establishment tool trotted out to promote
> > Howard's White Eyepatch denial of history.
>
> Windschuttle is, of course, an opponent of those who currently support the
> dominant paradigm in Australian "frontier" studies.
Known to the professionals whose objective research has
carefully constructed the dominant paradigm as 'the truth'.
> People like Reynolds are
> the tools of the current establishment.
ROFLMAO!
Until Trevor Reese wrote 'Australia in the 20th Century' with
it's whole chapter on aboriginals and conditions stretching
back to the first years of settlement, the typical 'voice
of the establishment' for the first half of that century
was well described by the reknowned Walter Murdoch as
"When people talk about the history of Australia they mean the
history of the white people who have lived here in Australia"
- W Murdoch "The making of Australia, an Introductory History" p 9
In what the distinguished anthropologist W.E.H. Stanner
described in the 1968 Boyer Lecture as "The Great Australian
Silence", aborigines were dispersed from the pages of history
during the first half of the 20th century as effectively as
frontier squatters had dispersed them from inland plains a century before.
In 1959 Profesor J A La Nauze, surveying thirty years of national
histiriography, observed 'unlike the Maori, the American Indian
or the South African Bantu, the Australian Aboriginal is noticed
in history only in a melancholy anthropological footnote"
- La Nauze "The Study of Australian History 1929-59"
Historical studies Vol IX No 33 Nov 1959, p11.
It was into this "History of Lions, by the Hunter" mileau that
Reynolds, linking back to primary sources and the few great
historical works produced before 1900, helped end "The
Great Australian Silence" and replace its 'political
correctness with a renewed pursuit of the WHOLE truth.
Windshuffle is merely re-asserting the Silence Howard
and the political elites would prefer...
Is everyone relaxed and comfortable? B^p
Try not to think about the nasty past. B^p
Ned Latham
in <9617651d.02032...@posting.google.com>:
> Rebecca wrote:
----snip----
> > The emperor with no clothes is the PC cause.
>
> And, as I pointed out, John Howard is the dominant politician
> driving that Political Correctness.
Crap. He's acting against it, though (typically of him) only in
petty ways that won't do it any harm.
----batshit snipped----
Seppo Renfors
Neville Duguid wrote:
>
> fasgnadh aka Peter Wicks aka Che Guava aka ... <fasg...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
I see FORGERY is becoming a popular pastime among the lesser plebs.
>
> > It was into this "History of Lions, by the Hunter" mileau that
> > Reynolds, linking back to primary sources and the few great
> > historical works produced before 1900, helped end "The
> > Great Australian Silence" and replace its 'political
> > correctness with a renewed pursuit of the WHOLE truth.
> >
> > Windshuffle is merely re-asserting the Silence Howard
> > and the political elites would prefer...
>
> Get your facts right, Peter. Here is what Henry Reynolds said to Tony
> Jones on ABC LATELINE last year re Windschuttle's interest in his work:
>
> Ref: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/s277827.htm
>
> HENRY REYNOLDS: I have absolutely no problem with this debate.
>
> Some people say, shock horror how dare he.
>
> I don't say that at all.
>
> This is in my case this is work I did 20 years ago.
>
> It's something that I have long left behind.
>
> But it is important that it is dealt with, and of course
> one of the problems is that history, as Keith himself
> has argued, to some extent gave up empirical sort of
> research.
>
> So no-one bothered to go on with this sort of work.
>
> I.e., both Reynolds and Windschuttle are making the same complaint about
> the way Reynolds' pioneering overview of Qld frontier history was
> accepted so uncritically by the people he would normally have expected
> to debate it more rigorously at the time.
You REALLY MUST take some comprehension lessons Nev. He said NOTHING
OF THE KIND. This is a creation of your own feverished mind. He
advocated MONEY being spent on research and historical recording of
events in the manner our War history is recorded. Further more, as
with any TRUE academic, he welcomes a review of his works. It also
gives him the opportunity to defend his work. He WILL accept proven
errors in his work, as any HONEST academic would. None were presented.
> Windschuttle, apparently, was
> the first credentialled historian with the means or the courage to make
> himself heard to take Reynolds' work beyond the level of uncritical cut
> and paste.
You are a fucken MORON, Nev. Windschuttle is no "historian" even LESS
"credentialled"!! He is nothing but a mere History TEACHER - it is
apparent from the text in the URL YOU provided! I have shown him to be
a BOGUS historian and a revisionist in article:
<3C9DCAEA...@not.ollis.com.au>
> I pointed out in a post in aus.politics years ago that Reynolds in his
> book 'Why Weren't We Told' was similarly appalled at the partisanship of
> those who tried to silence Geoffrey Blainey by simiilar methods a decade
> earlier.
Get a clue Nev. You speak from abject IGNORANCE.
> I praised Reynolds for it at the time,
YOU weren't posting on the net a decade ago, so don't bullshit.
> and I continue to
> appreciate what he did towards helping fill that gap in our history you
> just made such a show of complaining about.
....but now you have found a "revisionist" who's boots to kiss and
grovel to now. You don't want to know about truth or facts, only
FANTASIES suiting your imaginary "history"!
> Reynolds was only trying to
> fill in the gaps in Queensland's history like we were paying him to when
> we set up a university with a history dept in Townsville. Queenslanders
> have always resented how all the history books get written by Victorians
> who have yet to discover Queensland exists except as a spittoon for
> things they can't say about other Victorians for fear of being socially
> ostracised or sued.
I don't really give a SHIT what some simpleton banana-bender may be
offended by. Historical revisionism is DISHONEST - as is FORGERY - and
you engage in BOTH!
> (a la:
> "You look after my grant, and I'll look after yours.
> Blame it all on Queensland, the money will be ours."
There is your bloody paranoia kicking in again. Tell you what Nev,
take a saw and cut off your bit of QLD and float away! Then you can
write your OWN history - till then you are part of Australia.
> We can understand YOUR objections
You and your fleas hatching evil plots again are you?
> to what it now appears you and Seppo have known about all along,
Of course! YOU have been attempting to rewrite, what is decent and
MORAL, along with history. YOU are the one who was PROUD to be
associated with those perpetrating the "Stolen Generation". YOU were
the one implying an aborigine should be PROUD to be allowed to work
next to you, a WHITE fellah, at a LABOURERS TASK! YOU are the one who
has been defending PEDOPHILES. YOU are the one who recommended SLAVERY
as a "salvation" for the aborigines.
Yes "we" have known of it "all along"....
> but have tried to keep quiet about until
> someone else stumbled on it. Then you come in ranting and raving in your
> usual style to 'defend our freedom of speech' as you shout down anyone
> other than yourselves who tries to keep talking after you've arrived.
You don't even understand THAT - the "freedom of speech" thing!
> You are a disgrace to your profession, and a manace to anyone else
> trying to converse freely and openly with their peers on the Internet.
You Nev is no "peer" to very many on the net, THAT is for sure....
Mosley maybe...
--
SIR -Philosopher Unauthorised
------------------------------------------------------------------
" Don't resent getting old. A great many are denied that privilege "
---------------------------------------------------------------
Seppo Renfors
Neville Duguid wrote:
>
> fasgnadh <fasg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > nevi...@bigpond.net.au (Neville Duguid) wrote in message
> > news:<1f9imjz.1vrivcta2auz6N%nevi...@bigpond.net.au>...
> > > fasgnadh wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Windshuffle is merely re-asserting the Silence Howard
> > > > and the political elites would prefer...
> > >
> > > Get your facts right, Peter. Here is what Henry Reynolds said to Tony
> > > Jones on ABC LATELINE last year re Windschuttle's interest in his work:
> >
> > HENRY REYNOLDS: "The trouble is with Keith that anyone at all who
> > suggests there was killing on the frontier, he finds some reason he
> > dredges up something to try and discredit them.
> >
> > He is acting as a defence counsel for the settlers and the Government.
> >
> > Now that's alright.
> >
> > I don't mind him doing that.
> >
> > But it is a very selective way that anyone who stands up and says,
> > "They're killing blacks out there," he finds some reason to say, "No,
> > they can't be believed."
>
> But that is clearly an exaggeration on Reynolds' part.
Is it? Hardly! He got the one that shuffles around, full of wind
-Windschuttle- down to a Tee. I have demonstrated this to be so
elsewhere.
> I have just read
> one of the Quadrant articles that I have been led to believe started the
> fracas. In it, Windschuttle was merely questioning the accuracy of the
> statistics employed (and the related use of emotive terms like
> 'massacre' in cases where 'killing' would have been the more objective
> and appropriate term to use).
It is one thing to question, but does he offer actual alternatives?
No, he says "reject them as if they didn't exist", despite a lot of
evidence to the contrary.
> In it, Windschuttle questioned the numbers of Aboriginals estimated
> killed being reproduced as fact in another book by a third author who
> selectively chose the four examples that Windschuttle then proceeded to
> reexamine in the light of alternative sources.
His "alternative sources" is like some "alternative medicine", mostly
full of mumbo-jumbo. I have demonstrated this elsewhere.
> One of them Windschuttle
> calls a 'massacre' himself. The other three, he questions the
> applicability of that word within the paramaters of the legalistic-based
> preoccupations of today's crop of 'experts' on frontier settlement
> (totally anachronistic IMV).
In the case cited by yourself, there is concrete evidence of 11
aborigines "massacred". Two things here. First of all, is the Hoddle
st "massacre" correctly termed? If so why? Is the Port Arthur
"massacre" correctly termed? If so why? Is there a "cut off number"
for a "massacre", if so what is it? Does skin colour of the dead
people affect the term "massacre" or not? IF not, why is it that
"massacre" should NOT be applied to aborigines massacred, while it is
OK to apply it to white people massacred?
There is the second aspect to it. The word "massacre" carries with it
the meaning, wanton killing of defenceless people (when applied to
people). The term indicates the kind of atmosphere, method or mindset
of the killings. In other words, it is really unrelated to the actual
numbers of dead. Though it is a bit hard to call the killing of one as
a "massacre". It is related to the way they were killed. In the case
of the ABC debate, "killing" is a white-washing revisionist term, when
"massacre" is far more correct in the circumstances. THAT is another
reason why the man is a fraud!
> I.e., were those responses to individual
> cases of Aboriginals killing white people 'police' or 'military' in
> style and scope?
Yes, very often - or so it was claimed, but certainly far from all.
Even those times when it was so claimed it was often WRONG. A white
man raped the wife of an aborigine man, the aborigine killed the white
man. Nothing would be said against the rapist, but hoards of
aborigines would be wantonly shot hunting the aborigine who killed the
rapist. That was pretty normal practise back then.
Had an aborigine raped a white woman, and her husband killed the
aborigine - he would have been a bloody HERO at the time. THAT would
have been "justified" - and in some people's eyes nothing at all has
changed since then.
> Considering that 'police' had not long been invented
> (and by the country they accuse in other circumstances of trying to
> impose its social innovations on the rest of the world),
Don't be wet behind the ears. That is totally ridiculous. Police had
been around for a bloody long time before the Poms even managed to
find their way to Australia.
> I find the
> whole preoccupation with legal definitions by both historians rather
> laughable in an Australian frontier situation,
So why aren't you laughing at that shuffling bag of wind for then?
THAT is what HE attempts to white-wash the history with. But he goes
further than that - he DENIES even Court and Royal Commission
findings!
> considering the common
> understanding prevalent at the time among our ancestors that they had
> just been granted self-government to supposedly make their own laws
> tailored to their own unique local circumstances.
I can't believe this!! Are you totally IGNORANT of just about every
aspect of Australia there is?? THAT has to be one of the biggest crock
of shit you have come up with so far. WE have inherited British Law,
form of government and Judiciary. Hell, it wasn't until 1986 before
our Judiciary even became independent! Don't you know ANYTHING??
> > Whereas those who say there weren't any massacres he says, "These are
> > the people we should believe."
> >
> > and,
> >
> >
> > "Keith is telling me and telling your viewers the way I do history.
> >
> > Keith doesn't know how I do history.
> >
> > He never bothered to ask me.
> >
> > He has read an article I wrote about 25 years ago, or 20 years ago and
> > makes assumptions about how it was put together.
> >
> > And most of those assumptions are wrong "
>
> Maybe Reynolds is discussing something both he and you know about, when
> the rest of us don't know what he is referring to here?
Really! *I* know what they were talking about! They even detail it
enough in the transcript! Can't you read?
> If it is
> relevant to what we are discussing in this thread, it doesn't fit what I
> have read written by Windschuttle himself.
Really! Windschuttle is exactly true to himself - a total nincompoop
and transparently so! As for the "we", are you referring to your fleas
again? "fasgnadh" and I know at least..... you were the one who cited
the reference to the ABC story. I DO hope you haven't waffled off
somewhere else again.
> Windschuttle was criticising
> the uncritical acceptance BY OTHERS of what Reynolds wrote,
I don't think you are even on the same planet any longer. What the
hell are you on about now? What yarn have you moved onto this time?
> and their
> tendency to exaggerate even that in a consistent and accumulative
> manner. I.e., the same way that a rumour spreads, being exaggerated in
> the process - something that would not have happened had the information
> been handled by *real* professional historians rather than budding
> writers using sensationalism to magnify their case and/or attract
> attention to their own shot at becoming a best-selling writer to their
> own socially engineered captive education market.
You haven't got a SINGLE CLUE of what you speak about. You ACCUSE
Reynolds totally without the slightest bit of understanding or
knowledge in the subject whatsoever. You don't understand "research"
for a start, next you don't KNOW on what basis Reynolds came to write
and say what he has. Yet you ACCUSE him of fraud! You ACCUSE him of
not being a "professional"! What RIGHT do you have to do so? Is it
sufficient to say "it doesn't fit your fantasies"??
> > (sounds exactly like Nev! B^)
>
> Can't you leave the ad hom out of it?
Oh dear.... your fantasy tirades, and plain ignorance OFFENDS
intelligence all on its own. It is OFFENSIVE that such ignorance can
still exist! You can't read, you resort to accusing learned people
without any grounds whatsoever. And you accuse him of ad hom! Hell,
all of your tirade here has been ad hom!
[snip what is bound to be more "oh woe be me" again from Nev]
Seppo Renfors
Neville Duguid wrote:
>
> fasgnadh <fasg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps you might, but real historians like Reynolds make
> > estimates based on research. As long as they are identified as
> > estimates, and the methodology is both transparent(known) and
> > rigorous (sound) then everyone knows where that stand.
> > Discussion conducted with integrity then proceeds to critically
> > examin the estimates, question the methodology in detail,
> > or the underpinning data, and suggest how the estimate should be
> > varied, or propose new ones.
> > Then there are the politically motivated who are just looking to
> > push their own bias and prejudices, they compare it to ill-informed
> > guesses, which is their familiar home turf, and cast aspersions. B^p
>
> EXCEPT, as Reynolds himself told LATELINE last year, he is still waiting
> for that essential debate to occur. He acknowledges that Windschuttle is
> the first historian with enough courage to have a crack at it:
I would like you to PROVe your claim "Windschuttle is the first
historian with enough courage to have a crack at it"
Nothing in your quoted material supports the claim you made.
>
> From ABC LATELINE, 2001: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/s277827.htm
>
> HENRY REYNOLDS: I have absolutely no problem with this debate.
>
> Some people say, shock horror how dare he.
>
> I don't say that at all.
>
> This is in my case this is work I did 20 years ago.
>
> It's something that I have long left behind.
>
> But it is important that it is dealt with, and of course
> one of the problems is that history, as Keith himself
> has argued, to some extent gave up empirical sort of
> research.
>
> So no-one bothered to go on with this sort of work.
>
>
> > As your comments below indicate, you don't understand this basic
> > process, and thus foolishly confuse
> > it with asking your neighbour to pluck figures from the air
> > between her ears, which may be only marginly denser than your own.
>
> It seems you are the one who should have looked before you leaped to
> wrong conclusions (see above) LOL!
I suggest you read it yourself - only this time try and UNDERSTAND it
as well
Neville Duguid
wrote:
What a veritable smorgosbord of incongruity Peter has turned out to be:
> Known to the professionals whose objective research has
> carefully constructed the dominant paradigm as 'the truth'.
A commie...
[...]
> John Howard is removing
> a lot of our traditional Magna Carta rights,
...and a pommie to boot!
Tory, tory, hallelujah
Glory, isn't it peculiar
Tories, don't let Peter fool ya,
He lost his soul while playing Mah Jong.
:)
--
Neville Duguid * Talk sense to a fool and *
True Blue Aussie Web Site * he calls you foolish!! *
http://www.aussie-culture.net * - Euripides *
Neville Duguid
> Neville Duguid wrote:
> >
> > fasgnadh <fasg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Perhaps you might, but real historians like Reynolds make
> > > estimates based on research. As long as they are identified as
> > > estimates, and the methodology is both transparent(known) and
> > > rigorous (sound) then everyone knows where that stand.
> > > Discussion conducted with integrity then proceeds to critically
> > > examin the estimates, question the methodology in detail,
> > > or the underpinning data, and suggest how the estimate should be
> > > varied, or propose new ones.
> > > Then there are the politically motivated who are just looking to
> > > push their own bias and prejudices, they compare it to ill-informed
> > > guesses, which is their familiar home turf, and cast aspersions. B^p
> >
> > EXCEPT, as Reynolds himself told LATELINE last year, he is still waiting
> > for that essential debate to occur. He acknowledges that Windschuttle is
> > the first historian with enough courage to have a crack at it:
>
> I would like you to PROVe your claim "Windschuttle is the first
> historian with enough courage to have a crack at it"
>
> Nothing in your quoted material supports the claim you made.
Look before you leap, man! I already quoted the evidence below.
HENRY REYNOLDS, when he said: "So no-one bothered to go on with this
sort of work."
(Read it within the context of the whole passage I quoted it with. Come
on. Prove to yourself your eyes as well as your mouth can be used for
figuring out what people quote for your benefit on the Internet).
> > From ABC LATELINE, 2001: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/s277827.htm
> >
> > HENRY REYNOLDS: I have absolutely no problem with this debate.
> >
> > Some people say, shock horror how dare he.
> >
> > I don't say that at all.
> >
> > This is in my case this is work I did 20 years ago.
> >
> > It's something that I have long left behind.
> >
> > But it is important that it is dealt with, and of course
> > one of the problems is that history, as Keith himself
> > has argued, to some extent gave up empirical sort of
> > research.
> >
> > So no-one bothered to go on with this sort of work.
Neville Duguid
> In the case cited by yourself, there is concrete evidence of 11
> aborigines "massacred". Two things here. First of all, is the Hoddle
> st "massacre" correctly termed? If so why? Is the Port Arthur
> "massacre" correctly termed? If so why? Is there a "cut off number"
> for a "massacre", if so what is it? Does skin colour of the dead
> people affect the term "massacre" or not? IF not, why is it that
> "massacre" should NOT be applied to aborigines massacred, while it is
> OK to apply it to white people massacred?
That is what Windschuttle was looking at. How come you missed that
pivotal point?
He defined 'massacre' as the wanton slaughter of innocent (i.e.,
non-threatening) victims. I am getting a bit hazy already and I don't
have time to read it again right now, but I seem to recall that in at
least one case the Aboriginals deliberately called for a clash of arms,
and in another made it clear they were determined to fight it out with
their own weapons, and taunted the white men to attack. Even in the one
Windschuttle himself called a massacre, the white men involved went to
the trouble of provoking the Aborigines into attacking them before they
opened fire. So, even that is questionable if we look at the strict
definition of 'massacre'. BUT - the thing you won't concede because it
conflicts with your propaganda-dispensing activities - Windschuttle gave
the Aborigines the benefit of any doubt in that particular case.
I can't remember which one the Hoddle Street Massacre was, but in the
Port Arthur Massacre, Martin Bryant wasn't exactly defending himself
against those he massacred - [oops, they were white] I meant those who
died as a result of injuries sustained in a remote location.
I find your attempt to preempt discussion of the dishonest practice of
using different words for Aborigines and Europeans very cynical,
particularly since that was the issue Windschuttle himself was getting
at.
It is like the German practice of having different words for humans and
animals. I.e., only humans 'eat', animals 'feed'. In the case of
revised Aboriginal history, Windschuttle was blowing the whistle on
"anti-racist" campaigners whose conclusions imply that skin colour alone
determines whether people were 'killed' or 'massacred'.
Projecting his own mental processes on to others is the one area where
Seppo excels.
> There is the second aspect to it. The word "massacre" carries with it
> the meaning, wanton killing of defenceless people (when applied to
> people). The term indicates the kind of atmosphere, method or mindset
> of the killings. In other words, it is really unrelated to the actual
> numbers of dead. Though it is a bit hard to call the killing of one as
> a "massacre".
Read the Quadrant articles again. ONE of them was about that very misuse
of 'massacre' you yourself precis here, and THE OTHER was about OTHER
people using nothing more than their own gratuitous estimates of body
counts to decide that massacres had taken place!
> It is related to the way they were killed. In the case
> of the ABC debate, "killing" is a white-washing revisionist term, when
> "massacre" is far more correct in the circumstances. THAT is another
> reason why the man is a fraud!
Gawd, there you go again! You have just demonstrated you understood
what Windschuttle was saying by summarizing his own argument as if it
were you own - then you wind it up by calling him a fraud! Why?!!! Can
you only think in terms of factions? The content of the argument you
have just lifted holus-bolus from Windschuttle is obviously irrelevent
to you. You seem to think if you can echo someone else's own argument
back at them, it becomes your own property, and the person you copied it
from is thenceforth deemed to be adjudged "wrong" for trying to
retrospectively 'steal' his own argument back from you!
Seppo YOU, and not Aborigines, are the most vivid example of a clash of
cultural values I have ever come across in Australia.
--
Neville Duguid * PC Political Science: "The insane should have *
True Blue Aussie Web Site * the same rights as everyone else. Anyone *
http://www.aussie-culture.net * who disagrees with them should not." *
Neville Duguid
> Neville Duguid wrote:
> >
> > fasgnadh aka Peter Wicks aka Che Guava aka ... <fasg...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> I see FORGERY is becoming a popular pastime among the lesser plebs.
LOL! You HAVE been communing with Addinall, haven't you, Seppo? ;-)
[...]
By showing what those last three refer to, I can safely let others
deduce the worth of everything else Seppo has said about my alleged
opinions in the post quoted above.
"Proud to work next to me..." obviously refers back to the days when I
did casual rural work back in the 1960s (like backpackers often do when
they go fruitpicking today), sometimes alongside Aboriginals. My only
comment was that the ones I had worked with were as hardworking as
anyone else in the team. I also lamented how many of them no longer had
such ground-floor openings to integrate themselves into the workforce
without needing to emigrate to the cities.
"defending PEDOPHILES". I have spoken out against the obvious media
hatchet job being done on the Governor General, over his 'failure' to
conform to 21st century 'latest practice' decades before even the
current crop of experts had invented them. For that, Seppo routinely
accuses me (and anyone else who does not intuitively defer to his weird
alien political philosophy) as 'defending PEDOPHILES'.
Such tactics are clearly based on 'brand name association' advertising
industry practices. That way, dumb-arses like Seppo don't have to look
at the facts - they merely learn to see one thing and think another as a
result of subliminally implanted pavlovian associations acquired during
the smear campaigns of their political mentors.
"recommended SLAVERY as a 'salvation' for the aborigines." I concurred
with what Noel Pearson had to say about 'sit-down' money being the ruin
of Aborigines, and responsible for the destruction of what was left of
their culture (including its earlier painfully acquired adaptations to
modern cash economies). I also praised CDEP as an initiative of
Aborigines who had long recognized that fact themselves, and were
actively trying to do something about helping themselves and future
generations of Aboriginals. If Seppo also attacked Pearson and everyone
else who posted in favour of CDEP, perhaps he would have enough
credibility for people to think 'at least the poor dumb fool believes
what he is saying'. But alas, no such luck for Seppo. He demonstrates,
time and time again, what he "believes" in one post, he is just as
likely to attack someone else for saying in another.
Seppo is but a breath of bad air, forever looking for someone with a
toothache to blame for himself.
Ned Latham
> Neville Duguid wrote:
> > fasgnadh aka Peter Wicks aka Che Guava aka ... <fasg...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> I see FORGERY is becoming a popular pastime among the lesser plebs.
No you don't. Put that red cordial away.
----snip----
> You are a fucken MORON, Nev. Windschuttle is no "historian" even LESS
> "credentialled"!! He is nothing but a mere History TEACHER - it is
> apparent from the text in the URL YOU provided! I have shown him to be
> a BOGUS historian and a revisionist in article:
>
> <3C9DCAEA...@not.ollis.com.au>
Wrong again, moron. You've shown yourself to be a bigoted clown.
> > I pointed out in a post in aus.politics years ago that Reynolds in his
> > book 'Why Weren't We Told' was similarly appalled at the partisanship of
> > those who tried to silence Geoffrey Blainey by simiilar methods a decade
> > earlier.
>
> Get a clue Nev. You speak from abject IGNORANCE.
He doesn't know just how stupid you are? It *is* very hard to understand:
after all, you do appear to have enough sense to breathe.
> > I praised Reynolds for it at the time,
>
> YOU weren't posting on the net a decade ago,
True or not, that's irrelevant.
> so don't bullshit.
Practice what you preach, liar.
----snip----
> SIR -Philosopher Unauthorised
Says Seppo Renfors, the meathead who thinks he'll make his lies true
by repeating them.
Ned Latham
> Neville Duguid wrote:
----snip----
> > I.e., were those responses to individual
> > cases of Aboriginals killing white people 'police' or 'military' in
> > style and scope?
>
> Yes, very often - or so it was claimed, but certainly far from all.
> Even those times when it was so claimed it was often WRONG. A white
> man raped the wife of an aborigine man, the aborigine killed the white
> man. Nothing would be said against the rapist, but hoards of
> aborigines would be wantonly shot hunting the aborigine who killed the
> rapist. That was pretty normal practise back then.
"Would be", Renfors? Is that what you call evidence, you retard?
----snip----
> SIR -Philosopher Unauthorised
Says Seppo Renfors, the demented, delusional dimwit who uses his fancies
as fact.
Peter Wilks
"As you use the term 'establishment' and yet all disagree with each
other (quite violently) what does each of you mean by it?"
Now for a trio who spend so much hot air about which academic
is more rigorous, and who has the objective evidence, you would think
that one of them might have a go at explaining themselves.
Instead they either ignore the issue (Rebecca), ask coyly 'who will
go first' (fasgnadh) or rant like a mad loon in a feeble attempt
to pretend they haven't been asked to account for themselves, (Latham)
So far they have all failed teh truth test, and we can only assume
none of them has the faintest idea what they are crapping on about.
But Lathams avoidance techniques are truly bizzarre:
nen...@news.apex.met.au (Ned Latham) wrote in message news:<slrna9oc7k....@arthur.valhalla.net.oz>...
> Peter Wicks (aka "Che Guava"), posting as "Peter Wilks", wrote
> in <666137.020322...@posting.google.com>:
>
> ----snip----
>
> > You have told us who the 'tools' are, but who is the
> > 'establishment'?
>
> Check the tattoo on your forehead, Guano. It's a clue to your master's
> identity.
>
> ----snip----
>
> Ned
To find out Ned's definition of 'the establishment' one
should have a tattoo of guano on one's forehead?
Just a brief reminder of what sanity looked like before Ned left it:
From: Peter Wilks (Peter...@emaildownunder.com)
Subject: Re: Keith Windschuttle: Doctored evidence in Aboriginal historiography
Newsgroups: aus.culture.true-blue, aus.history
View this article only
You have told us who the 'tools' are, but who is the
'establishment'?
(snip)
> People like Reynolds are the tools of the current establishment.
(snip)
You both use the term 'establishment".
Who are they? Political leaders? Business Leaders?
Can you both define what you mean by the term and give some
examples?
i.e. Name some component groups and individual members
of the 'establishment', not just their 'tools'
Then others might have a clue what you ar talking about,
if you are talking about the same, or different things.
Rebecca
"Peter Wilks" <peter...@emaildownunder.com> wrote in message
news:aa94cd37.02032...@posting.google.com...
> There was a fairly simple question put to Rebecca,fasgnadh and Ned Latham;
>
> "As you use the term 'establishment' and yet all disagree with each
> other (quite violently) what does each of you mean by it?"
>
> Now for a trio who spend so much hot air about which academic
> is more rigorous, and who has the objective evidence, you would think
> that one of them might have a go at explaining themselves.
I am not part of any "trio". I'm just myself.
Therefore I could not possibly pretend to speak for Ned or for fasgnadh.
> Instead they either ignore the issue (Rebecca), ask coyly 'who will
> go first' (fasgnadh) or rant like a mad loon in a feeble attempt
> to pretend they haven't been asked to account for themselves, (Latham)
I'm sorry if I appeared to "ignore the issue". I don't have time to keep up
with all these threads, and I missed your question. But I've now found that
you address me directly, and I'll try to give some indication of where I
stand.
The Australian sociologist W D Rubinstein has argued that "in most
societies" the echelons of the "top elite" number "about 1,000 people"
(Rubinstein, W.D., "The Left, the Right and the Jews", Croom Helm Ltd, 1982)
. According to Rubinstein these people include:
"The President or Prime Minister and the Cabinet, the major opposition
figures, the most important (or possibly all) members of the national
legislature, the high court, the chairmen or managing directors of the
largest business enterprises, the heads of the major trade unions, leading
civil servants, media and communication leaders and editors, major religious
leaders and spokesmen for the most influential lobbying and interest groups.
It also encompasses a nation's 200-300 wealthiest men and women, the
presidents or vice-chancellors of the leading colleges and universities, the
most distinguished scientists and thinkers and the most important
opinion-makers, however defined."
I think that Rubinstein's "top elites" are pretty much equivalent to my
"establishment".
This may seem rather startling at first. After all, our PM and (much of his)
Cabinet seem to be at odds on certain issues with many high-profile people
on Rubinstein's list. The point is that *all" the people on Rubinstein's
list are reading/listening to/watching basically the same media (the ABC,
The Age, the SMH, the BRW, etc), and they are responding on the hop to the
media-decreed issue-of-the-day, within the agreed rules of the game - a bit
like a shoal of fish, in which one or another minnow might occasionally take
a "wrong" turn - but none of them ever forgets the basic rule of accepting
what the media put up as *the* important issues.
So, for instance, Howard is allowed to fulminate that illegals who allegedly
throw (or allegedly threaten to throw) their children overboard are not
welcome in Australia. If he could have backed up his claims then the media
would have gone easy on him, because he was responding in terms of *their*
moral system and *their* agenda. But if he had said (and of course he
wouldn't dare!): "I don't believe the Australian public wants these foreign
gate-crashers who are racially and culturally undesirable", there would have
been no common ground whatsoever between Howard and the media, and he would
accordingly have been crucified far worse than he has been.
Now a bit down on the ladder from Rubinstein's list are the toadies whose
job, (paid for in either money or power if the person is important enough,
or even just the the ability to bask in establishment-approved self-esteem
for those of no consequence), is to instil a false consciousness into the
ordinary people.
But the ordinary people are increasingly waking up. They are shedding the
false consciousness that Marcuse famously believed they never could. They
don't really care about the issues that the establishment has made into
iconic touchstones. Instead, they are starting to recognise their own class
interests. And the proof of this is that when millionaire merchant bankers
like Malcolm Turnbull try to play a "populist" card (in his case, on the
Republic issue), they get it so disastrously wrong ....
The workers just give them the finger, and vote "No!"
So where does this all lead, in terms of the fabric of Australia's social
order? Well, I don't think it's healthy. Something, I think, will have to
give.
> snip <
Ned Latham
----snip----
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Peter Wicks (aka "Che Guava"), posting as "Peter Wilks", wrote:
> >
> > ----snip----
> >
> > > You have told us who the 'tools' are, but who is the
> > > 'establishment'?
> >
> > Check the tattoo on your forehead, Guano. It's a clue to your master's
> > identity.
>
> To find out Ned's definition of 'the establishment' one
> should have a tattoo of guano on one's forehead?
Pore ole Guano. He went to the doctor the other day worried that
he might be getting Alzheimer's Disease. The doctor told him to
go home and forget about it.
----snip----
Hey, Guano. Have a "think" about my other suggestion: next time your
master allows you to kiss his arse, read the laundry label on his daks.
Seppo Renfors
Neville Duguid wrote:
>
> fasgnadh <fasg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "EXCEPT, as Reynolds himself told LATELINE last year, he is still waiting
> > for that essential debate to occur. He acknowledges that Windschuttle is
> > the first historian with enough courage to have a crack at it:"
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > How could Windshuffle be the FIRST as you claim, if Reynolds was!? B^p
>
> Reynolds can't debate it with himself, idiot. Nor do earlier
> 'historians' quoting Reynolds uncritically as their source material
> amount to 'debating' it with him.
Did you think about that - or at all, when you wrote that?
Please explain how "earlier historians" than Reynolds can quoted
Reynolds, when he wrote HIS material after they wrote theirs?
HEEEEELLLLLLOOOOOooooo...... anyone home??
There is a serious lack of logic in what you say!
Ned Latham
> Neville Duguid wrote:
> > fasgnadh wrote:
> > >
> > > "EXCEPT, as Reynolds himself told LATELINE last year, he is still waiting
> > > for that essential debate to occur. He acknowledges that Windschuttle is
> > > the first historian with enough courage to have a crack at it:"
> > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > >
> > > How could Windshuffle be the FIRST as you claim, if Reynolds was!? B^p
> >
> > Reynolds can't debate it with himself, idiot. Nor do earlier
> > 'historians' quoting Reynolds uncritically as their source material
> > amount to 'debating' it with him.
>
> Did you think about that - or at all, when you wrote that?
>
> Please explain how "earlier historians" than Reynolds
Earlier than Windschuffle, moron.
----snip----
> SIR -Philosopher Unauthorised
Says Seppo Renfors, trying to compensate for a serious lack of grey matter.
Neville Duguid
the post of another with other than dog-snarl and baboon-screech.
--
Neville Duguid * "To see what is in front of one's nose *
True Blue Aussie Web Site * needs a constant struggle." *
http://www.aussie-culture.net * - George Orwell. *
Seppo Renfors
Neville Duguid wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors <Ren...@not.ollis.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Neville Duguid wrote:
> > >
> > > fasgnadh <fasg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Perhaps you might, but real historians like Reynolds make
> > > > estimates based on research. As long as they are identified as
> > > > estimates, and the methodology is both transparent(known) and
> > > > rigorous (sound) then everyone knows where that stand.
> > > > Discussion conducted with integrity then proceeds to critically
> > > > examin the estimates, question the methodology in detail,
> > > > or the underpinning data, and suggest how the estimate should be
> > > > varied, or propose new ones.
> > > > Then there are the politically motivated who are just looking to
> > > > push their own bias and prejudices, they compare it to ill-informed
> > > > guesses, which is their familiar home turf, and cast aspersions. B^p
> > >
> > > EXCEPT, as Reynolds himself told LATELINE last year, he is still waiting
> > > for that essential debate to occur. He acknowledges that Windschuttle is
> > > the first historian with enough courage to have a crack at it:
> >
> > I would like you to PROVE your claim "Windschuttle is the first
> > historian with enough courage to have a crack at it"
> >
> > Nothing in your quoted material supports the claim you made.
>
> Look before you leap, man! I already quoted the evidence below.
>
> HENRY REYNOLDS, when he said: "So no-one bothered to go on with this
> sort of work."
It doesn't have the meaning you WISH it has. Nothing in your quoted
material supports the claim you made.
>
> (Read it within the context of the whole passage I quoted it with. Come
> on. Prove to yourself your eyes as well as your mouth can be used for
> figuring out what people quote for your benefit on the Internet).
I read the article before you even found it! I have read it since and
have come to the conclusion that (A) you didn't read it (B) you didn't
understand what you read.
Can I suggest to you Blaney has had a few disagreements with Reynolds
on each others works some time back.
Now attempt to PROVE your claim. You have failed so far.
>
> > > From ABC LATELINE, 2001: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/s277827.htm
> > >
> > > HENRY REYNOLDS: I have absolutely no problem with this debate.
> > >
> > > Some people say, shock horror how dare he.
> > >
> > > I don't say that at all.
> > >
> > > This is in my case this is work I did 20 years ago.
> > >
> > > It's something that I have long left behind.
> > >
> > > But it is important that it is dealt with, and of course
> > > one of the problems is that history, as Keith himself
> > > has argued, to some extent gave up empirical sort of
> > > research.
> > >
> > > So no-one bothered to go on with this sort of work.
>
This does NOT prove your claim that "Windschuttle is the first
historian with enough courage to have a crack at it".
Seppo Renfors
Neville Duguid wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors <Ren...@not.ollis.com.au> wrote:
>
> > In the case cited by yourself, there is concrete evidence of 11
> > aborigines "massacred". Two things here. First of all, is the Hoddle
> > st "massacre" correctly termed? If so why? Is the Port Arthur
> > "massacre" correctly termed? If so why? Is there a "cut off number"
> > for a "massacre", if so what is it? Does skin colour of the dead
> > people affect the term "massacre" or not? IF not, why is it that
> > "massacre" should NOT be applied to aborigines massacred, while it is
> > OK to apply it to white people massacred?
>
> That is what Windschuttle was looking at. How come you missed that
> pivotal point?
AAARRRRRGGGggghhhh..... Are you MAD? It is the very point I debate
here. The Windbag wants to use the term "killings" in place of
Massacre when it relates to ABORIGINES. He finds the term offensive
when used for the massacre of aborigines. Didn't you read the stuff
you yourself quoted??
>
> He defined 'massacre' as the wanton slaughter of innocent (i.e.,
> non-threatening) victims.
Did he? Well there you are! He doesn't want it seen to be for what it
was.
> I am getting a bit hazy already and I don't
> have time to read it again right now, but I seem to recall that in at
> least one case the Aboriginals deliberately called for a clash of arms,
> and in another made it clear they were determined to fight it out with
> their own weapons, and taunted the white men to attack.
Wrong way around. Unless you are talking about to totally different
incident. There was one who did, Jandamura was his name. He SHOT a few
soldiers. He carried out guerilla warfare against the whites. He was
an ex blacktracker, who couldn't stand what was being done to his
people. But that is a different story.
> Even in the one
> Windschuttle himself called a massacre, the white men involved went to
> the trouble of provoking the Aborigines into attacking them before they
> opened fire. So, even that is questionable if we look at the strict
> definition of 'massacre'.
Are you kidding! You have some really weird notions!! Don't you even
recognise what you write? "PROVOKE" and then "SHOOT", and that was in
a planned pincer movement to TRAP as many as possible, to kill as many
as they could! What you seem to say is that to defend ones property,
ie campsite in that case, is VERBOTEN if they are aborigines. That
deliberate provocation, leading to an intended retaliation and then
murdering the people is "justifiable homicide"?
> BUT - the thing you won't concede because it
> conflicts with your propaganda-dispensing activities - Windschuttle gave
> the Aborigines the benefit of any doubt in that particular case.
No, it was where he wanted to call it "killing" implying it to be
JUSTIFIED as you just did!
>
> I can't remember which one the Hoddle Street Massacre was, but in the
> Port Arthur Massacre, Martin Bryant wasn't exactly defending himself
> against those he massacred - [oops, they were white] I meant those who
> died as a result of injuries sustained in a remote location.
>
> I find your attempt to preempt discussion of the dishonest practice of
> using different words for Aborigines and Europeans very cynical,
> particularly since that was the issue Windschuttle himself was getting
> at.
Yep there it is! The ATTACK for DARING to ask you to COMPARE it with
the massacre of WHITES, and ask WHY should skin colour matter.
>
> It is like the German practice of having different words for humans and
> animals. I.e., only humans 'eat', animals 'feed'.
Psssttttt..... that was ENGLISH not German you wrote, you dope! It is
the same as the ENGLISH "sweat" is something horses do, people
"perspire"! Are you confused over which language you use.... but
seeing as you only know ONE, or purport to know at least, I see it as
being a bit of a problem for you.
> In the case of
> revised Aboriginal history, Windschuttle was blowing the whistle on
> "anti-racist" campaigners whose conclusions imply that skin colour alone
> determines whether people were 'killed' or 'massacred'.
You haven't read much of the Windbag's "works" (fantasies is a better
term) have you? HE says Australia is RACIST as well, you know! Only he
is not ASHAMED of it apparently, judging by the Frederick Toben style
of revision he engages in. HE is the one who wants to change out the
word "massacre" for his WHITE WASH purposes.
>
> Projecting his own mental processes on to others is the one area where
> Seppo excels.
Are you so far gone you believe you have an AUDIENCE you speak to?
>
> > There is the second aspect to it. The word "massacre" carries with it
> > the meaning, wanton killing of defenceless people (when applied to
> > people). The term indicates the kind of atmosphere, method or mindset
> > of the killings. In other words, it is really unrelated to the actual
> > numbers of dead. Though it is a bit hard to call the killing of one as
> > a "massacre".
>
> Read the Quadrant articles again.
I'll say this slowly one last time to you. I D-O-N-'T R-E-A-D
T-H-E Q-U-A-D-R-A-N-T. Do you understand now?
> ONE of them was about that very misuse
> of 'massacre' you yourself precis here, and THE OTHER was about OTHER
> people using nothing more than their own gratuitous estimates of body
> counts to decide that massacres had taken place!
I was referring to the ABC interview YOU cited.
>
> > It is related to the way they were killed. In the case
> > of the ABC debate, "killing" is a white-washing revisionist term, when
> > "massacre" is far more correct in the circumstances. THAT is another
> > reason why the man is a fraud!
>
> Gawd, there you go again! You have just demonstrated you understood
> what Windschuttle was saying by summarizing his own argument as if it
> were you own - then you wind it up by calling him a fraud! Why?!!!
Didn't you understand ANYTHING of what I wrote??? I have said he is a
fraud from the very beginning, and have NOT altered my mind since I
read the first article of his. I only demonstrated it further. That he
wants to alter the use of the term "massacre" to "killing" in a WHITE
WASHING attempt of history, where "massacre" is the correct term.
> Can
> you only think in terms of factions?
*I* differentiate between facts and fiction, and discard the fiction
from being a fact. You do exactly the opposite. I don't know how your
term "factions" can possibly apply to that, but there you are.....
that's your use of "english".
> The content of the argument you
> have just lifted holus-bolus from Windschuttle is obviously irrelevent
> to you.
Listen, I'm not into thievery. The argument was constructed solely by
me. You failed to comprehend it.
> You seem to think if you can echo someone else's own argument
> back at them, it becomes your own property, and the person you copied it
> from is thenceforth deemed to be adjudged "wrong" for trying to
> retrospectively 'steal' his own argument back from you!
See above.
>
> Seppo YOU, and not Aborigines, are the most vivid example of a clash of
> cultural values I have ever come across in Australia.
Sorry, but VERY few people understand or speak "Nevillian". THERE is
your problem.
Seppo Renfors
But you forgot the taking pride in the events of the "Stolen
Generation" - which happened to be at the time you wrote about an abo
should be PROUD to be allowed to work next to you..... that he has
climbed so HIGH in society to be a LABOURER!! But nice attempt with
the white wash.... pity my memory is much better than yours!
>
> "defending PEDOPHILES". I have spoken out against the obvious media
> hatchet job being done on the Governor General, over his 'failure' to
> conform to 21st century 'latest practice' decades before even the
> current crop of experts had invented them. For that, Seppo routinely
> accuses me (and anyone else who does not intuitively defer to his weird
> alien political philosophy) as 'defending PEDOPHILES'.
You defended the PEDOPHILE himself - the geezer that topped himself,
admitting to abusing 20 girls! OF course you saw nothing WRONG with
the former Arch Bishop, sweeping pedophilia under the carpet, and
effectively protecting then from the law by doing so. In other words
you find NOTHING WRONG with protecting pedophiles from the law.
> Such tactics are clearly based on 'brand name association' advertising
> industry practices. That way, dumb-arses like Seppo don't have to look
> at the facts - they merely learn to see one thing and think another as a
> result of subliminally implanted pavlovian associations acquired during
> the smear campaigns of their political mentors.
man, but do your rant.... or do you RANT!
>
> "recommended SLAVERY as a 'salvation' for the aborigines." I concurred
> with what Noel Pearson had to say about 'sit-down' money being the ruin
> of Aborigines, and responsible for the destruction of what was left of
> their culture (including its earlier painfully acquired adaptations to
> modern cash economies). I also praised CDEP as an initiative of
> Aborigines who had long recognized that fact themselves, and were
> actively trying to do something about helping themselves and future
> generations of Aboriginals. If Seppo also attacked Pearson and everyone
> else who posted in favour of CDEP, perhaps he would have enough
> credibility for people to think 'at least the poor dumb fool believes
> what he is saying'.
CDEP is NOT SLAVERY and you used that word.
> But alas, no such luck for Seppo. He demonstrates,
> time and time again, what he "believes" in one post, he is just as
> likely to attack someone else for saying in another.
How would you know? You admit to not being able to remember two days
back on a subject, This is much, much longer ago than that.
>
> Seppo is but a breath of bad air, forever looking for someone with a
> toothache to blame for himself.
Ahhhhhh..... so you have a TOOTHACHE..... it has been known to send
people crazy.... well go see a dentist!
fasgnadh
> Top post, Rebecca.
No, she didn't top post, your obsequious flattery would be
more credible if you had at least read it.
> Very illuminating.
Absolutely, unlike Ned, she's a player.
> It's nice to see someone reply to
> the post of another with other than dog-snarl and baboon-screech.
I don't think Ned or Fergie could understand it well enough to
respond. B^)
fasgnadh
"Challenge from a PC spokesperson"
I appreciate Rebekkka's candour, but decline her challenge.
Seppo Renfors
there.
Neville Duguid wrote:
>
> Top post, Rebecca.
Are you encouraging the Gender-Bender to not follow convention?? Why?
> Very illuminating.
Shit... you must live in a CAVE without matches, fire sticks or a
candle and saw a glow worm!
> It's nice to see someone reply to
> the post of another with other than dog-snarl and baboon-screech.
...errrr..... didn't you notice? That is EXACTLY what it was. It
included almost everybody as "the establishment" other than a few dole
bludgers and winos! No wonder you loved it.... you just didn't get it!
fasgnadh
> "Peter Wilks" <peter...@emaildownunder.com> wrote in message
> news:aa94cd37.02032...@posting.google.com...
> >
> >
> > "As you use the term 'establishment' and yet all disagree with each
> > other (quite violently) what does each of you mean by it?"
> >
> The Australian sociologist W D Rubinstein has argued that "in most
> societies" the echelons of the "top elite" number "about 1,000 people"
> (Rubinstein, W.D., "The Left, the Right and the Jews", Croom Helm Ltd, 1982)
> . According to Rubinstein these people include:
>
> "The President or Prime Minister and the Cabinet, the major opposition
> figures, the most important (or possibly all) members of the national
> legislature, the high court, the chairmen or managing directors of the
> largest business enterprises, the heads of the major trade unions, leading
> civil servants, media and communication leaders and editors, major religious
> leaders and spokesmen for the most influential lobbying and interest groups.
> It also encompasses a nation's 200-300 wealthiest men and women, the
> presidents or vice-chancellors of the leading colleges and universities, the
> most distinguished scientists and thinkers and the most important
> opinion-makers, however defined."
So Blainey and Windshuttle are part of the establishment
defined by you.
Certainly Howard would agree.
>
> I think that Rubinstein's "top elites" are pretty much equivalent to my
> "establishment".
>
> This may seem rather startling at first. After all, our PM and (much of his)
> Cabinet seem to be at odds on certain issues with many high-profile people
> on Rubinstein's list.
Only the ones who aren't part of the establishment.
> The point is that *all" the people on Rubinstein's
> list are reading/listening to/watching basically the same media (the ABC,
> The Age, the SMH, the BRW, etc),
> and they are responding on the hop to the
> media-decreed issue-of-the-day, within the agreed rules of the game - a bit
> like a shoal of fish, in which one or another minnow might occasionally take
> a "wrong" turn - but none of them ever forgets the basic rule of accepting
> what the media put up as *the* important issues.
So, in your model, the establishment are controlled by the media
who are controlled by...?
Packer, Murdoch and Howard's mate Donald McDonald.
That explains why pro union, pro worker, pro student,
pro immigrant voices don't get heard.
>
> So, for instance, Howard is allowed to fulminate that illegals who allegedly
> throw (or allegedly threaten to throw) their children overboard are not
> welcome in Australia.
Well, he had to manufacture a pretext that would satisfy the whole
community to enable him to trawl for the Hanson constituency.
Thats how the establishment work, they have to trick the voters into
thinking they will benefit from, say, the GST, ..that it is
'in the national interest' when really it's just in the interests of
the establishment. Thats why unions and workers parties opposed it,
they aren't part of the establishment.
> If he could have backed up his claims then the media
> would have gone easy on him, because he was responding in terms of *their*
> moral system and *their* agenda.
No, in that case he lied to them and through them to the whole
Australian people. He used the media, just like he used the
armed forces.
The media are just the establishments TOOL.
> But if he had said (and of course he
> wouldn't dare!): "I don't believe the Australian public wants these foreign
> gate-crashers who are racially and culturally undesirable",
But he did say that! "We don't want those sort of people here"
To most Australians that meant, we don't want kid chuckers here,
(but that was a lie promoted by Howard in the service of the establishments
goal to retain power).
To Howard's targets in rural marginals it was also dog whistle
politics, "viz "We don't want those muslims and afghanis here"
They have to have control of the economy, and therefore need to create
political ploys to achieve it, the proof is that once in power
Howard continues to pursue immigration from Asia and the middle east,
the hansonites are too dumb to realise they were duped, but his real
agenda is the establishment one:
labour market 'reform' - removing unfair dismissal laws
Payback to his media mates - removal of cross media restrictions.
further reducing taxes on the elites
dismantling public health
> there would have
> been no common ground whatsoever between Howard and the media, and he would
> accordingly have been crucified far worse than he has been.
Exposure of the lies forced the media to cover the story,
but it has been a paper tiger.
>
> Now a bit down on the ladder from Rubinstein's list are the toadies whose
> job, (paid for in either money or power if the person is important enough,
> or even just the the ability to bask in establishment-approved self-esteem
> for those of no consequence), is to instil a false consciousness into the
> ordinary people.
Howards radio shock jocks, Piers akkerman, Robert Bolt,
P.P Mc Guinness, etc etc etc...
And the PR front for almost every large company which
funds many of those mouthpieces, and produces a constant
stream of press releases.. and yet almost no-one knows they
exist.
> But the ordinary people are increasingly waking up. They are shedding the
> false consciousness that Marcuse famously believed they never could. They
> don't really care about the issues that the establishment has made into
> iconic touchstones.
They were suckered again at the last election.
Apart from a few marginalised protesters there is little
resistance to the establishments dominance.
> Instead, they are starting to recognise their own class
> interests. And the proof of this is that when millionaire merchant bankers
> like Malcolm Turnbull try to play a "populist" card (in his case, on the
> Republic issue), they get it so disastrously wrong ....
Thats your proof of people recognising their class interests?
The whole Republic distraction?
No wonder the establishment have such control of the vital
economic structures, and set policy with impunity,
you are obsessed with third order non-issues like
chinese food, historical revisionism and the republic.
>
> The workers just give them the finger, and vote "No!"
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAAAA!
Howard controlled the outcome like a master puppeteer,
he split the movement and retained political control over the GG.
>
> So where does this all lead, in terms of the fabric of Australia's social
> order?
more of the same, becasue you can't think beyond the agenda Howard
set and drove through.
He has retained the economic heights while the masses have
been distracted by side issues of his choosing.
> Well, I don't think it's healthy. Something, I think, will have to
> give.
>
> > snip <
Of course.
Academics, like Generals and Judges, are easily contained
or co-opted. Union leaders may have to be threatened
or bought off. The wide range of grass roots organisations
will have to be nuetralised by manipulation of popular sentiment
in the traditional way. Fear, scapegoats, Divide and conquer.
> >
> > Can you both define what you mean by the term and give some
> > examples?
Follow the money trail.
Packer is a classic example because he crosses over
from business interests, and media ownership to
political influence. Hence Howard will remove the
cross media ownership laws which prevent further
concentration of the media, and stand in Packers way,
(unless popular opposition makes it too politically
costly to ram it through).
Compared to that raw power, characters like Turnbull,
or the odd academic(Reynolds) or commo journalist(Adams)
are insignificant voices.
The dominant elites in any society are adept at
presenting THEIR interests as the National interest.
The voices of the opposition from the left need to be
marginalised, and those of the populist right duped and
used.
> >
> > i.e. Name some component groups and individual members
> > of the 'establishment', not just their 'tools'
Packer, Murdoch, Howard, Abbott, Chris Corrigan,
The BCA, Donald McDonald, David Flint (oops, he's just a tool),
et al.
> >
> > Then others might have a clue what you ar talking about,
> > if you are talking about the same, or different things.
I think it is absurd to present Turnbull as 'establishment'
when he didn't get his way, and ignore Parcker.
That indicates a failure to grasp which are the important
i$$ues.
And explains why the populist right are led by the nose by the
economic elites.
Ned Latham
in <9617651d.02033...@posting.google.com>:
> Neville Duguid wrote:
> >
> > Top post, Rebecca.
>
> No, she didn't top post, your obsequious flattery would be
> more credible if you had at least read it.
Your attempts to denigrate and discredit people might have some
credibility if you weren't so obvious in misrepresenting them.
----snip----
Ned Latham
in <9617651d.02033...@posting.google.com>:
>
> "Challenge from a PC spokesperson"
>
> I appreciate Rebekkka's candour, but decline her challenge.
Why, PC spokesperson? Would it hurt you to spell her name correctly?
Ned Latham
Nothing worth reading. And in substandard English.
----snip----
> SIR -Philosopher Unauthorised
Says Seppo Renfors, the idiot who lectures people on things he doesn't
understand.
Ned Latham
in <9617651d.02033...@posting.google.com>:
----snip----
> I think it is absurd to present Turnbull as 'establishment'
> when he didn't get his way, and ignore Parcker.
Your posturing is showing through here despite all your best efforts,
Guano. The establishment is riddled with factions, some of which play
from time to time the same posturing bullshit game you play, and which
can't all win all the time, anyway. So it's inevitable that there are
establishment factions and personages who lose this or that contest.
As your faction lost the last election.
The point you ignore and hope no-one will notice is that the establishment
are the only ones in the contest, and no matter who loses, the winner is
the establishmewnt. And it will remain so while there are enough people
like you around (serving them or serving their purpose) helping them to
retain control over both of the legislative powers (initiative and assent).
----snip----
Rebecca
I don't know about Windschuttle.
Blainey, yes, in that the establishment is just like members of some
exclusive club. They can get away with disagreeing within certain limits.
Blainey disagreed big-time in 1984, and he suffered a lot personally, but
his career and influence haven't been affected. If he had been a lowly littl
e outsider he'd be driving taxis today.
> Certainly Howard would agree.
Well, he wouldn't agree with me, because he's very much part of the
establishment. Do you mean that he'd agree with you?
> > I think that Rubinstein's "top elites" are pretty much equivalent to my
> > "establishment".
> >
> > This may seem rather startling at first. After all, our PM and (much of
his)
> > Cabinet seem to be at odds on certain issues with many high-profile
people
> > on Rubinstein's list.
>
> Only the ones who aren't part of the establishment.
Don't be so naive. Howard seems to be at odds on certain issues wiith
Murdoch and Packer and Fairfax, not to mention top business leaders and all
sorts of other people described in Rubinstein's list (see above). Howard and
the others are *equally* part of the establishment. Therefore their various
factions can disagree with one another, but only within agreed limits.
>> same media (the ABC,
> > The Age, the SMH, the BRW, etc),
> > and they are responding on the hop to the
> > media-decreed issue-of-the-day, within the agreed rules of the game - a
bit
> > like a shoal of fish, in which one or another minnow might occasionally
take
> > a "wrong" turn - but none of them ever forgets the basic rule of
accepting
> > what the media put up as *the* important issues.
>
> So, in your model, the establishment are controlled by the media
> who are controlled by...?
>
> Packer, Murdoch and Howard's mate Donald McDonald.
>
> That explains why pro union, pro worker, pro student,
> pro immigrant voices don't get heard.
It certainly explains why pro-student voices aren't heard. A few token
students may be seconded into the establishment, but the stablishment
couldn't give a damn about the average student. More or less the same goes
for ordinary workers - but the current sell-out trade union leaders are of
course welcomed into the establishment club.
By contrast, pro-immigrant voices are rammed down our ears and eyes
incessantly through the establishment media.
> > So, for instance, Howard is allowed to fulminate that illegals who
allegedly
> > throw (or allegedly threaten to throw) their children overboard are not
> > welcome in Australia.
>
> Well, he had to manufacture a pretext that would satisfy the whole
> community to enable him to trawl for the Hanson constituency.
Weak political point-scoring, cobber.
I am not a Howard fan. ("Please God, bring back Chifley and Curtin and
Menzies!", she cries!) I am just pointing out how the establishment
operates. Yes, of course the poor fellow trawled for the dissident
constituency. So did the other guy. They both realise how alienated the
majority are from the PC establishment agenda.
>
> Thats how the establishment work, they have to trick the voters into
> thinking they will benefit from, say, the GST, ..that it is
> 'in the national interest' when really it's just in the interests of
> the establishment. Thats why unions and workers parties opposed it,
> they aren't part of the establishment.
Most unions today are part of the establishment. Back in Henry Lawson's day
things were different ...
> > If he could have backed up his claims then the media
> > would have gone easy on him, because he was responding in terms of
*their*
> > moral system and *their* agenda.
>
> No, in that case he lied to them and through them to the whole
> Australian people. He used the media, just like he used the
> armed forces.
Of course he lied! Which PM since (maybe) Menzies hasn't lied?
> The media are just the establishments TOOL.
Hey, you're starting to get it. Welcome to the revolutionary faction!
> > But if he had said (and of course he
> > wouldn't dare!): "I don't believe the Australian public wants these
foreign
> > gate-crashers who are racially and culturally undesirable",
>
> But he did say that! "We don't want those sort of people here"
You miss the point. He said we don't want them here, but he chose his ground
according to establishment rules. According to his bs, that was because they
risked the lives of their kids. Had he said, in line with every Aussie PM
from Barton until the seventies, "these foreign gate-crashers are racially
and culturally undesirable", he would have been nailed up on a cross.
> To most Australians that meant, we don't want kid chuckers here,
> (but that was a lie promoted by Howard in the service of the
establishments
> goal to retain power).
Hoo-whee! You're starting to get the point. Congrats!
> To Howard's targets in rural marginals it was also dog whistle
> politics, "viz "We don't want those muslims and afghanis here"
Oh dear! I thought you were doing so well, but this is a bit weak!
As reported in the Guardian newspaper (see
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/O.3604.655729.00.html), 46% of
18 to 30 year-olds in Holland favour zero Muslim immigration.
Muslim migrants apparently make up 5% (or about 800,000) of the population
of the Netherlands (of which the total population is about 16 million).
Holland is facing a general election in May 2002. Opinion polls indicate
that pollies who want the Netherlands to remain Dutch may capture 36 of the
lower house's 150 seats. Obviously, most of the electors who will vote this
way are young people.
This seems to be the situation in every country whose core population is
descended from Germanic ancestors. The older voters generally don't want
their neighbourhood to be Asianised or Muslimised, the selfish "baby
boomers" generally favour more-or-less open borders (because the more
migrants that arrive, the higher value their family home will realise), and
the young voters now seem to be reacting strenuously against their parents'
attitudes.
The last federal election in Australia, for instance, seems to have been
determined by young female (and especially first-time female) voters who
supported PM John Howard's stated policy of defending Australia's
territorial integrity against "boat people".
The current spokesman for this mood in Holland is a 54 year-old man called
Pim Fortuyn. Pim is said to be "openly gay". Still, 36% of young women and
46% of young men have said they intend to vote for him. Presumably this
means that they will vote for anyone who is prepared to stand up for their
rights as the indigenous population of their nation, and who is also willing
to uphold their indigenous culture.
> They have to have control of the economy, and therefore need to create
> political ploys to achieve it, the proof is that once in power
> Howard continues to pursue immigration from Asia and the middle east,
> the hansonites are too dumb to realise they were duped, but his real
> agenda is the establishment one:
I don't disagree. Immigration is currently ruinning at pretty much an
all-time-high, even though the PM has notched up brownie-points with the
voters by being hard on the illegals. He will succeed, of course, because
the voters' memories are so short. By contrast, let's look back to Whitlam's
premiership. Under Whitlam, we took in about 25,000 migrants per year. ("Go
Gough", she says!)
>
> labour market 'reform' - removing unfair dismissal laws
> Payback to his media mates - removal of cross media restrictions.
> further reducing taxes on the elites
> dismantling public health
>
>
> > there would have
> > been no common ground whatsoever between Howard and the media, and he
would
> > accordingly have been crucified far worse than he has been.
>
> Exposure of the lies forced the media to cover the story,
> but it has been a paper tiger.
> >
> > Now a bit down on the ladder from Rubinstein's list are the toadies
whose
> > job, (paid for in either money or power if the person is important
enough,
> > or even just the the ability to bask in establishment-approved
self-esteem
> > for those of no consequence), is to instil a false consciousness into
the
> > ordinary people.
>
> Howards radio shock jocks, Piers akkerman, Robert Bolt,
> P.P Mc Guinness, etc etc etc...
And every other shock-jock from the other side, too.
> And the PR front for almost every large company which
> funds many of those mouthpieces, and produces a constant
> stream of press releases.. and yet almost no-one knows they
> exist.
The ordinary people live in a state of alienation from their own
self-interests.
> > But the ordinary people are increasingly waking up. They are shedding
the
> > false consciousness that Marcuse famously believed they never could.
They
> > don't really care about the issues that the establishment has made into
> > iconic touchstones.
>
> They were suckered again at the last election.
I don't think so. They just picked the least unappealing mainstream and
establishment political leader, voted for him, and effectively stuck up
their fingers.
> Apart from a few marginalised protesters there is little
> resistance to the establishments dominance.
Agreed!
> > Instead, they are starting to recognise their own class
> > interests. And the proof of this is that when millionaire merchant
bankers
> > like Malcolm Turnbull try to play a "populist" card (in his case, on the
> > Republic issue), they get it so disastrously wrong ....
Then my correspondent seemed to lose all intellectual control, so I have
deleted all the subsequent attempts to spell strange war-whoop-sounding
noises. But by all means check out the subsequent correspondence for
yourselves. (I am not into censorship!)
fasgnadh
> fasgnadh wrote
> in <9617651d.02033...@posting.google.com>:
>
> ----snip----
>
> > I think it is absurd to present Turnbull as 'establishment'
>
> Your posturing is showing through here despite all your best efforts,
No, I'm genuinely trying to reveal what you continue to avoid in
your attempt to protect the major media moguls like Packer
by pursuing a sideshow like Turnbull. Why bother, unless you are
an establishment tool?
Everyone knows Howard and the Establishment split the Republican
camp and nuetralised it as an issue.
And everyone knows its a major plank of their agenda to remove
the cross media ownership laws which prevent the Goanna from
owning more of everything and concentrating media ownership
to oligarchic levels.... Oh.. so thats why you don't want to talk
about it! .. it matches your preferred political model:
THE SPARTAN OLIGARCHY! B^p
> Guano. The establishment is riddled with factions, some of which play
> from time to time the same posturing bullshit game you play,
This feeble distraction must have been a rush job, you can't seem to
make up your mind if its 'genuine factions competing to triumph',
or a posturing pretence and game. Take some time and get your story
straight,
and while you are at it, explain why you are still running Howards
Turnbull/Republican non-issue just to avoid focus on the REAL MEDIA
POWER BROKER, Citizen Packer.
....
>
> As your faction lost the last election.
No, the true-blues whipped your arse, and your Townsville Taliban
faction were ROUTED!
fasgnadh
> Peter Wicks (aka "Che Guava"), posting as "fasgnadh", wrote
> in <9617651d.02033...@posting.google.com>:
> > Rebecca wrote:
> >
> > "Challenge from a PC spokesperson"
> >
> > I appreciate Rebekkka's candour, but decline her challenge.
>
> Why, PC spokesperson?
Well, not just because she's a PC spokesperson,
but thats certainly a large part of it.
> Would it hurt you to spell her name correctly?
What did you say, Guano? B^D
stupid hypocritical twonk!
fasgnadh
> fasgnadh, wrote
> in <9617651d.02033...@posting.google.com>:
> > Neville Duguid wrote:
> > >
> > > Top post, Rebecca.
> >
> > No, she didn't top post, your obsequious flattery would be
> > more credible if you had at least read it.
>
> Your attempts to denigrate and discredit people
Why don't you tell Larry Cook about why you slandered him
and cyberstalked his kids, or perhaps have a whiney little
hypocritical bleat about spelling 'Rebekkka', eh 'Guano'? B^p
What about the Townsville Talibans conspiracy to Get Che?
Or your mates forging his net-id in fraudulent posts?
stupid hypocritical twonk!
> might have some
> credibility if you weren't so obvious in misrepresenting them.
And if you had an ironic sense of humour and avoided so much hypocritical
hubris you would not be quite such a ludicrous buffoon.
Besides, who could misrepresent Nev, most of the time
even he can't explain what he means. ;-)
The oficial aus.culture.true-blue Website
fasgnadh
That was obvious when it came to actually talking about his work
in any detailed, meaningful way.
So you now say he doesn't fit your definition
of being one of the "distinguished scientists and thinkers"
or "the most important opinion-makers" ..."however defined."
>
> Blainey, yes, in that the establishment is just like members of some
> exclusive club. They can get away with disagreeing within certain limits.
> Blainey disagreed big-time in 1984, and he suffered a lot personally, but
> his career and influence haven't been affected. If he had been a lowly littl
> e outsider he'd be driving taxis today.
>
> > Certainly Howard would agree.
>
> Well, he wouldn't agree with me,
About Blainey? He certainly would. Establishment stick together,
and Blainy is an essential part of Howards Political Correctness.
eg; Fraser writes a long, closely argued and rational piece
criticising the government/Blainey "Black armband" orthodoxy,
and Howard dismisses him with one word .. "elite"!
Now that is Political Correctness par excellence!
No debate, no reason, no substance, no point,
just automatic PC labelling!
The establishment has dialogue really nailed down!
> because he's very much part of the
> establishment. Do you mean that he'd agree with you?
That Blainey and Windshuttle are part of his establishment?
Privately he might, but publically I doubt he would admit to
there even being such a thing.
>
> > > I think that Rubinstein's "top elites" are pretty much equivalent to my
> > > "establishment".
> > >
> > > This may seem rather startling at first. After all, our PM and (much of
> his)
> > > Cabinet seem to be at odds on certain issues with many high-profile
> people
> > > on Rubinstein's list.
> >
> > Only the ones who aren't part of the establishment.
>
> Don't be so naive. Howard seems to be at odds on certain issues wiith
> Murdoch and Packer and Fairfax, not to mention top business leaders and all
> sorts of other people described in Rubinstein's list (see above).
'Seems' to be is the keyword, because Howard never wants to
be seen as acting with and for the establishment. Thats why
he and his ministers brand others as 'elites' (Rubensteins
term for him and the other wealthy and powerful upperclass),
but never acknowledge that they themselves ARE the elite.
Thus their attacks, parrotted by The Parrot, and other mass
media mouthpieces, on powerless dissenters, academics, clerics,
the odd ABC journalist who is critical of the status quo,
or social justice advocates as 'urban elites', 'chattering classes'
etc.
He is a master at smokescreen and scapegoating so that the real
power elite operate unimpeded.
> Howard and the others are *equally* part of the establishment.
Don't be naive, some are far more equal that others,
A government backbencher is not equal to Abbott or Howard,
and from your funny list of list 'the chairmen or managing
directors of the largest business enterprises' have direct
input to policy while 'the heads of the major trade unions'
such as the ETU are pariahs to the government, and even have
Royal commissions set up against them!
Wake up and smell the reality.
> Therefore their various
> factions can disagree with one another, but only within agreed limits.
Reiths Waterfront conspiracy with Corrigan shows there is no agreed
limits, unless you want to agree that the unions are on the OUTER
with the establishment.
>
> >> same media (the ABC,
> > > The Age, the SMH, the BRW, etc),
> > > and they are responding on the hop to the
> > > media-decreed issue-of-the-day,
You seem very confused. Here you describe the establishment
'responding on the hop to the media decreed issue-of-the-day'...
and below you repeat this insistance that the establishment
FOLLOWS the media line "None of them ever forgets the basic
rule of accepting what the media put up as *the* important issues"
But below when I point out the real power relationship as the REVERSE
of this, you agree and pretend to have thought it first!!!!!!!! B^p
Fas > The media are just the establishments TOOL.
Reb: Hey, you're starting to get it. Welcome to the revolutionary
faction!
So when will you 'start to get it'? ROFLMAO!
> > > within the agreed rules of the game - a bit like a shoal
> > > of fish, in which one or another minnow might occasionally take
> > > a "wrong" turn - but none of them ever forgets the basic rule of
> > > accepting what the media put up as *the* important issues.
> >
> > So, in your model, the establishment are controlled by the media
> > who are controlled by...?
You accept this here, as an accurate paraphrase of your position
above, and then later you accept the exact opposite and agree
with my view that it is in fact the MEDIA WHO ARE THE ESTABLISHMENTS
TOOL!
And you try to pretend it's your view and I just caught on! B^D
Pretty dishonest dealing.
No wonder the establishment rule with ease here! B^p
> >
> > Packer, Murdoch and Howard's mate Donald McDonald.
> >
> > That explains why pro union, pro worker, pro student,
> > pro immigrant voices don't get heard.
>
> It certainly explains why pro-student voices aren't heard.
as it does having the bosses viewpoints saturate the media
whenever there is a strike.
as it does immigrants behind barbed wire with a total media blackout!
Why are you trying to cover up for those areas of establishment
media manipulation?
> A few token
> students may be seconded into the establishment, but the stablishment
> couldn't give a damn about the average student. More or less the same goes
> for ordinary workers - but the current sell-out trade union leaders are of
> course welcomed into the establishment club.
So a Royal Commission into building unions, is 'being welcomed into
the establishment'
Pull the other one.
This government has the workers and Unions cowered into
submission with high unemployment and job insecurity,
and still hits them with fiercely punitive anti strike
legislation..
You sound like one of the bosses.
>
> By contrast, pro-immigrant voices are rammed down our ears and eyes
> incessantly through the establishment media.
? You can't even get an interview with a detainee! TOTAL
MEDIA BLACKOUT! VERBOTTEN!!
While every paper, every TV and every right wing shock jock,
and the post-Shiere neutered ABC, carried all the governments
"Truth Overboard" lies without ever digging for the truth,
and won them their PRAVDA-based election!
So WTF are you on about?
>
> > > So, for instance, Howard is allowed to fulminate that illegals who
> allegedly
> > > throw (or allegedly threaten to throw) their children overboard are not
> > > welcome in Australia.
> >
> > Well, he had to manufacture a pretext that would satisfy the whole
> > community to enable him to trawl for the Hanson constituency.
>
> Weak political point-scoring, cobber.
I know, he does it all the time, and it's really annoying that
dummies with poor politicla analysis permit him to get away with it!
B^(
>
> I am not a Howard fan.
Who said you were, and what has that to do with the issue?
> ("Please God, bring back Chifley and Curtin and
> Menzies!", she cries!) I am just pointing out how the establishment
> operates.
Until I point out the opposite power relationship, then you
agree, claim it as your view and chide me for catching up! B^D
Hey, I get it, you were SHOWING us, rather than telling us,
just how the establishment operates1 B^D
> Yes, of course the poor fellow trawled for the dissident
> constituency.
By deliberately lying, politicising the armed forces by involving
them in the scam, and later claiming hes a PM who 'knows nothing'
and gets told nothing. B^p Some leader.
> So did the other guy.
? He was fed the same phony government propoganda as the
rest of us?
Are you saying the scam victims are no better than the scam artists?
Pfffft!
> They both realise how alienated the
> majority are from the PC establishment agenda.
Can you translate that? Howard PRETENDED to be tough on
immigration with an expensive, fraudulently based, stunt.
He did so because the hansonites he needed in key rural
marginals could be easily fooled by a huge song and dance,
and never realise that in reality immigration is actually
at record levels and most detainees are found to be refugees
and let in! Amazing what some people will swallow, eh? B^p
> >
> > Thats how the establishment work, they have to trick the voters into
> > thinking they will benefit from, say, the GST, ..that it is
> > 'in the national interest' when really it's just in the interests of
> > the establishment. Thats why unions and workers parties opposed it,
> > they aren't part of the establishment.
>
> Most unions today are part of the establishment.
That sure explains Reiths Dubai diggers, Industrial relations
legislation, Royal Commission into the Building Unions, etc etc B^D
Reith and Abbott would be the most anti-union, pro-elite
establishment operatives since Maggie Thatcher.
> Back in Henry Lawson's day
> things were different ...
>
> > > If he could have backed up his claims then the media
> > > would have gone easy on him, because he was responding in terms of
> *their*
> > > moral system and *their* agenda.
> >
> > No, in that case he lied to them and through them to the whole
> > Australian people. He used the media, just like he used the
> > armed forces.
>
> Of course he lied! Which PM since (maybe) Menzies hasn't lied?
You missed the point "he USED the media, just like he used the army"
not,as you have previously argued 'accepting what the media put up as
*the* important issues'!!! 8^o
But then, it doesn't take much to make you back flip:
>
> > The media are just the establishments TOOL.
>
> Hey, you're starting to get it.
"Wait for you, you are the vanguard?" B^D
True-blues don't take well to fakers and liars.
> Welcome to the revolutionary faction!
Keep it comrade, I don't deal with Stalinists.
>
> > > But if he had said (and of course he
> > > wouldn't dare!): "I don't believe the Australian public wants these
> foreign
> > > gate-crashers who are racially and culturally undesirable",
> >
> > But he did say that! "We don't want those sort of people here"
>
> You miss the point. He said we don't want them here,
clearly then, I didn't miss the point. B^p
Your attempts at one-upmanship, when they come unstuck,
just make you look desperate and insincere.
> but he chose his ground
> according to establishment rules.
- Lies and propoganda to the mass media.
- dog whistle 'tough stand' BS to the redneck voters
- ABC and AGE follow up to explain to the disturbed middle class
that they 'misunderstood' his broadcast spin, that he really
would maintain high immigration which is what his business
cronies demand. B^p
This isn't rocket science you know, like history you just have to
start with the objective reality and analyse it, not bring a
pre-conceived ideology and try and make the facts fit it
> According to his bs, that was because they
> risked the lives of their kids.
Thats what I said, he needed that lie to make his ploy
to capture the Hansonites ("I'm tough on immigrants")
palatable to enough of the mainstream.
Now that the lie is exposed his poll support is way down,
because aussies aren't racists and resent being duped
in a fraudulent election.
> Had he said, in line with every Aussie PM
> from Barton until the seventies, "these foreign gate-crashers are racially
> and culturally undesirable", he would have been nailed up on a cross.
Becasue aussies aren't racists and no longer support the W.A.P.
Times change, and the fact that howard had to manufacture a
vicious slander about powerless refugees to win, shows how
that hidden, dog whistle racist appeal is only attractive
to a tiny minority, he needed that lying pretext "look at what
bastards these people are" to dupe people.
>
> > To most Australians that meant, we don't want kid chuckers here,
> > (but that was a lie promoted by Howard in the service of the
> establishments
> > goal to retain power).
>
> Hoo-whee! You're starting to get the point. Congrats!
Save your phony patronising, your contradictions have been exposed,
and claiming originality when you have adopted the counter view put to
you is like claiming to have the original FAQ when Che was first. ;-)
>
> > To Howard's targets in rural marginals it was also dog whistle
> > politics, "viz "We don't want those muslims and afghanis here"
>
> Oh dear! I thought you were doing so well, but this is a bit weak!
I you mean your dicversion into UK politics below, one can only
agree.
But you need to understand the political reality in order to
understand
why Howard needed the Big Lie.
Step 1. To be re-elected he needed to get back the Hanson vote,
that would shore up his rural marginals.
Step 2. atracting them required pressing one of their Hot Buttons,
he chose xenophobia. But if he was open about it, as you
agree, he would be crucified by the mainstream who clearly
do not support the failed Hanson agenda.
Step 3. By slandering and demonising the refugees, Howard turned
the mainstream against them *ON FAIRNESS AND DECENCY GROUNDS"
bringing on board the small but poll-significant minority
who just hate foreighners.
Step 4. The dog whistle is shrill but ambiguous statements that
sound to racists like Howard has moved to their view,
"look, he's calling Afghani's 'terrorists', not far from
'rag-heads!"
Step 5. This makes the mainstream nervous, so on Lateline and
in the opinion pages of the AGE, (where rednecks in large
numbers will never hear it) he gives assurances that of course
the refugees will stay if found to be genuine, and of course
the immigration business wants will continue.
And of course is has and will.
The rednecks, duped for the requisite 5 minutes in the ballot box
are no longer necessary, for the establishment it's
business as usual.
So what have you learnt? How to copy them with dubious stats:
> As reported in the Guardian newspaper (see
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/O.3604.655729.00.html), 46% of
> 18 to 30 year-olds in Holland favour zero Muslim immigration.
You had to go to Holland, to ONE age decile, to find the largest
MINORITY
you could dig up supporting your own obsession with immigration,
about the 584th priority for the nation? B^p
This is more Turnbull/Republic obsession with insignificant
duistractions from the real issues.
Exactly what the establishment wants so they can prosecute their
agenda
without public attention and criticism.
It's clear where your interests lie, supporting the establishments
core program: Divide(on ethnic or race issues this time) and conquer.
<snip The New Boers, or "Speculations on how some remote place might
vote">
>
> The last federal election in Australia, for instance, seems to have been
> determined by young female (and especially first-time female) voters who
> supported PM John Howard's stated policy of defending Australia's
> territorial integrity against "boat people".
Based on The Big Lie. So
>
> The current spokesman for this mood in Holland
Holland is being lied to about people throwing their kids in the
water?
If not, it ain't the same 'mood' B^p
is a 54 year-old man called
> Pim Fortuyn. Pim is said to be "openly gay". Still, 36% of young women and
> 46% of young men have said they intend to vote for him. Presumably this
> means that they will vote for anyone who is prepared to stand up for their
> rights as the indigenous population of their nation, and who is also willing
> to uphold their indigenous culture.
None of those terms or ideas surfaced in the australian
election, but I can see how desperate you are to replay the
whole establishment ploy. B^p
> > They have to have control of the economy, and therefore need to create
> > political ploys to achieve it, the proof is that once in power
> > Howard continues to pursue immigration from Asia and the middle east,
> > the hansonites are too dumb to realise they were duped, but his real
> > agenda is the establishment one:
>
> I don't disagree. Immigration is currently ruinning at pretty much an
> all-time-high, even though the PM has notched up brownie-points with the
> voters by being hard on the illegals. He will succeed, of course, because
> the voters' memories are so short. By contrast, let's look back to Whitlam's
> premiership.
Whitlam was Prime Minister. Premiers are state leaders.
He followed Frasers expanded immigration
It helps when discussing the establishment to get the basic
terminology
right (but at least you don't roll your own from sci fi novels! B^)
> Under Whitlam, we took in about 25,000 migrants per year. ("Go
> Gough", she says!)
Why?
Unlike you, i think ethnicity is among the least important
variables. Population policy should start with carry capacity
and environmental impact, sustainability, then economic and
social ramifications. As we have shown in the past,
Anglo, Chinese, Kanak, Irish, Scot, Welsh, German Greek Italian,
etc all get on well in tolerant multicultural Oz.
Croats and Serbs who kill each other in the Balkans, share
a beer at their kids footy game, here.
> >
> > labour market 'reform' - removing unfair dismissal laws
> > Payback to his media mates - removal of cross media restrictions.
> > further reducing taxes on the elites
> > dismantling public health
You spend reams on the race politics of 40% of Hollands 18-30 y.olds
and ignore every issue the establishment doesn't want focus on.
Now what does that tell people?
> >
> >
> > > there would have
> > > been no common ground whatsoever between Howard and the media, and he
> would
> > > accordingly have been crucified far worse than he has been.
> >
> > Exposure of the lies forced the media to cover the story,
> > but it has been a paper tiger.
> > >
> > > Now a bit down on the ladder from Rubinstein's list are the toadies
> whose
> > > job, (paid for in either money or power if the person is important
> enough,
> > > or even just the the ability to bask in establishment-approved
> self-esteem
> > > for those of no consequence), is to instil a false consciousness into
> the
> > > ordinary people.
> >
> > Howards radio shock jocks, Piers akkerman, Robert Bolt,
> > P.P Mc Guinness, etc etc etc...
Radio
John Laws
Alan Jones
Stan Zemanek
Brian Wilshire
Mike Jeffries
Howard Sattler
Bob Francis
Jeff Kennett
Print
David Barnett
Christopher Pearson
Frank Devine
Michael Duffy
John Stone
Piers Akerman
Ray Chesterton
P.P. McGuinness
Paul Sheehan
Les Carlyon
Paul Gray
Andrew Bolt
Laurie Kavanagh
John Hyde
45 minutes, et al
>
> And every other shock-jock from the other side, too.
You couldn't name ONE example? Hey I'll give you the standard
one, Phillip Adams! B^D
IF the whole fuckin AB friggin C was communist it still wouldn't
come within a bulls roar of balance with the pantheon of the
establishment mouthpieces of the right.
B^)
>
> > And the PR front for almost every large company which
> > funds many of those mouthpieces, and produces a constant
> > stream of press releases.. and yet almost no-one knows they
> > exist.
>
> The ordinary people live in a state of alienation from their own
> self-interests.
You don't even know the name of that Corporate PR front, do you?
Or that most of the writers of the right named above work for them.
>
> > > But the ordinary people are increasingly waking up. They are shedding
> the
> > > false consciousness that Marcuse famously believed they never could.
> They
> > > don't really care about the issues that the establishment has made into
> > > iconic touchstones.
> >
> > They were suckered again at the last election.
>
> I don't think so.
Thats because you were suckered too.
With all the crucial national issues confronting us, salination,
unemployment, r&D, taxation, insurance collapse, drugs, education,
Medicare, the onslaught of globalisation, you are still rabbiting
on about the carefully stage managed media-manipulation side-issue
Howard fed the sheep.
> They just picked the least unappealing mainstream and
> establishment political leader, voted for him, and effectively stuck up
> their fingers.
>
> > Apart from a few marginalised protesters there is little
> > resistance to the establishments dominance.
>
> Agreed!
>
> > > Instead, they are starting to recognise their own class
> > > interests. And the proof of this is that when millionaire merchant
> bankers
> > > like Malcolm Turnbull try to play a "populist" card (in his case, on the
> > > Republic issue), they get it so disastrously wrong ....
>
> Then my correspondent seemed to lose all intellectual control,
really? You don't mean some more flaws in your case were exposed:
_____________
> Instead, they are starting to recognise their own class
> interests. And the proof of this is that when millionaire merchant bankers
> like Malcolm Turnbull try to play a "populist" card (in his case, on the
> Republic issue), they get it so disastrously wrong ....
Thats your proof of people recognising their class interests?
The whole Republic distraction?
No wonder the establishment have such control of the vital
economic structures, and set policy with impunity,
you are obsessed with third order non-issues like
chinese food, historical revisionism and the republic.
>
> The workers just give them the finger, and vote "No!"
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAAAA!
Howard controlled the outcome like a master puppeteer,
he split the movement and retained political control over the GG.
.......
I think it is absurd to present Turnbull as 'establishment'
when he didn't get his way, and ignore Parcker.
That indicates a failure to grasp which are the important
i$$ues.
And explains why the populist right are led by the nose by the
economic elites.
_________________end unsnip___________
> so I have
> deleted all the subsequent attempts to spell strange war-whoop-sounding
> noises.
And uncomfortable questions about Turnbull bein gyour sole proof
of 'people recognising their class interests' B^D
Ned Latham
in <9617651d.02033...@posting.google.com>:
> > Peter Wicks (aka "Che Guava"), posting as "fasgnadh", wrote:
> > > Rebecca wrote:
> > >
> > > "Challenge from a PC spokesperson"
> > >
> > > I appreciate Rebekkka's candour, but decline her challenge.
> >
(Text restored to show up the dishonesty of the "response".)
> Well, not just because she's a PC spokesperson,
You be virtually mute if you had to be honest, Guano.
----snip----
Ned Latham
in <9617651d.02033...@posting.google.com>:
> > Peter Wicks (aka "Che Guava"), posting as "fasgnadh", wrote:
> > > Neville Duguid wrote:
(Guano's forgery of my attribution line undone.)
> > > >
> > > > Top post, Rebecca.
> > >
> > > No, she didn't top post, your obsequious flattery would be
> > > more credible if you had at least read it.
> >
> * Your attempts to denigrate and discredit people might have some
> * credibility if you weren't so obvious in misrepresenting them.
(Text restored to show up the dishonesty of the "response".)
> Why don't you tell Larry Cook about why you slandered him
> and cyberstalked his kids,
Why don't you take your skanky misrepresentations to him and
dob me in again, Guano?
> or perhaps have a whiney little
> hypocritical bleat about spelling 'Rebekkka', eh 'Guano'? =*=
You and Renfors are the ones flinging about the gratuitous abuse
in here, Guano. And you and Renfors are the only ones abusing
women.
And what I do to you is no excuse for you to take your venom out
on Rebecca, you coward.
> What about the Townsville Talibans conspiracy to Get Che?
BWAHAHAHAHA!
They're coming to take you away, ha ha, ha ha, ha ha, ha ha!
Those Voices in your head sure have got you running around in circles,
hey Guano?
Get some treatment, you madman.
Ned Latham
in <9617651d.02033...@posting.google.com>:
> > Peter Wicks (aka "Che Guava"), posting as "fasgnadh", wrote
(Guano's forgery of my attribution line undone.)
> > > I think it is absurd to present Turnbull as 'establishment'
> > > when he didn't get his way, and ignore Packer.
> >
> * Your posturing is showing through here despite all your best efforts,
> * Guano. The establishment is riddled with factions, some of which play
> * from time to time the same posturing bullshit game you play, and which
> * can't all win all the time, anyway. So it's inevitable that there are
> * establishment factions and personages who lose this or that contest.
> *
> * As your faction lost the last election.
> *
> * The point you ignore and hope no-one will notice is that the establishment
> * are the only ones in the contest, and no matter who loses, the winner is
> * the establishmewnt. And it will remain so while there are enough people
> * like you around (serving them or serving their purpose) helping them to
> * retain control over both of the legislative powers (initiative and assent).
(Text restored to show up the dishonesty of the "response".)
> No, I'm genuinely trying to reveal what you continue to avoid in
> your attempt to protect the major media moguls like Packer
> by pursuing a sideshow like Turnbull.
Liar. You're trying to conceal the simple fact that Packer and Turnbull
are only indivuals; that behind them are more individuals; and that no
single individual is essential to the establishment you serve with such
eager malice.
----snip----
> > As your faction lost the last election.
>
> No,
Yes. Labor got their arse kicked. The Big Business faction won and the
Big Government faction lost.
Ned Latham
in <9617651d.02033...@posting.google.com>:
----snip----
> Unlike you,
and unlike the ethnics themselves,
> i think ethnicity is among the least important
> variables. Population policy should start with carry capacity
> and environmental impact, sustainability, then economic and
> social ramifications. As we have shown in the past,
> Anglo, Chinese, Kanak, Irish, Scot, Welsh, German Greek Italian,
> etc all get on well in tolerant multicultural Oz.
They got on well together *before* multiculturalism was imposed on us, too.
> Croats and Serbs who kill each other in the Balkans, share
> a beer at their kids footy game, here.
Yair. It's one of the things True Blues used to insist on before your
smarmy "tolerance" was imposed on us.
Now, in the "tolerant" atmosphere of balkanization (er, multiculturalism),
our streets are becoming ethnic battlegrounds.
Neville Duguid
> Neville Duguid wrote:
> >
> > Even in the one
> > Windschuttle himself called a massacre, the white men involved went to
> > the trouble of provoking the Aborigines into attacking them before they
> > opened fire. So, even that is questionable if we look at the strict
> > definition of 'massacre'.
>
> Are you kidding! You have some really weird notions!! Don't you even
> recognise what you write? "PROVOKE" and then "SHOOT", and that was in
> a planned pincer movement to TRAP as many as possible, to kill as many
> as they could! What you seem to say is that to defend ones property,
> ie campsite in that case, is VERBOTEN if they are aborigines. That
> deliberate provocation, leading to an intended retaliation and then
> murdering the people is "justifiable homicide"?
Read it again, this time taking into account the way I carefully
qualified my statement with the words 'strict definition' and 'the one
Windschuttle himself called a massacre'. That is thus an unambiguously
identified incident I am talking about, as anyone who has actually read
what they suddenly claim to be experts on (ref subject header) will
already know. You are just putting together inside your own head a
random collage of anything and everything you have ever read about
Aborigines, and gratuitously attributing whatever you didn't like to
Keith Windschuttle.
FYI the reference, which I gave to 'fasgnadh' in another thread is:
: *************************** HERE!!!! *********************************
: "Of the four listed by Knightley, only Coniston deserves to be known
: as a genuine massacre." - Keith Windschuttle, 'The Myths of Frontier
: Massacres in Australian History', Part 1, Quadrant, October 2000, p.19
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So, unless your comments specifically apply to 'Coniston', you are not
even talking about the topic you think you are commenting on!
--
Neville Duguid * PC Political Science: "The insane should have *
True Blue Aussie Web Site * the same rights as everyone else. Anyone *
http://www.aussie-culture.net * who disagrees with them should not." *
Neville Duguid
> This does NOT prove your claim that "Windschuttle is the first
> historian with enough courage to have a crack at it".
So who was? And why should *you* be upset even if it wasn't correct?
You have already told yourself it's a lie like one of your own.
Shouldn't that give it all the justification it needs according to your
own system of values?
--
Neville Duguid * "If work were good for you, the rich *
True Blue Aussie Web Site * would leave none for the poor." *
http://www.aussie-culture.net * - Haitian proverb. *
Neville Duguid
> Wrong way around. Unless you are talking about to totally different
> incident. There was one who did, Jandamura was his name. He SHOT a few
> soldiers. He carried out guerilla warfare against the whites. He was
> an ex blacktracker, who couldn't stand what was being done to his
> people. But that is a different story.
This discussion is about what *Windschuttle* said. You are meandering
indiscriminately all over stuff that has no relevance to what is being
discussed here. Check the subject header!
--
Neville Duguid *"What all the wise men promised has not *
True Blue Aussie Web Site * happened, and what all the damned fools*
http://www.aussie-culture.net * said has come to pass." Lord Melbourne *
Neville Duguid
"Re: Political Correctoids use terms they can't even define":
> Yes. Labor got their arse kicked. The Big Business faction won and the
> Big Government faction lost.
And they will never win again. We used to vote for Big Government
ocassionally in the belief that the people we were delegating to run our
country for us were ordinary patriotic Aussies like ourselves, who
shared the goals and aspirations of the common people.
All 'big government' has done is create more 'stolen generations' - this
time of our own kids, conscripted into an education regime used to strip
them of their traditional Aussie values, and reprogram them with
something so totally alien and culturally diluted as to be almost
unrecognizable to their own parents and grandparents.
No one in the 'diversity' Big Government spawned could believe it is
even possible to have a government that represents the whole population
of Australia any more. Those who aspire to it have painted themselves
into their corner and burned all their bridges themselves.
Big Government with its Lenin-worship was too smart for its own good.
They have created a society in which their self-styled 'revolutionary
vanguard' equals the 'new aristocricy' and to hell with anyone who is
not part of it.
They will never win government again because they have deprived the
majority of any reason to vote for them. Is it any wonder the population
rejected their 'knowledge nation' as just another recruiting drive for
the 'smart-arse elite' we now know constitutes the beginning and end of
their narcissistic vision for the world. Like the aristocracies of
former centuries, all they want is to be photographed feting foreign
dignitories and being feted in return, and to hell with the peasant
populations who were misguided and gullible enough to trust them with
the power they needed to establish their new regime.
--
Neville Duguid * "The truth will never prevent Guano from *
nev...@aussie-culture.net * spouting his garbage.It's the only way he*
True Blue Aussie Web Site * can create an illusion of himself giving *
www.aussie-culture.net * someone stick" - Ned Latham, 30-Mar-2002 *
fasgnadh
nevi...@bigpond.net.au (Neville Duguid) wrote in message news:<1f9yolw.zcc28apt2f4N%nevi...@bigpond.net.au>...
> Ned Latham <nen...@news.apex.met.au> replied to "fasgnadh" in thread
> "Re: Political Correctoids use terms they can't even define":
>
> > Yes. Labor got their arse kicked. The Big Business faction won and the
> > Big Government faction lost.
>
> And they will never win again.
So what do you call the US Congress
..and the European Parliament.. B^D
Ned Latham
----snip----
> So, unless your comments specifically apply to 'Coniston', you are not
> even talking about the topic you think you are commenting on!
ROTFL! Typical of Renfors!
Ned Latham
in <9617651d.02033...@posting.google.com>:
>
Or any less, in the case of Big-Government-faction flunkies like you.
> Neville Duguid wrote:
> > Ned Latham replied to "fasgnadh" in thread "Re: Political
> > Correctoids use terms they can't even define":
> > >
> > > Yes. Labor got their arse kicked. The Big Business faction won and the
> > > Big Government faction lost.
> >
> > And they will never win again.
>
> So what do you call the US Congress
>
> ..and the European Parliament.. =*=
Foreign.
Tony Hancock
"Ned Latham" <nen...@news.apex.met.au> wrote in message
news:slrnaacrig....@arthur.valhalla.net.oz...
> Peter Wicks (aka "Che Guava"), posting as "fasgnadh", wrote
> in <9617651d.02033...@posting.google.com>:
>
> ----snip----
>
> > I think it is absurd to present Turnbull as 'establishment'
> > when he didn't get his way, and ignore Parcker.
>
> Your posturing is showing through here despite all your best efforts,
> Guano. The establishment is riddled with factions, some of which play
> from time to time the same posturing bullshit game you play, and which
> can't all win all the time, anyway. So it's inevitable that there are
> establishment factions and personages who lose this or that contest.
Wot a pseudo-intellectual wank.
The only person who lost anything is you, cos we the people voted that you
are not fit to moderate a cultural newsgroup.
> As your faction lost the last election.
Spilled milk now. I don't see Che crying over it, just Ned the braindead
gloating. Wot a wanker.
> The point you ignore and hope no-one will notice is that the establishment
> are the only ones in the contest,
zzzzz I fell asleep at your droning monotone...... who is this establishment
you speak of, O Ned the paranoid?
> and no matter who loses, the winner is
> the establishmewnt.
Yawn.
> And it will remain so while there are enough people
> like you around (serving them or serving their purpose) helping them to
> retain control over both of the legislative powers (initiative and
assent).
>
> ----snip----
Err OK. You would know, being the political expert
I await your expose.
Cheers
Tony Hancock
Ned Latham
> Ned Latham wrote in
> > Peter Wicks (aka "Che Guava"), posting as "fasgnadh", wrote:
> >
> > ----snip----
> >
> > > I think it is absurd to present Turnbull as 'establishment'
> > > when he didn't get his way, and ignore Parcker.
> >
> > Your posturing is showing through here despite all your best efforts,
> > Guano. The establishment is riddled with factions, some of which play
> > from time to time the same posturing bullshit game you play, and which
> > can't all win all the time, anyway. So it's inevitable that there are
> > establishment factions and personages who lose this or that contest.
>
> Wot a pseudo-intellectual wank.
Ordinary observation, Handoncock. Something you wouldn't know about.
> The only person who lost anything is you,
Funny that. You were the beneficiary of it, and now that I've lost it
it's you that'll have to give me reason to find it.
> cos we the people
You misspelt "we hysterically lying paranoiac thugs", cretin.
> voted that you
> are not fit to moderate a cultural newsgroup.
Yair. Pity you're not fit to judge.
> > As your faction lost the last election.
>
> Spilled milk now. I don't see Che crying over it,
ROTFL! You still don't recognise his dummy-spit mode?
> just Ned the braindead
> gloating.
You're a moron, handon. I'll gloat when (if ever) we get a government worthy
of respect.
> Wot a wanker.
No need to brag about your greatest skill, handon: here on Usenet, it's
also your most outstanding feature, and your readers have been aware it
for quite a while now.
> > The point you ignore and hope no-one will notice is that the establishment
> > are the only ones in the contest,
>
> zzzzz I fell asleep at your droning monotone...... who is this establishment
> you speak of, O Ned the paranoid?
It's taken you, what? two years? to come up with that question?
And even then, you needed to see Guano asking it first.
ROTFL!
You're too slow to understand the answer within the span of a normal
human lifetime, handon, even if it were packed into a single word.
> > and no matter who loses, the winner is the establishmewnt.
>
> Yawn.
Cretins like you are one of the reasons for it.
> > And it will remain so while there are enough people like you around
> > (serving them or serving their purpose) helping them to retain control
> > over both of the legislative powers (initiative and assent).
> >
> > ----snip----
>
> Err OK. You would know, being the political expert
I never made that claim, handon. Are you again demonstrating your idiocy?
Oops, silly me. Of course not. You're *still* demonstrating it.
> I await your expose.
Read "Doo Wah Diddle" again, moron.
tommie ruff
Gosh,
the fact that most of the "evidence" you see in the media re:
Aboriginal history is so far removed from the actual "documented"
(that means museum or university repositories of data - for the bigots
I mean "the stuff the elites expect us to believe" ) historical record
that most of this stuff is akin to debating whether the moon is really
made of swiss cheese.
Anyone wishing to discover the truth can do so easily, but most of us
just don't want to know.....so we continue to try to delude ourselves
into thinking our history was pure and wholesome...
Peter Wilks
> "Rebecca" <rebe...@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:<aOyp8.25900$uR5....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...
> > "fasgnadh" <fasg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:9617651d.02033...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Rebecca" <rebe...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:<mizo8.23930$uR5....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...
> > > > "Peter Wilks" <peter...@emaildownunder.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:aa94cd37.02032...@posting.google.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > There was a fairly simple question put to Rebecca,fasgnadh and Ned
> Latham;
> > > > >
> > > > > "As you use the term 'establishment' and yet all disagree with each
> > > > > other (quite violently) what does each of you mean by it?"
> > > > >
> > > ....
> > >
Rebecca and Fasgnadh both seem to understand the term
and both have articulate, if competing, views on the establishment.
Ned, seems to be at a loss.
Ned Latham
in <aa94cd37.02040...@posting.google.com>:
> "fasgnadh" wrote:
> > Rebecca wrote:
> > > "fasgnadh" wrote:
> > > > Rebecca wrote:
> > > > > "Peter Wilks" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There was a fairly simple question put to Rebecca,fasgnadh
> > > > > > and Ned Latham;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "As you use the term 'establishment' and yet all disagree
> > > > > > with each other (quite violently) what does each of you
> > > > > > mean by it?"
> > > > > >
> > > > ....
> > > >
>
> Rebecca and Fasgnadh both seem to understand the term
> and both have articulate, if competing, views on the
> establishment.
>
> Ned, seems to be at a loss.
Only to people who believe your misrepresentations, Guano.
As "fasgnadh" you answered your own trolling question, and Rebecca
gave you a good explanation. I gave you a "piss off troll" type of
answer: be satisfied, troll.
Seppo Renfors
Neville Duguid wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors <Ren...@not.ollis.com.au> wrote:
[reinsert relevant text Nev had to make disappear]
> I am getting a bit hazy already and I don't
> have time to read it again right now, but I seem to recall that in at
> least one case the Aboriginals deliberately called for a clash of arms,
> and in another made it clear they were determined to fight it out with
> their own weapons, and taunted the white men to attack.
[end insert]
> > Wrong way around. Unless you are talking about to totally different
> > incident. There was one who did, Jandamura was his name. He SHOT a few
> > soldiers. He carried out guerilla warfare against the whites. He was
> > an ex blacktracker, who couldn't stand what was being done to his
> > people. But that is a different story.
>
> This discussion is about what *Windschuttle* said.
THAT is what I was telling you. Don't steal MY position, by false
claims, and editing the post to enable you to make the FALSE CLAIMS
you have.
> You are meandering
> indiscriminately all over stuff that has no relevance to what is being
> discussed here. Check the subject header!
So WHY did you go waffling off into other areas for, then Nev, hmmmm?
Not what I say at the end you MISSED editing out "But that is a
different story".... do you understand what it means? Do you
understand WHY I said it?
--
SIR -Philosopher Unauthorised
------------------------------------------------------------------
" Don't resent getting old. A great many are denied that privilege "
---------------------------------------------------------------