• expired

Free NAIDOC 2024 Poster @ Kmart & Target

1346
Free NAIDOC 2024 Poster @ Kmart & Target
Go to Deal
Dragon88Power on 11/07/2024 - 19:05 kmart.com.au (3948 clicks)
Last edited 11/07/2024 - 19:07 by 1 other user

Free NAIDOC week posters at Kmart.
Kmart and Target are proud to be appointed by National NAIDOC Committee as the Official National NAIDOC Week Poster Distribution Partner for 2024.
This partnership will see National NAIDOC Week Posters distributed to customers free of charge at all Kmart and K hub stores across the Country from early June 2024.
This year’s National NAIDOC Week Poster features artwork by Deborah Belyea, proud member of the Samuawgadhalgal, Cassowary Clan, whose bloodlines stretch to the people of the top Western Torres Strait islands of Saibai, Dauan, and the Bamaga-Saibai community of Cape York. Titled ‘Urapun Muy’, Deborah Belyea’s artwork is a heart-warming piece that pays tribute to First Nations culture, while the fire represents the sharing of cultural knowledge from one generation to the next, aligning to this year’s NAIDOC Week theme, ‘Keep the Fire Burning! Blak, Loud and Proud’.

Home & Garden Poster

Related Stores

Kmart
Kmart
National NAIDOC Committee
National NAIDOC Committee
Target Australia
Target Australia

Comments

            • abetastic on 12/07/2024 - 11:50
              +1

              @entropysbane: Romans contributed a whole lot more to modern society than any Aboriginal culture.

              Also if you read my comment above, I am not saying Roman history shouldn't be remembered. I am saying that village (probably thousands) that Romans conquered will not because that is what happens when you get conquered.

          • Gehirn on 12/07/2024 - 23:01

            @infinite:

            promoting a fictional history

            Tell me again about your fantasy that Aboriginal people caused a hole in the ozone layer.

    • pufffdragon on 11/07/2024 - 21:19
      +51

      Forget the calendar. Spend a night in Alice Springs and get back to me.

        • Charity on 11/07/2024 - 21:45
          +22

          He didn’t say anything about anti social issues.

          Your virtue signalling is so far in a knot that it has exposed your own deep seated prejudices. Lol

          • bigmudcake on 11/07/2024 - 22:06
            -1

            @Charity: Not sure where the "deep seated prejudices" are ? What I said was a statement of fact of what is happening in Alice Springs and other places at the moment. Why is it easier to attack then to learn ?
            I am learning more about my Scottish ancestors as well, if you want to know. You may disagree, but I feel the poster adds cultural value.

        • King Tightarse on 11/07/2024 - 21:50
          +22

          Alice Springs is off the dial - it's getting close to being a failed city. Near impossible to run a business normally there.

    • King Tightarse on 11/07/2024 - 21:49
      +22

      I would rather learn Korean - more useful

      • DrScavenger on 12/07/2024 - 14:17

        Learn Spanish, or Chinese then. Far more useful

      • rokufan on 12/07/2024 - 17:41
        +1

        I fancy learning some Italian for my next holiday. Now that's a rich culture.

    • MakingBacon on 11/07/2024 - 21:50
      +4

      Take your self loathing dna out of the gene pool

      • jasonb66 on 12/07/2024 - 02:57
        +1

        Curious about whatever insecurity seeing this post has triggered …

      • HamesJoffman on 12/07/2024 - 09:04
        +3

        Who hurt you, friend?

    • teddiebear on 11/07/2024 - 22:22
      +40

      It's a shame that the 'respect' doesn't go both ways. They expect us white folk to recognise, respect, learn, blah blah blah. But when they call us "white dog c**ts" for invading THEIR land, we have to accept it???
      Nah! Not on my watch! I, like you, wasn't born 200years ago, didn't ask to be born, why am i, my children and childrens children, held responsible for crap that happened?
      Better us than the Japanese or some other imperial, who woulda wiped everyone out. Sad but true. Stolen generation? It's called child services. A LOT of white kids were taken too, but do we hear about that?
      People have to move the F on and get a job, contribute to society instead of taking from it, take responsibility of their own actions and be punished the same as everyone else who breaks the law.
      Aboriginal people represent 2% of the nation yet get OVER 15% of the nations wealth. People land here from all over the world. Upon entry, it's ALWAYS a aboriginal ceremony. I'm sorry but that is NOT the only culture in this country. We have a hell of a lot more to offer than a dance and ceremony invented last week to welcome people here.

        • Gehirn on 11/07/2024 - 23:34
          +6

          Their complete inability to even manage fire or the surrounding environment for several thousand years led to the only man-made hole in the ozone layer anywhere in the world…

          Source this actually happened?

        • morse on 12/07/2024 - 05:49
          +12

          No form of laws, no concept of science, no concept of maths

          That’s just untrue.

          invented by self-hating middle aged white women

          Here we go.

          Their complete inability to even manage fire or the surrounding environment for several thousand years led to the only man-made hole in the ozone layer anywhere in the world by propagating the spread of highly flammable flora that served only to kill our own people.

          What now? You’re blaming Aboriginal people pre colonisation for the hole in the ozone layer?

          There’s so much yuck in your comment I don’t even know where to start. Having ‘Aboriginal ancestry’ doesn’t make it okay to call a whole group of people child rapists.

          Take a step back and look at yourself, can you really claim to be so civilised, ‘intellectual’ and promoting ‘social cohesion’ with a comment like this? Anyone with a grain of insight could do better.

          • youfnc on 12/07/2024 - 07:59
            +8

            @morse: This dude is a full blown pathological liar. I borderline enjoy keeping track of his comment history to see what's next.

        • smartazz104 on 12/07/2024 - 08:21
          +2

          Their complete inability to even manage fire or the surrounding environment for several thousand years led to the only man-made hole in the ozone layer anywhere in the world by propagating the spread of highly flammable flora that served only to kill our own people

          Ok so you're full of shit.

        • garddn on 12/07/2024 - 09:09
          +3

          I agree. There's journals locked away in our state libraries that describe what was happening even into the 1800's.
          They are locked away so we never learn the real truth telling.
          The truth telling that they used rape in their tribal wars, would murder their sick babies and eat them, use slavery, etc.
          Why don't we ever learn those truths as part of truth telling.

          • morse on 12/07/2024 - 10:51
            +2

            @garddn: How do you know what’s in them if they are locked away and “we never learn the real truth telling”?

            I honestly can’t believe the racist garbage this deal for a free poster has dragged to the surface.

            • garddn on 14/07/2024 - 09:40

              @morse: There is nothing racist about actual truth telling of what their society was like.
              These are all known facts that are in pioneers journals.

              • morse on 14/07/2024 - 13:08

                @garddn: There’s everything racist about making up that a particular culture, particularly a marginalised one, eats their own babies. You don’t think the ‘pioneers’ might have had skewed accounts of reality and biases?

                Also you said your self that your so called sources aren’t available so you’re just making stuff up. It’s low ball slander and honestly you should be ashamed of yourself. Based on your writing skills I would guess you’re either English second language, have literacy difficulties or a low level of education and could be equally targeted by people making up harmful lies about you. Think about that before attacking others.

                • garddn on 15/07/2024 - 08:36
                  +1

                  @morse: There is nothing racist in my comment. Many indigenous tribes the world over practiced canabalism. And it just so happens that Australian indigenous were no different. Why do you think they would be special and different? There are many journals from the time, from different settlers that lived 100's of km from each other that observed the same thing.

                  https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2021/09/the-incidence-of-ca…

                • garddn on 15/07/2024 - 08:38

                  @morse: Think about that before attacking others while mr Morse goes on the attack, attacking others. You have NFI who i am

                  • morse on 15/07/2024 - 10:20
                    -2

                    @garddn:

                    You have NFI who i am

                    I have every idea. Once you start quoting quadrant, raving on about cannibalism in the context of a NAIDOC week poster, misappropriating the term truth-telling and posting comments obsessively, I have a fair idea what kind of person you are.

                    Question your motives. What’s in it for you to spread information that might cast a negative light on a group of largely disadvantaged people? What emotional need are you’re trying to address within yourself? I suggest you foster your energy in a positive way. Lift others up and lift yourself in the process.

                • garddn on 15/07/2024 - 08:42

                  @morse: “The natives to the south eat human flesh. It is said that they engage in regular human hunting parties for this purpose … It is even said that they roast and eat their own infants, if they succeed each other too quickly. Only last year a woman not far from here did it, and when reproved for so doing, by means of an interpreter (for they speak a different language), she was surprised at being found fault with, as she considered the roasting and eating of her own child as something quite natural.” (Rev. Louis Schulze, missionary, “The Aborigines of the Upper and Middle Finke River: Their Habits and Customs”, in Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia, vol. 14, 1891.)

            • garddn on 15/07/2024 - 08:45

              @morse: Reports of Aboriginal cannibalism comprised a significant component of works on Aboriginal society down to the 1950s or even later. Since then they have vanished from all depictions of Aboriginal society, and, if asserted today, would be regarded as the embodiment of racism, and dismissed out of hand. These old and frank depictions of Aboriginal society have been replaced by their opposite: veneration for the indigenous inhabitants of Australia and their society as utopian and pristinely moral, and any trace of the endemic and nightmarishly barbaric world inhabited by the Aborigines found by virtually all early observers here has been totally erased, its depiction as fact wholly taboo.

              Now, let's start getting back to truth telling, and stop spreading the lies that they were a bunch of peaceful tribes living in harmony with each other.

          • Gehirn on 12/07/2024 - 10:56
            +1

            @garddn: Your inability to use Google Scholar or any other database does not mean they are locked away.

            • garddn on 15/07/2024 - 08:42

              @Gehirn: “The natives to the south eat human flesh. It is said that they engage in regular human hunting parties for this purpose … It is even said that they roast and eat their own infants, if they succeed each other too quickly. Only last year a woman not far from here did it, and when reproved for so doing, by means of an interpreter (for they speak a different language), she was surprised at being found fault with, as she considered the roasting and eating of her own child as something quite natural.” (Rev. Louis Schulze, missionary, “The Aborigines of the Upper and Middle Finke River: Their Habits and Customs”, in Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia, vol. 14, 1891.)

        • 2esc on 12/07/2024 - 11:19
          +8

          My boss is aboriginal probably the best boss ive ever had and he is getting on with his life and most of his people the Gunnaikurnai in east Victoria are as well.

          His feels this constant guilt tripping of todays Australians is disgusting and its mostly coming from the major cities. In some cases it's now causing discontent and racism.

          Now out of a work force of 30 staff ive only heard one guy that has said the wrong thing but note he says the wrong thing about everyone.

          We are a construction crew 95% white mostly middle age or older in East Victoria I just don't see blatant obvious racism in my life.

          No doubt there would be plenty of racism around but not in my life/work maybe just lucky and i dont associate with crap people.

          It just feels I'm being constantly told how evil I must be because I'm white.

          • morse on 12/07/2024 - 12:18
            +4

            @2esc:

            It just feels I'm being constantly told how evil I must be because I'm white.

            What about this poster tells you this?

            • youfnc on 12/07/2024 - 21:15
              -1

              @infinite:

              Segregating, isolating and gifting one specific group of people or any one ethnic minority advantages over all other groups, is by it's definition racism. It stokes the fires of hatred, it makes people divided instead of being one and it causes extremism

              Interesting to hear you speak against division and segregation after seeing you upvote racist hate speech that landed a user in the penalty box.

        • entropysbane on 12/07/2024 - 11:43
          +1

          I think Jacinta Nampijinpa Price would agree with you.

      • Jazzahh on 11/07/2024 - 23:13
        +1

        Nothing like a free poster to weed out the closet racists. Your attitude is disgusting.

        • King Tightarse on 11/07/2024 - 23:44
          +20

          You know it is possible to not like this deal without being 'racist'. Some may consider it cynical corporate tokenism, for example.
          You don't have to blindly clap at everything with the word Aboriginal. Like all cultures, some things may be great, others not so great,
          Cheering at everything blindly would show a worrying lack of discretion.

          • 1st-Amendment on 12/07/2024 - 11:45
            +9

            @King Tightarse:

            You know it is possible to not like this deal without being 'racist'.

            You need to understand the peanut logic of the modern leftist. Everyone who disagrees with them is Hitler/racist. You can never have a discussion, it's either agree with me or be labelled a heretic and cancelled.

          • Gehirn on 12/07/2024 - 12:00

            @King Tightarse:

            You know it is possible to not like this deal without being 'racist'.

            Did they say only racists don't like this deal? No they didn't. Their comment is clearly a reply to Teddiebear's that is critical of a race of people.

            • King Tightarse on 12/07/2024 - 12:53
              +5

              @Gehirn: I see a broad accusation of racism and racists being 'weeded out of the closet' who are then accused of being 'disgusting'.
              Leading to the above point.

              • Gehirn on 12/07/2024 - 12:57

                @King Tightarse: A broad accusation? It seems pretty specific "Your attitude". Their attitude clearly towards race. No hint of dislike because it may be "cynical corporate tokenism, for example."

                • King Tightarse on 12/07/2024 - 12:58

                  @Gehirn: Original comment yesterday was Nothing like a free poster to weed out the closet racists so, broad and non-specific, as I read it.

                  • Gehirn on 12/07/2024 - 13:05

                    @King Tightarse: Your original comment said 'I don't care tbh', guess you care now.

                    • King Tightarse on 12/07/2024 - 13:06

                      @Gehirn: Thought it was a bit rude so edited but no, don't really care a day later TBH

        • Gareth on 12/07/2024 - 00:11
          +1

          It's not closet when they're happy to post it.

        • teddiebear on 12/07/2024 - 00:17
          +14

          Me a closet racist? Nàaah no closet here and as far as racist goes, no to that too. Stating facts that some people who are too ignorant to realise, having an opinion that everyone is entitled to have, standing up for what is right and fair.
          Do we have a 'white week' devoted to white people, or asian week (representing all Asian nations settled here), or Greek week, Italian week, Indian week, Czech week, list goes on. Do we celebrate any other culture in this multicultural nation? The answer is NO. So who is being racist here?
          As a white man, i cannot fly my own flag on the only day celebrating Australia, because it might offend someone. Take a good, hard look at what is happening here…
          Entire civilizations have been built, lost and forgotten in the age that the Aboriginal people have been around. Inca, roman empire, ancient greece, even Jesus walked the Earth, yet Aboriginals haven't evolved.
          It's 2024ad. Time to get with the times and move on.

          • fantombloo on 12/07/2024 - 01:40
            +4

            @teddiebear: Have our nonindigenous Australian forebears invaded and systematically tried to erase white, Asian, Greek, Italian, Indian, or Czech peoples in the past?

            yet Aboriginals haven't evolved.

            You will find that all living beings are exactly as evolved as each other - that's why we're all here together right now. Unless your definition of evolution means "being like me."

          • morse on 12/07/2024 - 02:53
            +7

            @teddiebear:

            As a white man, i cannot fly my own flag

            I didn’t realise white men had their own flag.

            • teddiebear on 12/07/2024 - 06:30
              +3

              @morse: The Australian flag that people have lived , fought and died for, the flag that represents everyone in this nation, the flag that says we're one of the luckiest and free counties in the world. The flag we have flown in every Olympic event, sporting event, educational challenge, the flag we should all be proud of!
              We can fly the Aboriginal flag too, shoulder to shoulder, as we should. The moment somebody of any racial background spits on my flag… Hell's gona follow.

              • morse on 12/07/2024 - 11:16
                -1

                @teddiebear: Ah my bad, when you said “as a white man” I thought your flag would look something like this
                https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/man-anatomy-organ-…

              • eggboi on 12/07/2024 - 11:20
                +3

                @teddiebear: Congratulations, you were randomly assigned a nation at birth. Patriotism is such a weird phenomenon. It’s totally arbitrary. Do you identify this strongly with your given name? A loyal band of brothers sharing the same given name? Why not? It’s equally arbitrary 😂

              • poppingtags on 12/07/2024 - 12:22
                +2

                @teddiebear: Reminds me of one of my favourite quotes.

                "People who enjoy waving flags, don't deserve to have one"
                - Banksy

            • 1st-Amendment on 12/07/2024 - 11:47
              +2

              @morse:

              I didn’t realise white men had their own flag.

              They don't, but Black people do. Can you work out which one of those is racist?

          • smartazz104 on 12/07/2024 - 08:22
            +2

            @teddiebear: Nice, separating "white" people and Greeks and Italians…

            • 1st-Amendment on 12/07/2024 - 11:52
              +2

              @smartazz104:

              Nice, separating "white" people and Greeks and Italians…

              If you knew anything of history linger than 5 minutes, then even 40 years ago, Spanish, Italians, Greeks, and Jews etc were not consider 'White' by the purists. Just ask any old skinhead from the 70's if you need clarification. It was only when the Black activism gained mainstream appeal in the 80's that suddenly all people from Europe (and Israel) got thrown into the 'White' basket. European people bad, Black people good etc…

      • jasonb66 on 12/07/2024 - 03:11
        +11

        Phenomenal generalisation… It's a free calendar for NAIDOC. You see it and somehow decide to rage about some tangentially-related anecdote quoting someone (definitely not NAIDOC) calling you a "white dog c**t". If you want to raise some genuine objection, it'd probably help if you didn't just respond to some imagined idea of Indigenous people (and it'd really help if those ideas weren't exclusively right-wing talking points detached from reality.

        You aren't help responsible for the 'crap that happened'. You'd be in jail otherwise. You have an option to engage with a bit of history and understand it, you're not really losing out on anything. I'm guessing you haven't read much on Australian history. The number of Indigenous who were 'wiped out' was far from trivial. The stolen generation was far more widespread and indiscriminate than child services. White kids weren't taken as part of the stolen generation. It's a different topic. Doesn't mean that it's right or not worth talking about.

        It's easier to say move the F on from a place of privilege. Someone on 30k a year can get a parking fine + someone on 200k a year can get a parking fine. They aren't "punished the same" because someone on 200k can just shrug that off. Peter Dutton's son can get photographed with a bag of coke or ketamine and everyone is like 'leave the boy alone!!' - if that kid was Indigenous and living in housing commission, he'd probably end up in jail.

        The stat of the nations wealth doesn't even make sense. What wealth or figure are you even referring to there? And lastly if you have a lot more to offer why not make some positive suggestions then? Cause at the moment you're not exactly coming across as the most "welcoming" character…

        • teddiebear on 12/07/2024 - 06:08
          +1

          I don't need to be 'welcoming' lol. Free education, free specialist healthcare, 1% house loans, the government stopped the deal with holden where they could grt a brand spanking new car and only make 2 payments on it and the government took over the payments, discounted other loans, claiming crown land saying it's sacred and selling it the day after for development, it's bloody bullshit.
          Another example is a fella in sydney lost his newly purchased house after finding pippy shells in his backyard when digging a hole for a pool. They said "it's sacred ground" to them. Someone had a picnic there hundreds of years ago lol. If it was so sacred, why did nobody go back there for a hundred years???
          A lot of the people saying/crying about the stolen generation were never a victim of it in the first place.
          You can say black lives matter and it's ok. Say white lives matter and you're a racist.
          Come on!

          • morse on 12/07/2024 - 11:04

            @teddiebear:

            fella in sydney lost his newly purchased house after finding pippy shells in his backyard when digging a hole for a pool.

            Do you have a link to a news article about someone losing their freehold title on residential land after finding a midden in their backyard? Or perhaps court documents that would have been public for such a case?

          • jasonb66 on 13/07/2024 - 03:32
            +1

            @teddiebear: Again, the way you're responding is just a weird combination of apoplectic talking points and random anecdotes as if that's substantive enough to back up both what you're saying – or the fact you're saying it in the first place… in response to a post about free NAIDOC calendar. I feel like you're just plugged into a right-wing feedback loop rather than having any actual knowledge of Indigenous Australians. I say that because of the way you are quite simply telling on yourself with each sentence you write. You're not talking with substance or knowledge, you're talking in headlines that you've seen, that have more often than not been written by partisan figures with an agenda – and it isn't knowledge. Beyond being barely coherent, what you're writing is a bunch of reactive nonsense coming from a place of embarrassing defensiveness. Not to be too rude but… grow up and go and read a book or two.

            • teddiebear on 13/07/2024 - 11:33

              @jasonb66: And who are you??

            • teddiebear on 13/07/2024 - 19:06
              -1

              @jasonb66: So nice of you to make a new account to make a comment. Try using your normal account and put it in the record. Nice try.

        • teddiebear on 12/07/2024 - 06:17
          +11

          Aboriginals wanted an apology, they got it from the government more than once.
          They want 'recognition', they have it. I recognise them as an Aboriginal.
          They say it isn't about money. Well if it isn't about money, cut all the funding and see what happens. Pleeeeease… It's all about the $$$!!
          When will this crap stop? What more can we do?? We've given them everything they ask for, yet it isn't enough.
          Sure, horrible crap happened. We don't have a time machine to go back and change it. Gotta move forward.

          • Gehirn on 12/07/2024 - 11:46
            -2

            @teddiebear:

            Gotta move forward.

            The stolen generation 'ended' in the 1970s, hard to move forward for the people that are still alive that suffered.

            • 1st-Amendment on 12/07/2024 - 11:55

              @Gehirn:

              The stolen generation 'ended' in the 1970s, hard to move forward for the people that are still alive that suffered.

              The 'Stolen Generations is mostly a myth. It makes for a great heart-ache story that lefties can use as a battle cry for their virtue signalling crusades, but the truth is a much different story.

              If you are interested in the real story, read this: https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2010/01-02/why-there-were-n…

              • Gehirn on 12/07/2024 - 12:17

                @1st-Amendment:

                If the Stolen Generations story were true, its members should have had many victories in the courts, now that the tide of opinion is firmly on their side. The charges involved serious breaches of the law—false imprisonment, misfeasance of public office, breach of duty of care, and breach of fiduciary and statutory duties—and human rights lawyers and Aboriginal legal aid services have been lining up for years to take their cases. Yet only one claimant has ever been successful before a court: Bruce Trevorrow, who in 2007 was awarded $525,000 by the South Australian Supreme Court.

                The $50 million dollar settlement in NT, SA's fund that was made as it was cheaper to do so than fighting it in court, similarly QLD's redress scheme, NSW's scheme, etc. sure proves him wrong.

                • 1st-Amendment on 12/07/2024 - 14:52

                  @Gehirn:

                  The $50 million dollar settlement in NT, SA's fund that was made

                  What settlement? You forgot to provide details…

                  sure proves him wrong.

                  A 'proof' would require a citation…

                • 1st-Amendment on 12/07/2024 - 15:16
                  +1

                  @Gehirn:

                  The $50 million dollar settlement in NT

                  Since you never provided a reference I looked it up. Here's a couple of issues with your 'proof':

                  1. The article I linked was written in 2010, the 'settlement' I think you are referring to was in 2022. You can't be 'wrong' if the thing you are talking about hasn't happened yet. So in 2010 when it was written it was correct.
                  2. If this is the settlement you are referring to: https://www.shine.com.au/service/class-actions/northern-terr… then you might want to read the important bit at the top: "The settlement is without admission of liability". So no fault determined at all.

                  Your 'proof' is not a proof at all.

                  But this example actually demonstrates my point about the grievance industries. Create a bogeyman, then use that to extract cash. It's a great scam and lots of people are getting wealthy from taxpayer dollars. Lawyers love this stuff, it's free money for them. Shine are probably taking home $10M+ from each case. Another win for the lawyers!

                  • Gehirn on 12/07/2024 - 15:41
                    -2

                    @1st-Amendment:

                    A 'proof' would require a citation…

                    Your article lacks them quite often too.

                    The article I linked was written in 2010…

                    And you linked it in 2024 as the "real story" so it is incorrect. Thus "If the Stolen Generations story were true, its members should have had many victories in the courts…". The court approving $50 million sure seems like a victory to me. Bet it was a real close case.

                    Your 'proof' is not a proof at all.

                    Yes lets ignore the redress schemes accepting liability.

                    It's a great scam and lots of people are getting wealthy from taxpayer dollars.

                    Waiting to hear where this conspiracy leads in why the government is giving out millions and not pursuing that they are innocent.

      • youfnc on 12/07/2024 - 08:34
        +3

        Stolen generation? It's called child services.

        Wow.

        • 1st-Amendment on 12/07/2024 - 11:56
          +4

          Wow.

          'Wow' is not really a counter argument. Read this and tell me which part you disagree with: https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2010/01-02/why-there-were-n…

          • youfnc on 12/07/2024 - 12:21
            +1

            @1st-Amendment: Criticizes humanrights.gov.au for their bias in other comment then immediately links an article from Quadrant magazine. I love it!

            • 1st-Amendment on 12/07/2024 - 13:16
              +3

              @youfnc:

              Criticizes humanrights.gov.au for their bias

              And I provided an example to demonstrate the bias.

              then immediately links an article from Quadrant magazine

              I see you forgot to post anything written there that you disagree with. See the difference there? The article I linked is all cited with sources and references. Feel free to point out which parts you think are false and let's discuss.

              Or simply shoot the messenger and see where that takes you…

              • jasonb66 on 13/07/2024 - 03:50

                @1st-Amendment: I think it's less the fact it's an article from Quadrant and more that it's an article from Windschuttle, a historian whose work and methodology has been deeply flawed over the decades, where omission and selectivity has been a constant feature – there's no chance you're getting a complete picture of something from a historian like that.

                Have you read the book his article promotes? It's a mess. I guess it feels good to make a bunch of under informed edgelord comments + premise your 'victory' on the fact a lot of people (1) aren't familiar with the figure whose work you're sharing (2) might not want to spend their time rebutting an article you couldn't even be bothered to summarise.

                Wow.. there are sources and references. Duh, it's a journal. Believe it or not, that's not an argument in itself for the veracity of anything. In Windschuttle's book on the Stolen Generation he uses the 'source' of the official punishment book of the Kinchela Boys Home as a trustworthy source of what happened to the boys there. He never interviewed or spoke to the boys who were abused there. It's not that he's an amateur, either. You'd have to be an idiot not to speak to any of the boys if you were trying to find out the truth, even if you were then to decide they weren't believable. But that isn't his goal, and the admissions are intentional because the goal and intent is ideological above all else.

                Regardless of any of this, the arguments you're putting forth + your primary focus is telling in itself. Windschuttle's history is deeply selective and flawed and that much can be proven by looking at the sources he includes + the amount of those he excludes. At the end of the day, it's just a bit sad. This engagement with Indigenous Australia comes from a complete distance from it.

                • 1st-Amendment on 13/07/2024 - 09:42

                  @jasonb66:

                  I think it's less the fact it's an article from Quadrant and more that it's an article from Windschuttle

                  So still playing the man instead of the ball. You have to do better than that.

                  of under informed edgelord comments

                  Irony… What have you brought to the table other than your opinion and childish personal attacks?

                  Wow.. there are sources and references.

                  Now compare that to what you have provided… crickets…

                  it's just a bit sad

                  I provided a well-researched article with many, many cited references, in return you gave me opinion and personal attacks. Yet you can't see the irony of your position? That is sad…

                  I'm happy to hear this alternative evidence you speak of, I really am, but you conveniently forgot to provide any… This is a very common pattern…

                  • jasonb66 on 14/07/2024 - 23:38
                    +1

                    @1st-Amendment: I literally just gave an example of his use of sources when examining abuse at the Kinchela Boys Home, and how he specifically chose not to implement any primary evidence (any of the boys) and instead built his entire argument on an official log book for the school. This isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of historical research.

                    As I've said already, it's part-entitled and part-ridiculous to post an entire article you've had no part in writing and put the onus on someone else to do a critical breakdown of it for you. That said, I was drawn to a paragraph where he referred to the aforementioned Kinchela Boys Home, where he named it as one of the 'three welfare institutions designated for Aboriginal children'. He refers to Cootamundra Domestric Training Home for Aboriginal Girls before this. He doesn't refer to the abuse of children at either nor provide any historical analysis of it. He doesn't mention the function of Cootamundra Home as training domestic servants. It feels intentional. Again, as you seemed to miss it in your first reply, I'm criticising HOW sources are used to justify an ends rather than analyse history. I'm not going to do a source analysis of an article you've posted, whilst posting next to nothing of your own analysis or thought.

                    The article chooses to place the bulk of its focus on the numbers of children sent to the schools, rather than the substance of what happened at the schools + the effects on the children who were taken from their families and sent there. The article is a semantic opposition to the use of the word 'generation', rather than a wholistic analysis of what it was and the effect it had – nor the history it was a continuation of.

                    Let's rewind briefly though, cause it's easy to get caught in the back and forth. This thread began because you chimed in with "The 'Stolen Generations is mostly a myth. It makes for a great heart-ache story that lefties can use as a battle cry for their virtue signalling crusades, but the truth is a much different story." Funnily enough, you didn't even offer up your own take, you couldn't condense the article one bit. When you say "mostly a myth", this article doesn't back it up. It argues the semantics of the term 'generation'. When people refer to a generation lost in WW1 or WW2, do you question that due to the numbers not constituting an entire generation? Doubtful.

                    Part Two of his article begins with Windschuttle having the audacity to say there was no research done into primary historical sources + declined to hear evidence that might have contradicted their preferred interpretation. This is coming from someone who, in his own analysis of Kinchela Boys Home, chose not to speak to any of the boys who went through that institution. By his own rubric, he's failing. Windschuttle asserts numbers of children taken while relying on files that have been criticised for not documenting all removals. Rather than rely on them with that addendum, he relies on them as absolute.

                    He mentions the work of Peter Read, criticising selectivity almost as a defence against doing so in the prosecution of his own argument. In Read's rebuttal, he lists children who had no documentation of being 'stolen' because it wasn't documented. He points out that Windschuttle's statement of "In New South Wales, some children became part of an apprenticeship indenture program to help Abo­riginal youth qualify for the workforce" refers to the indentured servitude rather than the learning of a trade.

                    There's another interesting note in Read's response, that I hadn't read prior to my initial response to your message. Interestingly, I stated that Windschuttle's selectivity in terms of sources and interpreting them was a major flaw in his methodology. Again, this plays out:

                    "Professor Heather Goodall calculates that 72 per cent of all the children over 12 who were removed from 1912 to 1928 were girls, which she describes as an intervention to restrict and control young Aboriginal women's sexual activity. Parry found that 49 per cent of children were sent into service directly without any training at all. Many were later deeply traumatized by what Windshuttle describes as 'on-the-job training'.

                    In one by no means unique case, a girl was taken to the Cootamundra Girls Training Home when she was five, and ten years later was sent to 'apprentice' as a domestic servant. Not much more than a year later she had been in five different work situations, two Aboriginal stations, the Sydney Rescue Home, a police station and Callan Park Mental Hospital. When she was 20 a Board official casually noted, 'heard that she had returned to Darlington Point and living with sister'."

                    Anyway, if you respond, I'll be able to tell if this is genuine engagement or a waste of time. At the moment, however, like Windschuttle's work, I get the impression that the nature of your response, the foregone conclusions in it, etc, stem from a relative disconnection to indigenous Australians. Correct me if I'm wrong, who knows. Just a hunch.

                    • 1st-Amendment on 15/07/2024 - 13:45
                      -2

                      @jasonb66:

                      I literally just gave an example of his use of sources when examining abuse at the Kinchela Boys Home, and how he specifically chose not to implement any primary evidence (any of the boys) and instead built his entire argument on an official log book for the school. This isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of historical research.

                      This was covered in the article…

                      it's part-entitled and part-ridiculous to post an entire article you've had no part in writing and put the onus on someone else to do a critical breakdown of it for you.

                      Interesting. So all human knowledge is rendered useless unless you wrote it yourself? That is the angle you're going with?

                      It feels intentional.

                      Feels? I'm afraid I'm going to need better than that…

                      The article chooses to place the bulk of its focus on the numbers of children sent to the schools, rather than the substance of what happened at the schools

                      Yeah because if you actually read the intro to the article it covers this too. It states that this article is specifically a counter to the claim of 'stolen generations' ie that entire generations were subject to some sort of wholesale abuse across multiple generations in some sort of attempt at 'genocide' (if you believe the claimants), rather than smaller number of cases here and there, which was also the case with non-aboriginal children too.
                      This comment makes me think you never read the whole article, as this point is covered in it. No-one is doubting that some people got abused in the old days. You only have to look at the history of the Church or entertainment industries to see how that worked. But there a stark difference between maybe a few hundred isolated cases over the course of a few decades and entire 'generations' of all 'Aborigines'. Do you acknowledge that those are different things?

                      Funnily enough, you didn't even offer up your own take, you couldn't condense the article one bit.

                      Don't have to. The article covers all the detail, including the bits you forgot to read. It's just like if you claim the gravity doesn't exist, I can simply point you a physics textbook. I am under no obligation to dumb it down to a summary so that you can understand it.

                      This point is also not a good one.

                      Windschuttle having the audacity to say there was no research done into primary historical sources + declined to hear evidence that might have contradicted their preferred interpretation. This is coming from someone who, in his own analysis of Kinchela Boys Home, chose not to speak to any of the boys who went through that institution. By his own rubric, he's failing.

                      Only if you don't understand how burden of proof works. If YOU claim that there is a dragon in your garage, I don't have to prove the dragon doesn't exist, I only have to show that YOU have failed to demonstrate its existence. The article does a pretty good job of that IMO.
                      If YOU have evidence then by all means bring it, I'm genuinely interested in it because so far all I hear is 'just believe me bro' and if you don't take everything I say at face value you are racist. That is not a good method.
                      The article seems to have done a thorough job of investigating all presented evidence and found almost all of them to be flaky. The only conclusion that an objective witness can make on that is that there is no dragon in the garage.

                      Now let's assume for a moment that the dragon does in fact exist, and that it's a matter of presenting the better evidence just being then where is the evidence? Can you provide any?

                      he lists children who had no documentation of being 'stolen' because it wasn't documented

                      That is how documentation works…

                      the foregone conclusions in it, etc, stem from a relative disconnection to indigenous Australians.

                      Does it? Tell me more about this and how you guessing at things is a robust argument?
                      This argument actually reveals the casual racism we see every day in the left wing media. It's an example of 'All Aborigines all think the same'. ie actual racism.

                      Do you think its possible that some people have different opinions regardless of their skin colour? I would have thought that the Voice referendum would have taught people like you that people are more than just their skin colour. Only 40% of Aboriginals voted Yes in the most recent referendum so maybe some groups aren't all just the homogeneous 'uni-mob' that the ABC/Guardian portrays them to be?

                      Correct me if I'm wrong, who knows. Just a hunch.

                      Feels, guesses and hunches. How about you just provide some actual evidence instead?

                      • Igaf on 15/07/2024 - 14:31
                        +1

                        @1st-Amendment:

                        This argument actually reveals the casual racism we see every day in the left wing media.It's an example of 'All Aborigines all think the same'. ie actual racism.

                        Roflmao. What "left wing media" is that? The ABC perhaps? How about Nine media (SMH, Age etc)?

                        Your ideological blindness no doubt led you to that perverse and puerile conclusion, which has no basis in fact. All of those I've mentioned above regularly report on the meandering views of Warren Mundine - including his ignorant rants about climate change, and give far too much 'air time' to the grossly ignorant notions of Jacinta "It doesn't exist unless I experienced it" Price.

                        Only 40% of Aboriginals voted Yes in the most recent referendum so maybe some groups aren't all just the homogeneous 'uni-mob' that the ABC/Guardian portrays them to be?

                        Interesting, how did you arrive at that number? Pluck it from your sphincter or was it just another SKY myth you swallowed hook, line and sinker? The only moderately accurate assessment of how First Australians voted suggests at least 63% voted YES. In precincts with very high indigenous populations the numbers were around 75%.

                        Just another of your "feelings, guesses and hunches" was it?

                      • jasonb66 on 15/07/2024 - 19:28

                        @1st-Amendment: "This was covered in the article…"

                        It simply wasn't. If you can point me to where it was, feel free.

                        "Interesting. So all human knowledge is rendered useless unless you wrote it yourself? That is the angle you're going with?"

                        No. Not what I said, perhaps a comprehension issue on your end. I was just pointing out that the premise of expecting someone to rebut an entire article that you haven't been able to condense in your own words (often a great way to demonstrate a comprehensive understanding) is an expectation of labour and time far beyond what you're putting in yourself. Not a comment on the validity of human knowledge at all.

                        "Feels? I'm afraid I'm going to need better than that…"

                        Okay :) It is consistent with a technique of omission more akin to a polemic than a thorough and extensive work of historical record. He positions his work as a comprehensive analysis. That is not my measure, it is his own. For there to be clear points of selectivity and omission, it simply does not meet the standard it sets out for itself.

                        "Yeah because if you actually read the intro to the article it covers this too. It states that this article is specifically a counter to the claim of 'stolen generations' ie that entire generations were subject to some sort of wholesale abuse across multiple generations in some sort of attempt at 'genocide' (if you believe the claimants), rather than smaller number of cases here and there, which was also the case with non-aboriginal children too."

                        Again, misreading what I'm saying but also revealing exactly what I'm talking about.
                        1. The claim of 'stolen generations' isn't exactly "that entire generations were subject to some sort of wholesale abuse across multiple generations in some sort of attempt at 'genocide;". That said, when you say "if you believe the claimants", which ones are you referring to? If we are talking about the Bringing Them Home Report, it's a case of submissions to an inquiry.
                        2. In terms of the claim of genocide, this is not the core argument of the Bringing Them Home report. My argument has been that Windschuttle takes elements, treats them with disproportionate relevance, and attempts to argue their invalidity in an attempt to infer the invalidity of a broader discussion he is unable to oppose directly. It muddies the conversation in semantics and winds up with conversations about NAIDOC day getting sidetracked into ridiculousness like this.
                        3. Is there a specific statement in the Bringing Them Home Report about the Stolen Generation that says entire generations, or is that just inferred from the the use of the term? As I said earlier, is that same logic applied to the Lost Generation in WW1? A common phrase that definitely isn't reflected in the numbers. Have you ever had an older relative die and had someone say "that's the last of that generation?" Definitely has happened to me. Have you thought about this in that context at all – that for many families, this was akin to the loss of a generation, as it severed a connection between families.
                        4. This is not a situation where you have a Report arguing that 100% of Indigenous Australians were taken from their families. There are numbers given in the report, and that is not what is being disputed – the focus is on the use of a phrase, the effect is calling historical consensus on what has been recorded as happening into disrepute.

                        "No-one is doubting that some people got abused in the old days. You only have to look at the history of the Church or entertainment industries to see how that worked. But there a stark difference between maybe a few hundred isolated cases over the course of a few decades and entire 'generations' of all 'Aborigines'. Do you acknowledge that those are different things?""

                        I would say that no one is claiming entire generations. At the same time, "a few hundred isolated cases" over a few decades doesn't line up with the numbers at all. Additionally, what on earth is your definition of 'isolated cases' cause if you're comfortable saying that in reference to what happened but uncomfortable with the use of 'generation' there's definitely some picking and choosing going on with flexible definitions.

                        "Only if you don't understand how burden of proof works. If YOU claim that there is a dragon in your garage, I don't have to prove the dragon doesn't exist,

                        I only have to show that YOU have failed to demonstrate its existence. The article does a pretty good job of that IMO."
                        This is not a response to what I said. I said that Windschuttle did not speak to any of the boys who went through Kinchela Boys Home in his analysis of whether or not abuse happened there. I am saying that he is making a point in the article premised on being thorough in research while not doing that in one of the most high profile locations of abuse of indigenous children. I don't know why you're talking about dragons but to be honest it's coming across as 20 year old whose done one philosophy 1010 logic class and thinks that applying it to everything is a good argument. I think the reliance on these semantics is a great way to convince yourself you're making a point while demonstrating a very limited knowledge of the subject matter.

                        "If YOU have evidence then by all means bring it, I'm genuinely interested in it because so far all I hear is 'just believe me bro' and if you don't take everything I say at face value you are racist. That is not a good method."

                        Again, this is the classic shit of trying to replay some argument you've had in your head with an imagined opponent or whatever. I'm not even calling you racist. Have I said you are racist? You're just telling on yourself for being in a bit of a feedback loop where you think everyone's preoccupied with that. I'm talking about historical record, Windschuttle's career and methodology and the substance of the existing research and inquiries into what has been termed 'the Stolen Generation'.

                        "The article seems to have done a thorough job of investigating all presented evidence and found almost all of them to be flaky. The only conclusion that an objective witness can make on that is that there is no dragon in the garage."

                        Sorry to go on… but you're not giving me any choice here. How do you judge the article doing a thorough job of investigating all presented evidence? It's almost as if I haven't pointed out specific elements that have been completely ignored in the article. More than that, no one is presenting evidence. The 'evidence' is not presented. Windschuttle is not an inquiry, no presentations are being made to him. That's the key. There's no thorough analysis going on here. You aren't having Windschuttle look at the substance of what happened, justifying it was the same as what happened to white children by direct comparison of what happened in their boarding schools. I fear for what you could be convinced of if this is something you consider thorough.

                        "Now let's assume for a moment that the dragon does in fact exist, and that it's a matter of presenting the better evidence just being then where is the evidence? Can you provide any?""

                        Evidence of what? That 100% of Indigenous Children were stolen? Show me where the initial report is saying that in the first place. The demand is for evidence of something that is not being claimed.

                        "That is how documentation works…"

                        I'm referring to the research in the Bringing The Home Report that highlights children who went through these homes without being documented on the records as going through those homes. It isn't a case of simply believing an anecdote, but there are measures of where these children were throughout their lives that vindicate their claims – and there is research that undermines the idea that documentation was all inclusive. That isn't even something that inflates numbers by any substantial degree, however, it reveals shortcomings on solely relying on one type of record.

                        "Does it? Tell me more about this and how you guessing at things is a robust argument?
                        This argument actually reveals the casual racism we see every day in the left wing media. It's an example of 'All Aborigines all think the same'. ie actual racism."

                        Again, this is another moment of you just revealing the feedback loop you're stuck in. You're not getting what I'm saying at all as well. When I am saying you are demonstrating a relative disconnection from indigenous Australians, I'm referring to the manner in which you are approaching this. There's no interest in engaging with the history first and foremost, much more a fixation with obsessing over a semantic element. I'm just fairly confident from how you're talking about these issues that you haven't read much substance on them. I don't feel like you've spent time in communities, or in rural areas and former missions.

                        I'm saying all of this not specifically because I don't give a shit about whether or not you're racist and if you stop projecting your own weird guilt onto what I'm saying maybe that will be a bit clearer. There's so many strawmen in your argument, where it's as if you're responding to this imagined idea of what I'm saying rather than what I'm saying. I'm not saying 'all Aboriginals are the same', I'm highlighting the presence of that thought process in your own argument – where the initial response you made was to someone who said it was hard to move on for people who suffered in the stolen generation. There's zero engagement in regard to any of those people in anything you've said, instead a focus on a semantic argument that evades any emotional or genuine engagement.

                        If you have a 2018 study from the AIHW finding there were still 17,000 Stolen Generation survivors still alive in Australia, maybe engage with that? If you want to dispute that, maybe dispute that. Instead, we're posting a 2009 Keith Windschuttle article saying the terminology was a myth. That's why I'm saying you're coming at it from a distance – it's not me homogenising Indigenous Australians, it's you.

                        "Do you think its possible that some people have different opinions regardless of their skin colour?"

                        Yep, never said otherwise. I'm not part of some ABC/Guardian world but sure. That said, tell on yourself harder. Did you read any of the reporting in the Guardian and the ABC about the Indigenous No campaign? There was a lot of it. But alas.

                        "I would have thought that the Voice referendum would have taught people like you that people are more than just their skin colour."

                        I love how long of a psychotic break me inferring you had relatively little engagement with Indigenous Australia caused. Point proven and then some. The image you've conjured up of me is just a fever dream of right-wing media's coping mechanisms. I haven't mentioned the Voice referendum or spoken about any of this.

                        I'll be honest with you. I don't care if you're honest in return but try and be honest with yourself privately if anything. I have read Windschuttle's books. I have read these articles. I've also read rebuttals and analyses of Windschuttle's work. I've also read the Bringing Them Home report. From the level of argument you are bringing, I don't think you have done the same. I don't think you have a genuine interest and concern into what happened to indigenous Australians, instead, it feels driven by a preoccupation with escaping some kind of complicity. At the end of the day I don't care. I'm interested in the truth of history. I'm interested in understanding people and I think that's always been more rewarding than being conspiratorial. It's always an incredible sight to see how someone can be so fixated on the potential chance of some of the poorest and most underprivileged people in the country 'routing' the system without remotely the same interest when it comes to wealthy failsons of media magnates.

                        • 1st-Amendment on 16/07/2024 - 11:58
                          -1

                          @jasonb66:

                          Evidence of what?

                          Stolen Generations.
                          For all your words you still fail to provide a single shred of evidence. Lots of words. but no evidence. When do you think I can expect some?

                          It is consistent with a technique of omission

                          Already explained this. Burden of proof…

                          In terms of the claim of genocide, this is not the core argument of the Bringing Them Home report

                          There's a whole chapter in it making that exact case. I thought you said you read it?

                          My argument has been that Windschuttle takes elements, treats them with disproportionate relevance, and attempts to argue their invalidity in an attempt to infer the invalidity of a broader discussion he is unable to oppose directly.

                          Burden of proof again…

                          I would say that no one is claiming entire generations. At the same time, "a few hundred isolated cases" over a few decades doesn't line up with the numbers at all.

                          What numbers specifically? Please provide evidence of the exact numbers so we can accurately represent the true impact.
                          To give examples (in the article but I'll spell it out for you again), Kevin Rudd claimed 'up to 50,000' in his sorry speech. The Aboriginal population was only about 80,000 at the time that includes all adults, so it's physically impossible for the number of child removals to be anywhere near that level. It's a great example of deliberate lies designed to play to the victim narrative.

                          The research in the article shows the number for all Aboriginal child welfare cases to be about 8000 over 90 years, that's all kids, not just the forced removals. That's about 90 kids a year, most of which we're by choice or genuine welfare cases. So 'a few hundred' is a lot closer to the truth based on the evidence provided.
                          Again if you have evidence that says otherwise then please provide it, 'is not' is not a valid argument.

                          It's always an incredible sight to see how someone can be so fixated on the potential chance of some of the poorest and most underprivileged people in the country 'routing' the system.

                          And here we have the crux of the issue. I merely said that the 'Stolen Generations' is mostly a myth, then supported that with research highlighting all very flimsy case used to promote it. You could have easily just provided some more robust evidence but instead somehow turned that into 'Black people are all poor and stupid and can only thrive if we give them lots of welfare'. 'And if you don't give us what we want you are racist'. It's the soft bigotry of low expectation and the standard playing card of the Left.

                          I've also read the Bringing Them Home report.

                          Go back and read Chapter 13, it sounds like you missed it the first time around.

                          • Igaf on 16/07/2024 - 12:29
                            +1

                            @1st-Amendment:

                            I merely said that the 'Stolen Generations' is mostly a myth,

                            Merely? Your grasp of language is rubbish as we know but even then that characterisation of what is a hugely traumatic period for many of those forcibly removed from their families is as disgraceful a comment as I've read on this deal. Right up to your standard though.

                            Mostly a myth? What parts are mythical exactly?

                          • jasonb66 on 16/07/2024 - 14:36

                            @1st-Amendment: "Stolen Generations."

                            – https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/indigenous-australians/indigenous-stolen-generations-50-and-over/contents/summary
                            If you reject the terminology used, who cares. Engage with the substance. Again, at the end of the day you began here as a response to someone highlighting the number of people from the 'Stolen Generation' who were still alive. Rather than engage with that, you decided to imitate Windschuttle's approach of making it about terminology and semantics, despite the fact it was in no way a response to the statement at hand. The fixation on that rather than what has happened to real people who are alive today is telling in of itself.

                            You've already given enough indication of how in your head you are with this stuff by projecting all of the random Sky News adjacent boogeyman shit onto me. Whining about being called racist when I've said nothing of the sort. You've engaged here and there, but most of what you're saying is reactive, shrill and intentionally obfuscating the demand of putting anything of substance on the table.

                            "Already explained this. Burden of proof…"

                            Feel like I've explained this too, but alas: if a source says the sky is green and the sky is blue, you're probably going to apply more scrutiny to the source in future as it's potentially colour-blind. The burden of proof is not fixed in that sense. If someone's credibility is repeatedly under question due to their approach to methodology, you are able to make inferences. Windschuttle's credibility has been credibly and effectively questioned. If his assessment of Kinchela is fundamentally flawed, in terms of the extent of his research and analysis, the same burden of proof is not necessary. He has not done a thorough analysis of one of the most high profile sites of abuse of Indigenous boys in NSW in his own study of the veracity of this. To any reasonable researcher or historian, that makes him a compromised figure and source. What you are saying doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

                            On a burden of proof, if you want to make throw away comments that what happened in white boarding schools what comparable to what happened in Kinchela, make that argument.

                            "The Aboriginal population was only about 80,000 at the time".

                            That's crazy cause the census has 500,000 in 2008. You're not engaging in facts, I'm not interested in wasting more time here

                            (https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Products/4714.0~200….)

                            As someone pointed out, in relation to your previous post re: the number of Indigenous Australians voting Yes / No in the referendum, your numbers were way off there too. I don't know what's up on that front but your source of statistics is off, or your capacity to adequately research and gather information is impaired.

                            Here's some more modern stats for you. In 2021, there were 21,523 indigenous children in out-of-home care. In 2022, there were 22,328. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are 10.5 times more likely than non-Indigenous children to be in out-of-home care – the highest rate of over-representation ever recorded. I think the term 'stolen generation' is inappropriate because it suggests that this is somehow a thing of the past and takes away from the reality of the present. While Rudd was giving the apology he was ramping up the same policies. Being critical of the terminology doesn't mean for a second I'm going to start spitting in the face of people who went through what they went through.

                            "The research in the article shows the number for all Aboriginal child welfare cases to be about 8000 over 90 years, that's all kids, not just the forced removals. That's about 90 kids a year, most of which we're by choice or genuine welfare cases."

                            The research in the article doesn't 'show' this. Windschuttle provides his own estimate. The article does not provide the case for it. He presents the use of Max Kamien's survey of 320 adults in Bourke and how it was portrayed in the report. He does not present the basis for his figure of 8,250. He goes on to say "Taken into care", however, he does not provide a clear argument for the methodology he uses to come up with a figure – nor does he provide which sources he accepts and which ones he rejects or simply chooses not to engage with.

                            Windschuttle goes on to state children were separated for 'all kinds of reasons'. He notes (both positive) and (negative). He doesn't examine the effect of 'positive' reasons. He doesn't note that removed children were less likely to have secondary education and three times more likely to have a police record.

                            "It's a great example of deliberate lies designed to play to the victim narrative."

                            This is another perfect example of what underpins your argument. In an argument of specifics (what happened to the individuals considered to be 'the Stolen Generation') you try and redirect it to a case of semantics (whether 'generation' is the right word, what percentage of Indigenous children went through this). Suddenly, we're talking about those playing 'the victim narrative'. The issue is, the subject at hand is the group of people alive today who are considered the stolen generation – but you're not engaging with them as a group or the substance of what they are saying. Instead, you're providing an incorrect population number, to make the argument that there is a population playing the victim narrative as a whole. The problem is, there is a figure for the individuals alive today claiming to be of the 'stolen generation' and it is not the population of indigenous Australians. You are not engaging with that, you are getting sidetracked in your fantasy land about people playing the victim narrative. You're focusing on the potential of someone rorting the system. This would have a lot more credibility if it was done hand-in-hand with an acknowledgement, interest or understanding of what happened to those alive today considered to be part of the 'stolen generation'. Instead, you're just cruelly conflating and meshing these two things together because you don't have a command of facts or nuance as that isn't what is driving your argument.

                            Last of all, I responded to everything you wrote because it was so clearly the product of an absence of research, knowledge and reason. It's easy stuff. The fact you were only able to pick and choose a few statements to engage with is telling. It's got real echoes of Windschuttle, trying to pick at things out of context and argue against scarecrow versions of statements – taken as arguments in of themselves, rather than components or elements of a whole – to reframe or reposition an argument. At the end of the day, it's transparent as hell and while I'm sure it makes you think you've found an angle or got a point, it simply comes across as naive; almost as if the audience is convincing yourself you're right rather than any objective measure.

                            "I merely said that the 'Stolen Generations' is mostly a myth"

                            In response to someone talking about a fixed number of people alive today who consider themselves part of that group. Again, no engagement on the veracity of what happened to them or any specifics, but a focus on the term.

                            "then supported that with research highlighting all very flimsy case used to promote it."

                            You supported it with a Keith Windschuttle argument and barely responded to most of my argument. Evidence I gave was conveniently ignored.

                            "You could have easily just provided some more robust evidence"

                            Again, all you have provided is an article focused on semantics. In terms of it's disputing of what happened it is not thorough as I have made clear in the Kinchela and the framing of other schools of indentured servitude as "apprenticeships"

                            "but instead somehow turned that into 'Black people are all poor and stupid and can only thrive if we give them lots of welfare'."

                            And, so kind of you go to full circle back to your own, pathetic projection. Something I have never said and paraphrasing it shows your mental level. I the last message I wrote, I literally said I had not and was not calling you racist at any point and was focused on historical record and analysis. The fact you are still so tethered to this guilt is on you. It's not something I've said and that's why I've said you come across as disconnected. You have no idea what kind of analysis happens on what you imagine as the left (aka. the not-right), because the right-wing concept of the left is whichever popular academic or newsreader they get told is the face of it. There is a severe lack of knowledge going on here and a debate with arguments not being made.

                            "'And if you don't give us what we want you are racist'. It's the soft bigotry of low expectation and the standard playing card of the Left.""

                            And yeah, nothing I'm saying at all. All projection from you. If anything, makes me regret spending any time putting any actual time into arguing with someone with very little knowledge or interest in the world around them. Moving through the world driven by fear, with completely deranged, imagined versions of some demon 'left' that doesn't really exist. Sad but enjoy!

                            The reason I've said things like it seems like you have quite a bit of distance from this, and it doesn't feel like you have a comprehensive understanding of these issues isn't baseless. The fact you're only able to reactively categorise someone with my arguments as part of some Guardian / Yes vote world shows that. It doesn't clock that I can be as critical of that bureaucratic approach as you might think you are. And it doesn't clock that I'm deeply critical of how Labour has approached these issues while in office. The thing is, this isn't some dumb partisan thing to me. I engaged because I think Windschuttle's historical method is frail, polemic and flawed, not because I'm defending any policy in place. The fact your response is premised on trying to categorise me as some defender of that shows the limits of your argument – it has to exist within a partisan prewritten angle rather and it can't engage with any substance that falls outside of that initial purview. I'm sure your ego can't handle being told any of this and that you're only going to be act reactively and defiantly into the night… but fingers crossed you swallow your pride at some point + acknowledge you really haven't read much about these issues beyond polemic whatsoever :)

                            • 1st-Amendment on 16/07/2024 - 16:54
                              -1

                              @jasonb66:

                              If you reject the terminology used, who cares.

                              You do. That is the actual argument we are having, have you forgotten already? The term 'Stolen Generations' is an gross exaggeration of events but is continued to be used because it plays into the victim narrative and feeds the Billion dollar victim industry. There is no evidence to support such a gross exaggeration, and despite numerous responses you still haven't produced any. The fact that the report you linked doesn't distinguish between genuine welfare cases and non-genuine should raise alarm bells with any objective observer… but you're not really objective are you…

                              Here's some more modern stats for you. In 2021, there were 21,523 indigenous children in out-of-home care. In 2022, there were 22,328. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are 10.5 times more likely than non-Indigenous children to be in out-of-home care

                              Cool story. Now tell me, how many of those genuinely need to be removed from their families due to real and proven cases of abuse? Because unless you can do that, how can you say if removal is good or bad?

                              Windschuttle goes on to state children were separated for 'all kinds of reasons'. He notes (both positive) and (negative).

                              Do you accept that in reality there are both? Because your statement above seems to make the case that ALL cases were for non-genuine reasons and the equivalent of 'theft'.

                              Moving through the world driven by fear, with completely deranged, imagined versions of some demon 'left' that doesn't really exist.

                              It quite obviously exists because here you are. Do you not exist? Lack of self awareness is one of the key traits of the Left, along with opinionated entirely subjective arguments devoid of any actual evidence or logic just like you have attempted here. You have demonstrated perfectly that the Left exists and is still unaware of its own existence. Just like the absurd claims of reparations and genocide exist, they're in the Bringing Them Home report which you said you read, then also said didn't exist.

                              For bonus points, feel free to tell me how the $33B/year given to Indigenous causes (according to the 2017 Productivity Commission Report) is not real. More than $30,000/year for every man, woman, and child, but they are still somehow victims?

                              • jasonb66 on 16/07/2024 - 17:28
                                +1

                                @1st-Amendment: "You do. That is the actual argument we are having, have you forgotten already?"

                                You've been arguing about the 'stolen generation' term, or, more accurately, you've been reposting and reiterating Keith Windschuttle's argument with very little independent engagement or flexibility of thought. You've basically ignored any of my responses address the actual premise of what you're saying, instead choosing to focus on small elements.

                                "The fact that the report you linked doesn't distinguish between genuine welfare cases and non-genuine should raise alarm bells with any objective observer"

                                The report I linked was an objective report. Are you able to provide a non-genuine statistic, cause it just feels like Sky News fever dreams to me.

                                "Cool story. Now tell me, how many of those genuinely need to be removed from their families due to real and proven cases of abuse? Because unless you can do that, how can you say if removal is good or bad?"

                                If you think there's any historical evidence to justify removal on such a scale as good, please show me. As far as I can see, it's statistically sound to assert that removal more often than not has a detrimental effect, and arguing that the effect could be "good" in anything close to a majority is something I would love to see, but I'm not buying it for now.

                                "Do you accept that in reality there are both? Because your statement above seems to make the case that ALL cases were for non-genuine reasons and the equivalent of 'theft'."

                                I accept that there are both, however, I think that vast amount of evidence across many, many contexts lends itself to the fact that removals are disproportionately bad – I was also specifically highlighting the disingenuous use of "positive" as the outcomes are (as I actually backed up with stats) are disproportionately bad.

                                "Just like the absurd claims of reparations and genocide exist, they're in the Bringing Them Home report which you said you read, then also said didn't exist."

                                The way you've phrased the first part of this doesn't make sense, the second half just displays the comprehension issues you seem to have. I said that the argument you were representing, that "wholesale abuse across multiple generations in some sort of attempt at 'genocide'" was not an accurate representation of how the 'stolen generation' was positioned against 'genocide'. The argument was that it was endemic of a much broader process from colonisation, not that it is some kind of standalone genocide. If you can find a statement saying otherwise from that report I'll engage with it.

                                "It quite obviously exists because here you are. Do you not exist?"

                                Dude. Your comprehension is trash. I'm saying the person you are attaching all of these pre-existing conceptions about 'the left' to is not the same person as me. I'm not calling you racist. I'm not making the claims you're putting in my mouth. That's all your guilt. Nothing more.

                                "For bonus points, feel free to tell me how the $33B/year given to Indigenous causes (according to the 2107 Productivity Commission Report) is not real. More than $30,000/year for every man, woman, and child, but they are still somehow victims?"

                                Couldn't help yourself.

                                – You have the imprisonment rate for First Nations people increasing from 2013 to 2022
                                – You have increasing inequality with First Nations people
                                – You are spending twice as much on services for indigenous Australians, yet they are seventeen times more likely to be in prison.
                                – I realise that you're not great at thinking about problems too critically or analytically, but if your first response to seeing an increase inequality is "we need to cut funding more cause it doesn't work" then you're an actual idiot. No critical facilities. Sorry.

                                Feel free to criticise the manner of spending, or how it's being spent, have an actual policy platform for how you would direct the money elsewhere, I'm not defending where the money is going. I'm saying that if you think getting twice as much funding when your male population is 17 times more likely to be imprisoned somehow means there's no inequality, you might have a math problem too.

                                – Pretending Australia wasn't colonised or invaded, that the treatment of indigenous Australians for centuries has been (profanity), and acting like there's some kind of level playing field now all serves the same purpose. It ignores the actual issues at hand and directs attention towards the wrong conversations. If you have 17 times as many indigenous men in jail as other Australians, there's a clear illustration of the dichotomy. You'd have to be an idiot to pretend that the amount of funding should be the same.

                                You've responded to about 15% of what I've written, I'm not going to bother responding to everything you've written here beyond this. It's entitled to expected otherwise + your time would probably be better spent reading any number of books on Australian history that you've very clearly only read in summary by historians with an agenda (and a flawed methodology).

      • Eeples on 12/07/2024 - 12:05
        -1

        Sure. But why neg a free poster?

    • RecklessMonkeys on 11/07/2024 - 22:48
      +3

      I agree.
      Unfortunately, all the bigots hear is a clarion call. It's good to see it getting upvoted though.

      • poppingtags on 12/07/2024 - 00:44
        -3

        Yup, all the salty losers who love to make every possible thing about themselves. Pathetic.

        • MakingBacon on 12/07/2024 - 08:02
          +5

          I bet you smell of soy and have coke bottle glasses with some kind of undercut hairdo, I just know it.

          • youfnc on 12/07/2024 - 09:13
            +3

            @MakingBacon: Personal attacks right on cue. Never change.

            • MakingBacon on 12/07/2024 - 10:11
              +2

              @youfnc: I won't, why change an effective strategy? You guys won't stop blackwashing and self loathing so why should I stop?

          • poppingtags on 12/07/2024 - 10:46
            +3

            @MakingBacon: Weirdly specific combo you're going for there big boy, is it something you're into?

            I drink full cream milk, have 20/20 vision and a full head of hair.

            That's three more L's to add to what I'd bet is a sizeable collection for you.

            Cope harder snowflake.

      • Composure on 12/07/2024 - 08:24
        +1

        You're supporting a post praising people for being of a certain race. Take a look in the mirror.
        No one should ever glorify racism, this whole movement is repugnant.

        • RecklessMonkeys on 12/07/2024 - 11:01
          -1

          I'm glad that we agree racism is repugnant

          • Composure on 12/07/2024 - 11:05
            +8

            @RecklessMonkeys: Racism is prejudice based on race. You're just moving the goalposts to justify your hate.
            Systemic racism is exactly what you are promoting. It's literally government sponsored.

            • RecklessMonkeys on 12/07/2024 - 12:02
              +1

              @Composure: Well I guess the Human Rights Commission will come down hard on Kmart then. In the meantime can you explain what prejudice against others has occurred here?

              • Composure on 12/07/2024 - 12:08
                +1

                @RecklessMonkeys: A simple test is using a counterpart. Contextually relevant, would you be okay with pushing the praise of Anglos in England on the rest of the population? I hope not.

                • RecklessMonkeys on 12/07/2024 - 12:16
                  +3

                  @Composure:

                  would you be okay with pushing the praise of Anglos in England on the rest of the population? I hope not.

                  Is it relevant? Were they driven from their land by the people currently living there?
                  And if by 'praise' you mean an acknowledgement of one's own culture without belittling another's , then I have no issue with that.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join