Bolt Digs A Little Deeper

It's become abundantly clear that Andrew Bolt spoke too strongly and too early on the Stolen Generations and now has no other option other than to keep on digging. With each attempt at proving it to be a myth he inadvertently spins himself out of all credibility.

Today he argued that the Trevorrow judgement proves the Stolen Generation to be a myth 'at least ...in South Australia'. That last remark is important to Bolt I think because so far his argument that it's a myth Australia wide has been devastated (though he'll never admit it which I go into later) and from this, we can only hope, he's learnt a lesson or two. Bolt's response to the case in question has been dealt with elsewhere and as Larvatus Prodeo demonstrate he has a weird problem with dates, but I want to address something else.

Bolt claims that since the judge deemed it illegal for Trevorrow to have been removed then this can only mean that a racist policy of removals never existed in S.A. He asks the question:

'So, was there really a government policy to steal Bruce Trevorrow from his parents just because he was black? Just to keep white Australia “pure”? '

The important thing to remember is that removal policies shifted constantly within states and were thus implemented with varying justifications. There is certainly much evidence of the implementation of racist removal policies across most states but in the 50's Australia had grown considerably. Removals began to be seen differently and policy reflected changed sensibilities hence why they may have continued for the old reasons, though this may have been technically illegal by then. Earlier on it was clearly a different story, this is from 1910 in S.A by the Chief Protector W. G South:

'During the year several Half Caste children have been removed from the blacks’ camps and placed under the care and control of the State Children’s Department, with most encouraging results, the children are thriving and happy and will, I feel confident, grow up self-supporting members of the community, as they will know nothing of the habits of the Aborigines and will be given an occupation.
Several letters have appeared in the press in opposition to the removal of these children from their cruel surroundings, but I think the writers have failed to grasp the seriousness of the problem now facing South Australia and some of the other States.
Take the case of New South Wales, for example. There, according to the report of the “Board for Protection of Aborigines” dated May 1910, the Aboriginal
135
population consisted of 2123 full-bloods and 5247 Half Castes. Between the years 1882 and 1909 the full bloods decreased from 6540 to 2123 and the Half Castes increased from 2379 to 5247.
In this State a similar state of things is occurring as in 1901 the Census shows there were 502 Half Castes but in August 1909 from information supplied by the Police Officers it was found there were at least 766, and later records have brought the total up to about 800.
At Point Pierce there were on 30th. June 1910, 145 Half Castes and 17 full-bloods, at Point McLeay River Murray and the Lakes there are about 350 Aborigines, 75% of whom are Half Castes.
These figures, I think, prove the necessity of steps being taken to convert these people into useful members of the Community, instead of allowing them to grow up in the Camps where they acquire the lazy habits of the Aborigines, which unfits them for any regular occupation, and I am still firmly of opinion that the very best way is to treat them as neglected children, and have them placed under the care and control of the State Children’s Department until they reach the age of 18 years by which time they should be able to earn their own living and should no longer be considered nor treated as Aborigines. '

Clearly a racist policy was being enacted in the early 1900's in S.A, and this policy was supposed to halt the rise in "half-caste" numbers by blending them into the community where they could forget their ancestry. Indeed, 'neglect' doesn't appear to be the main concern at all. Does Andrew ever mention or try to explain such talk? Never. Instead he makes the disingenuous claim:

'South Australia never had any laws—or policies - authorising anyone to steal Aboriginal children for racist reasons.'

But they clearly did do it Andrew, not only in early S.A but Queensland:

‘the rearing of half-caste children amongst aboriginal children is a mistake, and tends to retrogression rather than to progress, and that, consequently (d) a valuable asset is being lost to the State. …
A half-caste under sixteen, whether male or female is legally a “neglected” child, and as such can be sentenced to an industrial school (sec.6, subsec. 7, of the “Industrial and Reformatory Schools Act of 1865”), most of the aboriginal missions being now so proclaimed. After sixteen years of age, unless he or she is habitually living or associating with aboriginals, the half-caste cannot be removed to a reserve under the order of the Minister. ‘‘Acting under these powers, at least 126 half-caste nomads under sixteen years of age – 45 boys and 81 girls – have been brought under the controlling influences of the Northern missions during the quinquennium ending June, 1905. Another 41 half-caste children – 13 boys and 23 girls – have been similarly dealt with in the Southern districts during the eighteen months immediately preceding the same date.’

Again, what does Andrew say about such talk? Nothing. (though once he tried to claim that they were deemed "neglected" therefore they were neglected forgetting that all "half-caste" children were legally "neglected" under the Act, a dumb argument) I predict that he'd merely exclaim that this isn't evidence that the goal was to keep Australia pure but, as I said, the policy always shifted gears though the removals remained constant. Also, Andrew can't seem to come to grips with this:

'Inferior races will have to go and, in my opinion, Governments, sooner or later, will have seriously to consider the question of sterilization of the half-caste.

W.J.Gall, Under-Secretary, Home Department, Government of Queensland, ‘'

Or this in the N.T:

6. (1.) The Chief Protector shall be entitled at any time to undertake the care, custody, or control of any aboriginal or half-caste, it, in his opinion it is necessary or desirable in the interests of the aboriginal or half-caste for him to do so, and for that purpose may enter any premises where the aboriginal or half-caste is or is supposed to be, and may take him into his custody.

And on and on it goes for pages and pages yet not once do you see a response to any of it in his articles, why?

He has a few generic response to such evidence and they are far from sufficient. One is that some of this evidence was reviewed by the judge in the Cubillo/Gunner case in which the judge determined that 'no policy existed' (though he also stated that it wasn't his job to determine whether the Stolen Generation is a fact, he also made many remarks about a distressing past). So Andrew thinks that a judge may become an historian, and once this 'historian' has made such a statement then that is that. Does he accept such finality from all judicial decisions on all topics? No. Of course it's all a matter of convenience for him because now he can disregard most of the evidence with one sentence. Another trick is to show some cases of mistreated children and assert that since he's discovered some sickly kids in the bunch, then surely the other 500 or so were similarly afflicted. Genius.

The ever present denial that any racist removal policy was ever in place is further demolished by the historical record when one reads an exchange like this:

'. Every endeavour is being made to breed out the colour by elevating female half-castes to white standard with a view to their absorption by mating into the white population. The adoption of a similar policy throughout the Commonwealth is, in my opinion, a matter of vital importance.
(C.E. Cook).
Chief Protector of Aboriginals, February 7 '


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR.
MEMORANDUM:
With reference to the memorandum of the 7th February, by the Chief Protector of Aboriginals of the Northern Territory, the policy of mating half-castes with whites, for the purpose of breeding-out the colour, is that adopted by the Commonwealth Government on the recommendation of Dr. Cook.

So how does Andrew reconcile the enormity of the documentary record with the sheer numbers of "half-castes" removed over the decades? Simple, he barely addresses the record at all. Instead he reverts to his generic replies, as mentioned earlier, and picks at the edges of the later, less damning cases such as Trevorrow's so he can pronounce that no policy ever existed. And no doubt those who can't be bothered to look at the evidence themselves, and like what they're reading, are utterly convinced.

It's some indication of how Andrew Bolt deals with the truth.