Disgraced ABC “fact check” unit investigates Professor Blainey

Turns out the great historian is correct. So of course the face-saving verdict is “there’s more to it.
This entry was posted in Fake news, History, Media. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Disgraced ABC “fact check” unit investigates Professor Blainey

  1. NFA says:

    He got it wrong?

  2. struth says:

    There’s an oxymoron for you.

  3. calli says:

    As one expert put it, following this second interpretation meant that Indigenous people “were not counted, in the Uluru statement sense”.

    Of course. A “different kind of counting”.

    The data shows that roughly 48,000 Indigenous people were enumerated in 1901. By 1966, the last census before the referendum, the number was 102,000 (excluding Torres Strait Islander people).

    Okay. Not so different after all. Looks like “counting” to me. Although “enumerated” does sound fancy, it still means “counting”.

  4. Buccaneer says:

    My understanding is that the Constitution was written to respect the laws and traditions of indigenous communities. That tribal law largely couldn’t be overruled by Australian law. That is the reason for an additional category for indigenous-only communities as the census is to identify how to allocate resources and stand-alone communities not covered by Australian law or governance would inflate allocations where services are not granted.

    1967 changed this and in kind was an extinguishing of native title. If indigenous communities agreed to be supported by the Australian government and abide by Australian law, then that is in effect a form of treaty. Given no written history for any indigenous tribe, this should stand as the implied consequence of the support of that referendum.

    In truth, if an actual treaty was to have been negotiated, it should have happened in 67 as part of the referendum. Prior to that, there appears to have been no approach for indigenous communities en masse to become part of the governance of Australia.

  5. Rafiki says:

    The political point being made by those who claim Aborigines were not counted in a census is that this shows that the government view was that they really weren’t here and could be disregarded. But at best, from this viewpoint, the evidence is that a combination of a census and an enumeration the governments did regard them as being here.

    It’s also noteworthy that the Voice will require a separate enumeration of Aborigines.

  6. Lee says:

    As one expert put it, following this second interpretation meant that Indigenous people “were not counted, in the Uluru statement sense”.

    Of course. A “different kind of counting”.

    Yet another case of the left moving the goalposts as they go along.

  7. twostix says:

    In 100 years if these dumbarses get their way they’ll point back to now and say ‘look how racist they were, they made aboriginals have their own separate house in parliament racistly called ‘the voice’, let us have a referendum to undo this racist legacy from the racist 2020’s”

  8. RacerX says:

    (People deemed to be less than “half” Aboriginal were included as part of the European population, with so-called “half-castes” then analysed by “race”).

    So people who were more than 50% European were classed as European Seems fair!

    Torres Strait Islander people were similarly excluded until 1947, when the government decided they were not part of the “aboriginal native” population.

    Aren’t they still called aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders indicating they are a separate group?

  9. Tony Taylor says:

    The fact check in short: Blainey was right about aboriginals and the count, but if we redefine “count” he’s only kinda right.”

  10. NFA says:

    what Tony Taylor says: 28 September, 2023 at 8:10 pm

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *