Tom and Me — Dark Emu Exposed - And the Assault on Australian History

Oct 2

Oct 2 Tom and Me

**Professor Tom Calma AO on Truth-telling -** *Source: Truth Telling Symposium report, 5-6 October 2018, p13*

An Open Letter to Professor Tom Calma, AO

Dear Professor Calma,

I am just a normal, Australian citizen, who is much concerned about the lack of real public debate and information about the upcoming Voice Referendum that you are actively promoting.

Specifically, I am very concerned about the misinformation and disinformation appearing during this campaign, as I know you are too (here and here ).

However, additionally and more generally I, like you, am also very concerned about ‘truth-telling’ with regard to our colonial, 20th-century and Aboriginal history.

So let me accept your sensible suggestion in the quote above, that “we” Aussies, like you and me, should discuss the truth-telling of our nation at an ‘interpersonal’ level.

I have chosen this ‘open letter’ format as a way to have an ‘interpersonal’ dialogue with you [nb: I have had a short face-to-face discussion with you in the past on the Voice, which I will share wIth my readers in a future post].

The topics I will discuss in this post go to the heart, I believe, as to why the YES vote is plummeting in the pre-referendum polls, two weeks out as we are now, from Referendum Day.

I know the faltering of the Yes-Campaign is of great concern to you, but perhaps when you wake up on October 15th to a failed referendum, you might reflect on the fundamental reason why I believe normal Aussies like me, and many of our fellow citizens, were so turned off by the Yes-Campaign.

It all comes down to a point of principle - Your Voice proposal is all about dividing us by race.

I know you will vehemently disagree with this, but in this letter I will show, with evidence, how you yourself rely on misinformation, disinformation and a selective use of your version of ‘truth-telling’ to push the racially divisive proposal that is the Voice.

The Referendum will fail predominately because the Yes-Campaign has failed to address the big elephant in the room, the one that all the voters were looking at: The Voice requires the racial-profiling of Australians.

It seeks to give the 3% of Australians with the correct DNA, ancestry, heritage, ethnicity or indigeneity, call it what you will, a ‘special voice in our Constitution.’

This will just not fly with egalitarian, Aussie voters. They will see it for what it is - an elitist system based on race.

Not only did the No-Campaign see the racist elephant in the room, but they were able to expose the sight of it so widely and speedily in the electorate before the big lumbering, though well financed, Yes-Campaign was able to counter the argument.

In the modern world, with powerful researching sources, social-media and an increasing number of intelligent and engaged voters and commentators, the days of big-business, government and elites having full control of the agenda are over.

Now is such a time, and I believe the following ‘truth-telling’ evidence in this post will confirm that Aussies like me are correct in resisting your proposed changes to our Constitution, a constitution for all Australians, regardless of race, ancestry, DNA, genetics or ethnicity.

Tom Calma - a proud elder of the Kungarakan people and member of the Iwaidja people goes Dutch.

I did notice Tom, that this year you were named, Senior Australian of the Year. You received well deserved recognition from your University of Canberra, as their Chancellor, for this achievement.

The university recognised you also as, ‘an Aboriginal Elder of the Kungarakan people and member of the Iwaidja people.’

This is an identity that you also confirm in your other professional biographies.

And that is fine. It is entirely up to you as to how you define yourself, and how you describe your identity, ancestry and heritage.

But Tom, you can imagine how I might be a little confused when I read that you also accepted congratulations from the Dutch Australian Cultural Centre (DACC) for not only your Senior Award, but also for your Dutch Heritage!

Tom, this prompts me to ask - are you a First Nations, Kungarakan and Iwaidj Aboriginal Australian or a Dutchman … or both?

Figure 2 - “The Dutch Australian Cultural Centre, established in 1983, is dedicated to the Preservation of Dutch-Australian Heritage & We are committed to safeguarding the rich history of Dutch interactions and immigration to Australia”. *Source*

Based on this Dutch ancestry information from you yourself Tom, together with the publicly available genealogical records, our genealogist(s) were able to construct the following alleged, maternal branch of your family tree:

Figure 3 - The alleged *maternal* family branch of Professor Tom Calma’s family tree. This confirms Prof. Calma’s ‘proud’ claim that he has 25% Dutch heritage (*see Figure 2 above - he also claims the other 75% is Aboriginal)*. [*Tribe name not verified by *DEE* - claimed by Tom Calma himself] *Note: For disclaimers see full alleged Family Tree at the end of this post below.*

With all due respect Tom, what I am beginning to see here makes me a little uneasy.

My understanding of the Australian project is that we are all Aussie citizens, equal under the law no matter what our ancestry, or where our forebears came from.

I consider myself just Australian, but when pushed for more detail on my ethnicity, I reply that my dad was German and my mum’s family were convicts and immigrants from Britain.

I can completely understand that you want to consider yourself as an Aboriginal elder, a Kungarakan/Iwaidja Australian man. In public, you identify and want be recognised as such. You are widely recognised professionally by all others as such. I too fully accept that.

But now I see that when there is some ‘extra recognition’ to be had, you have no problem pulling another ancestry out of your hat, such as that of being Dutch.

Is that really a valid, ethical practice given that you are extolling the rest of us to give you special rights within our Constitution as an Indigenous Aboriginal elder?

Are you Aboriginal or Dutch, Tom? Or both, depending on what recognition you may be seeking on the day?

Aren’t you really just like me, and the other No-voters in the country - just an Aussie with a wonderfully mixed racial and ethnic background, that is to be celebrated, but should not be used to create a ‘hierarchy of descent’ and a ‘privilege of origin’ within our Constitution?

To my mind Tom, what you are asking us to accept is just raw racism - you want a special place in our Constitution because of your claimed race, ancestry, DNA, genetics or ethnicity.

Even your own employer’s definition of racism catches within its scope what you are proposing for the Voice in our constitution.

Racism is the process by which systems and policies, actions and attitudes create inequitable opportunities and outcomes for people based on race.

- [Australian Human Rights Commission]

Your responses to the ‘elephant in the room’ - that your Voice proposal is racist - fail to stand up to scrutiny. For example, in a recent article you co-authored (with Marcia Langton, et al) in The Lancet you wrote:

Figures 4A&B- *The Lancet full article* ***here***

Your response skirts the issue by replying with disinformation, given that the other existing advisory bodies - business, unions, etc - are not seeking enshrinement in the Constitution.

The membership of these current advisory bodies are not based on race - my understanding is that it would be illegal to set up a trade-union, based on race - for example, a trade union for Chinese workers only, that would submit advice to the government on any laws that Chinese workers in general said affected them.

The Voice is racist because, to be a member of it, and to be a member of the people who it would represent (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders), one needs a certain ancestry, heredity, DNA, genetics or ethnicity, call it what you will.

One cannot acquire this genetic-based trait - one is born with it, or not.

One therefore has no power over it. To attribute certain rights and benefits to citizens based on their race, and to deny others access to those same rights and benefits, due to their lack of a particular racial, ancestry, DNA, genetic or ethnic attribute is, ipso facto, racist.

Nevertheless, I notice Tom that you are happy to refer to your ancestry in terms of percentages - you told the DACC in Figure 2 above that you were,

‘proud to share that [your] heritage is 75% Indigenous and 25% Dutch.’

Presumably this means that your mother’s side of the family gave you 25% Dutch and 25% Aboriginal ancestry, and therefore presumably, your father’s side provided you with another 50% Aboriginal heritage.

But is this really true Tom?

Are you really 75% Aboriginal by descent?

It is an interesting point that allows me to discuss your ancestry in the convenience of percentages (a number of our readers vehemently hate this idea - it’s usually the ‘Aborigines of Distant Descent’ (<10%) who complain the most). I will return to your percentages later in the post, when we discuss Truth-telling in considerably more depth .

Tom Calma on Misinformation and Disinformation - Pride versus Shame

Tom, there is a saying that, “behind every great fortune there is a great crime," (quote variously attributed).

So I am a little disappointed when I see you suddenly putting your Dutch hat on and collecting recognition on behalf of your Dutch grandfather, Edwin Verburg.

**Edwin Verburg (L) and his US Navy son Edwin Donald Verburg on his visit to Australia (Date unknown). Prof Tom Calma’s grandfather and uncle.** *Source: Ancestry user jewelnjem originally shared this on 5 Mar 2013*

My disappointment arises because it seems to me that Aboriginal people are always “proud“ of their ancestors and forever extolling the rest of us to recognise them and their achievements no matter how trivial.

But the other side of the pride coin however, is ‘shame’ or ‘humility’ which, for consistency, Aboriginal people should acknowledge when appropriate.

However, there never seems to be an Aboriginal person standing up and admitting that,

“I, or my ancestors did something that I am not proud of. In fact, it is something of which I am ashamed.”

Now your grandfather Edwin Verburg was undoubtably an enterprising horticulturalist, who also built the initial weir that became the celebrated bridge that bears his name, on the Adelaide River in the Northern Territory. But I suspect you know more about his past than you have shared with the public. I am speculating that you may be engaging in a little disinformation yourself on this point.

It seems to me Tom, that you are quite happy to join the Aboriginal industry chorus in blaming my ancestors for the so-called ‘detrimental effects of colonisation' on your people.

But you yourself appear to make no effort in accepting any shame for what your ancestors might have done in the past.

I haven’t seen, for example, any apology coming from you for the rather ‘shameful’ things that your grandfather Edwin Verburg is alleged to have done.

Instead, you continue to admonish your fellow non-Indigenous Australians for what you percieve are the sins of their colonising ancestors.

**Figure 5 - Excerpt from a Tom Calma interview.** *Source*

I will deal with the alleged, and in my view shameful, episodes of your grandfather’s life in detail in the Further Reading section below. I think you may be aware of these details, but perhaps in the interests of maintaining a positive narrative for your family’s history, you are happy perhaps to use a little misinformation and disinformation yourself with regard to your grandfather.

Suffice to say for now, it does seem strange that when your grandfather arrived in Australia around 1912-14, he was using the false name, John Clyne (Klein), which you possibly could be aware of, as indicated in the published excerpt in Figure 6 below, given that your father Tom Calma is quoted.

Why would your grandfather be lying about his real name?

**Figure 6 - Footnote on page 4, Magdalene McIntosh and Elaine Rothwell, *Maddie,* Aboriginal History 1979 3:1**

In addition, the records show that your Dutch grandfather took an Aboriginal baby, Anmilal, as a promised wife.

He followed and supported her upbringing as a child, then promptly "married” her when she was about 14. Your grandfather on the wedding day was said to be 61 years old.

He then proceeded to have children with her, including your mother Ada.

Now Tom, I know that the taking of child-brides by very much older men was (and is?) the norm in Aboriginal culture, but is it really ethical? Is it something that a culture and society like ours should be proud about - or shameful of?

And what happened to your grandmother Anmilal and her children, Tom?

If they were put into institutional care as ‘half-castes’, and consequently suffered any ‘detrimental impacts’ as you say, is that something I, and my governments of today, should be responsible for? [nb: see an interesting family twist on this - Figure 12B below]

Should I be made to feel ashamed of what your grandfather might have done, and the detrimental effects he may have caused on his ‘child-bride’ and her children? He was the ‘coloniser’ after all, not me and my family.

Tom, you are the one talking about ‘truth-telling’ and the ‘detrimental impacts of colonisation’, but it seems to me that in this case, that any ‘so-called’ inter-generational trauma your family is suffering may be self-induced by your own ancestor’s actions? [see Further Reading section below for more details].

Truth-telling Tom Calma Style - The Stolen Generations

I read with interest Tom, your recent interview with the Fin Review on the topic of Truth-telling, an excerpt of which I have shown below:

**Figure 7 - Excerpt from *‘There’s nothing vindictive about the Voice’ says Tom Calma,* Tom McIlroy, Political correspondent,** *AFR*, 28 Apr 2023

The way this Fin Review article describes your telling of the story of your paternal great-grandmother is, I believe, tainted with disinformation [nb: I suspect it is selectively quoted on purpose to mislead].

The article is made to appear to the reader that the government’s child removal policy 120 years ago, for half-caste children from town-camps, was always the worst option. To leave a child with her mother, no matter how bad was the mother or the camp conditions in which she lived, should have always been the only option for the authorities to consider.

It appears to me, that under the guise of ‘truth-telling’ you are attempting to use this tragic event, of your own great-grandmother’s anguish of wanting to keep her daughter, but obviously in circumstances where the authorities were deeply concerned about the child’s welfare, as a political weapon today.

You use this example as a way to rebut people [the so-called ‘Stolen Generation deniers’ today] who claim Aboriginal people weren’t only just taken away, but were also sometimes handed over willingly by their parents.’

To my mind this is a cheap political trick and is in fact a reprehensible use of disinformation [see Further Reading section below where I discuss this in depth with more evidence].

For the sake of our readers Tom, I would like to put you in the local inspector’s shoes on that day, in late 1899 when he rode into the Aboriginal town-camp.

His name was Mounted Constable 3rd Class George H Thompson. He was accompanied by Police Tracker Paddy and, along with several horses, had commenced his survey in Pine Creek region on October 18th 1899, as detailed in the archival report transcript in Figure 8.

**Figure 8 - Explanatory Note on the methods and aim of the Aboriginal Welfare Report.** *Source: Northern Territory Archives Service*

When you Tom, in the saddle as Mounted Constable 3rd Class George H Thompson, along with your Aboriginal off-sider Paddy, arrived in the Aboriginal town camp called Woolwonga you saw just one half-caste child. Her name was May and she was just 6 or 7 years old. This is what you wrote in your report book:

Half Cast May is a well grown girl & is living with her mother in the blacks camp at Woolwonga. Her mother will not part with her, she mixes up a great deal with the Chinamen & has only a narga [loincloth] on.

The Fin Review article above (Figure 7) selectively quotes your report Tom - only the bold text is quoted. The full context and the italic text is omitted.

In terms of truth-telling to the Australian public, do you think that this article is fair, Tom?

As the welfare officer, your concern when you saw your great-grandmother, a child thought to be 6 or 7 and approaching puberty, walking around the camp, top-less and “mixing-up a great deal” with the Chinamen is ignored by the Fin review reporter.

Figure 9 - Excerpt of the original field report by Mounted Constable 3rd Class George H Thompson 1899. The second entry is for Prof. Tom Calma’s great-grandmother May [*Transcript in next Figure below*]. *Source: Northern Territory Archives Service NTRS 790, Government Resident of the Northern Territory, Inwards Correspondence, 1870-1912, Bundle 10441*

Figure 10 - Transcript of the excerpt of the original field report by Mounted Constable 3rd Class George H Thompson 1899. The second entry is for Prof. Tom Calma’s great-grandmother May [*Original in Figure 9 above*]. *Source: Transcript of Northern Territory Archives Service NTRS 790, Government Resident of the Northern Territory, Inwards Correspondence, 1870-1912, Bundle 10441*

As the welfare officer Tom, what would you do?

Would you recommend that May be removed? The way this report is written suggests that Thompson did ask to, or attempted to, remove May, but he wrote, “her mother will not part with her”.

We could find no record that she ever was removed, but it is very possible that she was removed at some later date - she was a half-caste 7 year-old, wearing no clothing and spending time with grown men, so it was within the power of the law for a welfare officer to take her to a mission or another children’s home.

What would you have done Tom?

Just to put this into context, consider the following two photographs. They are from completely different situations, but then a photograph is worth a thousand words .

The first photograph on the left is from the 1939 book, White Settlers in the Tropics, by the Australian scholar A. Grenfell Price. The caption reads, “Aboriginal girl, age 12, rescued by police living with and being maltreated by a white man, Central Australia.”

The second is of a dingo scalper and an Aboriginal child

In the first photograph Tom, the police tell you, as the welfare officer, that this child is being ‘maltreated by a white man’.

What do you do?

a) send her on her way, back to her Aboriginal family, who may or not exist, or may or may not, want her back? And then rest assured that activists 100 years later will not pillory Tom Calma for creating a ‘stolen generation?

or b) remove (take/’steal’) her to a mission with a view to protecting her and educating and training her for an initial life as a domestic servant and ultimately as a married woman, but away from contact with her immediate family (should she have one), thereby securing your legacy as the callous Tom Calma the child thief to future generations?

In the case of the second photograph, let’s surmise that the evidence strongly suggests that the child is being prostituted out, but the ‘dingo scalper and his Aboriginal ‘wife’ refuse to give her up.’ Do you just note that in your report and move on?

These are tough decisions, the likes of which are still being grappled with by welfare officers today.

In my opinion it is repugnant and unbelievably harmful for political commentators such as yourself to just give a blanket response that all part-Aboriginal children that were taken into care in the past were ‘stolen children.’

Real life situations is a lot more complex than that and children’s welfare should always trump ideology .

***Figure 11 - “Aboriginal girl, age 12, rescued by police living with and being maltreated by a white man, Central Australia.”***

**Figure 12 - Dingo scalper and Aboriginal child.** [nb: we dont really know the actual circumstances of this man and child - they could have been father and daughter in a normal functioning family. Or he might have been abusing the child. The point of this photo is illustrative - if you were a welfare officer would you be concerned for the child?

Truth-telling works both ways Tom, and I ask you to read some of the other transcripts from Thompson’s 1899 report here. Let me know what you think about these cases. Should we today be made to feel guilty because the authorities intervened and removed some half-caste children who were in dire need, even if that had a tragic effect on their mothers?

Truth-telling Tom Calma Style - The Stolen Generation Deniers

There is an interesting twist on the so-called ‘Stolen Generations’ in your own family Tom, which I would suggest makes a mockery of you blaming the rest of us and our governments for the plight of all half-caste Aboriginal children that were taken into care.

You have been quoted as saying that you, rebut people who claim Aboriginal children weren’t taken away, but were handed over willingly by their parents (see Figure 7 above).

However it seems that your own maternal grandfather Edwin Verburg may have done just that with your mother and aunt - he dumped your Aboriginal grandmother, took away her children and handed them over to boarding schools. (See Figure 12B below)

I don’t have all the facts of what actually happened and there must be a more complicated story here given that, if your grandfather and grandmother were married, how could their children have be taken by government officials anyway? Was there any neglect evident in the way their mother treated them?

Nevertheless, the optics are not good for your argument - that children were ‘stolen’ not given up by their parents - when the accounts of you own mother and aunt suggest that they were given up by their parent(s).

**Figure 12B - Excerpt from Magdalene McIntosh & Elaine Rothwell, *Maddie, Aboriginal History* 1979 3:1 p3**

Truth-Telling - Learning About May, Professor Tom Calma’s Great grandmother.

So far Tom, we have just referred to your paternal great-grandmother May in somewhat abstract, impersonal terms.

To give her the dignity she deserves, we have constructed, for the benefit of our readers, the branches of your alleged paternal family tree that shows her relationship to you and other family members (Figure 13).

Figure 13 - Alleged *paternal* branches of Professor Tom Calma’s Family Tree. Aboriginality by descent shown in red text. *Note: For disclaimers see full alleged Family Tree below.*

Our readers Tom, will note some interesting points here that might challenge your stated commitment to ‘truth-telling.’ How did you put it in your Fin Review article?

“That’s what truth telling is a little bit about. It is making sure that things that are history are actually known to everybody. There’s nothing vindictive about this, about people understanding who we are as a nation …” (See Figure 7 above)

Please take this next section of our post in good faith. I am not trying to be ‘vindictive’ about this, but rather to illustrate that ‘truth-telling’ works both ways.

My criticism of your political style is that I believe you have used misinformation and disinformation to slant the narrative in Australia, which results in Australians like me getting lumped with the guilt and blame of terrible things that may have happened in the past in Australian history.

In fact, as I will show below with evidence, some of the bad things that you claim happened to your family and which require ‘truth-telling’ and ‘healing’ today are totally the result of the agency that your own ancestors expressed.

It appears to many of us that you want to blame us and the government of today for things that your own ancestors were directly responsible for themselves.

This is all the more galling when we look at your life, achievements and recognition. You and your family look like you are doing just fine actually.

In fact, the success you have achieved without a formal Voice is a glaring example of why Australia doesn’t actually need a Voice enshrined in our constitution to help people who identify as Aboriginal to get ahead in their lives.

Regarding this alleged branch of your paternal family tree, Tom, our readers will see that your great grandmother May, who was threatened with being taken from her Aboriginal mother Jennie [we could find no evidence that she actually was ultimately removed (‘stolen’)] was a ‘half-caste’.

Her father, Lindsay Crawford, was of English descent. Thus, May Crawford was of 50% English descent.

Readers will also note that May did seem to go onto a better life than she may have had as a 7 year old in a town camp.

In 1910 she married Filipino man, Fortunato Calma in a church wedding (Figure 14). They went on to have several children, one of whom was your grandmother, Juana (Johanna) Frenanda Calma, from whom the Filipino family name of Calma was passed down to you.

**Figure 14 - Extract of wedding certificate for Professor Tom Calma’s paternal great-grandparents**

So Tom, I think you were mistaken when you claimed in the Dutch Australian Cultural Centre article that you were, “proud to share that [your] heritage is 75% Indigenous and 25% Dutch.’‘

Our genealogical work, based on the publicly available records and information that your family members provided, indicates that your alleged ancestry appears to be closer to,

- the 25% Dutch as you confirmed, and also approximately,

- 12% Filipino and,

- 19% English. It is only about,

- 44% Aboriginal – Kungarakan, Woolwonga & Iwaidja.

We know that you are comfortable with us dividing your ancestry by % as that is how you have done it too (see Figure 2).

Thus, based on this work it would appear that, like the great majority of Australians, you too are of more foreign ancestry than you are of Aboriginal.

Now, I am in no way trying to say you are not Aboriginal. You are, under the commonly accepted standards in use today in Australia. And I fully agree that you can identify anyway you like.

But in my personal opinion, I will now pretty much look at everything you say with a new lens - the lens of a fellow, multi-ethnic Aussie - as I scrutinise everything you say in case it is just a ‘con’ being foisted onto me by a slick salesman from the Aboriginal industry, claiming in his sales pitch that it is all for the sake of the Aborigines.

For I think that is what we are seeing here with the Voice proposal from proponents [salesmen] such as yourself.

The optics for us No-voters is that you are part of a movement, far removed from the daily life of ‘real’ Aboriginal people in remote Australia. Many of us now recognise your movement as being nothing more than a group of self-serving elites, who run the Aboriginal industry today.

Further Evidence Why I Won’t be Taking Advice from Professor Tom Calma

Tom, as my research into your family progressed, I felt a great burden of guilt starting to lift from my shoulders. No longer did I and my family have to atone for the sins of past injustices against Aboriginal peoples.

I suddenly realised that I could hand-ball all the guilt and shame onto you and your ancestors, who were the actual perpetrators on the colonial frontier.

When I read your quote again,

“That’s what truth telling is a little bit about. It is making sure that things that are history are actually known to everybody … We have to shed ourselves of the past, when we were colonised and to recognise that with colonisation, not only in Australia but globally, there are a lot of significant detrimental impacts on Indigenous peoples.,

I suddenly realised that you were making ‘generous offer’ on behalf of your colonising ancestors, the Crawford’s, the Verburg’s, the Calma’s and the Cooper’s, those ancestors of yours that actually did the “colonising” with the ‘killings” and all the other so-called “detrimental impacts on Indigenous peoples.”

Finally I thought, as non-colonisers, my family was off the hook - we were solely convicts, settlers and post-war immigrants! From now on I could sheet home the blame to you, Tom Calma and your ancestors, and I could get on with my life in this wonderful country of ours, guilt free.

Let me explain

Firstly Tom, let’s look at your great-grandmother, May Crawford, the poor seven-year old child, wandering the town-camp, semi-naked and ‘mixing’ with Chinamen.

You Tom use this poor child’s life of 1899 as a political weapon in 2023, to make modern Australia feel so guilty that she was ‘stolen’ from her mother [you provide no evidence that she was].

Your aim appears to be to leverage the public with so much guilt that they will ‘apologise’ for the so-called ‘stolen generations’ and feel the need to atone by voting for the Voice.

But in the name of truth-telling, let’s look at circumstances that led to the birth and life of May Crawford.

May Crawford’s Parents

May’s mother, Jennie, was a full-blooded [most likely] Aboriginal woman, born say around 1872 [May was about 7 in 1899, thus born in 1892 when, let’s say her mother Jennie, was 20].

No photographs of Jennie have been located but Police Inspector Paul Foelsche, the man that commissioned Thompson’s welfare report on May (see Figure 8), was also an avid photographer on the frontier.

He actually photographed in the 1870s a young woman from Jennie’s tribe, the Woolwonga [Woolwongah], who was named Darbarboon. This contemporay image will be a good proxy for what May’s mother Jennie might have really looked like in those days as colonisation spread into the Northern Territory.

Also recorded in Thompson’s welfare report on May is her father’s name, Lindsay Crawford. He was a ‘classic’ Territory frontier man, as recorded in his entry in the NT Dictionary of Biography (Figure 15).

**Figure 15 - Excerpt of entry for Lindsay Crawford, NT Dictionary of Biography.** *Full entry here*

**Figure 16 - Said to be a photograph of Lindsay Crawford, Professor Tom Calma’s 2X great-grandfather.** *Source: Ancestry user AIGCrawford originally shared this on 13 Apr 2012*

**Figure 17 - Proxy photo of a young Woolwonga [Woolwongah] woman to indicate what Jennie, Professor Tom Calma’s 2 X great grandmother might have looked like.** From: *Inspector Foelsche: Notes on the aborigines of Northern Australia. Report Trans. & Proc. Royal Soc. South australia Vol V, December 1882 .* ***Full Report*** ***here***

Thus Tom, your 2X great-grandfather Lindsay Crawford, the tough Territorian frontier man had a relationship with your 2X great-grandmother Jennie, the young Woolwonga woman, who ended up in the town-camp with her daughter, your great-grandmother, the vulnerable child, May Crawford.

So Tom, you may have inherited some of your Aboriginality from May, who you claim as a member of your so-called ‘Stolen Generation’ (see Fin Review article in Figure 7 above) but you also inherited from May a good dose of English ancestry from her father, Lindsay Crawford.

Thus to my mind, if you want to promote the idea of historical and collective guilt for past wrongs, it seems to me that you yourself should shoulder the whole burden of the misfortunes of colonialism that you claim befell you and your ancestors, such as little May Crawford.

You are completely entitled to claim in 2023 any amount of harm from the so-called ‘inter-generational trauma’ of dispossession and colonialism, but that doesn’t mean I have to believe it and share your guilt.

It seems to me that the responsibility for this lies at the feet of your own family, by the actions of your own 2X great-grandfather, Lindsay Crawford.

I suddenly feel like a new person again - I can quite justifiably wash my hands of any historical guilt or shame for the so-called ‘stolen generations’ in the Calma family.

If your own ancestors Tom, had taken responsibility for their own offspring, then May would not have come to the attention of the authorities in the first place. Nothing to do with me, or my family of convicts, settlers and immigrants. None of us were there in Woolwonga in 1899.

Historical Guilt from Massacres - The Calma Family Connection

It is true Tom, that over the last few years, as more information has emerged from colonial conflict, one can’t help but feel that some more balanced ‘truth-telling’ regarding colonial massacres and killings of Aboriginal people and settlers on the frontier is warranted.

So let’s start with your own family shall we?

It seems that your 2X great-grandfather, Lindsay Crawford, had quite a reputation as an ‘efficient’ pastoral station manager. Indeed, he might have been involved in the killing of a number of Aboriginal people himself.

In the literature there are number of references to the implication Crawford in the ‘Willeroo massacre’, a possible reprisal killing of 30 something natives by Crawford.

**Figures 18A&B - Excerpts from Lewis D. 2004 regarding Lindsay Crawford’s possible involvement in the Willeroo Massacre.** *Source p243-4*

Lindsay Crawford’s alleged involvement has even earned him his own entry in the University of Newcastle’s Colonial Massacre Map.

My reading of the incident is such that there is not a lot of reliable detail or evidence, and the Newcastle Unis Massacre Map is considered by many, including me, to be pretty dodgy.

Nevertheless, I’m hand-balling all my historical guilt for this massacre onto the Calma family now, based on the sketchy evidence that is available. It does look a bit like Lindsay Crawford’s association with the natives might not have been of the highest moral order.

It was known at the time that some Aborigines were out to avenge him - one wonders why, unless he was a known native killer and the natives were intent on payback?

**Figure 19 - Extract from Obituary of Lindsay Crawford, Professor Tom Calma’s 2X great-grandfather [“he” being Lindsay Crawford].** *Full Obit* ***here***

The Last Branch of Tom Calma’s Family Tree - The Coopers

In November 1848 the ship, Marmion left England bound for the new Colony of South Australia. On board with the other colonists were William and Judith Cooper with their eight children, one of whom was the 16 year old George Cooper, who was your 2X great-grandfather, Tom.

**Figure 20 - Said to be a photograph of George Cooper (seated) and one of his sons. George was Prof. Tom Calma’s 2X great-grandfather.** *Source: Ancestry user CWalladge33 originally shared this on 5 Sep 2013*

Your ancestor George helped his father William and the family start a farm on the dispossessed Aboriginal lands as the colonisation of South Australia proceeded.

They first colonised and farmed 80 acres of land on Section 1564 in the District Council of Highercoombe, (Upper Dry Creek) SA.

We know your ancestors considered themselves colonists from the word’s mention in George Cooper’s death notice (Figure 21)

**Figure 21 - Death notice for Prof Tom Calma’s colonist 2X great-grandfather**. *Source*

Tom, given that your ancestor George was acknowledged as a ‘colonist’, that must implicate you too, as his descendant, in the colonisation and dispossession of the land formerly occupied by the Aborigines.

The Coopers, your “mob” Tom, were good solid English colonisers.

In 1853 George married, and in 1860 he had a son Robert Joel “Joe” Cooper who would go on to become a major influence in your own life, as he was responsible for a major ‘reconciliation’ between the colonists and the Aborigines in your family history.

Our geneologist(s) have put together this alleged Cooper branch of your paternal family tree using the publicly available records and information from your own family members.

Figure 22 - The alleged *paternal* Cooper family branch, from Professor Tom Calma’s family tree. This family provides a major part of Prof. Calma’s English ancestry. *Note: For disclaimers see full alleged Family Tree below.*

Tom, as I continued to read about this Cooper family branch of yours, I began to realise, with all due respect, that your proposal for the Voice and its attendant Uluru Statement with Treaty and Truth-telling was one big con job.

A big part of your advocacy is so-called reconciliation. Yet when I looked at the old photographs of your family, the Coopers, I could see that they had already reconcilled 150 years ago in the best and most committed way - by inter-marrying with Aboriginal Australians.

Only truely reconciled, non-racist and confident people can marry each other.

A photograph of your great grandparents - English-heritage Robert Joel “Joe” Cooper and his Iwaidja Aboriginal wife, Alice - and their two mixed race kids just says it all - This family of mixed races is reconciled - no need for any Voice, Uluru Statement or advisors from Canberra.

**Figure 23 - Photograph of Joe Cooper, Alice-Rose Cooper, daughter Ruby, and son, Reuben, c.1914-16**, *Source: NTL PH0413/0009* [Charlotte M.S. Feakins, *Behind the legend: A historical archaeology of the Australian buffalo hide industry,* 1875-1958]

In my opinion Tom, you are just having a go with the Australian public - you want two bites at the reconciliation cherry for your family for reasons that I can only guess at, but suspect that it might have something to do with a profitable career and power politics.

**Tom Calma’s reconciled Aboriginal and White Ancestors ca1914-16.** *Source: NTL PH0413/0009*

**Figure 24 - Tom Calma’s reconciled Aboriginal and White Aussie family in 2023.** *Source*

In summary Tom, the two photographs above of your own family, taken 100years apart, says it all.

Your family is such a mixed race, multi-ethnic blend, like so many other Australians, that it is hard to believe that you can keep a straight face when you extoll Aussies to believe that you and your family are so special that you need your own Chapter in our Constitution.

Your family is the living, breathing embodiment on how, as a nation, we have overcome our divisions without a Voice and demonstrated our reconciliation between Aboriginal and White with that most powerful commitment of all - marriage.

If you really were a believer in Truth-telling and unity for all Australians, you would be Voting No with the rest of us on October 14th.

Roger Karge, Editor, Dark Emu Exposed