Congratulations Warren Feakes (Letters, March 31), you read a sample of Convincing Ground by Bruce Pascoe; and managed to re-affirm your already ill-informed perception of Australian history. Rather sadly you draw a distinction between ''history'' and ''war'' surely war in relation to the expanding Australian frontier, is a part of our frontier history they are inseparable.
Similarly, you express the standard anti-intellectualism that damns anyone who has bothered to research and read widely. Archival sources prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Australia does indeed have a black history. It has nothing to do with trying to ''engender some form of generational holocaustic guilt''. We are not responsible for what past generations have done, but we are responsible for allowing this warped misconception to continue.
To disparage indigenous Australians by diminishing their forebears' actual experience as ''skirmishes'' and ''scuffles'', is to confirm a Eurocentric perception which discounts and dismisses the humanity of other peoples. This meanness of spirit detracts from all that is worthy about the national Australian character.
For more than 20 years I have been astounded at the ignorance and misinterpretation that continues to be propagated. Squatters and the Native Mounted Police, and even earlier with the military around Bathurst, shot and butchered large numbers of Aboriginal men, women and children. In Queensland, the Native Mounted Police was not disbanded until about 1911, which meant that it was operational for more than 60 years. To Aboriginal Australians these ''scuffles'' were ''full-on'' exterminating wars. To the well-informed 21st century Australian this demands recognition, something which the Australian War Memorial would do well to acknowledge.
Dr Timothy Bottoms, Visiting Fellow, National Museum of Australia
Tantangara capable
Following recent correspondence in The Canberra Times I would like to clarify a number of aspects related to the role of Tantangara Dam and the purchase of water to supplement the ACT's water needs.
As we debate water security for the ACT and region, it is worth remembering that the site for the nation's capital was selected on the basis of its secure water supply.
The strong flows of the Murrumbidgee River before Tantangara Dam was built in 1961 were a contributing factor to that decision.
Tantangara Dam was built to divert water from the upper Murrumbidgee catchment into Lake Eucumbene.
This diversion is achieved through an off-take pipe from the the Lake, which takes a very large portion of the water that flows into the dam.
Due to the diversion, the level of water retained in Tantangara Dam averages only 6 per pent or 16GL.
The actual level varies on a seasonal basis, with high storage volumes in late winter and early spring and low volumes in autumn.
Normal inflows into Tantangara Dam are on average 301GL and the storage capacity is 254GL.
However, even in its driest years, Tantangara Dam has been able to support the issuing of high security water licences.
In fact, in 2006-07 NSW allocated 90per cent of high security water to licence holders.
That year corresponds to the lowest recorded inflow to Tantangara, when only 35-40GL flowed into the dam.
This strong record of water allocations, coupled with the water available annually in Tantangara Dam, underpins the level of water security we achieve by including Tantangara Dam as a source of storage and release.
Tantangara Dam can continue to fulfil its original purpose while also playing a key role in the storage and transfer of water down the natural passage of the Murrumbidgee River to meet the needs of the ACT before moving on downstream.
The ACT Government does and will continue to maintain efficient use of water within the ACT and its suburban planning regime.
Simon Corbell, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water
Troubled waters
I came to this country by myself as a migrant when I was 17. With my wife and children I have lived here since 1968 and particularly enjoyed the lake. The pristine nature of the lake must be preserved at all costs with no migrant bridge. I would rather see the money spent on something of real value, such as cancer research.
Cedric Bryant, Watson
I was saddened to see your front-page headline of March 31, ''Clamour to scuttle bridge proposal''.
In my opinion, this ''clamour'' has nothing to do with the bridge's supposed tawdriness or its effect on sailing.
Is the lake for the exclusive enjoyment of people who own boats or who have invitations to garden parties at Government House? No, all that should be needed is a rental bicycle or a pair of walking shoes. The bridge is a lovely, imaginative proposal. We should save it from people who have no imagination.
John Mason, Latham
Email a friend