I am not an “out-of-towner”. As a resident of Maitland, and academically qualified philosopher and educator, I have thoroughly debunked Maitland & District Historical Society’s article by the “esteemed”* Chas Keys and Kevin Short (Jocko Graves: Maitland’s ‘Little Black Boy’, 26 November 2025) in my Book Maitland’s Racist Garden Gnome (available on Amazon). I have used philosopher Michel Foucault's deconstruction methodology of history on the subject matter.
Chas Keys and Kevin Short have no university qualification in history. Both are amateur history fans and members of Maitland and District Historical Society. I encourage them to critique my book correctly by refuting the central point. This is the best way to respond but it involves time and effort. One needs to understand, and correctly describe, the central point in order to refute it. A secondary or tertiary point is not the central primary point. Hence Kevin Short’s reply to me that “Insult is not discussion” (referring to the title of my book) is not a proper refutation. It’s a complete misunderstanding of the title.
Here is a very short critique of their poorly researched opinion piece. Read the full critique in my book.
POSITIVE
1. Short / Keys correctly state that there is a hitching post on High Street, Maitland.
2. Short / Keys write in grammatically correct sentences (unlike some other Penfold Philistines).
NEGATIVE
1. Short / Keys repeat an often told myth of Jocko Graves. The whole alleged 'history' of 'Jocko' is based upon a fictional children's book written by Earl Koger Snr in 1963. There is no verifiable evidence that he ever existed. There is only distorted oral tradition of Jocko Graves incorrectly written down as fact 250 years after his supposed adventure took place. That means that Jocko Graves is not a hero as his supposed actions in the myth are also fictitious.
2. Short / Keys use the name ‘Jocko’ for the hitching post. The hitching post was called 'the little black boy' (no 'Jocko') from the mid 1890s when it appeared on High Street until mid 20th century. The term 'black boy', used to describe the object, was not one of endearment but one of racist denigration. 'Black boy' was a term used by white people in Maitland to describe adult Aboriginal trackers.
3. Short / Keys repeatedly call the hitching post a statue. The hitching post isn't a statue (a civic monument). It's a mass-produced 19th century gimmick used to promote the sale of American tobacco (which has strong ties to both slavery and racism). It's like a Ronald McDonald figure outside a Maccas store to sell hamburgers. The hitching post was outside a tobacconist to sell tobacco grown and harvested by slaves.
4. Short / Keys Short / Keys fail to understand that the Jim Crow Museum of racist artefacts views the ‘Jocko’ hitching post as a “demeaning relic... of a racist past”.
5. Short / Keys argue “It’s old therefore it’s important”. This is the logical fallacy (error of reasoning) called Appeal to Tradition (argumentum ad antiquitatem, appeal to age, proof from tradition) There may well be a good argument for the object’s importance, but merely saying that it is old is not sufficient justification. It is not a reason in itself but requires more information.
6. Short / Keys personify an inanimate object by using the term “he”. They also borrow (without proper acknowledgement) the lyrics of Byran Watkins’ ‘Maitland’s Black Boy’ song. The song lyrics use the same personification of the hitching post as they use. They state that they don’t know the date of the song’s publication. A simple Google search could have been used to find the date. It was 1977.
7. Short / Keys state that the hitching post is featured on many used items. Having a racist object on many used items does not negate the object’s relation to both slavery and racism. Black slave children were used to grow and harvest tobacco. The hitching post was used to tie up horses. Both items are used by others.
8. Short / Keys state that the hitching post is not racist. It is very clear that the context of Maitland's vomiting hitching post is tied to tobacco advertising. That tobacco was grown and harvested by black slaves in America. The object was situated outside a tobacconist store. Maitland's vomiting hitching post exists because of the slavery associated with the American tobacco industry of the day. It's appearance on High Street in the late 1800s was in the context of racism within both Maitland and Australia.
9. Short / Keys don’t understand how oral tradition works. They think that it is like Chinese Whispers. As a teacher, I have used this game with young students. The message at the end has always been distorted. This is partly because the original message does not use mnemonic devices such as acronyms, acrostics or rhymes. Songlines and method of loci (memory palace) are part of the spread of Aboriginal oral tradition. There is no evidence that songlines, method of loci or mnemonic devices have been in play with the retelling of the Jocko Graves myth.
10. Short / Keys use a false dilemma fallacy (also known as a false dichotomy, black-and-white thinking, or the either/or fallacy) in attempting to justify their faulty view of oral tradition. You either choose the whole of the Jocko Graves myth and all of aboriginal oral tradition or you reject the whole of the Jocko Graves myth and all of aboriginal oral tradition. It doesn’t work that way. There are many other choices and not merely this absolutist thinking which oversimplifies complex issues.
11. Short / Keys state that there is a ‘way forward’ by believing their ahistorical misinformation. However, believing their misinformation is actually a way backwards to a 19th century racist white Australia.
12. Short / Keys list the main ‘historians’ that they quote as references for their assertions. They are all unqualified amateur history fans. None have a university qualification in history.
- Earl Koger Sr., an insurance broker.
- Waymon E Lefall, a barber.
- Jack Paten ("Drongo Jack"), an Australian country musician.
Will history fans Chas Keys and Kevin Short correct their obvious errors or continue to defend the indefensible?
* It’s a short story that I will tell sometime. ;-)
