Talk:Stolen Generations

Why did you remove History of public awareness

User:Paul foord, why did you remove the rather excellent "History of public awareness" section? Shermozle 08:06, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

did not remove History of public awareness

Please note it was vandalism by user:203.134.187.58. They removed History of public awareness. Paul foord 10:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

major rewrite would be excellent

A major rewrite would be excellent, sadly it will just be another of the unrealistic versons driven by those with the most political of aganda. The sad truth is that it was just one minor operation by the (largely church) do-gooders of the day, claiming they would be helping these children. Perhaps they did actually save some from rabbit holes or the like, but on the whole the operation was conducted without any willingness to accept that they were ripping families apart. The same disregard for the truth as the authors of these one sided reports now conduct. Indeed some 80,000 British children were shipped away from their homes at the same time, most never to see any of their families ever again. And more recently half the West Papuan population has been wiped out during the pass thirty years by the friendly Indonesian forces who invaded in 1961 to reverse the Papuan independance which Holland had been promoting. Yet these raise not a mention from the 'moral' majority..

What a load of crap. It was systematic and government sanctioned. Read the reports, whoever wrote this. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:55, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The person who wrote this was right in highlighting the other abuses that occurred around the same time. Orphans were shipped to a church-run place called Bindoon near where I live, where they suffered awful conditions, forced manual labour and many were sexually abused. Apparently government figures turned a blind eye. The Aboriginal children were by no means the only victims of that awful period in the history of Australia. - Mark 14:26, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think a valid point can be drawn out of this. Taking kids from parents was standard (Commonwealth) government practice for any children whose natural family environment was deemed unsafe (ie. poor, retarded, or in this case Aboriginal parents). "Stolen Generation" has been made into a reference to merely the latter, on particular grounds, that it quickly spiralled into a gov-sponsored racist pro-Christian agenda. The other grounds for baby snatching should not be left unmentioned.--ZayZayEM 01:21, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

While I agree it would be good to put this in context, I've taken out the sentences regarding other forced removals on the basis that the sentences are very vague and don't actually provide any facts. If anyone has access to details of any acts of parliament, media reports about UK to Australia removals or other, that would be great. Ashmoo 06:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I'm launching a major rewrite of this article - I just finished reading the official report from the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission. In order to avert accusations of lack of NPOV I am going to quote from the official government report heavily - the accusations of bias might come because it is so appalling... Christ I had no idea how horrific it actually was... MMGB

Unfortunately this type of thing wasn't just happening in Australia. I believe that illegitimate children and orphans were being sent from British children's homes to Canada and Australia -- without meaningful consent from the children -- from the 1900's until the early 1960's. In theory it was supposed to give them a chance of a better life but in practice many of the children were very badly treated by strangers who took them in for a variety of reasons. -- Derek Ross

I know... it's amazing that these things could happen. Did you know that the Pope issued an official apology today for the involvement of the Catholic church in these forced removals?

Not relevant, but read this direct quote from the Stolen Generation report:

As Brisbane's Telegraph newspaper reported in May 1937, "Mr Neville (the then Chief Protector of Western Australia) holds the view that within one hundred years the pure black will be extinct. But the half-caste problem was increasing every year. Therefore their idea was to keep the pure blacks segregated and absorb the half-castes into the white population. Sixty years ago, he said, there were over 60,000 full-blooded natives in Western Australia. Today there are only 20,000. In time there would be none. Perhaps it would take one hundred years, perhaps longer, but the race was dying. The pure blooded Aboriginal was not a quick breeder. On the other hand the half-caste was. In Western Australia there were half-caste families of twenty and upwards. That showed the magnitude of the problem".

WHen I read that my blood went cold... - MMGB

I agree that it is quite appalling. As a non-Australian, I am curious as to how much that past racism is connected to the modern racism of the One Nation party. -- Egern.

What One Nation party? hehe - they don't exist anymore... the party fell apart about a year ago, and lost the only seat in government they had (in Queensland... our version of Alabama). The foreign media made such a big deal of the One Nation party, but they were always nothing more than a trivial and irrelevant movement. Certainly their views were racist, but then so are the views of the White Nazis or other such lunatic fringe organisations. The entrenched racist views would still exist in rural Australia, no doubt, but they are an incredible minority. All nations have racists, but it seems that the foreign media particularly like focusing on ours. - MMGB

Well, as an American, I can testify to the fact that most Americans know little about the rest of the world, and own media gives far too little coverage to what is going on elsewhere, including Australia. So I apologize about my ignorance concerning the death of the One Nation party. To be honest, I don't think the One Party got much coverage here either.

Media particularly like focusing on other countries racists. Authorities were pretty fast and loose with children generally, shipping them about the world, sometimes even telling their parents the child had died... when you've done stolen generation, take a look at child migrants: http://www.childmigrants.com

Oh jeez... do I have to? I'm depressed enough as it is... :) I'm finding this article REALLY difficult to write well, by the way. -- MMGB

I think you're doing a great job, Manning. I've never heard of this before; it makes me angry to read about it. It's going to be very difficult to keep things NPOV, but I think you have the right idea with heavy quoting of government officials and documents. --STG

---

Fascinating, Manning--very good job.

It seems to me there are two questions that need to be answered better, however. First, what happened to the children when they were taken from their homes? (The government taking children from their homes! Horrific! In fact I am surprised there hasn't been a major film made about it yet.) This is never made clear. At one point it sounds as if they were taken and then simply killed. The second paragraph, in particular, only contains hints, where clarity demands that the differing views about what happened to them, if there are any, be stated explicitly. Are some of the present-day aborigines descendants of the Stolen Generation?

I have taken the (dubious) approach of handling the history of the stolen generation investigation first, then I will handle the details. Then I'll decide what order seems best (unless someone else decides for me). It was already 2AM when I quit, hence there are lots of areas left undone.

Yes, the Stolen Generation and their descendents most definitely do make up a substantial fraction of Australia's present indigenous community. Many indenenous politicians, notably, are part of it. --Robert Merkel

Second, is there anything like a consensus about what percentage were taken from their homes? If this is a point of disagreement, or if many informed people believe we simply don't know (or that we know it's only within some range), it seems to me that should be said. Right now it sounds as though one faction believes it's 100% and one faction believes it's 10%, which is probably a huge simplification of the situation, I imagine. --Larry Sanger

I'm looking for that - the official report does not provide a number, and the newspaper articles say that "Many believe 10% is an understatement", but they do not clarify what number IS more widely accepted or who these "many" are. I'm wurking ahn eet. - MMGB

It is a point of substantial debate. Records are incredibly sketchy, and it seems that there were at least some children who were given up for adoption "voluntarily" - though whether it was ever truly informed consent and what fraction of the Stolen Generation it applies to are difficult to determine. One might even assume that the people concerned were kinda ashamed of what they were doing and didn't want the records to be too precise . . . --Robert Merkel

Yes, it is probably impossible to determine a valid number. At one extreme, you have the perfectly benign situation where mothers intentionally volunteered their children for adoption, as occurs in all western societies, and this can hardly be a cause for complaint. At the other extreme you have horrendous tales of children being forcibly and illegally abducted by police from sobbing parents. In the (very murky) middle ground you have cases where mothers "volunteered" their children under suspected duress and/or uninformed consent, and all shades of other variations. The records are appallingly bad, and it is unlikely that any true number will ever be determined. The figure of 30000 and a minimum of 10% seem to be generally accepted minimum numbers, hence I have used them. Frankly even if it was only 10 people, it would still be a horrifying actuality. - MMGB

---

notes to myself...

The following are all quotes from the official report:
"inculcate European values and work habits in children, who would then be employed in service to the colonial settlers"
"By the middle of the nineteenth century... [Governments] typically viewed Indigenous people as a nuisance."
"Unlike white children who came into the state's control, far greater care was taken to ensure that [Aboriginal children] never saw their parents or families again. They were often given new names, and the greater distances involved in rural areas made it easier to prevent parents and children on separate missions from tracing each other"
"Government officials theorised that by forcibly removing Indigenous children (of mixed descent) from their families and sending them away from their communities to work for non-Indigenous people, this mixed descent population would, over time, `merge' with the non-Indigenous population. "

---

I'd like to compliment you for the way you wrote this page -- TK

Thanks TK - it's certainly been the toughest article I've ever written. In case anyone is wondering why I have placed [sic] after every usage of "aboriginal" (instead of Aboriginal) - this is a specific issue of complaint by Aborigines in this country, one never writes "english people" or "american", and it is regarded as offensive to be denied the proper noun status. Pedantics might argue that "aborigine" also has a generic meaning (which it does) but it is not being used generically in these cases. Most government documents I have quoted use the lower case, so I have noted this with [sic] to indicate that the Wikipedia does not participate in this slightly derogatory behaviour. Interestingly, it is only around 1965 that government documents start capitalising the term. - MMGB

---

Article says:

and such a complaint would need to be heard at the International Court of Justice.

I wouldn't mention the ICJ here, since it is not the only body with jurisdiction, and the only way the ICJ could hear a case on the Stolen Generation would be if another State complained against Australia. (The ICJ has no jurisdiction over complaints by individuals, rather only by states.) But these sort of complications aren't relevant, so I'd just not mention the thing at all. -- SJK

--- I reverted the changes to the previous version. The sentence "Though Governor Macquarie funded the first school for aboriginal children in 1814 and the British government had by the mid nineteenth century estabished a system of protectorate authorities with complete authority over Aboriginal welfare and rights, the term Stolen Generation generally refers to the family seperations after Australian federation in 1901." doesn't make any sense, raises an irrelevant school created by Macquarie (that was a failure and shut after three years anyway). Most importantly it detracts from the key notion that the actions were performed with the full knowledge and blessing of the federal authorities, as is cited in the HREOC report.

The next statement "However as the size of the Aboriginal population was unkown, many did not speak english and lived away from any town; Section 127 of the 1901 Australian constitution stated "In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal {sic] natives shall not be counted." is not only grammtically incorrect and has bad spelling (correctable), it is also inaccurate in its implications. The Aboriginal community were not classified as "civilised", therefore they were not regarded as a part of the commonwealth, it was not simply a matter of difficulties in counting. Also, even if this were the case that their exclusion of Aboriginals were solely a matter of challenges with the census, it doesn't change the fact that the legal interpretation was that Aboriginals did not have equivalent human rights under Australian Law. Again refer the HREOC report for verification. It's not pretty, but it is a verifiable truth.

I don't know who changed it or why - perhaps it was because they wished to soften the damnation that this article offers. But although I'm as proud as the next Australian, this is a pretty fair and unbiased article. The truth really WAS that horrible. I have no problems with corrections and improvements (as SJK has already done) but only when they improve the article and do not introduce fallacies and ambiguities. - MMGB

---

Somebody's edited this page again, and I found the last version more informative. I'm for a reversion to the previous version. --Robert Merkel

---

Good work so far. Big questions from me include who and why. Who were the people that thought this up, and how did it become policy? What did the people implementing this think they were going to accomplish? Do they think they succeded? -- ansible

Ansible - these are really good points, I think the article could be tweaked to give greater attention to the actual reasoning behind the actions. I'll do it later (at work now) - MMGB

---

Morning, I've pushed the date of the policies back to 1869. M.F. Christie (footnoted) highlights that the child removal policy was initiated in Victoria in the 1860s by well-meaning Missionaries. I recommend the book to everyone, btw. --Che tibby 22:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Some parts of this article still lack a neutral point-of-view. Not ALL Australians believe that the Federal Government should apologise for the atrocities committed by Federal governments 50 years ago. Also, how do we prove the report was an embarrassment for the Howard government? I doubt you can quote them saying that, and it must be speculation, which we definitely don't want in an article of this significance. Whilst I appreciate how important it is to investigate the stolen generation, does this article really have to be the place for people to air their grievances against the current Australian government???? - Mark Ryan

Mark, John Howard admitted the reaction of Aboriginals at the Reconciliation Council (IIRC) when they turned their back on him was embarrassing and on reflection he wished he had have handled himself better. Might I also suggest their constant attempts to poke holes in the report indicated that they probably wished it had never been written. --Robert Merkel

Again, removed this, for much the same reasons as explained in Talk:Australian Aborigine. Tannin 08:39 27 May 2003 (UTC) Important: Since the 'Stolen Generation' is of much political importance in Australia, it is difficult to find unbiased facts. Many things even in this article may not necessarily be accurate. It is important to put the situation in perspective. Many mixed blood children in Aboriginal families were abused by their parents and simply did not fit in with the tribe. All in all, if you are studying this topic - make sure you read widely and of different viewpoints, because of the political nature of this topic. No one can claim to be the expert on this matter! Not even your lecturer!

www.bennelong.com.au insertion

Just for the record, in this edit the anonymous user with the IP address 165.228.127.160 inserted the full text of this copyrighted article. I suggest keeping an eye on his edits. --Eloquence 06:08 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Whilst our copyright-infringing anonymous friend edits are not NPOV, we don't really cover the views of people who disagree who disagree on the facts and interpretation of the Stolen Generation. We should cover this part of the story better --Robert Merkel 08:32 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Opening sentence

I would like to change the opening sentence from

The Stolen Generation is the generation of Australian Aboriginal children who were removed from their families by Australian government agencies and church missions between approximately 1900 and 1972.

to something like

Stolen Generation is the term commonly used to mean the Australian Aboriginal children who were removed from their families by Australian government agencies and church missions between approximately 1900 and 1972.

Why? Two reasons.

• Style. We're trying to define the term "Stolen Generation" but we are using the term "generation" in the definition.
• Accuracy and NPOV. Yes, this is a semantic argument, but this is an encyclopaedia, and and semantics are important. No definition of "generation" fits the actual group of children concerned.

What I am NOT trying to do:

• Deny that it happened.
• Diminish the awfulness of the events described.
• Apologise for the people responsible, or defend the current government's (pathetic) response.
• Try to stop people using the term "Stolen Generation". However I do want to see it defined accurately.

Anybody have any strong feelings one way or the other?

Icd 10:11, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

No problems here. - Borofkin 22:39, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Book?

Can anyone recommend a good non-fiction book about the Stolen Generation? I'd like to read more. Amazon doesn't seem to have anything truly comprehensive.

I recommend the work of Henry Reynolds. Teutonic Knight 19:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I can reccomend

• My Place by Sally Morgan, Fremantle Arts Centre Press
• Jacobs, Pat (1990). Mister Neville, A Biography. Fremantle Arts Centre Press. ISBN 0-949206-72-5. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
• Kinnane, Stephen (2003). Shadow Lines. Fremantle Arts Centre Press. ISBN 1-86368-237-6. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

petedavo 09:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

History wars probably relevant

Not sure how it would be included but Keith Windshuttle, Centre for Independent Studies probably have pro-Howard but controverted views relevant to this Paul foord 07:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

see [1]

... sustained and well-publicised criticisms by Ron Brunton, the Director of the Indigenous Issues Unit of the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), in Betraying the Victims (1998). Paul foord 07:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Right-Wing media?

I don't think it's a good idea to state that "right-wing" media calls it the Stolen Generation. I'm from Australia and "Stolen Generation" is not the best term to use. I myself use "the so-called Stolen Generation" to speak about this period in history simply to be neutral about the whole matter. Labelling the people who call it "the so-called Stolen Generation" as right-wing is offensive and against NPOV. Perhaps we should change it to "often conservative" or some similar terminology. Werdna648 02:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Ive just edited the part about "so called stolen generation" because it isnt conservative or NPOV to call it "so called". So called is a term of derision to cast doubt on how serious the matter was. Consider "so - called" holocaust, terrorist attacks, elected president etc. etc. If people have research that does cast doubt on the findings of the HREOC reports then that would be a useful contribution to the article. Also, I accept the people wish to deconstruct the use of the word "generation" so I elaborated on that. Fyntan 11:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

problem with links

There is a problem with links on this page. Special those ending with au.com. The same problem occurs on the lemma rabbit-proof fence. --Joep Zander 10:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The links to pages in the age and SMH need to go because you cant look at old articles without paying for them Fyntan 12:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's add some facts

I don't want to argue with anyone, but some facts are missing here to make this article truly NPOV.

1) No government policy ever existed in the NT to support the idea of a "stolen generation". In a well known test case in 2000, Peter Gunner and Lorna Cubillo lost when a Federal Court in Darwin ruled it could find no evidence that the Northern Teritory ever had a policy to steal children for racist reasons. No evidence. None. Fact.

2) Nancy Barnes, an aboriginal activist, said in her autobiography ("Munyi's Daughter"), "We are referred to as the 'Stolen Generation'. I consider myself saved." So not all native Australian agree either. Fact.

We have a situation now where welfare organisations are reluctant to rescue aboriginal children in dire circumstances, where a white child would not have to suffer in the same situation. Fact.

As I said, don't argue with me please. These are facts. --Commking 26 September 2005

• Your first point appears to be already in the article. As for the second, if you remove thousands of children from lower-class families and place them in richer ones, I'd be pretty damn surprised if a few of them didn't end up better off. I'm not arguing with you that those are 'facts', what you've missed is that they're utterly insignificant. --Last Malthusian 08:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• • What is significant is I've offered facts - you've offered opinion. The truth is, trying to put a racial slant on this is wrong (and I don't think you have yourself), when the truth is no such government policy existed. The result now is that white children are more likely to be removed from abusive and/or unsanitary conditions where indigenous children and more likely to be left due to the "stolen generation" connotations. Suffer the little children. Utterly Insignificant? I think not. --Commking 10 October 2005

• Just noting that Commking's facts appear to come from Andrew Bolt's article from Sept 23. Like in that article, there is a missing causal link between the alleged stolen generation and the fact that Aboriginal children are less likely to be removed from abusive situations. There are other possible causes for this.

From Robert Manne's web page "Bolt has written that there was no policy in any state or territory at any time for the systematic removal of "half-caste" children. This is blatantly wrong. One example must suffice. In 1934, the Secretary of the Department of the Interior in Canberra outlined government practice in the Northern Territory like this: "It is the policy to collect all half-castes from the native camps at an early age and transfer them to the Government Institutions at Darwin and Alice Springs." What does Bolt think this means?" I think it means that Andrew Bolt isnt a credible source to quote for this entry, Ive been looking at his writing online and he doesnt reference anything that he claims. Fyntan 12:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

In other countries

I removed a line about similar instances happening in the US, as it has no source. The Canada line at least has a source, but I'm still skeptical that the practice was comprable to what happened in Australia.--Cuchullain 19:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Policy?

This article refers to a "policy" several times. There is no source or external link given to the actual policy being referred to. What policy? If we can't see any evidence of a policy, we should get rid of this. --Commking 08:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has come up with a policy yet. Thi is a very emotional subject for some people so I've allowed a very long time for any input. In the next few days I intend to remove all references to it. Last chance to come up with Citations or References! --Commking 09:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that this is an old post and that you have not removed the references to "policy" as promised; the main reference for this article is the "bringing them home report" (plenty of links to it if you want to look) which makes abundant reference to the various policies of removing indigenous children from their parents since the start of colonisation. I dont think the word "policy" needs referencing, since it is the policy of removing children, leading to the "stolen generation" that is the subject of this article. that might be just me, though Fyntan 12:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Eugenics as the policy source

A. O. Neville, Chief Protector of Aboriginals from 1915-1940 in Western Australia,

“ believed that biological absorption was the key to 'uplifting the Native race.' Speaking before the Royal Commission, which investigated the administration of Aboriginals in 1934, he defended the policies of forced settlement, removing children from parents, surveillance, discipline and punishment, arguing that "they have to be protected against themselves whether they like it or not. They cannot remain as they are. The sore spot requires the application of the surgeon's knife for the good of the patient, and probably against the patients will."

In his twilight years Neville continued to actively promote his policy. Towards the end of his career, Neville published Australia's Coloured Minority, a text outlining his plan for the biological absorption of aboriginal people into white Australia. It is a classic example of the eugenics policies popular at the time in the Western world.

”

And I heard that there was some sort of scientific theory that was common in the early part of the 20th century known as Eugenics that was used throughout the world to justify castration, segragtion and other acts based on racial, mental, criminal and genetic discriminators. petedavo 09:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent arguments

Look, I love all this crap about how the stolen generation did the aborigines over. It makes the white folks who live in the city feel the way they know they ought to feel; guilty. We've got a guilt complex, and we know it. But the stolen generation is a great con of the Aboriginal Industry. It happened, yes. Terrible things happened. Just ask and of the Liverpool Children who were sent away from the Blitz in the middle of WWII and were told their parents were killed and vice versa. Its a British thing to do this, the believe the State and the Empire knows best.

But we have to be reminded why we must say sorry. Because its all our fault, us whiteys, what they do to themselves today. Our ancestors did their ancestors something bad, which means we are responsible today for what they do to themselves today with grog.

Let us not ignore the other side of the stolen generation story. Drunkenness and decreptiation are what's left after we'vecome and brought our grog to the aboriginals and taken away any supervision of it. The current generation of under 40's are, from my experience here in W.A., no good at all. Mostly drunks, violent drunks especially out in the bush. Its all over the news, now, as if our great conservative media had discovered it under a rock in the desert and it didn't exist before. But I'll tell you this, and it's true, those of th stolen generation out here in W.A. are the least likely to be sitting on a 55 degree sidewalk in Halls Creek blasted from their skulls on VB. They're the ones who have turned out decent.

And what are we supposed to do to redress the stolen generation? Give them more money to say sorry? Give them an excuse to blame us for their problems, which are all home grown? Give them license to get drunk and sell their kids off on the street to buy more grog? Or do we take these kids away from this generation of wasted drunkards, steal them away for their own good, teach them White culture and White work ethics and White attitudes to booze and money and respect for themselves?

Yeah. The stolen generation is as simple as "oh you poor aboriginals how terrible, mea culpa mea culpa". But there are those of the first generation who are glad they aren't on their arses drunk, and I'm sure, if you saw the way the current generation lives up in the north, you too would want to steal another generaion so that five year old kids don't get venereal disease.

So. Find a way to tell the story about how it did some good to some people. Tell the story about how its being used, now, as an excuse by aboriginals why they are social misfits, and why their grandkids steal cars and get killed on the roads. Because I certainly can't meet the current POV article with an NPOV rendition of the other reality of the non-stolen generation. And you all can't write dick about fuck all about the aborigines because you don't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolinator (talk • contribs) 15:00, 1 April 2006

Please try to keep discussion to how the article can be improved. - FrancisTyers 15:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Im new to this so I thought Id put it on the talk page first, by way of disagreeing with what rollinator said and also for comments as to wether this could be included as is in the article or if I should affect my own summary and then reference it, cheers.

"A three-year longitudinal study undertaken in Melbourne during the mid-1980s revealed the numerous differences between respondents removed in childhood (33%) and those who were raised by their families or in their communities (67%). Those removed were,

• less likely to have undertaken a post secondary education;

• much less likely to have stable living conditions and more likely to be geographically mobile;

• three times more likely to say they had no-one to call on in a crisis;

• less likely to be in a stable, confiding relationship with a partner;

• twice as likely to report having been arrested by police and having been convicted of an offence;

• three times as likely to report having been in gaol;

• less likely to have a strong sense of their Aboriginal cultural identity, more likely to have discovered their Aboriginality later in life and less likely to know about their Aboriginal cultural traditions;

• twice as likely to report current use of illicit substances; and

• much more likely to report intravenous use of illicit substances (Dr Jane McKendrick, Victorian Aboriginal Mental Health Network, submission 310 page 22).

A national random survey of Indigenous people conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 1994 allows us to compare further the life circumstances of the people who had been separated as children against those of the people raised by their families and communities. It shows no significant difference between the two groups with respect to their educational achievement."

Bringing them Home Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families April 1997 Fyntan 12:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Citations needed

There are too many claims without any references. This is Wikipedia guys, not Peter Pan. I shall go to the article and indicate where, in my opinion, a reference ought to be provided to back up contentious claims. Captainbeefart 15:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed my mind about the last bit. Too hard. Somebody who has read all of the reports ought to step in to clean up this article. It is definitely not clear what is documented where. Captainbeefart 15:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Genocides in history

There is an article called Genocides in history and a section called Australia the section consists of two paragraphs the second of which is:

On a federal level, since at least 1901 it was Australian policy to remove 'half-caste' (mixed Aboriginal/European) children from their families. Defended in terms of social welfare, it is now perceived to have caused extensive emotional and cultural damage among the Aboriginal people. This practice falls neatly within the (otherwise shaky) UN definition: "forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." Australia signed the UN Convention in 1951, however the practice was continued until 1972. Individuals who were taken from their families are now said to belong to the "Stolen Generation".

As can be seen, it does not have any sources and refers to this article. The quote in the paragraph comes from the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Who has made this claim? Because without a WP:V it ought to be removed. Also it seems to me from reading this article that the actions were a breach of the CPPCG this is accepted by most Australians, or the Australian courts, and as such is not a neutral point of view ((NPOV).

I am currently trying to clean up the Genocides in history page and would like to get some sources for the paragraph. I would prefer is someone who knows more about the subject than I would either make suggestions here for Wikipedia:Reliable sources and a more balanced NPOV, or better still just edit the paragraph in the GIH article. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV (Again)

I'm totally neutral on this subject as I know nothing about it, however reading this article it is -highly- point-of-view oriented towards the more left-wing arena. The introductory passage alone is very inflammatory. I would recommend to the editors and authors of this piece that neutrality, taking oneself out of the equation, and focusing on academic and most importantly encyclopedic writing technique is the forte required to get through this one. 211.30.71.59 06:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If you know nothing of it how can you tell it is POV oriented towards left wing?

Because there's hardly any argument for the "so-called Stolen Generation" and "it did not happen" sides. --Gunny01 07:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Bolt

Andrew Bolt should not be used as a source in any Wikipedia work. His is an opinion collumist whose work is rarely researched and usually consists of extreme right wing politics that usually have no basis of fact. I'm not saying that right wing politics have no place in this article or any wikipedia reference, but if Wikipedia wants to be taken seriously it should not source any "ēvidence" from this man.

What a load of demonising hogwash! - pure pojection. AB works with facts and is one of the few sane voices in Australia. Why don't his critics ever back up their smears with evidence? It's always the same, no matter who they disagree with - attack the man and obscure the facts. Hypocrites - Gordon Hewitt

I have been reading some of the articles by Andrew Bolt available on the internet and I am interested in helping to create a wikipedia article that soundly addresses his critisisms. I think his articles have created a renewed interest in "the stolen generation" and that there is probably a lot more traffic to this article as a result of him. I am having trouble identifying his research and specific critisisms of "the stolen generation" that arent addressed by the two reports compiled in 1995 and 1997. His claims that the women who created rabbit proof fence misrepresented themselves, and that the stolen generation does not exist at all are quite baffling to me. Could some of the supporters of Andrew Bolt please start posting facts that we can check? Fyntan 09:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

How can they post facts when he does not? Andrew Bolt writes opinion columns and his claim that women who misrepresented themselves was simply along the lines of his belief that it was unlikely for children to make that journey. I mean, he may well be right, but it is not something wikipedia can source. Disco 15:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Where did Andrew Bolt make a claim that the women misrepresented themselves? In this page: [2], Bolt seems to make the argument that it was the movie that misrepresented the book. Bolt challenged Robert Manne to produce a list of 10 names of mixed-descent children that were removed not from harm but from their aboriginality. Bolt says, "Robert includes Molly Craig, 14, and her cousins Daisy and Gracie, apparently because he saw the film Rabbit Proof Fence. But when Molly as an adult saw the film she declared “That’s not my story”, and if Robert had checked the book on which it is based he’d know why." Bolt claims that Manne - probably the leading voice of the Stolen Generations movement - could not even produce a list of 10 names of mixed-descent children that were removed from their families because of their aboriginality. If Manne truly is unable to do this task, then imo, that raises serious doubts about the nature of his research. Maybe most of these children were removed from their parents for genuine reasons...? Atreyu81 00:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Shared experiences of the Stolen Generation

Given the heated nature of the subject, I have removed the following, awaiting a source: "Not all members of the stolen generation consider being taken from their natural families such a bad thing. Alec Ross of Alice Springs is one example: he credits his long and successful life and career to being taken from his teenage mother as a infant when he was chronically ill with pneumonia and mentions with sadness that of his nine later siblings only one is still living. He notes that his very young age at which he was taken is probably a contributing factor in his positive experiences." Mdbrownmsw 19:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Quote from the "Bringing Them Home" Report.

"We were all happy together, us kids. We had two very wonderful old ladies that looked after us. It wasn't like an institution really. It was just a big happy family. I can say that about that home - United Aborigines Mission home that was at Quorn. Y'know they gave us good teaching, they encouraged us to be no different to anybody else. We went to the school, public school. There was no difference between white or black."

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/stolen18.html

tactik 05:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires that all information be verifiable but all of the sources for this section, with the exception of one which has no citation at all, are to confidential submissions meaning that it is not possible to verify the statements. On this basis it is hard to justify retention of this section.

Aditionally, generalisations are made based on a single, non-verifiable reference. For example "Generally the treatment of the fostered children was poor". The supporting statement for this has been awaiting a citation for over 3 months.--AussieLegend 07:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

first hand accounts

I think what is missing in the article is more first hand accounts of the experience. I know some autobiographies have been published ... Johncmullen1960 06:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is very important. Firstly because it is clear that these "debates" are not even remotely interested in Indigenous people. So terms as "half catse" are highly offensive and highly racist, denoting the fantasy that race is biological - A fantasy which ensured that Indigenous children were taken away. People can debate actual number of children stolen til the cows come home, but the reality is that every single Indigenous community in Australia was effected by these policies. This "debate" isn't about how many children were literally ripped out of their mothers arms - but about the fear that was forced on Indigenous communities; it is about all the stories of Indigenous children knowing to run away when the welfare cars came; it was about the threats and coercion; it was about having brothers or sisters taken, or one of your parents being removed as a child. The one major difference between the white mothers who had their children taken away (unfairly much of the time, and this should be recognised) was that they were white. Aboriginal mothers were assumed to be uneqaul and inferior, and the white Australia policy continued to dominate the way people conceptualised this relationship. It is indicative I think that to look at who is talking when this "debate" is being had - very rarely does it include Indigenous people. And anyone who seriously think Andrew Bolt has anything even remotely logical to say about any of these needs to have their head examined. At least there are plenty of right-wing people out there who can string a sentence to gether about this - Andrew Bolt can barely manage this.

Citation needed (elsewhere)

I removed the fact tag. I said there was a ref at Internment, but this was wrong. Apologies. I reworded sentence, to the term at article, so I don't think there is a problem with this page. Except maybe for internment skeptics :) - Fred

Objectivity

I'd like to see some more objectivity to the article in terms of content rather than tone. I'd like to see an attempt at more accurately demonstrating the world view of the day. Rather than condemning the likes of A.O. Neville et al, I'd like to see someone objectively exploring the world view of the day epistemically, rather than writing an article of condemnation and moralising. The world was different then. Not even the great mind of Leonardo Da Vinci would have picked something like human evolution from the primates so lets not judge the Paternalism and Social Darwinism of that period through a 21st Century lens. I'm pretty sure I don't know enough about the topic myself but if someone is interested and prepared to help me I'm willing to try. I'm not for a moment suggesting a section of excuses indulging in the assuaging of guilt, but to explore what drove 19th Century thinking. I'm thinking primarily of John Locke, Voltaire, the Great Chain of Being etc. I'm thinking of an opening that goes something like:

"Paternalism motivated the practice of forceful removal of indigenous and half caste children from their parents in early 20th Century Australia. This can be contextualised within the evolution of humanism.

"Humanism brought science out from beneath the shadow of religion. The world became 'classifiable' and fledgling sciences were born.

" The judgement of the evolution of the indigenous Australian was first a technological one that begat the false assumption of an evolutionary status based on biology. They allegedly could not fend for themselves and it was believed the 'noble savage' could be civilised. Even James Cook's observations betray the notion of the day... of the 'noble savage' untouched by the scourge of civilisation."

To conclude this little proposal I'd just like to point out that if we had our time over again we'd know what the right thing to do would be.

Proberton 07:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not exactly sure what lack of objectivity you can be referring to. There is no condemnation of A.O. Neville in the article (the present version does not even mention him). The section entitled "emergence of the child removal policy" explores "the world view of the day epistemically" - I cannot find any trace of condemnation or moralising this section, just explanation. The section of the article which discusses moral and ethical debates over the stolen generation is under a separate heading, and as far as I can see all points of view are accorded fair weight. Edelmand 15:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Page protection need?

This page is being regularly vandalised by unregistered IP addresses. Perhaps the page should be semi-protected to prevent edits by new and unregistered users. Does anyone see a problem with that?--AussieLegend 07:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we're on top of it for the moment. If it gets any worse, then maybe.--cj | talk 08:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

More vandalism, I second page semi-protection. Atreyu81 01:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it.--cj | talk 02:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Since temporary page protection expired on 23 April (13 days) vandalism has occurred on 5 occasions. I really think this page needs permanent protection from unregistered IP addresses.--AussieLegend 09:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Five occurences of vandalism in over two weeks really isn't that bad. JPD (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It's actually under two weeks and it's now 6. Seven if you include P0rk0-2diie4's edit which he/she reverted him/herself.

Even if you are of the opinion that it's not too bad, I really don't see any downside in applying permanent semi-protection to the page, except for the kiddies who keep vandalising the page.--AussieLegend 10:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The downside is it's agaist policy. And it's against policy for several, reasons, I suggest you check out the protection policy Nil Einne 19:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

References needed

The section headed "Social impact on members of the Stolen Generation" is not referenced. It makes claims that are either false, meaningless or highly questionable and does little justice to the subject (and the people involved). If it is a legitimate study it should be referenced. It has been at least 4 months. The "results" need to be referenced or removed.--Grinning Idiot 11:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to the entire section (which includes three references) or just the first paragraph (which is not referenced)? If you are referring to the first paragraph, then I agree with you that it should be referenced. The rest of the section, which is referenced, should remain.Edelmand 12:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I referenced the first paragraph for you. I wasn't very hard to find on Google Australia. ::So all paragarphs in the section now have citations. petedavo 08:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Stolen Generation "denial"

I feel that this article is not as NPOV as it can be. Like it or not, there is a significant perception in the community that the incidents in question either never happened, or did not occur on the scale that is stated on the page here. This does not appear to be a fringe view either - just read the "letters" page in The Australian or similar papers anytime the issue is brought up. I feel that this point of view, and the arguments of those that hold it, should be factored into this article in some way.

For the record, I believe that there almost certainly were forced removals of Aboriginal children from their homes during the 19th century and early 20th century, although I regard the estimates of some academics on the number of children affected to be a little on the high side. Lankiveil 13:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC).

I think I fixed that. Fred ☻ 14:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is quite debatable whether Bolt's opinion pieces are notable enough to be mentioned in an encyclopaedia, but including letters to the editor is just ridiculous. Letters to the editor have absolutely no place in an encyclopaedia unless a particular letter is from a person or persons who are highly relevant to the subject matter and are the only available source for the particular piece of information. It doesn't matter if a fringe group or a great majority of the Australian public believe something, perception of an issue is hardly the litmus test to use, we should be using verifiable information and that is all, if your opinion differs to referenced information than go out and find contradictory information (from a credible source) and add it to the article, but leave letters to the editor and your beliefs at the door. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 15:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Fred ☻ 15:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't advise using Bolt as anything other than cheap entertainment, I imagine that he foams at the mouth when writing his articles, and he might bite if you get too close. I'm talking about the views of less insane persons like John McDonnell, Keith Windschuttle, etc etc. I'm also not advocating saying "it didn't happen" in the article (because it did), only saying that there should be some balance in pointing out that it's not universally accepted as truth, and there is a very vocal segment of society that disagrees, loudly, with what is painted in the article. Lankiveil 10:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC).

I fully agree, we just need a better source. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 10:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I've made this edit to the lead of the article, does anyone have any objection to this addition? I hope that merely saying that the topic is controversial is not going to be, in and of itself, controversial! =) Lankiveil 11:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC).

Is excluding Andrew Bolt's views really NPOV? Shall we just include the more politically correct views only? --Commking 02:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This will answer that question..as to why Robert Manne was forced to resign from Quadrant (magazine) because of this very issue..

“ Michael Duffy (Australian journalist): Martin, can I ask you the same question? Before 1989 Quadrant had a neat role, if you like, a very specific role. What is or ought its role to be? Or does it still have a role?

Martin Krygier: Here I'd part company with my colleagues on the panel. I think it has a very clear and enormously important role until 1989. The end of communism meant the end of an overarching enemy which was relevant at every political level. That meant that you could die and it wasn't an ignoble thing to do, and that's what happened with Encounter, or you could do something interestingly and individually different in a more complicated situation, and I believe that under Robert Manne that was being done. I think that more recently, in a way which is not completely as a result of recent trends, but I think that as a result of the culture...we're a political culture that hunts in packs and there was a tendency once you're sort of pushed to one side in popular polemics for Quadrant people to actually quite like the role of pariah and being the anti-pack pack. I think that that has continued with a vengeance over the Aboriginal issue and many other things in recent years and it has dismayed me and it's why I'm not associated with Quadrant now. And I think that it's...where things are complicated, where it could be that the opposite of a proper position is a foolish one, but that there are many possibilities, many complexities which one could explore, Quadrant seems to me to be a sort of radical simplifier which always finds somebody on the other side, whether they be politically correct (to use the phrase), to be contrarian with. And then people find themselves (or at least I find myself) forced between a pack and the anti-pack and not feeling particularly attracted to either. I think this spirit of dichotomies (I think often false dichotomies) has become dominant and I regret it. (Martin Krygier is director of the European Law Centre at the University of NSW and he's also the son of Richard Krygier who founded Quadrant)

”

petedavo 01:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Currently, Bolt's POV is given significant weight in this article. I'm slightly uneasy about that. We should represent all sides of the debate (absurd as it may be for anyone to deny the historical accuracy of the Stolen Generations), but Bolt is... well, nobody. He's a columnist. Windschuttle may be... uhm, "excentric", but he's at least a published academic, which would justify including his views in a Wikipedia article. Then there's the fact that Bolt's denialism is an extreme fringe view. There is widespread political consensus over the historical facts (including within the Liberal Party), and within the academic world. The fact that uneducated members of the community write to Bolt to support him does not in any way provide a noteworthy counterweight to the consensus which exists among the educated. It's a fair assumption that few (if any) of Bolt's random supporters within "public opinion" have actually read Bringing Them Home, or indeed any of the legislation which formed the basis of the policies behind the Stolen Generations. The political and academic Right does not deny the reality of the Stolen Generations any more than the Left does. Heck, not even Howard denied that it had happened. Howard has expressed his "deep and sincere regret that indigenous Australians suffered injustices under the practices of past generations, and for the hurt and trauma that many indigenous people continue to feel as a consequence of those practices." Aridd (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Compensation, Labor promise to apologise, SBS transcript

I haven't got time to attend to any of this right now, but here is a useful transcript of a broadcast on SBS yesterday which examines the compensation being paid in Tas, and the RUdd promise to apologise if elected. SBS transcript 22 Nov 07 I'll try and update over the weekend if no-one does it before me. Manning (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Unencyclopaedic content moved from article "Bolt said-wrote-claimed/Manne said-wrote-claimed"

The following is unencylopaedic - the material needs to be distilled/summarised "Bolt said-wrote-claimed/Manne said-wrote-claimed" claim and counter claim. Whether Bolt or Manne provide better evidence for their claims is also relevant.

Bolt has publicly challenged Robert Manne to produce ten cases in which the evidence justifies the claim that they were "stolen" as opposed to having been removed for legitimate reasons such as neglect, abuse, abandonment, etc. He argues that Robert Manne's inability to produce as few as ten credible cases is a good indicator of how unreliable the claims that there was policy of systematic removal are. In reply, Manne stated that he supplied a documented list of 250 names Bolt indicates that prior to a debate with Manne, Manne provided him with a list of 12 names that Bolt states he was able to show during the debate was “a list of people abandoned, saved from abuse or voluntarily given up by their parents”. During the actual debate, Manne produced a list of 250 names without any details or documentation as to their circumstances. Bolt has subsequently been able to identify and ascertain the history of some of those on the list and has yet to find a case where there is evidence to justify the term ‘stolen’. One of the names on the list of allegedly stolen children was 13 year old Dolly, taken into the care of the State after being found "seven months pregnant and penniless, working for nothing on a station".

-- Paul foord (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Taken for their own good?

With the debate over an apology, some politicians have asserted that the children were taken for their own good owing to mistreatment, similar to the recent rape of that 10 year old girl from Arakun. Is there anything on which to substantiate these claims?