blairbar,
in the 1970s there was a couple of cases that were the topic of conversation in the Torres Straits. I will not mention names of course.

This local gossip was the first I heard of the practice on the mainland of taking children. The two cased I remember were not quite the same as on the mainland as there was strong community input into how the children were to be cared for. The grannies still weild power. In one case the non-Indigenous family remained on TI to ensure family contact. The other case was a similar type of open adoption.

You are right that in the Torres Strait the adoption system worked well and that children were cared for by extended family - But the Torres Strait Islanders did not suffer the same removal/dispersal that Aboriginal people did. The family structures remained relatively intact through colonisation. It did not stop people worrying, even though we always knew when govt workers were coming up. Sometimes up to a week in advance. They could not simply rock up and surprise anyone.

To argue about the legality of child removal and intentional breeding out colour is mad. The colonisers simply made it legal. This is the problem of proving it in a court of law - it has to be proven that the law even if racist, was broken.

Thank you Grandma for your considered reply to my comments. My interest in the "stolen generations" from Torres Strait stems from two factors; my wife is a Torres Strait Islander and I have always been interested in history.
You state "You are right that in the Torres Strait the adoption system worked well and that children were cared for by extended family - But the Torres Strait Islanders did not suffer the same removal/dispersal that Aboriginal people did. The family structures remained relatively intact through colonisation"
That is my point. Just because Torres Strait Islanders are part of Australia's indigenous population, why does it mean that generations of their children were forcibly removed? The examples you give hardly constitute genocide, as claimed in The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women's taskforce on violence Report, and breeding out of colour.
The Prime Minister in his "Sorry" speech stated: "We apologise especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country."
Yet I just can't find any examples of the removal of Islander children from their families similar to the removal of Aboriginal children from their families and none of my wife's relatives and friends from Torres Strait are aware of any removals either.
I am mindful of Sir Walter Scott's lines of verse; "Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!"
Why say sorry for something that did not happen?

On another point: Windschuttle's scholarship. Despite Windschuttle claiming that his research involved an ‘examination of the primary source evidence’, he completely ignores the rich set of primary records held by State Records of South Australia. There's 24 or so shelf metres of records of the Aborigines Department held by State Records. These records, known as GRG 52/1, cover the period 1868 to 1966. They contain the most fascinating raw historical material -- letters from Aboriginal people, policemen, missionaries, doctors, and so on, and the replies they received from the Aborigines Department. It is THE single standout source of records to be used by any historian attempting a history of interaction between Aboriginal people and the South Australian government. Windschuttle knows this.
And yet, there's not a single mention of GRG 52/1 in Windschuttle's work. Odd.
Instead, he relies almost exclusively on the judgement of Justice Gray (Trevorrow v. State of South Australia (2007). Though it's an important document, it is not 'primary source evidence'.
Hi Keith!

Well said Cameron. I take heart in knowing that there are those who still pursue the truth of our history. There is so much evidence to support the fact that there was and always has been a Stolen Generation. I cannot understand the mindless need to disprove this. The Prime Minister has apologised for such actions by successive governments, and that I consider was the appropriate thing to do. Perhaps it is best to ask Stolen Generations survivors their account of what happened!

Hocksta

<<< Perhaps it is best to ask Stolen Generations survivors their account of what happened! >>>

Exactly!

Still mourning the loss of Ruby Hunter.

And Wobbles, well said.

Cameron

Thank you for entering into the debate - takes courage and the personal touch of your voice on these pages brings your words closer to us.

individual: << I have trained three tradesmen & many are gaining practical skills by working with me. >>

Good for you. Do you slag them off to their faces or only behind their backs?

<< where's your recommendation for doing the right thing when indigenous children are abused ? >>

Of course there should be intervention when any child is abused, Indigenous or otherwise. However, that typically wasn't the case with the Stolen Generations removals, despite the disingenuous bleating of Windschuttle and the denialists who are only too ready to accept his whitewashing of history.

The dysfunctional communities that you see today are a direct result of the hamfisted and blatantly racist policies and practices of successive State governments and churches. If you want to understand the communities from which you benefit, you might like to ask some of the older Indigenous people you encounter about the dormitory system, or the punishments they received as children for such infractions as speaking their own language, or the phenomenon of 'wrong marriages'.

On the other hand, I suspect you don't really want to understand.

Joe Lane/Loudmouth - given your involvement in Indigenous education, why are you spruiking the inadequate and disingenuous analysis of a tendentious and incompetent excuse for an historian like Windschuttle? You're not associated with some mission group or another, are you?

blairbar - clearly there were members of the Stolen Generations who are of TSI descent, no matter how that annoys you for some reason. If the PM's Apology had omitted them, don't you think that they would have cause for complaint?

I really don't know why some people insist on picking over the scabs of old wounds. PM Rudd has paved the way for reconciliation with his belated Apology on behalf of the nation. Why do a minority of non-Indigenous Australians want to deny the historical injustice meted out to the First Australians?