Windschuttle is talking semantics. The stolen generations needs to be seen, not just as specific cases where the racist laws were broken, but in the wider picture.

Lets get a bit real in the debate. Aboriginal people, particularly during the time of the worst of the stolen generations, were paid a pittance, if at all, for their labour. They were not allowed to live in towns; respectable neighbourhoods; their lives were controlled by the govt. They were forced to live in poverty, so it was not too difficult for the welfare agents to find something wrong with thier living arrangements. The powers that be, did little to improve the living conditions of people they bestowed poverty on, and yes there is proof of children being removed in order to breed out the colour. Read the aforementioned books.

Remember, we had no rights for much of the period of colonisation. People were told who they could marry, children were stolen with impunity particularly at the colonising 'frontier'.

Children as young as 2 were signed over into servitude by the Qld govt, with no mention of payment or time of release from servitude (it would have been called slavery, but the British outlawed slavery by then). See - Something like Slavery - mentioned earlier, for a copy of the original document.

Do you think that the people press-ganged into servitude in the Torres Strait were always adults, or that there was not some form of human trade.

Yes their are people who feel agrieved about their continued marginalisation and fools that continue to adhere to outdated myths of racial superiority. It is a natural outcome of a long history of racist policies and attitudes by the settlers.

Mellissa Lucashenko pointed out “If we are fully healed, we might find compassion for them for being so low as to need this racism in their arsenal of survival tools”. That is a tall ask in debates such as this.

Get over it. The Stolen Generations happened. That is a fact.

Apparently, Joe, you're struggling under the misapprehension that I'm at your beck and call. I've given you five or six names when you only wanted one. I've argued cogently and convincingly that Windschuttle is wrong in his understanding of the historical situation in SA and that his scholarship is second rate. And you still want MORE?
Joe, do your homework. I won't reply to you until you've read The Last Protector and can show that you understand the very clear argument presented therein. Here's a taste of what you'll find:

However, Penhall knew that his authority to remove or withhold Aboriginal children from their parents in favour of private religious organisations was highly questionable. In March 1943, writing to a man who had asked him to help remove his son from his Aboriginal mother, Penhall wrote:

"The difficulty about the baby is that I cannot prove that [Ally] has neglected the child, or that she is not capable of caring for him. I will watch the situation carefully, and try to get [Ally] to agree to placing him in a Home. This is the only course open to me, as I could not succeed in any action through the Courts to take him away from his mother."

Page 23 of The Last Protector.

And just to reiterate an earlier point:

Windschuttle knows of me and my work. He cites from The Last Protector in his latest book.
He doesn't want to engage with me because he knows he can't win against me. I've done the historical work and he hasn't. It's as simple as that.

Hi Keith! I know you're reading this. Why don't you join in?

Cameron Raynes

Aka,

Your thoughtful comments about Aboriginal conditions of life - it's exactly what I have been trying to get across. There were about 3-4 % white kids taken into care and why ? Because of family breakdown and destitution, death of mothers (and death/disappearance of fathers) - one does not have to posit neglect or abuse in understanding how and why white kids were taken into care, my dad and my mum's mum for instance. So if it happened for white kids, why assume some grand conspiracy to take Aboriginal children into care above and beyond those reasons alone ?

And if any government had ever wanted to make them into white kids (not likely in a racist and discriminatory society!), why did they ban contact between white men and Aboriginal women from the late thirties until the sixties ? Why put kids in homes out in the sticks, instead of well and truly in the suburbs ? Why dumb down the school curriculum from around 1908 until the fifties if they wanted to prepare Aboriginal children for forcible absorption into the white population ? The 'stolen' narrative doesn't fly.

Loudmouth, I understand its against the rules of OLO to repeat or copy posts to the same or other threads? However its further confirmation and example, of unscrupulous conduct known as attributed to disturbed behaviour alike racist bigotry.

At he risk of responding to your post, that was intended merely as rhetoric for observation by any readers, I may be able to respond to some of the issues raised in your post;

[1] The reason kids were put into homes out in the sticks was owing to the illegal definition of the practice. In that period the sticks were so remote, they were comparatively light years away from majority observation, of that isolation.

[2] the reason the curriculum was dumbed down was simply that Indigenous Australians were observedly, only considered the value of slaves, and noone wants an educated slave, relevant to the obvious risks to perpetuation of such ownership.

Also, at that time, evidence of these practices demonstrate these regimes were literally getting away with murder, so obviously they would be pursuing that advantage to its maximum, according to its potential, for illegitimate advantage inherently retains further potential for sudden or immediate decline.

[3] It is for these same bigoted policies in [1] & [2], orders were made for seperation between white and Indigenous people, and why the policies for white, and Indigenous, are incomparable of their intent.

Leigh, that Mr Trevorrow in SA has just won the case of the appeal brought by the SA Govt challenging the original finding of his claim as one of the Stolen Generation, and the compensation awarded to him, will you now apologise on this site for that fabrication you posted on Page 10 of this thread, claiming he was deceased, and the SA Govt had determined not to pursue his relatives for the compensation monies?

"Get over it. The Stolen Generations happened. That is a fact."
"Do you think that the people press-ganged into servitude in the Torres Strait were always adults, or that there was not some form of human trade."
Just present some evidence with respect to Torres Strait Islander children,, Aka, not assertions, end of story.