Cameron and CJ may be able to clarify this for me.
Wikipedia states: " The Stolen Generations(also Stolen children) is a term used to describe those children of Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent who were removed from their families by the Australian Federal and State government agencies and church missions, under acts of their respective parliaments"
So we are talking about removals under various Acts of Parliament.
Yet in your very interesting article Cameron you state "But, without the support of the Children’s Welfare Board, there was little the Aborigines Department could do. They embarked on a prolonged program of removing Aboriginal children by stealth, usually keeping them in children’s homes run by missions, against the wishes of their parents. This was illegal. Windschuttle and Bolt would have known all this if they’d read The Last Protector."
So when we are discussing Stolen Generations in South Australia, the children were stolen illegally, but for the rest of the country they were stolen legally?

Ngarmada wrote

"however I will not reveal my identity further."

and

"So I will remain disguised that I may ‘ninja’ them at the most appropriate opportunity."

Surely you must be Zoro or Captain Fantastic. Possibly even that guy on the Japanese Ninja TV show at 6am in the morning when I was a kid. Shintoro I think, he would jump down from a 100 ft tree and slice you with his sword, only to immediately jump back up the 100 ft tree. He was a master of disguise. In 2 sec flat he could transform himself from a Ninja to an old woman. Please don't keep me in suspense any longer Ngarmada, reveal your identity.

Here they are Cameron, two more of the racist parasites who have infiltrated OLO and show up on these threads like clockwork. ozzie has been identified also by myself and other posters as a stalker, driving a female poster ostensibly off the site of OLO with his relentless pursuit.

They will never reveal themselves, but we know Cameron, one day they will make a mistake, and justice will prevail.

When someone can make a living by having a chip on their shoulder than integrity is not part of the equation. The formula is devoid of fact & truth is bent like a boomerang, remember we're talking huge money. White academic so-called historians have been exploiting the indignation feigned by many whilst those who were actually getting the short end of the stick were simply ignored. People rave on about Keith Windshuttle, well, right or not, at least he's had the decency to write as he perceives it & not to please corrupt half-baked loudmouths dictating to ignorant academics with their hand reaching for the cheque.

Is there such a thing as objective history?
There are many who would argue that there
isn't. The historian can establish that
an act took place on a certain day, but this
by historical standards constitutes only
chronology (factology).

The moment the historian begins
to look critically at motivation, circumstances,
context, or any other such considerations, the
product often becomes unacceptable for one or
another camp of readers. Many people are reluctant
to modify their views and the result is usually
a complete breakdown in communication.

To me personally, there is enough material out there
and it is now possible to explore our past from
more than just one source. And, people actually
should look at more than just one source. There are
a large number of books, articles, films, novels, et
cetera... We can learn a great deal about the history
of indigenous-settler relations.

However, with knowledge the question becomes no longer
what we know, but what we are now to do, and that is a
much harder matter to deal with.

It will continue to perplex this country of ours for many
years to come.

Leigh, it's good to learn that you really are a Leigh. People being honest about who they are makes a difference to the integrity of debate. (If you are suspicious about false posturing at this end, you can look me up through OLO easily enough.)

Loudmouth and BBoy have both responded to my posting. In both cases, their follow-up arguments are more reasonable than the initial points, which were attacking the person rather than criticising the argument. Or so I thought: they both clearly disagree.

My main point was to support Raynes' earlier complaint that the personal attacks online tend to come from people who don't reveal their own names. (As you seem keen to demonstrate, it is not behaviour limited to the pseudonymous.) But that cute irony aside, the ad hominem style is not a very good advertisement for online debate — unless the real point of logging in is the Friday fight club. A lot of people will be happy to vacate the field if that's the case.