“They could educate them, teach them job skills and hygiene, and impart a bit of western morality.”

Read the reports and the apologies from the shining lights of western morality who ran the institutions, charities, and read stories from the children themselves. Or not… not doing so will be more comfortable.

“And, as you write, the situation today is appalling - why is it that 24 % of children in care are Aboriginal ? Is a single one of them 'taken', for no reason ? And if this is the case nowadays, then in the past, when people were far more likely to be destitute, isn't it logical that the discriminatory policies against Aboriginal people had even more devastating effects ?”

Yes children continue to be taken for no reason. No matter how poor this country has been at any time the govt has always been able to afford lawyers and the not-for-profit orgs will always profit and be protected.

But I am now getting an understanding of why it continues to happen. I’m going to work on a new thread to discuss if I am correct because I think we’re derailing this one.

Hi Jewely,

You, know, there are a host of reasons why children might be taken into care. What appals me sometimes are the cases of neglect and abuse and other dysfunctions and catastrophes, where children are NOT taken into care, Black and white, where parents simply cannot look after their kids, or families break up so violently that 'home' becomes a dangerous environment for children.

So you really have to sift through the background of particular cases, before you can assert that a particular child was taken away for no reason. And one problem with asserting something like that is that the circumstances have to be laid open to scrutiny, in order to be able to say yay or nay. And that can be very hurtful and traumatic.

Keith Windschuttle thoroughly examined thousands of documents in his earch for any child who might have been taken away and he came to the conclusion that Bruce Trevorrow, from Meningie here in South Australia, was the only documented case so far. Actually, I find that hard to believe, even if so - just in the normal course of doing their job, there must (one would think) have been coppers, doctors or social workers, in every state who over-reached their powers - maybe a few cases every year since 1900, which should amount to thousands. But where are they ?

You can't just assert and leave it at that, and then build an elaborate rationale on the basis of it, about how governments wanted to turn Black kids into white kids - where on earth is the evidence of that ? What is meant by 'turning Black kids into white kids' ? Teaching work-skills ? Finding people work ? Teaching kids to read and write ?

Nobody likes to think that their parents may have been incapable,or too destitute for a time, to look after them; if their mother had died, say, then surely another relative could have looked after them, they would have been all right.

The truth can set you free, Jewely, but sometimes it can be too painful.

Joe

Hey Joe, I agree with what you say but not the context here. I’ve seen it happen, experienced how traumatic it is when it does happen etc and I am only one person who has witnessed it a lot. But I also see how it is hidden and information kept from the public and the victims. Painful mostly doesn't begin to describe it.

Lot’s of “it” words there. I mean the removal of children going back through a very unpleasant Australian history.

You got me thinking and reading a lot of material which soon as a wrap my head around it I’ll be really interested to see what answers or thoughts other people here have.

We could make it legal for anyone with the name of “Joe” to be taken into care. "Legal" aint where I see justice in these circumstances.

Osama news is boring… guess it will be awhile before we see what comes next without the screaming and flag waving stuff. Obama did say Justice was served though, love that word.

Funnily enough, even though I'm not Aboriginal, I spent some months at a mission. (cos my dad pulled a swifty, I think) It was run by a Christian group (can't remember which one) and provided adequate material care for the "girls".

I don't know the circumstances of each girl's situation, but I do remember that although they were well provided-for materially, there was almost no "connection" between them and their care-providers. They were expected to do "all" the chores. As far as I could make out, there was no prominence or concentration given to their culture - the only thing given prominence was Christianity.

They faced it with a sort of passive-resentment. It was as if they were temporarily "lost" and it was something to endure stoically until they could find their way back to their culture.

Just an observation from someone who spent a little time in the same position, although not from the same cultural background.

This was in 1974.

They may have been homesick, Poirot: you need to make further investigations :)

Jewely,

Yes, as you say, " ... We could make it legal for anyone with the name of “Joe” to be taken into care ... "

Or people between 155 and 160 cm. Or people with an 'm' in their names. Or people who like cats.

But we don't. But the question is:

- was it legal anywhere in Australia for authorities to take Aboriginal children into care without any reason, without good reason, without cause ? Windschuttle writes that it was not, anywhere, legal to do that. Not anywhere. In no state was it legal. If you can find any such law on the books, let me know. Let Windschuttle know too.

Of course, the other thing is: even though it wasn't legal, were any children taken ILLegally, without cause, with no reason, not for their own good but for some other evil purpose ? With nobody who had any authority over the children, such as a white father, or Aboriginal parent, agreeing ? If so, why aren't they pursuing the matter through the courts ? Otherwise, it's still just hearsay and rumour.

For me, it raises the issue: WHY ? In a racist society, why should authorities want to bring Aboriginal children into 'their' society, and not expect inter-mixing, and ultimately inter-marriage ?

What a strange coincidence that, just when these removal policies were supposed to be in force, governments were banning white men from associating with Aboriginal girls ?

Isn't exclusion, separation and segregation more likely in racist societies ? Forms of apartheid ? Forms of the sort of racism that was raging in the southern US ? Isn't that more likely than 'forced' equality (how do you do that?), equal rights, equal opportunity ?

This is top-of-the-head stuff, unless you have examples. He who asserts, must prove.

Joe

Jewely,
I think you are being led on by Joe for despite direct quotes, links to references and so forth, he prefers to give Windshuttle's poorly researched works precedence over any other souce.

Joe,
if you were truly interested in searching for the truth you would look wider than SA and consult more of the literature than poor old windshuttle and his biased colleagues.

Have you read Anna Haebich's (2000)'Broken Circles: Fragmenting Indigenous Families 1800-2000' by Freemantle Arts Centre Press?

What did you think of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women's Taskfoce on Violence Report, chaired by Boni Robertson and published by Queensland 2000?

Did you get a hold of 'Something like Slavery?: Queensland's Aboriginal Child Workers, 1842-1945' by Robinson, S.(2008):Australian Scholarly Publishing Pty Ltd?

Your assertions that Aboriginal children were only taken into care for their own sake does not have the backing of literature. To claim that childre were taken because their parents were destitute denies the reality that Indigenous Australian's were not allowed to be paid more than about a third of settler Australians.

Getting back on topic, the atefacts discovered in Tasmania are of great worldwide significance as it challenges many long held theories on human origins/migration.