EmperorJulian,

The first initiative should be to WHO's soap'n'water sanitation and hygiene campaign that has been so successful in undeveloped countries in reducing gastro and other problems. Aboriginals may use soap and water for clothes washing for example, but young mothers in particular need to understand such basics as washing hands with soap and water after nappies and before preparing food. Mothers need to encourage children wo wash hands with soap and water after toilet and before eating. Not cleaning ears with twigs and so on.

Huge imnprovements are possible overnight where such simple education is undertaken.

Onthebeach, while the washing hands education is certainly essential, it would all go by the wayside if mum, dad and all the surrounding adults are drunk or drug affected.

I am with Divine Msn in agreeing that ALL children, whatever colour they are, who are neglected and at risk, must be removed from the current situation until and if it ever improves.
This constant rubbish about not repeating the 'stolen generation' needs to be shelved while we try to save these kids from learning about a life of violence, deprivation and crime.
While taking kids away from their abusive parents may be traumatic, I feel that a fair few of those kids who were part of the original stolen generation did end up with a good education at least.

When you talk to Aboriginal people who are doing well in life, with jobs or studying hard etc, they almost invariably have had a grandmother or mother who was part of the group of children, rightly or wrongly, who were removed from their parents and brought up in other homes or on missions etc.

These mothers were far more likely to encourage their kids to learn and get jobs, because they had this growing up themselves.

Hi Divine Ms and Suse,

I have to say I don't believe in a stolen generation. I've done a bit of research into the school records of a major Mission here in SA and I could find only about 40-45 school-age kids out of 800 - over a period from 1880 to 1966 - who were, at any time, put into care. Over that period, 40 mothers died leaving 120 school-age children, and two or three fathers died, leaving teenage daughters when the mother re-married. Figure.

And almost all of those kids came back, often within six months or a year. Clearly, family break-down and economic destitution had a bit to do with who was taken into care, just as they would be for non-Indigenous kids.

And when ? Certainly not before 1930: I checked out the movement to and from this School and - at a time when supposedly, people were also 'being herded onto Missions', in addition to 'countless thousands of children being taken away' - in the first twenty years of those School records, 1880-1899, how many kids were enrolled from outside the region, and NOT to and from another Mission ?

Eight. Mostly kids brought down from the North by stockmen, survey parties, etc., and abandoned in Adelaide and a couple of families of abandoned young mothers from the Mid-North. Case in point: one boy from the Far North who was unhappy at the Mission, so the Protector asked him if he wanted to go back to his home country, which he did, so the Protector arranged his free rail passage up to Oodnadatta and his further travel to The Peake.

So no, no stolen generation before, say, 1930. After this time, economic destitution, family break-down, maternal death, migration of the most capable families away from Missions, provide ample grounds for temporary removal of children by responsible authorities.

So why do people believe the myth ? Perhaps it has something to do with all those boogeyman stories from other parts, where strangers, Gypsies, Jews, whatever, for whatever reason, were always scheming to steal children.

Joe

“BRINGING THEM HOME”

The Australian practice of Indigenous child removal involved both systematic racial discrimination and genocide as defined by international law. Yet it continued to be practiced as official policy long after being clearly prohibited by treaties to which Australia had subscribed.

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA. "STOLEN GENERATIONS" DECISION.

Justice Daryl Dawson, High Court.……

There is nothing in the 1918 Ordinance, even if the acts otherwise fall within the definition of genocide, which authorizes acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, any aboriginal group. On the contrary, as has already been observed, the powers contained in the 1918 Ordinance were required to be exercised in the best interests of the aboriginals concerned or the best interests of the aboriginal population generally. The acts do not, therefore, fall within the definition of genocide contained in the Genocide Convention.

Justice Michael Mc Hugh, High Court.

The 1918 Ordinance did not authorize genocide. Article II of the Genocide Convention relevantly defines genocide to mean acts “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group” as such. The acts include “imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group”, and “forcibly removing children of the group to another group.” There is, however, nothing within the 1918 Ordinance which authorize the doing of acts “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part”, the aboriginal race.

Douglas Meaher QC, who led the defence of the government in the first test case wrote years later on the failure of the “stolen generations” premise of “genocide” in the High Court.

"The opinion proved to be wrong in every respect. It was wrong on the facts he assumed. It was found to be wrong by the High Court on the cause of action based upon the Constitution. It was found to be wrong by Justice O’Loughlin in respects to other causes of action." (Cubbillo & Gunner vs. Commonwealth

Well when you have a situation where a prominent AFL footballer makes a huge song and dance about a 13 year old kid calling him "Ape" when the same insult, either in derision or cheek has been directed at probably every second Australian male old enough to have facial hair and claiming it as a exclusive racial slur AND seemingly having much of the idiot Media concurring then you realise how utterly ridiculous and out of hand the whole "Racism" question has become ...

Wrong door: two threads down the hall, Ms Divine :)

About inter-group fostering and adoptions, this article might persuade:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/aboriginal-girl-mikala-caught-in-middle-of-adoption-struggle/story-e6frea6u-1226654057440

So what is important - somebody's life and well-being, or some adherence to something almost mystical and ethereal called 'culture' ? Should children's lives be sacrificed on the altar of ever-changing custom and tradition ?

Another question: are children the property of parents, who can do as they like with them ? Or are children the responsibility of RESPONSIBLE parents, who forfeit their relationship if they continue to neglect or mistreat their charges ?

Clearly, I'm in favor of placing children with capable, loving parents or substitutes. If the carers happen to have similar cultural preferences, or are related to the child, all the better, as long as they are caring and responsible people.

But culture or cultural experience not an absolute: the welfare of the child comes first, before any bogus 'culture' which some drunken parent tries to wave at a welfare officer.

After all, little children are sacred. Isn't that so ?

Joe