Loudmouth,

http://press.anu.edu.au/apps/bookworm/view/Aboriginal+History+Volume+34,+2010/5611/review18.xhtml

"From 1939 to 1953, one man, William Penhall, the Protector of Aborigines and the Secretary of the Aborigines Protection Board (APB), had nearly complete control over the lives and destinies of the 5000 or more Aboriginal people scattered across South Australia. In The Last Protector, Cameron Raynes, an Adelaide historian and writer, documents Penhall’s role in the ‘illegal removal’ of Aboriginal children from their families during the 1940s and early 1950s. In other states, legislation allowed for Aboriginal children to be removed from their parents, but in South Australia, Raynes argues, Aboriginal children could only be taken away by the APB with the approval of the Children’s Welfare and Public Relief Department (CWPRD). After several unsuccessful attempts to get the CWPRD to cooperate in the removal of Aboriginal children, Penhall decided to ignore the legal process. Instead he used a combination of deceit, bluff and intimidation, as well as coercive powers such as withholding child endowment payments or denying rations to uncooperative parents, to remove children from their families, usually on the grounds that the children were ‘neglected’ or their parents ‘unsuitable'....by 1949 Penhall had received advice from the Crown Solicitor that the APB did not have the authority to remove children from their parents. Nevertheless, he continued the practice up to the time of his retirement in 1953."

"What Penhall did, in most cases, was to prevent children temporarily placed in missions or admitted to hospitals from subsequently returning to their homes. Eventually these children would be adopted out to a white family, or committed to Colebrook Home or some other institution, usually without the knowledge or consent of the parents. In other cases documented in The Last Protector, Aboriginal parents succumbed to threats from Penhall or the APB’s Welfare Officer, Sister McKenzie, that if they did not voluntarily admit their child to a mission or other institution, that child would be forcibly taken....an action that the CWPRD was clearly very reluctant to undertake except in extreme circumstances. Once the child was handed over, Penhall did all he could to keep the child in that institution."

Loudmouth,

So there we have some history written from a certain slant, using archived information.(and received a robust critique from the ANU reviewer)

Another review:

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/entertainment/a/7647204/book-review-the-last-protector/

"Thirteen-month-old Trevorrow had been sent to hospital in Adelaide by his parents from Meningie (150km away) on Christmas Day, 1957, with a serious intestinal disorder. He was not returned until 10 years later, when his father was dead and he was a disturbed child who had to be taken into care. The Aborigines Department had fostered him out to an immigrant family, lying to his parents that he was still receiving treatment."

"Although the subtitle of Raynes' book focuses on illegal removal, of which he has managed to provide a few examples, most of the evidence in his book is of the illegal withholding of children in missions and government institutions during the years when Penhall was Chief Protector (1939-53): Raynes describes case after harrowing case of Penhall and his officers successfully blocking the efforts by Aboriginal mothers to be reunited with their daughters."

"As an employee of the State Archives, Raynes was in a good position to trawl through the records of the Aborigines Department, amounting to 70 boxes for the period 1939-53. Even so, he suspected that the "smoking gun" (the admission by Crown Law that Penhall and the Minister had exceeded their authority) was to be found in files withheld by the Crown Solicitor's Office, no doubt as a consequence of the Trevorrow case. His attempts to gain access to these files were blocked and subsequently, he and other researchers wanting to consult the other files have had to obtain a clearance through the SA Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation."

Loudy Goose,

"But what isn't there, so far, is any evidence or rationale for either taking children away, or driving people off their lands (pastoralists were happy to keep people nearby to use their labour: check out the works of Robert Foster on Google for this), or pushing people onto Missions. Nada. Niente. Niechevo. Dipote. Rien."

http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/manning/sa/aborigines/1858.htm

"The first settlers who arrived at Holdfast Bay in November 1836 described the local Kaurna people as 'friendly, harmless and honest to a remarkable degree.' Within a few months the Kaurna were making themselves useful to the new settlers, acting as guides, carrying water and firewood and performing other chores around the settlement, for which they were rewarded with food, tobacco, clothes and other items. Captain Walter Bromley was appointed Protector of Aborigines in May 1837. He set up his tent on the banks of the Torrens [in what is now Bonython Park]...encouraged the Aborigines to visit him there to receive rations of food and blankets."

"The Colonial Office subsequently enshrined the principal of Aboriginal land rights by inserting in the Letters Patent, the document issued to the Colonisation Commissioners early in 1836 to formally establish the colony of South Australia, a clause which recognised the prior rights of the Aborigines to the land and guaranteed that 'any lands now actually occupied or enjoyed by [the] Natives would not be alienated.'

The Commissioners agreed to set aside 20% of the proceeds from all land sales in the colony to be used for the benefit of the Aborigines and also committed the South Australia Company to protecting 'the natives in the unmolested exercise of their rights of property should such a right be found to exist.'

In the new colony, these commitments were soon forgotten and all the lands were declared open for public sale. A few of the more enlightened colonists saw the Aborigines' dispossession as unjust and public debate on the issue flared occasionally in the newspapers..."

"The Kaurna population sank from about 300 in 1841 to 150 in 1856 and during this period the white settlers intruded upon their lands,"

Wounded Swan,

Dr Raines put up an OLO thread some years ago. When challenged, he couldn't name a single child taken in the ways you suggest.

From memory, two boys, children of an Aboriginal mother who had died, and a white father, were put into a home in about 1914 by their father, as he had every right to do, as their surviving parent.

In another case, the daughter of a half-caste mother was taken into care at the Industrial School in Adelaide, after the mother had taken off from the native camp at a station near Hawker to go to Marree (Hergott Springs), leaving her daughter alone in the camp. When the mother came back several weeks later, she demanded her child back but was refused. Fair enough. Sounds like neglect to me :)

In other cases, it was clear that Dr Raines had little knowledge of a common practice on missions, whereby parents went out to work during the week while their children were looked after in the dormitory on the mission, went to school on the mission with other kids, were fed and looked after on the mission, until the parents came home for the weekend. This was common in the years up until at least the 1960s at Koonibba, Gerard, Finnis Springs and in the nineteenth century at Point McLeay and perhaps Point Pearce (Pierce).

Usually the Children's Welfare and Public Relief Board, formed in the late 1920s by bringing together the old Destitute Board and the Children's Council, wouldn't have a bar of Aboriginal children - they were the responsibility of the Aborigines Department, they said. In fact, they had a policy, I'm not sure when it ceased but certainly well into the 1960s, of paying single Aboriginal mothers - perhaps designated as 'guardians' - to look after their children until they were twenty one.

[TBC]

Loudy Goose,

"When challenged, he couldn't name a single child taken in the ways you suggest."

Oh really...?

"Sure Joe. One case of illegal removal. Just one? The case of Terry Mason's daughters, held illegally by the Lutherans of Koonibba Mission. Page 66 of The Last Protector.
Posted by Cameron R, Friday, 19 March 2010 12:17:26 PM"

"And just to pre-empt your response, isn't it curious how the question has gone from 'Just name one Aboriginal person who was taken from their parents illegally' to 'Just name one Aboriginal person who was taken from their parents illegally and then found restitution...

Posted by Cameron R, Friday, 19 March 2010 12:29:01 PM"

"Hey Joe, I already gave you that name. One name. Terry Mason and his daughters. Page 66 of The Last Protector.
Posted by Cameron R, Saturday, 20 March 2010 6:42:26 PM"

"And if you choose to educate yourself, may I suggest that after you've read about Terry Mason's daughters you then have a look at the cases of Thelma Reid (The Last Protector, p. 40 and onwards), of Mrs Anderson's daughters (p. 45 onwards), of Susan Grant (p. 47 onwards), of Paul Hurst (p. 52 onwards), of Justine Reynolds (p. 59 onwards) and so on ...
Posted by Cameron R, Saturday, 20 March 2010 7:13:09 PM"

"Thank you, Dr Raynes, if it's okay with the people you mentioned, I guess we can start - as long as they are aware that confidentiality will be hard to maintain. It's a pity I was stupid enough to ask you to 'name' people, when citing their cases (as Person A, or Family D) would have been more sensible and allowed more confidentiality, but that particular cat is out of the bag now. By the way, to respond to CJ's criterion, were those children removed forcibly from their mothers ?

So where do we go from here ? Are their full records available in State Records ? Or do some of these cases come within the restricted time period ?

Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 21 March 2010 6:25:57 PM"

(My 4 posts for...today)

Joe,
work prevents me from rebutting your latest nonsense. But I am content. I've sought to make the point that your denialism in both instances is ideological, and certainly without substance.
Your "stand" on the Stolen Generation is nothing more than innuendo which so far you've lacked the courage to spell out and have tested. I hope I've at least alerted you to the implications of taking the colonial/conservative stance.
I'd love to hear more of your "tentative" idea of,
"exploring the interface between a hunter-gatherer ethic and an agriculturalist/early industrial ethic – more particularly, how people embedded in a hunter-gatherer ethic would have interpreted the sudden provision of as much food as they needed, free, no effort. AND how the colonialists, embedded in THEIR ethic, misinterpreted the willingness of people to keep hunting and gathering, and underestimated the impact of the ration system on the continued access to land and traditional land-use".

Surely modern aborigines have emerged from their hunter-gatherer roots, just like the rest of us? Unless you think they're still primitive? That would certainly accord with the view of Abbott's "hand-picked" appointee on the national curriculum:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/sydney-university-professor-barry-spurr-claims-racist-emails-were-hacked/story-e6frg996-1227094290191?nk=49cd186d77b2c55a9c3d1ee63f006dce

My own view is that the indigenous population suffers en masse under their social outcast status, which you do nothing to ameliorate.