Alan B - Have you tried doing in a .TXT document, won't take out the paragraphs and you can get it to show corrections but is up to you to accept them. No auto correct.

Aidan, You say "...the fact remains that thousands were taken away for dubious reasons." Name some - five will do - and define "dubious". Specific examples would be great.

Optimistic? I call bs, and think the author is delusional.

The UN have been been adopted as national sovereign and decides our Islamic refugee intake.

Muslims will double their population in western countries every generation, even without increased immigration.
Look at England, France and Germany, and what are they 20% ?

This nation will be utterly destroyed within 50 years.

Hey Loudmouth,
Go find the book 'Gungarlook - The Story of the Aboriginal Riley family of the Burragorang Valley'.

In it, on page 76 you'll find out why my great grandmother kept on the move, only once giving birth in the same locality, often stayed off the electoral roll and had her kids mostly all in different townships than where she had been registered.

Hi C,

So ..... you're saying that your great-grandmother and her kids were NOT put into care ? Are you saying that perhaps they should have been ? That the government should have taken them into care, but didn't ? Bastards !

Hi Aidan,

The point of Don's article, i thought, was that 'facts', evidence, whatever, are necessary to firm up one's assertions. Your assertions about the evils of bureaucracy may need some corroboration, it's not much use saying that there really is evidence but bureaucrats have destroyed it. After all, sometimes, the absence of evidence may well mean the absence of evidence.

As for your suggestion that " .... the bulk of the Stolen Generations problem predates that", sorry, predates what ? Before when ? And again, what evidence do you have for your assertion ? I analysed the School Roll from my wife's community, 1880-1960 or so, and found that out of 800 kids on the Roll over those years, 46 had at some time been taken into care, usually for less than a year before returning. Interestingly, the earliest child was an orphan (mother died, father died: ergo, orphan) taken to the Girls' Home in 1934 at eight. Is that the time period that you mean ?

All of us suffer the delusion of 'presentism' from time to time, the notion that, whatever is now, has always been the case. We forget that single mother's benefits didn't kick in in Australia until about 1971, after which the 'Stolen Generation' magically disappeared. Of course, kids were still being taken into care from drunken and violent parents, as they still are. Strangely, in ever-increasing numbers.

Just by the way, since many of us have a rock-solid belief that the purpose of stealing Aboriginal children was to raise them as white, extremely few Aboriginal kids were ever adopted by whites. I know of a couple, maybe three, and that's about it. So that 'policy' didn't seem to have many legs. Most kids taken into care were taken to homes, reformatories, etc., for a time, then returned back to their relations

If you were trying to make a joke and say that my great grandmother and her kids should've been placed into care because they were indigenous, then I don't find it amusing.