The stolen generation is perhaps a greater quandry than most consider it to be. Whilst many of those taken suffered personally, many seem to be relatively well-off economically-speaking (of course this is far from the be-all and end-all), and more notibly their children seem to be relatively high achievers. The option for many would have been to leave them on missions etc where their offspring would now be subjected to the degradations that the rest of the country is finally finding out about. Neither is good perhaps, but I know which I consider to be the better of two evils.

I too think that genocide is too strong a term to apply to our history. Genocide implies a set agenda to wipe out an entire cultural group. In truth, much of the killings were aimed at protecting the economic interests of squatters (ie protecting livestock) - this makes it murder, but not genocide. A huge number of the deaths were non-intentional - disease in particular wiped out entire populations. Again, whilst tragic, this is not genocide. We need to be very careful when attaching labels to acts, because the very process of doing so forever categorises the events, and diminishes the individual importance.

I found all the comments interesting and challenging as it should be in a Democratic country, but some how I feel that a lot of people have made their opinion based on the reports researchers, anthropologists,academics and such have made and who most definetly are or where non- Indigenous persons.
I just have one question. How many of you have had an Indigenous Australian person at your dinner table that you call friend?
You may just get an insight into the world of being Indigenous.

Clearly, Leigh's never actually read any of Henry Reynolds' numerous books on this subject. If he had, he'd know that Reynolds provides plenty of footnotes detailing his sources. Windschuttle's claim to fame is that he found minor errors in the footnotes of Reynolds and others, not with the substance of their arguments.

There is no doubt to any serious scholars of Australia history that there was a systematic and deliberate pattern of behaviour intrinsic to that history that would fit within current international definitions of "genocide". However, as many have pointed out, the worst of it occurred a long time ago and the Australian community has to move on.

That's why there should be a formal apology from the Australian government on behalf of the Australian nation - not just for the 'Stolen Generations' but for the entire history of expropriation, dispossession and, indeed, attempted genocide that enabled contemporary Australia to be established. And yes, there should be some kind of compensation fund set up in recognition of the almost complete non-participation of contemporary Aborigines in the real estate market in what used to be their land.

If the Australian government and people are big enough to bite the bullet and offer a real and sincere apology and suitable compensation, then we might be able to say one day that Aboriginal people are truly 'integrated' into an Australian society with which they are reconciled. I can't see any other way that such an outcome is possible.

A valid question ‘thethinker’ poses – and we may be surprised by the answer/s … if one was to do a proper survey with a proper sample size. But hey, this is only one thread on OLO.

Nevertheless, I can only speak for myself. Think what you may ‘thethinker’, but my daughter is, using your terms, an ‘Indigenous Australian’ and yes, she is my ‘friend’ too.

Having obtained her PhD a while back she now researches and lectures in indigenous studies – so she is also an academic.

We have had discussions on various issues, including the subject matter of this thread – sometimes over dinner and sometimes just sitting on a big rock looking at the sun as it rises over the water.

We both know what it means to be an ‘Indigenous Australian’, both in the past and in the present – what the future holds is uncertain but we hold hands in respect and in hope.

Q&A. How proud you must feel with 'our' little sister achieving such great things in her life. I am sure as her mother that you are good friends and you share lots of experiences together. A lot of 'assumptions,'comments etc may come from people who have not got the connections with Indigenous community and family and therefore there knowledge base may be fractioned. I am from the NT and I am Indigenous and yes I am presently studying Anthropology and as a mature age person I have lived through some of the things that people write about and I was suggesting maybe they need to talk to those who do have a past in the Indigenous context.

Another sister.

Col Rogue wrote:

"aboriginal settlers will eternally moan on about their ancestral dispossession is as pointless and irritating as celebrating the battle of the Boyne, ancient Britain’s complaining about the Saxon invasion or the French moaning on about their defeat at Agincourt or England protesting to the Court of Human Rights for repayment of Dane-geld from Denmark."

If this dispossession happened over the last 50 years wouldn't you consider this significant?

To make comparisons with the waring that occurred in European and British invasions may well serve your historical and moral perspective as these wars were largely resolved through the law and statehood.

No such application of international law has ever been engaged with here.

Or are you implying that Aboriginal people should not be accorded the same access to legal jurisprudence that others have enjoyed for eternity?

C'mon Col, I expect you to know your legal history better than most here and its pure laziness on your behalf to jump in with both eyes closed.

But perhaps you care more about being fashionable rather than factual?