I had never heard of the "stolen generation" until I arrived in Australia. Shortly after I arrived two Aborigines, Gunner and Cubillo, filed suit against the NT Government. They alleged they had been stolen. They lost their case.

Later I read Keith Windschuttle’s "The Fabrication of Aboriginal History". I found it convincing. I was especially impressed by the fact that Windschuttle referenced PRIMARY sources. To the best of my knowledge Windschuttle’s claims have never been refuted.

I also read "Bringing Them Home". See:

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/bth_report/index.html

Quote:

"The Inquiry is not limited to considering only those removals which could not be‘justified’, for example, on the ground of protecting the child from injury, abuse or neglect..." (p9)

In other words many of the cases considered are not strictly about people who were "stolen".

The commission does try to justify this stance in the rest of the paragraph I quoted. Ultimately, however, they take anyone who claimed to have been stolen at their word.

Thereafter I forgot about it until I chanced upon Janet Albrechtsen's piece in today's Australian.

See: http://tinyurl.com/yjocygp

As Albrechtsen points out, Windschuttle demonstrates that the movie "Rabbit-Proof Fence" played fast and loose with the facts. Windschuttle also demolishes the account of the mistreatment of Aborigines depicted in Luhrman's movie, Australia.

Part of the reason for my scepticism is this:

-- Australia is a litigious country.

--There are many young lawyers eager to make names for themselves.

--If there were any substance to the claims I would expect a slew of lawsuits directed against various agencies.

--Such lawsuits appear to be very rare.

So what does the evidence say?

--Is Windschuttle right when he says much Aboriginal history has been manufactured?

--Was there in FACT a large scale removal of Aboriginal children on "non-legitimate" grounds?

--If your answer is "yes", how do you know?

A few additional comments

I do not question that many aboriginal children were removed from their parents. That fact is well documented.

I am questioning the motives behind the removal.

Was the removal "justified" according to the thinking of the times – ie would a white child in similar circumstances also have been removed?

Note the "BRINGING THEM HOME" report specifically declined to look at "justification".

I also do not question the fact that many Aboriginal children were treated abominably after they were removed. That is a separate issue. It seems to apply equally to many White children and may still be going on today.

What first hand experience do you have with the Indigenous population involved?. Leaving aside your examples of interpretive entertainment and 45th page blogs...

its amasing how dirty you can make things sound<< two Aborigines, Gunner and Cubillo,..filed suit against the NT Government...They alleged they had been stolen...They lost their case>>

what isnt revealed is the lawyer dropped the case...not them...see its afunny thing....lawyers dont weant their scam unwound.

the defacto law...and the legal aid system...is designed to enforce its invasion status..behind words...its all about getting...their powers...and keeping any with a stronger claim...down..with legal aid..that gives support...but only so far.

i have..,met many betrayed..by the invader...often because of basics..that seem benevolent...but the care they got...was the minimum...thats where it wasnt done by out and out racists

the statistics sopeak for themself...22/100 ab/origonal men reach 65 years of age...33/100...for female...one in 5 die before the age of 5...i think only palistinians have about the same...

either way its the same perversions...that house the true indigenie in gulages...while doing their best to oppress...those who's lands are stolen

stolen generations..is about theft/repression of their culture..what better way...to do that..than to raise their kids/..white inside...sepperate them from their families...why not take the whole family

Dear Steven,

Keith Windshuttle is the Australian equivalent
of the David Irving denialists. He is a little
known academic who tried to make his reputation
by setting out to demolish the emminent
historian's - Prof. Henry Reynolds reputation.

For anyone really interested in the truth about
the Stolen Generation they have to go no further
then reading the work by Prof. Colin Tatz,
"Genocide in Australia." Professor Tatz is one of
Australia's foremost scholars in the field of the
politics of race and genocide.

Also, Prof. Henry Reynolds has written considerably
on the subject, "Why weren't We Told?" and
"The Other Side of The Frontier," are two highly
recommended works.

Some Australians would agree with John Howard's
and Keith Windshuttle's view
of Aboriginal history - being the "Black armband of history."

To those people I would merely suggest -"Do a bit
more research from more emminent and reputable sources
like the ones I've cited here.

Then decide.

There's enough evidence including oral
histories available at State, National, and Local
Libraries.

Keith Windshuttle is as relevant to Aboriginal history
as David Irving is to the Holocaust.

Foxy

Amen! sunshine.

Steven,
Be careful old son, this is well land mined territory.

I might question your choice of reference Albrechtsen? Despite her self opinion to being more, she is, a Conservative opinion columnist not an academic. She and her ilk are the unofficial policy section of the conservative Liberal party.

I'll think you'll find that the whites did have one attitude and laws for the aborigines, 'half-cast' children and another for the white.
Keep in mind the aborigine has only had the vote in their own country since the late 60's.

As for the movie, what did you expect? it was fiction 'based' on one story not a documentary.

I would suggest to you that 'the apology' had more to do with healing and sociology than hard science.

In short, if you want to know the truth you would be wise to follow Foxy's sagely words.