Is the stealing of generations still going on ? Or are vulnerable children now left at the mercy of incompetent parents ?
When did last such removal occur & where ?
I have heard that quite a number of non-Aboriginal/Islander children are in the care of some Govt institutions but I haven't heard how many. There was a program on TV the other day where they spoke about those english stolen children, just terrible. And then there are those poor kids in the conflict zones around the middle east & the subcontinent.
Why doesn't the UN step in & stop that ? Aren't there any careers in that ? Is the money no good ? What is it that makes the UN stay away from these problems ?
At least in Australia compensation is paid & also provided is housing, something the war kids don't get unless the people smugglers bring them out here.
Does UN stand for United Nations or Useless Nerds.

" I suppose my puzzlement was that so few had been brought to court, out of the thousands of kids taken into care for neglect and abuse, who may now claim to be stolen 'for no reason'. Perhaps they've seen their files and re-considered. "

The Gunner-Cabillo case was pivotal. The aboriginal industry had hand picked these two as the best representatives of the stolen generation. The idea was to hold the case, prove their claims for compensation and then pressure the government into paying claims to all other claimants without the need for messy proof. Remember that the ABC, who of course were (cough, cough!) completely impartial on the issue, stopped all programming to bring the court findings to the nation. They were disappointed to say the least that the court decided to go with the facts rather than the sentiment.

The shock of finding that their best examples of stolen kids were indeed not stolen is the reason no other cases have been raised. There has never been a single example of a validated stolen child. Remember Lois O'Donaghue - she claimed to be stolen until the data was tracked down showing that her parents had begged the authorities to take her into care. Ditto Charlie Perkins.

Ever since the truth started to come out, there has been attempts to redefine the meaning of the term from what it meant during the Royal Commission. (eg the article Foxy chose to believe. The truth doesn't matter to these people so long as they can continue to deceive the Foxy's of this world.

individual,

Philip S doesn't need our help make him look like a dick. Let's leave him to it.

"We now know a great deal about the history of
Indigenous-Settler relations. It is now
possible to explore the past by means of a
large number of materials held in archival
collections in our national and state libraries."

Yes, we now know that historians in the recent past sought to distort the facts to further the narrative so as to keep the gullible and especially the willingly gullible (eg Foxy) on side.

Examples?

the numbers about the aboriginals killed in the so-called black wars were deliberately and enormously exaggerated.

evidence for massacres that didn't happen was created out of thin air. In one case it was claimed the massacre was proven due to a contemporary newspaper article. Except the article didn't exist and the newspaper didn't exist at the time.

quotes were altered such that attempts by the authorities to protect aboriginals from farmers were changed to sound like the authorities were rounding up aboriginals to protect farmers. When exposed the perpetrator simply admitted the lie but suffered no consequences.

And the gullible will never know what's been going on under their noses.

ttbn

Quote "individual,

Philip S doesn't need our help make him look like a dick. Let's leave him to it."

Nice to see you surface now your lackey individual has proven he can't comprehend plain English, by the way I am still waiting for the answer to your ludicrousness comment.
Just for you.
Quote "People who are keen to display their findings by putting up references are only going to 'find’ references that support them. Fair enough, if they are that desperate to be 'right’. However, for every supporting reference they find, there will be one that says the opposite."

You imply by showing a reference a person is wrong because they therefore don't show the opposing opinions, implying that to show a reference one should show the for and against of any subject matter.

I am asking you to show me where anyone has done this.

Your refusal to answer highlights that you put fingers to keyboard without first activating brain to come up with a better response thus spewing out garbage you can't explain.

Whenever there is Govt involvement any scheme will be open to exploitation because the bureaucrats take sides & leave loopholes for the purpose of opportunistic exploitation.
The flogg petty issues to death simply to smoke-screen the real problems.