Talk:Stolen Generation
From Academic Kids
| Contents |
Why did you remove History of public awareness
User:Paul foord, why did you remove the rather excellent "History of public awareness" section? Shermozle 08:06, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
did not remove History of public awareness
Please note it was vandalism by user:203.134.187.58. They removed History of public awareness. Paul foord 10:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
major rewrite would be excellent
A major rewrite would be excellent, sadly it will just be another of the unrealistic versons driven by those with the most political of aganda. The sad truth is that it was just one minor operation by the (largely church) do-gooders of the day, claiming they would be helping these children. Perhaps they did actually save some from rabbit holes or the like, but on the whole the operation was conducted without any willingness to accept that they were ripping families apart. The same disregard for the truth as the authors of these one sided reports now conduct. Indeed some 80,000 British children were shipped away from their homes at the same time, most never to see any of their families ever again. And more recently half the West Papuan population has been wiped out during the pass thirty years by the friendly Indonesian forces who invaded in 1961 to reverse the Papuan independance which Holland had been promoting. Yet these raise not a mention from the 'moral' majority..
- What a load of crap. It was systematic and government sanctioned. Read the reports, whoever wrote this. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:55, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- The person who wrote this was right in highlighting the other abuses that occurred around the same time. Orphans were shipped to a church-run place called Bindoon near where I live, where they suffered awful conditions, forced manual labour and many were sexually abused. Apparently government figures turned a blind eye. The Aboriginal children were by no means the only victims of that awful period in the history of Australia. - Mark 14:26, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I think a valid point can be drawn out of this. Taking kids from parents was standard (Commonwealth) government practice for any children whose natural family environment was deemed unsafe (ie. poor, retarded, or in this case Aboriginal parents). "Stolen Generation" has been made into a reference to merely the latter, on particular grounds, that it quickly spiralled into a gov-sponsored racist pro-Christian agenda. The other grounds for baby snatching should not be left unmentioned.--ZayZayEM 01:21, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm launching a major rewrite of this article - I just finished reading the official report from the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission. In order to avert accusations of lack of NPOV I am going to quote from the official government report heavily - the accusations of bias might come because it is so appalling... Christ I had no idea how horrific it actually was... MMGB
Unfortunately this type of thing wasn't just happening in Australia. I believe that illegitimate children and orphans were being sent from British children's homes to Canada and Australia -- without meaningful consent from the children -- from the 1900's until the early 1960's. In theory it was supposed to give them a chance of a better life but in practice many of the children were very badly treated by strangers who took them in for a variety of reasons. -- Derek Ross
I know... it's amazing that these things could happen. Did you know that the Pope issued an official apology today for the involvement of the Catholic church in these forced removals?
Not relevant, but read this direct quote from the Stolen Generation report:
As Brisbane's Telegraph newspaper reported in May 1937, "Mr Neville (the then Chief Protector of Western Australia) holds the view that within one hundred years the pure black will be extinct. But the half-caste problem was increasing every year. Therefore their idea was to keep the pure blacks segregated and absorb the half-castes into the white population. Sixty years ago, he said, there were over 60,000 full-blooded natives in Western Australia. Today there are only 20,000. In time there would be none. Perhaps it would take one hundred years, perhaps longer, but the race was dying. The pure blooded Aboriginal was not a quick breeder. On the other hand the half-caste was. In Western Australia there were half-caste families of twenty and upwards. That showed the magnitude of the problem".
WHen I read that my blood went cold... - MMGB
I agree that it is quite appalling. As a non-Australian, I am curious as to how much that past racism is connected to the modern racism of the One Nation party. -- Egern.
What One Nation party? hehe - they don't exist anymore... the party fell apart about a year ago, and lost the only seat in government they had (in Queensland... our version of Alabama). The foreign media made such a big deal of the One Nation party, but they were always nothing more than a trivial and irrelevant movement. Certainly their views were racist, but then so are the views of the White Nazis or other such lunatic fringe organisations. The entrenched racist views would still exist in rural Australia, no doubt, but they are an incredible minority. All nations have racists, but it seems that the foreign media particularly like focusing on ours. - MMGB
- Well, as an American, I can testify to the fact that most Americans know little about the rest of the world, and own media gives far too little coverage to what is going on elsewhere, including Australia. So I apologize about my ignorance concerning the death of the One Nation party. To be honest, I don't think the One Party got much coverage here either.
Media particularly like focusing on other countries racists. Authorities were pretty fast and loose with children generally, shipping them about the world, sometimes even telling their parents the child had died... when you've done stolen generation, take a look at child migrants: http://www.childmigrants.com
Oh jeez... do I have to? I'm depressed enough as it is... :) I'm finding this article REALLY difficult to write well, by the way. -- MMGB
I think you're doing a great job, Manning. I've never heard of this before; it makes me angry to read about it. It's going to be very difficult to keep things NPOV, but I think you have the right idea with heavy quoting of government officials and documents. --STG
Fascinating, Manning--very good job.
It seems to me there are two questions that need to be answered better, however. First, what happened to the children when they were taken from their homes? (The government taking children from their homes! Horrific! In fact I am surprised there hasn't been a major film made about it yet.) This is never made clear. At one point it sounds as if they were taken and then simply killed. The second paragraph, in particular, only contains hints, where clarity demands that the differing views about what happened to them, if there are any, be stated explicitly. Are some of the present-day aborigines descendants of the Stolen Generation?
- I have taken the (dubious) approach of handling the history of the stolen generation investigation first, then I will handle the details. Then I'll decide what order seems best (unless someone else decides for me). It was already 2AM when I quit, hence there are lots of areas left undone.
- Yes, the Stolen Generation and their descendents most definitely do make up a substantial fraction of Australia's present indigenous community. Many indenenous politicians, notably, are part of it. --Robert Merkel
Second, is there anything like a consensus about what percentage were taken from their homes? If this is a point of disagreement, or if many informed people believe we simply don't know (or that we know it's only within some range), it seems to me that should be said. Right now it sounds as though one faction believes it's 100% and one faction believes it's 10%, which is probably a huge simplification of the situation, I imagine. --Larry Sanger
- I'm looking for that - the official report does not provide a number, and the newspaper articles say that "Many believe 10% is an understatement", but they do not clarify what number IS more widely accepted or who these "many" are. I'm wurking ahn eet. - MMGB
- It is a point of substantial debate. Records are incredibly sketchy, and it seems that there were at least some children who were given up for adoption "voluntarily" - though whether it was ever truly informed consent and what fraction of the Stolen Generation it applies to are difficult to determine. One might even assume that the people concerned were kinda ashamed of what they were doing and didn't want the records to be too precise . . . --Robert Merkel
- Yes, it is probably impossible to determine a valid number. At one extreme, you have the perfectly benign situation where mothers intentionally volunteered their children for adoption, as occurs in all western societies, and this can hardly be a cause for complaint. At the other extreme you have horrendous tales of children being forcibly and illegally abducted by police from sobbing parents. In the (very murky) middle ground you have cases where mothers "volunteered" their children under suspected duress and/or uninformed consent, and all shades of other variations. The records are appallingly bad, and it is unlikely that any true number will ever be determined. The figure of 30000 and a minimum of 10% seem to be generally accepted minimum numbers, hence I have used them. Frankly even if it was only 10 people, it would still be a horrifying actuality. - MMGB
notes to myself...
The following are all quotes from the official report:
"inculcate European values and work habits in children, who would then be employed in service to the colonial settlers"
"By the middle of the nineteenth century... [Governments] typically viewed Indigenous people as a nuisance."
"Unlike white children who came into the state's control, far greater care was taken to ensure that [Aboriginal children] never saw their parents or families again. They were often given new names, and the greater distances involved in rural areas made it easier to prevent parents and children on separate missions from tracing each other"
"Government officials theorised that by forcibly removing Indigenous children (of mixed descent) from their families and sending them away from their communities to work for non-Indigenous people, this mixed descent population would, over time, `merge' with the non-Indigenous population. "
I'd like to compliment you for the way you wrote this page -- TK
Thanks TK - it's certainly been the toughest article I've ever written. In case anyone is wondering why I have placed [sic] after every usage of "aboriginal" (instead of Aboriginal) - this is a specific issue of complaint by Aborigines in this country, one never writes "english people" or "american", and it is regarded as offensive to be denied the proper noun status. Pedantics might argue that "aborigine" also has a generic meaning (which it does) but it is not being used generically in these cases. Most government documents I have quoted use the lower case, so I have noted this with [sic] to indicate that the Wikipedia does not participate in this slightly derogatory behaviour. Interestingly, it is only around 1965 that government documents start capitalising the term. - MMGB
Article says:
- and such a complaint would need to be heard at the International Court of Justice.
I wouldn't mention the ICJ here, since it is not the only body with jurisdiction, and the only way the ICJ could hear a case on the Stolen Generation would be if another State complained against Australia. (The ICJ has no jurisdiction over complaints by individuals, rather only by states.) But these sort of complications aren't relevant, so I'd just not mention the thing at all. -- SJK
--- I reverted the changes to the previous version. The sentence "Though Governor Macquarie funded the first school for aboriginal children in 1814 and the British government had by the mid nineteenth century estabished a system of protectorate authorities with complete authority over Aboriginal welfare and rights, the term Stolen Generation generally refers to the family seperations after Australian federation in 1901." doesn't make any sense, raises an irrelevant school created by Macquarie (that was a failure and shut after three years anyway). Most importantly it detracts from the key notion that the actions were performed with the full knowledge and blessing of the federal authorities, as is cited in the HREOC report.
The next statement "However as the size of the Aboriginal population was unkown, many did not speak english and lived away from any town; Section 127 of the 1901 Australian constitution stated "In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal {sic] natives shall not be counted." is not only grammtically incorrect and has bad spelling (correctable), it is also inaccurate in its implications. The Aboriginal community were not classified as "civilised", therefore they were not regarded as a part of the commonwealth, it was not simply a matter of difficulties in counting. Also, even if this were the case that their exclusion of Aboriginals were solely a matter of challenges with the census, it doesn't change the fact that the legal interpretation was that Aboriginals did not have equivalent human rights under Australian Law. Again refer the HREOC report for verification. It's not pretty, but it is a verifiable truth.
I don't know who changed it or why - perhaps it was because they wished to soften the damnation that this article offers. But although I'm as proud as the next Australian, this is a pretty fair and unbiased article. The truth really WAS that horrible. I have no problems with corrections and improvements (as SJK has already done) but only when they improve the article and do not introduce fallacies and ambiguities. - MMGB
Somebody's edited this page again, and I found the last version more informative. I'm for a reversion to the previous version. --Robert Merkel
Good work so far. Big questions from me include who and why. Who were the people that thought this up, and how did it become policy? What did the people implementing this think they were going to accomplish? Do they think they succeded? -- ansible
Ansible - these are really good points, I think the article could be tweaked to give greater attention to the actual reasoning behind the actions. I'll do it later (at work now) - MMGB
NPOV
Some parts of this article still lack a neutral point-of-view. Not ALL Australians believe that the Federal Government should apologise for the atrocities committed by Federal governments 50 years ago. Also, how do we prove the report was an embarrassment for the Howard government? I doubt you can quote them saying that, and it must be speculation, which we definitely don't want in an article of this significance. Whilst I appreciate how important it is to investigate the stolen generation, does this article really have to be the place for people to air their grievances against the current Australian government???? - Mark Ryan
- Mark, John Howard admitted the reaction of Aboriginals at the Reconciliation Council (IIRC) when they turned their back on him was embarrassing and on reflection he wished he had have handled himself better. Might I also suggest their constant attempts to poke holes in the report indicated that they probably wished it had never been written. --Robert Merkel
Again, removed this, for much the same reasons as explained in Talk:Australian Aborigine. Tannin 08:39 27 May 2003 (UTC) Important: Since the 'Stolen Generation' is of much political importance in Australia, it is difficult to find unbiased facts. Many things even in this article may not necessarily be accurate. It is important to put the situation in perspective. Many mixed blood children in Aboriginal families were abused by their parents and simply did not fit in with the tribe. All in all, if you are studying this topic - make sure you read widely and of different viewpoints, because of the political nature of this topic. No one can claim to be the expert on this matter! Not even your lecturer!
www.bennelong.com.au insertion
Just for the record, in this edit (http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Stolen_Generation&diff=1062281&oldid=1062214) the anonymous user with the IP address 165.228.127.160 inserted the full text of this copyrighted article (http://www.bennelong.com.au/papers/Articles/howson-moore.html). I suggest keeping an eye on his edits. --Eloquence 06:08 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Whilst our copyright-infringing anonymous friend edits are not NPOV, we don't really cover the views of people who disagree who disagree on the facts and interpretation of the Stolen Generation. We should cover this part of the story better --Robert Merkel 08:32 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Opening sentence
I would like to change the opening sentence from
- The Stolen Generation is the generation of Australian Aboriginal children who were removed from their families by Australian government agencies and church missions between approximately 1900 and 1972.
to something like
- Stolen Generation is the term commonly used to mean the Australian Aboriginal children who were removed from their families by Australian government agencies and church missions between approximately 1900 and 1972.
Why? Two reasons.
- Style. We're trying to define the term "Stolen Generation" but we are using the term "generation" in the definition.
- Accuracy and NPOV. Yes, this is a semantic argument, but this is an encyclopaedia, and and semantics are important. No definition of "generation" fits the actual group of children concerned.
What I am NOT trying to do:
- Deny that it happened.
- Diminish the awfulness of the events described.
- Apologise for the people responsible, or defend the current government's (pathetic) response.
- Try to stop people using the term "Stolen Generation". However I do want to see it defined accurately.
Anybody have any strong feelings one way or the other?
Icd 10:11, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
- No problems here. - Borofkin 22:39, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Book?
Can anyone recommend a good non-fiction book about the Stolen Generation? I'd like to read more. Amazon doesn't seem to have anything truly comprehensive.
History wars probably relevant
Not sure how it would be included but Keith Windshuttle, Centre for Independent Studies probably have pro-Howard but controverted views relevant to this Paul foord 07:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
see [1] (http://www.borderlandsejournal.adelaide.edu.au/vol3no2_2004/larbalestier_white.htm)
- ... sustained and well-publicised criticisms by Ron Brunton, the Director of the Indigenous Issues Unit of the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), in Betraying the Victims (1998). Paul foord 07:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
