The stolen generation - Betrayed by a black myth

[nomadjack]

“There's Peter Gunner, whose mother in fact signed a form asking he be sent to boarding school; Lorna Cubillo, rescued when she was an eight-year-old orphan in a bush camp without a guardian” Andrew Bolt

This is why I am sceptical about everything that Bolt writes. Yes, Peter Gunner and Lorna Cubillo lost their compensation cases against the Commonwealth government, but if you actually read the reasons for the decisions you will see that this in no way conflicts with their claim to be 'stolen children'. The 'signed form' Bolt talks about is a typical of the 'evidence' he uses. The 'signature' was a thumb print that even the judge has said there is no way of knowing was actually Peter's mother. But let's presume it is. The text of the document is provided below:

I, TOPSY KUNDRILBA being a full-blood Aboriginal (female) within the meaning of the Aboriginals Ordinance 1918-1953 of the Northern Territory, and residing at UTOPIA STATION do hereby request the DIRECTOR OF NATIVE AFFAIRS to declare my son PETER GUNNER aged seven (7) years, to be an Aboriginal within the meaning and for the purposes of the said Aboriginals Ordinance. MY reasons for requesting this action by the Director of Native Affairs are:
1. My son is a Part-European blood, his father being a European.
2. I desire my son to be educated and trained in accordance with accepted European standards, to which he is entitled by reason of his caste.
3. I am unable myself to provide the means by which my son may derive the benefits of a standard European education.
4. By placing my son in the care, custody and control of the Director of Native Affairs, the facilities of a standard education will be made available to him by admission to St Mary’s Church of England Hostel at Alice Springs.

How 'Topsy' was supposed to understand the document she was signing given she didn't understand English is a mystery. Are we expected to presume it's contents and their implications were fully explained to her?

Even is she did knowingly sign the document, as the Bringing them home report noted, parents quite often signed away their children under duress because usually it meant they would be kept closed by, with at least the possibility of future contact, whereas failure to sign often meant once forcibly removed, children would be taken far away for good.

By all means question the legitimacy of things put forward on this issue and on all controversial issues. This is healthy and people on the left and right often guild the lily. But ffs is you are going to question something, go to a credible source, and where possible use original documents etc to make up your own mind rather than rely on sensationalist ponces like Bolt.

If you want to genuinely understand and comment on the issues raised read the stolen generations report yourself and come up with your own critique. I'd also recommend people read through the actual court transcript from Gunner and Cubillo's case. It makes for interesting but disturbing reading.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AILR/2000/29.html#Heading14

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/

As for your premise Stui, that the "stolen generation" acts as an impediment to child protection workers removing aboriginal children from situations where they are at risk'- I'm not sure if 'impediment' is the correct word, but yes, it without doubt colours or influences every decision taken - as it should. That's not to say that children shouldn't be removed where necessary. But given the history of forced removal and the damage that's been done, the State needs to be bloody careful and sure that intervention is the best course of action.

Is the failure of authorities to act in the tragic body in the suitcase case you mention any different than the nine year old non-indigenous child that was starved to death by here parents? No. Once again, the linking with race is a furphy.

[sherrife]

Let me say that I'm sorry that i reacted so angrily to Dave's post... But some things are worth getting angry about IMO. I find it hard to mount a totally calm and rational deconstruction of a horrible argument... especially when I've been in the thick of the issues so recently.

I challenge anyone to deny the holocaust to a Jewish person and then call for them to calm down when they inevitably (and fair enough!!) get upset. Or speak to an Armenian and deny that Turkey's genocide ever happened. No this wasn't a holocaust, but it WAS a form of genocide. An event equivalently meaningful and historically significant to many Indigenous people.

Rationality is important but sometimes some claims go too far, and when they do, emotions are impossible to keep under the surface.

From the age article (thankfully, I couldn't write a rational rebuttal of Bolt myself):

[stui magpie]

[nomadjack]

You've partially misinterpreted what I've said Stui. When I say that the past history of forced removals does and should colour or influence the actions of child welfare workers, as I say in the next sentence, I don't mean that kids should be left in dangerous situations because of history.

What I do mean is that we have already seen the destructive impact of the forced removal of Aboriginal children before. (I'd go as far to say that a lot of the current disadvantage they face is the direct result of prior policies and their impact in destroying traditional familiy units.) With this in mind, the State needs to ensure that any removal is completely warranted and that it is in the interests of the child.

It's also worth considering the impact of past practices on Aboriginal perceptions of interventions like that occuring in the NT at the moment. It's no surprise that many indigenous people are hostile and suspicious of government intervention given government's past record. History colours everything.

You give Bolt far too much credibility.

[stui magpie]

I won't argue about Bolt, but Aboriginal perception of what happened in the past is an interesting point.

A child removed from their home would have no idea as to why. Their perceptions may vary. That would be why future interventions need to be clearly and transparently communicated and the actions that follow match exactly what was communicated. Mistrust can't be wiped out in 5 minutes, but if your actions continually match your words, people then start to feel comfortable in knowing where they stand.

It's also interesting to brand the removal of "half castes" from their mothers as racist. With 20-20 hindsight, I may agree. But put in the paternalistic context of the time, these (according to the article you posted) were in the main, the children of white fathers and the decision apparently was it was in their best interest to be raised according to the culture of their fathers. The same thought process (if not the actions) would hold true in many countries and cultures around the world today still. The fact that these days you don't even need aboriginal blood to be considered aboriginal wouldn't have been contemplated then.

[nomadjack]

What was racist Stui was that there was a blanket assumption that children would be better off being 'brought up white', and that government officers were given the power to remove Aboriginal children, not on the basis of their living conditions, or whether they were being poorly treated by their parents, but on the basis of their skin colour alone. Put plainly, government officials could remove Aboriginal kids simply because they were Aboriginal, and they could do so without the parents having any recourse. White kids, in contrast, weren't removed because they were white.

Even worse, once they were removed, and placed in foster care, the state paid absolutely no interest as to how they were treated. I don't know if you read the Gunner and Cubillo transcript but the abuse those two suffered was appalling, yet by law they have no right of compensation from the government whose policy led to their removal, or the officer that conducted it. Yet people wonder why indigenous Australians can't or won't just move on and forget about things. Meanwhile, dickheads like Bolt simply deny that it even happened. It's not right, and it needs to be recognised.

[stui magpie]

[spoljar]

Firstly, I am no apologist for the appauling treatment of aboriginals in the past and I want to make that very clear from the start. I watched "Rabbit proof fence" and it seriously brought a tear to my eye!

However, I think what has to be taken into account is the context in which these children were removed from their families. Lets not forget that the world was a very different place 50, 100 and 200 years ago. What is regarded as racist today, was seen as the right thing to do at that time.

At that time, aboriginals were seen as a primitive race and therefore whites genuinely believed that they were saving these children. I also believe that a lot of this was religious based where I think religion has made a much greater effort today, to understand and combine culture and religion together! Rightly or wrongly, the world as a whole was very ignorant (some will argue that not much has changed) and therefore a lot of decisions were based on ignorance rather than racism.

I think what's important is not worrying about calling past generations racist, but what actions can be done today to help the aboriginal community. Saying sorry and having national sorry days will achieve absolutely nothing without providing proper support networks, opportunities and infrastructure to help the aboroginal community.

Rather than racism, I believe that a lot of the problems in the world are caused by fear, ignorance and a lack of understanding and tolerance. I do believe that there are genuine racists out there, but I also believe that they are in the minority.

[Alec. J. Hidell]

This is more like the Stui I know.

Getting his research from the Herald Sun and quoting Andrew Bolt as an authoritative source.

Doh!!!

[stui magpie]

And that's exactly the Frank I know. Adding nothing to the debate except sarcasm.

Let me guess, you agreed to take your meds and they gave you time on the computer again?

[member34258]

[stui magpie]

[nomadjack]

[stui magpie]

The article you quoted for me to read.

Lets not even go near how so many "half caste" kids came to be. that's a whole other discussion. I'd be very surprised if more than 20% of them happened voluntarily.

[spoljar]