I’ve been reading up on the Stolen Generation and there appears to be some people who consider it to be bullshit and that the Stolen Generation is a modern myth for the purpose of making some easy money.

Thoughts?

Well many were 'stolen', many were 'saved'.
Many are 'bitter', many have 'praise'.

I guess its like when the Eora saw the White Sails against the Sunset coming to Australia.
One cried "Invasion!"
Another cheered "Freedom!"

There is always more than just 'one' right answer.
It just depends on which one the Media uses to suit it's own (not Aborigine) narrative.

It's a myth made up to make some easy money from playing the victim. 

Even today the whine is 'stolen generation' - when no kid is removed from a safe family environment, and when removed, only after a mass of boxes have been ticked and a court has approved it - that's how it's become now - and yet despite all those things limiting DOCS etc - certain groups continue to predominate in the 'child removal for safety' stakes.

And yet children are still neglected, starved, abused physically and sexually (boys and girls), sometimes murdered, and are often left to wander the streets at night and become criminals from an early age, thus laying the foundation for destruction of their lives forever.

As I said long ago - lady we know's daughter was a GP at the local hospital (since moved on to a remote place in Queenslund where things are done diff'runtly and many villages have small three letter names repeated so the locals don't get lost  ... Kin Kin... Gin Gin... Bli Bli - they never have trouble with Bar though) - and she was very forthright in saying that the predominant reason a 'certain group' children were on the streets was actually sexual abuse at 'home'..... FFS... every child deserves better than that.

Let all these do-gooders go live there - let them drink it...

Well I reckon there was initial good intentions in saving the kids.
But even in White society, there are those who over-do it, exploit it and more and then give a good thing a bad reputation.
I've watched a few docos where the Aborigines have praise for those who raised and helped them to a better life away from abuse.
But I tend to think that the Media (America) would like to portray Australia as just an extension of its 'confederate' South against 'Blaks'. Basically corrupt as much as they can.
Thus the 'bitter' side comes out mostly from the Media's interpretation for the 'victimhood' of keeping the 'blaks' weak and dependent on superior Media culture.

So I really can't see an absolutism with this - as there is good and bad about it. Stolen to some, 'Saved' to others.
I guess it's all about 'Promotion' and if the Media propaganders 'Stolen' as its priority and the 'Saved' gets forgotten... then I guess they really are the 'Stolen Generations' as no-one else bothered to promote the 'Positive' side in challenge.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Mar 10^th, 2024 at 4:04pm:

I’ve been reading up on the Stolen Generation and there appears to be some people who consider it to be bullshit and that the Stolen Generation is a modern myth for the purpose of making some easy money. Thoughts?

Yes

Jasin wrote on Mar 10^th, 2024 at 4:49pm:

Well I reckon there was initial good intentions in saving the kids. But even in White society, there are those who over-do it, exploit it and more and then give a good thing a bad reputation. I've watched a few docos where the Aborigines have praise for those who raised and helped them to a better life away from abuse. But I tend to think that the Media (America) would like to portray Australia as just an extension of its 'confederate' South against 'Blaks'. Basically corrupt as much as they can. Thus the 'bitter' side comes out mostly from the Media's interpretation for the 'victimhood' of keeping the 'blaks' weak and dependent on superior Media culture. So I really can't see an absolutism with this - as there is good and bad about it. Stolen to some, 'Saved' to others. I guess it's all about 'Promotion' and if the Media propaganders 'Stolen' as its priority and the 'Saved' gets forgotten... then I guess they really are the 'Stolen Generations' as no-one else bothered to promote the 'Positive' side in challenge.

In the early days the children removed were lighter skinned children from inter-racial relationships.

The claims made were that this was done in an effort to push assimilation & breed Aboriginals out(genocide according to the activists)

whether their mothers loved them or not is debatable ......

but the fact is that halfcaste & lighter children were not very welcome in tribal groups & were the brunt of derision & exclusion.

Of course the methods of removal weren't that flash back in the day ..... it wasn't for any child of any background ....

but in the main they were removed for their safety.

And it's convenient to forget the more than 100,000 supposed child orphans from the UK & Ireland that were sent to Canada, Australia & other Commonwealth countries from the 1860's

Australia got 7,000 British children between 1910 & 1970.

Quote:

Between the 1910s and 1970, 7,000 children aged between three and 14 were transported to Australia as part of Britain's child migrant program. Promised a better life and loving families waiting to adopt, most were instead delivered into institutions where large numbers suffered abuse.

Between 1845 & 1852 more than 4,000 Irish girls were sent to Australia.

Quote:

During the Great Hunger in Ireland (1845-1852), more than 4000 girls were sent to Australia as servants and to help populate the colony – 1700 of them landed at Hobson's Bay

Many many of those children were not orphans as was reported - they were removed from parents & homes.

So in my opinion the "Stolen Generations" - (yeah that's now plural because the activist twats say it's still happening) is just victim card playing bullshyte.

It's a pity those 8 kids in Cairns weren't removed from their home & mother .... they'd be alive today.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-04/cairns-children-killings-what-drove-raina-thaiday-slay-8-kids/8492742

Well said.
Sadly for half-castes, quatre-castes, etc - the Aborigines would have had 'rejections' in place against them, just as much as Whities would against them as well.
I guess this is why such mixings come out more genetically robust than the purer strains - they have to put up with a lot more from both sides of the family.

It's just a shame that the Lefties have taken a bias view of it and propaganda promotion about it.  It's now biting them in the arse blaming 'other whites' other than their Media-Lefty selves.

It only takes a moment to consider that the motivation by any white
organisation and/or government "taking" half-caste children from
their parents would cost these whites a veritable truckload of money. 
Money that was thin on the ground between the two world wars.

I can accept that some Aboriginals were taken, mostly by religious
organisations who were erroneously trying to inculcate them with
Christianity—particularly the Roman Catholics.

But of the estimated 800,000 Aboriginal population of the period,
only a tiny minority—maybe less than a thousand?—were physically
removed from their parents, and of those numbers there is very little,
if any, evidence of their names or the mobs they came from.

Current Aboriginal organisations claim up to 100,000 children were
removed, but there is zero evidence supporting this.  They also claim
that this was occurring into the 1970s, but as someone who lived and
worked in NW Western Australia in that period, I never saw any evidence
supporting this.

I also recall when Andrew Bolt, the outspoken journalist, asked
Robert Manne to name just 10 of the Aboriginals removed from
their parents,  Manne couldn't even name one—despite being an
extremely strong supporter of its actuality.

Abos - I am over them. A bunch of entitled belly-achers.

If Burney, Davis, Langton et al can rise to high office then Aboriginality is OBVIOUSLY not an impediment.
Being alcoholic, abusive, useless drongos is.

Aborigine - heal thyself, FFS!!!