oh dear wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 10:59pm:
I didnt say nothing wrong was done, I am saying that the attempt was altruistic. I see you dont have any arguement, just like Mothra. A fool who doesnt educate themselves is destined to remain a fool.

Read had written that governments removed children as young as possible and reared them in institutions isolated from any contact with Aboriginal culture. "Welfare officers, removing children solely because they were Aboriginal," he said, "intended and arranged that they should lose their Aboriginality, and that they never return home."

The majority were allegedly babies and infants. The SBS television series First Australians claimed most of the 50,000 were aged under five. Henry Reynolds explained the rationale: "The younger the child the better, before habits were formed, attachments made, language learned, traditions absorbed."

It is not difficult to prove these assertions are untrue. When you look at the surviving individual case records in NSW, as I did for the period 1907 to 1932, they reveal that 66 per cent of the 800 children then removed were teenagers aged 13 to 19 years. Some 23 per cent were aged six to 12, and only 10 per cent were babies to five-year-olds.

Most of them came from Aboriginal welfare stations and reserves. Two-thirds of the teenagers went not to institutions but into the workforce as apprentices.

For white children in welfare institutions, apprenticeship was then the standard destination too. At the time, for both white and black children, apprenticeship meant leaving home for four years and living with an employer. The principal occupations targeted by these job placement schemes, agriculture for boys and domestic service for girls, were the same for both black and white apprentices.

In Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory in the first half of the 20th century, laws and policies forbade the removal of full-blood children.

Only half-caste children could be removed. However, in WA, half-castes could not be removed under the age of six. In the post-war Northern Territory, 80 per cent of children in the Retta Dixon Home in Darwin and almost all those at the St Mary's hostel in Alice Springs (the Territory's sole institutions for part-Aboriginal children) were of school age, between five and 15. This was not surprising since the main reason for these homes' existence was to provide board for children sent by their parents to go to school.

The only children removed were those of mixed race, this was because the full bloods ...

ian wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 11:09pm:




I'm well educated, thank you very much.

I also count Indigenous people amongst my friends. I've listened to their stories.

Beats your trawling through web sites that tell you what you want to hear.

The Stolen Generation is not a myth. They didn't just take mixed blood children. The children taken were wanted by their parents. They were grieved and mourned and sung to. And fought for.

mothra wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 11:17pm:
I dont need web sites Mothra.

ian wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 11:20pm:




Ohhhhh ... the Australian.  Well that trumps all of the eye witness accounts i've heatd.

Are you for real?