Discussion:
The Stolen Generation is a myth!
(too old to reply)
George Orwell
2008-02-14 07:56:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
If 100,000 children were "taken forcibly" for racist reasons, why is it nobody can name a single one of those victims?

This phrase "stolen generations" was coined by Professor Peter Read, who suggested some 100,000 children may have been taken from their families. But in a speech in London eight years ago, he named just two of them -- former ATSIC chairwoman Lowitja O'Donoghue and Aboriginal leader Charlie Perkins.

Already you see the problem. Neither, it turns out, was stolen. Perkins was the son of an Alice Springs woman who was deserted by her husband after giving birth to her 11th child, and who begged a priest to at least give her brightest boy an education. O'Donoghue was sent with her siblings to South Australia's Colebrook Home by her white father when he'd decided he no longer wanted them or his Aboriginal wife.

Read later cut his estimate of stolen children to 50,000, consistent with the guess of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's Bringing Them Home report of 1997. But that infamous report relied on anonymous and unchecked claims which collapsed whenever they were tested. It has been criticised as "greatly exaggerated" even by Professor Robert Manne, a stolen generations propagandist who was given a $50,000 grant to "expose" our great crime. Manne, in his book In Denial: The Stolen Generations and the Right, now claimed the true figure of "stolen" children was no more than 25,000. But he could only find and name four!

In fact, only one of his four cases seemed to involve the tragic theft of a girl, but it occurred back in 1903. His other examples included a boy who was actually taken from his widowed father with that drunk's consent, after a court heard the boy was running wild.

And then there was Lorna Cubillo. Cubillo had by then begun a test case in the Northern Territory with Peter Gunner, asking the Federal Court to compensate them for having been "stolen". That hearing cost the taxpayer at least $10 million and ran for a year, talking to all kinds of witnesses. It was the best investigation we'd get into the worst area for child stealing.

But the findings? Peter Gunner's mother had in fact signed a form to permit her son to go to a home in Alice Springs and get some schooling. Cubillo couldn't be said to have been stolen either, not least because her mother and grandmother had died, her father had vanished, and it was hard to tell who in the hard bush was actually looking after the little girl. But more than that, the court said it hadn't found anyone who'd been stolen in the NT, and the "evidence does not support a finding that there was any policy of removal of part-Aboriginal children such as that alleged by the applicants".

It was the same story in Victoria when the Bracks Government's Stolen Generations Taskforce last year admitted it couldn't find any "stolen" children either, adding there had been "no formal policy for removing children" from Aboriginal parents here.

On to Western Australia, where a royal commission in 1936 had already heard from the Protector of Aborigines that children weren't taken unless they were in danger. Manne has claimed this protector, A.O. Neville, had "genocidal thoughts", but last year finally conceded "it didn't affect the outcomes for the children". The film Rabbit-Proof Fence insists that it tells the "true story" of three girls being stolen but the records of that incident show this "true story" is false.

Then to New South Wales. Only one "stolen generations" child has gone to court there -- activist Joy Williams. But her case, too, failed, after the court found she'd been willingly given up by her mother. In fact, it's odd that not one single example of a "stolen" child has ever been proved genuine.

Cathy Freeman's grandmother was not stolen. Our first Aboriginal author, academic Mudrooroo Narogin, was not stolen either -- and is also not really Aboriginal. Nor were the four "stolen generations" Aborigines who gave evidence for Peter Gunner truly stolen, as they admitted to the Federal Court. One said his family paid to send him away to school, and he'd called himself "stolen" because "we're going to get compensation".

These aren't claims. They are FACTS that cannot be denied. The "stolen generations" is a myth! We are being fed a lie!

Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it
Darkfalz
2008-02-14 08:34:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Nobody can prove a single jew was gassed, but supposedly 6 million
were, so you figure it out.
concerned
2008-02-14 09:04:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Darkfalz
Nobody can prove a single jew was gassed, but supposedly 6 million
were, so you figure it out.
Who blacks were killed in Tasmania,
Who did John Batman (founder of melbourne) murder
Why has victoria got the least about of Blacks in Australia
Get to know you history, for you may be sorry, no more bullshit
Facts are Facts
Zapkvr
2008-02-14 10:50:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Darkfalz
Nobody can prove a single jew was gassed, but supposedly 6 million
were, so you figure it out.
Exactly.

Andrew Bolt is Australia's David Irving.
Andy
2008-02-14 22:10:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Darkfalz
Nobody can prove a single jew was gassed, but supposedly 6 million
were, so you figure it out.
Exactly.

Andrew Bolt is Australia's David Irving.


So is everyone else who doesn't agree with you.
k***@zappy.com.au
2008-02-14 22:15:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Zapkvr
Post by Darkfalz
Nobody can prove a single jew was gassed, but supposedly 6 million
were, so you figure it out.
Exactly.
Andrew Bolt is Australia's David Irving.
So is everyone else who doesn't agree with you.
Meaning?
DunnaRunna
2008-02-26 22:18:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Zapkvr
Post by Darkfalz
Nobody can prove a single jew was gassed, but supposedly 6 million
were, so you figure it out.
Exactly.
Andrew Bolt is Australia's David Irving.
He is also one of the few media commentators who is on "our" side and
who doesn't represent the lip-biting wet left.
habitually idiosyncratic
2008-02-27 07:49:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DunnaRunna
Post by Zapkvr
Post by Darkfalz
Nobody can prove a single jew was gassed, but supposedly 6 million
were, so you figure it out.
Exactly.
Andrew Bolt is Australia's David Irving.
He is also one of the few media commentators who is on "our" side and
who doesn't represent the lip-biting wet left.
He's also a nutbar.

HI

Vote out Brendan Nelson
2008-02-17 16:17:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Darkfalz
Nobody can prove a single jew was gassed, but supposedly 6 million
were, so you figure it out.
pigs fly
Roger
2008-02-14 09:49:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Please refer to them as the Living Generation.
Vote out Brendan Nelson
2008-02-17 16:21:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roger
Please refer to them as the Living Generation.
How would you like it if some government official took your kids, never
to be seen again.
Nitro
2008-02-18 00:04:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roger
Please refer to them as the Living Generation.
How would you like it if some government official took your kids, never to
be seen again.
It still happens with the blessing of the Family Courts. They tear families
apart.
DunnaRunna
2008-02-26 22:14:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vote out Brendan Nelson
Post by Roger
Please refer to them as the Living Generation.
How would you like it if some government official took your kids, never
to be seen again.
If you abuse [wide interpretation of the word] your kids, then you
deserve to have them removed and placed with somebody who wants to, and
will love, look after and nurture them.
Serge
2008-02-14 12:14:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by George Orwell
If 100,000 children were "taken forcibly" for racist reasons, why is it
nobody can name a single one of those victims?
Post by George Orwell
Peter Gunner's mother had in fact signed a form to permit her son to go to
a home in Alice Springs and get some schooling.

I understand that American POW's in Vietnam also signed forms, and I seem to
recall that Soviet citizens signed forms outlining their guilt during
Stalin's show trials
k***@zappy.com.au
2008-02-14 21:39:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by George Orwell
Post by George Orwell
If 100,000 children were "taken forcibly" for racist reasons, why is it
nobody can name a single one of those victims?
Post by George Orwell
Peter Gunner's mother had in fact signed a form to permit her son to go to
a home in Alice Springs and get some schooling.
I understand that American POW's in Vietnam also signed forms, and I seem to
recall that Soviet citizens signed forms outlining their guilt during
Stalin's show trials
Perzactly, I also remember quite a few hollywood types confessed to
being members of the communist party when Joe McCarthy was running
amok in the U.S. Senate.
eridge1
2008-02-16 15:26:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by George Orwell
If 100,000 children were "taken forcibly" for racist reasons, why is it nobody can name a single one of those victims?
This phrase "stolen generations" was coined by Professor Peter Read, who suggested some 100,000 children may have been taken from their families. But in a speech in London eight years ago, he named just two of them -- former ATSIC chairwoman Lowitja O'Donoghue and Aboriginal leader Charlie Perkins.
Already you see the problem. Neither, it turns out, was stolen. Perkins was the son of an Alice Springs woman who was deserted by her husband after giving birth to her 11th child, and who begged a priest to at least give her brightest boy an education. O'Donoghue was sent with her siblings to South Australia's Colebrook Home by her white father when he'd decided he no longer wanted them or his Aboriginal wife.
Read later cut his estimate of stolen children to 50,000, consistent with the guess of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's Bringing Them Home report of 1997. But that infamous report relied on anonymous and unchecked claims which collapsed whenever they were tested. It has been criticised as "greatly exaggerated" even by Professor Robert Manne, a stolen generations propagandist who was given a $50,000 grant to "expose" our great crime. Manne, in his book In Denial: The Stolen Generations and the Right, now claimed the true figure of "stolen" children was no more than 25,000. But he could only find and name four!
In fact, only one of his four cases seemed to involve the tragic theft of a girl, but it occurred back in 1903. His other examples included a boy who was actually taken from his widowed father with that drunk's consent, after a court heard the boy was running wild.
And then there was Lorna Cubillo. Cubillo had by then begun a test case in the Northern Territory with Peter Gunner, asking the Federal Court to compensate them for having been "stolen". That hearing cost the taxpayer at least $10 million and ran for a year, talking to all kinds of witnesses. It was the best investigation we'd get into the worst area for child stealing.
But the findings? Peter Gunner's mother had in fact signed a form to permit her son to go to a home in Alice Springs and get some schooling. Cubillo couldn't be said to have been stolen either, not least because her mother and grandmother had died, her father had vanished, and it was hard to tell who in the hard bush was actually looking after the little girl. But more than that, the court said it hadn't found anyone who'd been stolen in the NT, and the "evidence does not support a finding that there was any policy of removal of part-Aboriginal children such as that alleged by the applicants".
It was the same story in Victoria when the Bracks Government's Stolen Generations Taskforce last year admitted it couldn't find any "stolen" children either, adding there had been "no formal policy for removing children" from Aboriginal parents here.
On to Western Australia, where a royal commission in 1936 had already heard from the Protector of Aborigines that children weren't taken unless they were in danger. Manne has claimed this protector, A.O. Neville, had "genocidal thoughts", but last year finally conceded "it didn't affect the outcomes for the children". The film Rabbit-Proof Fence insists that it tells the "true story" of three girls being stolen but the records of that incident show this "true story" is false.
Then to New South Wales. Only one "stolen generations" child has gone to court there -- activist Joy Williams. But her case, too, failed, after the court found she'd been willingly given up by her mother. In fact, it's odd that not one single example of a "stolen" child has ever been proved genuine.
Cathy Freeman's grandmother was not stolen. Our first Aboriginal author, academic Mudrooroo Narogin, was not stolen either -- and is also not really Aboriginal. Nor were the four "stolen generations" Aborigines who gave evidence for Peter Gunner truly stolen, as they admitted to the Federal Court. One said his family paid to send him away to school, and he'd called himself "stolen" because "we're going to get compensation".
These aren't claims. They are FACTS that cannot be denied. The "stolen generations" is a myth! We are being fed a lie!
Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente   |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore   |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni      |For more info
                 https://www.mixmaster.it
The Apology To The Stolen generation' 7 Handy Mythbusters

There are many myths floating around about the apology so we've put
together the following mythbusters.

Myth 1 - I will not be made to feel guilt and shame for something I
didn't do.
Individual Australians are not responsible and should not feel guilty.
'Sorry' does not have to be an expression of shame or guilt. it can be
an expression of empathy, as in 'I'm sorry you got hurt in that car
accident'. if people are still confused on this front, they might
recall that several years ago, John Howard apologized on behalf of the
nation to Vietnam Veterans for their poor treatment when they returned
from the war.

Myth 2 - The Stolen Generations are a thing of the past.
Of all the Stolen Generations myths, this is one of the biggest. the
facts are that the removal of Indigenous children continued well into
the 1970's. these people are still alive today and the efffect on
individuals, families and communities lasts a lifetime (and beyond)

Myth 3 - Saying sorry won't deliver better results in health, housing
or education.
Saying sorry is not itself supposed to deliver health, housing, and
education. the fundamental flaw of this particular objection is that
it implies Australia can't deliver practical outcomes while
simultaneously delivering symbolic gestures. In other words, it
suggests we can't walk and chew gum at the same time. The government
has promised to pursue practical measures to address Indigenous
disavantage, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't begin the process
with a symbolic act.

Myth 4 - It'll cost us a fortune.
Contrary to popular opinion, a national apology will have no legal
impact on the capacity of members of the Stolen Generation to seek
compensation. The ability of members of the Stolen generation to
pursue legal claims has existed since they were taken and nothing
changes that. As a nation, an apology costs us nothing.

Myth 5 - The people who performed the removals thought they were doing
the right thing.
Good people do things that turn out to be wrong - but that doesn't
mean they're excused from apologizing. The majority of Indigenous
children were removed from families not on the basis of the level of
their care - but simply because of the colour of their skin. many
kidsexperienced physical, sexual, and emotional abuse in their foster
families and institutions after they were removed. For those people
who believe that forced removal actually benefited the children - it's
pretty difficult to find a member of the Stolen generations who is
happy about being denied the love of their parents and extended
family.

Myth 6 - Saying sorry won't change the past.
sadly, it won't. But it will have a massive impact on the future -
Stolen Generations members have already started healing since the
promise to apologise was announced. An apology means an enormous
amount to Indigenous people and the nation as a whole.

Myth 7 - Saying sorry justs leads people to think everything's been
fixed.
Whether you're for or against it, anyone who thinks that everything
will be 'fixed' with the apology is kidding themselves. no one is
claiming that uttering the word 'sorry' is going to solve all the
problems facing Indigenous Australians. Whatever your view on the
apology, everyone agrees that practical actions still need to be
taken. the apology is an important first step.
Loading...