The Stolen Generation (also known as Stolen Children ) are aboriginal offspring and Torres Strait Islander Australians who were expelled from their families by Federal agencies and the State Government Part Australia and the mission of the church, under the actions of each parliament. The abolition of the so-called "half-caste" children was carried out between the periods between 1905 and 1967, although in some places mixed race children were still brought into the 1970s.
The official government estimate is that between one in ten and one of the three indigenous children of Australia were forcibly taken from their families and communities between 1910 and 1970, affecting all regions of the country.
Video Stolen Generations
The emergence of a child removal policy
Many contemporary documents of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries show that the policy of lifting the mixed race of Aboriginal children from their mothers was related to the assumption that Aborigines were dying. Given their catastrophic population declining after white contact, the white man assumes that the Aboriginal population of the bloody tribe will not be able to defend itself, and is doomed to extinction. The idea expressed by AO Neville, Aboriginal Protector Chief for Western Australia, and others by the end of 1930 was that mixed race children could be trained to work in white society, and from generation to generation would marry white and assimilate into in society.
European Europeans believe that their civilization is higher than the indigenous Australians, based on comparative technological progress. Some adherents of this belief consider any proliferation of mixed-breed children (labeled "half-caste", "crossbreeds", "quadroons", and "octoroons") (these terms are now considered offensive to indigenous Australians) to pose a threat to the nature and the prevailing stability of civilization, or on racial "heritage" or perceived civilization. Northern Territory Aboriginal Protective Head, Dr. Cecil Cook, argues that "everything [needs to be done] to turn half-caste into a white citizen."
Walter Baldwin Spencer reported in 1920, that many of the children of mixed descent were born by Aboriginal women and white fathers; the latter working on the construction of the Ghan railway and leaving the women and children when the project is completed.
Northern Region
In the Northern Territory, the separation of Indigenous Australians from mixed descendants of "full blooded" natives begins with the government removing mixed-race children from their communities and putting them on mission run by the church, and then creating separate reserves and compounds to hold all the inhabitants Original Australia. This is a response to public concern over the increase in the number of children of mixed descent and sexual exploitation of young Aboriginal women by non-indigenous men, as well as fear among non-indigenous people outnumbered by mixed population.
Under the Northern Territory Act of 1906, Aboriginal Guard Chiefs were designated "legal guardians of every Aboriginal and every half-caste child up to the age of 18", thus providing a legal basis for enforcing segregation. After the Commonwealth took control of the Territory, based on the 1918 Aboriginal Ordinance, the Head Guard was given full control over all Native women irrespective of their age, except married to a man "substantially from Europe", and his consent was necessary for any marriage between a native woman and a man non-native.
Maps Stolen Generations
In practice
The Victoria Abortion Protection Act of 1869 incorporates the earliest laws to authorize the abortion of children from Aboriginal parents. The Central Council for Aboriginal Protection has advocated such powers since 1860. Part of the Law gives the Victorian colony a vast array of powers over Aboriginal and "half-caste" people, including forcible transfer of children, especially "at risk "girl. Through the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, similar policies and legislation were adopted by other countries and territories, such as Aboriginal Protection and Limitation on the Sale of Opium Act 1897 (Qld), 1918 Aboriginal Ordinance (NT), Aboriginal Act 1934 (SA) , and the 1936 Native Administration Act (WA).
As a result of the law, states regulate the widespread (especially) mixed-up abortion of children from their Aboriginal mothers. In addition, the designated Aboriginal patrons in each state exercise widespread guardianship over Aborigines up to the age of 16 or 21, often determining where they can live or work. Police or other state agents (some designated as "Aboriginal Protection Officers") are authorized to find and transfer infants and mixed-breeds from their mothers, families and communities into institutions for treatment. In Australia's state and territory, institutions (both government and missionaries) for half-caste children were established in the early decades of the twentieth century to care for and educate mixed-race children taken from their families. Examples of such institutions include River River Native Settlement in Western Australia, Doomadgee Aboriginal Mission in Queensland, Ebenezer Mission in Victoria, and Wellington Valley Mission in New South Wales, as well as Catholic missions such as Beagle Bay and Garden Point.
The exact number of deleted children is unknown. Estimated amount has been much debated. The Bringing Them Home reported saying that "at least 100,000" children have been removed from their parents. This figure is estimated by doubling the Aboriginal population in 1994 (303,000), with the maximum estimated "one in three" reports of Aboriginal people separated from their families. The report states that "between one in three and one in ten" children are separated from their families. Given the different populations over long periods of time, different policies at different times in different countries (which also result in different definitions of targeted children), and incomplete records, accurate numbers are difficult to establish. Academician Robert Manne has stated that the lower end figure of one in 10 is more likely; he estimates that between 20,000 and 25,000 Aboriginal children have been abolished for six decades, based on a survey of indigenous people identified by the ABS television station. According to the report Bringing Them Home :
In certain areas and at certain periods, that number is undoubtedly much greater than one in ten. At that time no single Native family escaped forced removal (confirmed by representatives of Queensland and WA [Western Australia] Governments as evidence of the Investigation). Most families have been affected, in one or more generations, by forcible transfer of one or more children.
The report carefully examines the differences between "forced displacement", "transference under threat or coercion", "official fraud", "voluntary release without information", and "voluntary release". The evidence suggests that in many cases, children are brutally and forcibly excluded from their parents or parents, even from the hospital immediately after birth, when identified as a mixed baby. Aboriginal Protection Officers often make the decision to exclude certain children. In some cases, families are required to sign legal documents to release care to the state. In Western Australia, Aborigines Act 1905 removes the Aboriginal parental legal trust. It makes all of their children's wards legal, so the government does not need parental permission to relocate mixed-race children to institutions.
In 1915, in New South Wales, the 1915 Aboriginal Protection Act gave the authority of the Aboriginal Protection Council to get rid of Aboriginal children "without having to enforce in court that they were ignored." At that time, some members of Parliament objected to the NSW amendment; one member states it allows the Council to "steal the child from his parents." At least two members argued that the amendment would cause children to be the target of unpaid work (at institutions or farms) tantamount to "slavery". Writing in the 21st century, Professor Peter Read said that Council members, in recording the reason for eliminating children, only noted "Because of Aboriginality." But the number of files containing such comments seems to be in the order of one or two, with the other two being noted only with "Aboriginal".
In 1909, Aboriginal Protectors in South Australia, William Garnet South, was reportedly "lobbying for the power to abolish Aboriginal children without trial because the courts sometimes refuse to accept that children are ignored or poor." South argues that "all children of mixed descent should be treated as abandoned." His execution was reportedly playing a role in the enactment of the 1911 Aboriginal Law. This pointed to his position as the legal guardian of every Aboriginal child in South Australia, not just the so-called "half-castes".
The Bringing Them Home report identifies false examples and official fraud, such as when caring and misinformed parents are misrepresented by the Aboriginal Protection Officers for not being able to provide their children properly. In other cases, parents are told by government officials that their child or child has died, though this is not the case. One first-hand account referring to events in 1935 states:
I was at the post office with Mom and Aunt [and my cousin]. They put us in the police station and said they took us to Broome. They put mum there too. But when we left [about ten miles (16 km)] they stopped, and threw the mothers out of the car. We jumped on our mother's back, weeping, trying not to be left behind. But the police pulled us and threw us back into the car. They pushed the mothers away and away, while our mom chased the car, ran and cried after us. We shouted behind the car. When we got to Broome, they put me and my cousin in Broome prison. We are only ten years old. We were in lock-up for two days waiting for the ship to Perth.
The report found that dismissed children, in most cases, were placed into institutional facilities operated by religious or charitable organizations. A large number, especially women, "fostered" out. Children brought to the institution are trained to assimilate to Anglo-Australian culture. Policies include punishment for speaking their local native language. The aim is to educate them for a different future and to prevent them from being socialized in Aboriginal culture. Boys are generally trained as farm laborers and girls as domestic helpers; this was the main occupation of many Europeans at that time in rural areas outside the city.
A common aspect of removals is the failure by these institutions to keep records of the child's actual origin, or details such as date or place of birth. As stated in the report:
the physical infrastructure of missions, government agencies and children's homes is often very poor and insufficient resources to improve them or to keep children dressed, fed and sheltered.
Children are brought to care intentionally to protect them from neglect and abuse. However, the report says that among 502 witnesses of the investigation, 17% of female witnesses and 7.7% of male witnesses reported experiencing sexual assault while in an institution, at work, or when living with adoptive or adoptive families.
Documentary evidence, such as newspaper articles and reports to the parliamentary committee, suggests a variety of reasons. Real motivations include the belief that Aboriginal people will die, given their catastrophic population decline after white contact, the belief that they are idolaters and better in non-native households, and the belief that Aboriginal totem people hate miscegenation and child- mixed breeds became fathers and abandoned by whites.
Effects on Stolen Generation members
Although the stated goal of the "resocialization" program is to promote the integration of Aboriginal people into modern [European-Australian] societies, a study conducted in Melbourne and quoted in the official report found that no real improvement in social position was "abolished" Aboriginal people compared to "non-deleted". Especially in the field of work and post-secondary education, deleted children have the same results as those not deleted. In the early decades of the program, post-secondary education was limited to a large proportion of Australians, but abandoned children fell behind their white people when educational opportunities improved.
The study shows that displaced Aboriginal people are less likely to complete secondary education, three times more likely to obtain police records, and twice as likely to use illegal drugs as Aboriginal people grow in their ethnic communities. The only important "abolished" benefits the Aboriginal people get are higher average incomes. The report notes that this may be due to increased urbanization of deleted individuals, and greater access to welfare payments than for Aboriginal people living in remote communities. There appears to be little evidence that Aboriginal people who compete in the mix have managed to get a better job even in urban areas.
Around the age of 18, children are released from government control. In cases where their files are available, individuals are sometimes allowed to view their own files. According to the testimony of one Aboriginal person:
I was asked to be present at the Sun Welfare Office, where they previously (sic) took me out of the State ward ship. It takes a Senior Welfare Officer only 20 minutes to come clean, and tells me everything my heart wants to know... that I am an "Aboriginal descendant", that I have a mother, father, three brothers and sisters, who are still alive... He puts in front of me 368 pages from my archive, along with letters, photos, and birthday cards. She told me that my surname would change back to my mother's maiden name, Angus.
The Bringing Them reportedly condemns the policy of severing the children's relationship from their "cultural heritage". A witness told the commission:
I have all that can be expected: a good home environment, education, things like that, but that's all material things. It's all the non-material stuff I do not have - lineage... you know, you just came from nowhere; Are you there.
By 2015, many unfulfilled recommendations from Bringing Them Home . From 1997 to 2017, the percentage of indigenous children living outside the home has increased from 20% to 35%
Public awareness and acknowledgment
The historian Professor Peter Read, later at the Australian National University, was the first to use the phrase "stolen generation". He published a magazine article on a topic with this title, based on his research. He expanded the article into a book, The Stolen Generations (1981). The widespread awareness of the Stolen Generation, and the practices that created it, grew in the late 1980s through the efforts of Aboriginal white artists and artists, and musicians (Archie Roach's "Took the Children Away" and Midnight Oil "The Dead Heart" last). The case of Mabo v Queensland (No. 2) (commonly known as the case of Mabo ) attracted the attention of the media and public attention to itself and all the issues related to the government's treatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in Australia, and especially the Stolen Generation.
In early 1995, Rob Riley, an activist from the Aboriginal Legal Service, published Telling Our Story. This illustrates the large-scale negative effects of previous government policies that resulted in the loss of thousands of Aboriginal Children's mixed breeds from their families and they grew up under various conditions in missions, orphanages, reserves, and white homes.
The Australian Commission on Human Rights and Equality of Equality The National Inquiry on Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families Beginning in May 1995, chaired by Commission president Sir Ronald Wilson and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioners , Mick Dodson. Over the next 17 months, Investigations visited every state and Territory in Australia, heard testimonies from 535 Aboriginal Australians, and received shipping evidence of over 600 more. In April 1997, the Commission released the official report on Bringing Them Home .
Among the National Assembly's assignments and the release of the late 1997 report, the John Howard government has succeeded Paul Keating's government. At the Australian Reconciliation Convention in May 1997, Howard was quoted as saying: "Australians of this generation should not be asked to accept mistakes and be blamed for past actions and policies."
Following the publication of the report, the Northern Territory parliament and the state parliaments of Victoria, South Australia and New South Wales submitted an official apology to the Aborigines. On May 26, 1998, the first "National Sorry Day" was held; a reconciliation event was held nationwide, and was attended by a total of over one million people. As public pressure continues to increase on the government, Howard designed a "deep and sincere regret for the dismissal of Aboriginal children from their parents", passed by federal parliament in August 1999. Howard said that the Stolen Generation represents "the most stained chapter in history of this country. "
Activists take the Stolen Generation issue to the UN Commission on Human Rights. At his trial on this issue in July 2000, the Commission on Human Rights strongly criticized Howard's government for handling issues related to the Stolen Generation. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination concluded its discussion of Australia's 12th report on its actions by acknowledging "steps taken to facilitate family reunions and to improve counseling and family support services for victims", but expressed concern:
that the Commonwealth Government does not support the official national apology and deems it incompatible with the terms of monetary compensation for those who forcibly and unjustifiably be separated from their families, on the grounds that such practices are approved by law at the time and are intended to "assist people people they corporates ".
The Committee recommends "that the State party considers the need to deal precisely with the extraordinary dangers posed by this practice of racial discrimination."
Activists highlighted Stolen Generation and related Aboriginal issues during the 2000 Sydney Summer Olympics. They established a large "Aboriginal Ten City" on the grounds of the University of Sydney to bring attention to the Aboriginal problem in general. Cathy Freeman is an Aboriginal athlete chosen to light the Olympic flame and win a gold medal in a 400 meter sprint. In the interview, he said that his own grandmother was a victim of forced displacement. The successful international rock group, Midnight Oil, attracted media interest around the world by performing at the Olympic closing ceremony in black with the word "MAAF" emblazoned all over them.
In 2000, Phillip Knightley summed up the Stolen Generation in the following terms:
This can not be over-emphasized - the Australian government literally kidnaps these children from their parents as policy issues. White welfare officers, often supported by the police, will descend to the Aboriginal camp, collect all the children, separate the light-colored ones, bundle them into the truck and take them away. If their parents protest they are held at bay by the police.
According to archaeologist and author Josephine Flood, "The well-intentioned but poorly understood policy of forced assimilation of the Aboriginal mixed race is now universally condemned for the trauma and loss of language and culture brought to the stolen children and their families."
Australian federal parliamentary apology
One of the recommendations of Australia's Home Bringing Them report is for the Australian parliament that offers an official apology. A decade later, on February 13, 2008, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd presented an apology to the Indigenous Australians as a motion to be elected by the house. The apology text is as follows:
I'm moving:
That today we honor the Indigenous people in this country, the oldest culture in human history We think of their mistreatment in the past We reflect specifically about the persecution of the Stolen Generations - a deplorable chapter in the history of our nation.
The time has come for the nation to turn a new page in Australian history by correcting past mistakes and moving forward with confidence into the future. We apologize for the successive laws and policies of Parliament and governments that have caused deep sadness, suffering and harm to these Australians. We apologize mainly for removing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities, and their countries.
For the pain, suffering, and wounds of this Stolen Generation, their descendants and for their families left behind, we apologize.
To mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, to the breakup of family and community, we apologize And for the humiliation and degradation that befell those arrogant and proud culture, we apologize We, the Australian Parliament respectfully request that this apology be accepted in the spirit offered as part of the healing of the nation.
For the future we take heart; solve that this new page in our continent's history can now be written.
We are today taking this first step by acknowledging the past and putting a claim for a future that includes all Australians The future in which this Parliament ruled that injustice in the past should never, never happen again The future where we take the will of all Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, to close the gap that exists between us in life expectancy, educational achievement, and economic opportunity.
The future in which we embrace the possibility of new solutions to overcome problems where the old approach failed The future is based on mutual respect, mutual help, and shared responsibility The future in which all Australians, whatever their origin, is a truly equal partner, with equal opportunities and with common interests in forming the next chapter in the history of this great country, Australia.
The apology text does not refer to compensation to the Aboriginal people in its entirety, or to the members of the Specially Stolen Generation. Rudd followed the apology with a 20-minute speech to the house about the need for this action. Government apologies and speeches were widely welcomed among Indigenous Australians and the non-indigenous public.
Opposition leader Brendan Nelson also delivered a 20-minute speech. He supported the apology but in his address, Nelson referred to the "lack of supervision" of child welfare in the Aboriginal community, as well as a number of social ills that disrupt the lives of Aboriginal people. His speech was considered controversial and received mixed reactions. Thousands of people gathered in public spaces around Australia to hear apologies turn their backs on the screen that broadcasts Nelson speak. In Perth, people are mocking and booing until the screen is turned off. In the Great Hall of Parliament, elements of the audience began to pat slowly, with some people finally turning their backs.
The apology was unanimously adopted by the House, although six members of the opposition caucus Nelson left the House in protest at the apology. Later that day, the Senate considered a motion for the same apology, which was also endorsed unanimously. Earlier, Green Party leader Sen. Bob Brown sought to change motions to include words asking parliament to offer compensation to those who suffered losses under previous indigenous policies, but were opposed by all others.
Legal status and compensation
The legal state of the Stolen Generation remains unclear. Although some compensation claims are pending, the court can not decide on the plaintiff's behalf just because they were removed, because, at that time, the move was authorized under Australian law. Australian federal and state federal law legislation and related regulations are provided for the removal of their birth family and known mixed-race aboriginal children community, or those who appear to be jumbled.
The compensation claims have been heard by the High Court of NSW Superior Court at Williams v The Minister of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act of 1983 and New South Wales [2000] NSWCA 255 and the Federal Court of Australia at Cubillo v Commonwealth of Australia [2000] FCA 1084. In Williams, an individual (not a group of plaintiffs) makes a claim due to an omission arising from being placed under the control of the Aboriginal Welfare Board in accordance with s 7 (2) of Aborigines Welfare Act 1909 shortly after its birth, and placed by the Council with the United Aboriginal Mission at Aboriginal Children's Home in Bomaderry near Nowra, NSW. The court judge found that there was no maintenance assignment and therefore the act of neglect could not succeed. This was upheld by the NSW High Court in 2000.
Regarding whether the action in the NSW court is limited by the passage of time, the Court of Appeal, reverses Studdert J, extending the period of restriction for improper claims by about three decades according to s 60G of the 1969 Restriction Act (NSW): Williams v Minister, Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (1994) 35 NSWLR 497.
Apology is not expected to have a legal effect on the claim for compensation.
Historical debate about Stolen Generation
Nomenclature and debate about the use of the word "stolen"
The word "stolen" is used here to refer to Aboriginal children taken from their families. It has been used for this since the beginning of the 20th century. For example, Patrick McGarry, a member of Parliament of New South Wales, objected to the 1915 Aboriginal Charity Protection Act authorizing the Aboriginal Protection Council to remove Aboriginal children from their parents without having to establish the cause.. McGarry described the policy as "stealing the child from his parents".
In 1924, Adelaide Sun wrote: "The word 'stealing' may sound rather unreasonable but by the time we have told a heartbroken Aboriginal story our mother believes the word is not will be considered out of place. "
In most jurisdictions, Indigenous Australians are placed under the Protective Authority, effectively becoming part of the State. Protection is exercised through any Aboriginal Protection Board jurisdiction; in Victoria and Western Australia, these councils are also responsible for implementing what is known as Half-Caste Acts.
More recent usage has evolved since the publication of Peter Read on Stolen Generation: Aboriginal Abolition of Children in New South Wales 1883 to 1969 (1981), which examines the history of this government action. 1997 publication of the government Bringing Them HomeÃ, - National Inquiry Report to the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Family High Consciousness from the Stolen Generation. Acceptance of the term in Australia is illustrated by an official apology 2008 to the Stolen Generation, led by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and authorized by both Australian Parliamentary assemblies. An earlier apology has been offered by State and Territory governments in the period 1997-2001.
There is some opposition to the concept of the term "Stolen Generation". Former Prime Minister John Howard does not believe the government should apologize to the Australian Aboriginal people. Then the Minister of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander John Herron disputed the use of this term in April 2000. Others who questioned the use of the term include Peter Howson, who was Minister for Aboriginal Affairs from 1971 to 1972, and Keith Windschuttle, an Australian historian who argued that abuses against Aboriginal Australians have been exaggerated and in some cases found. Many historians oppose this rejection, including Windschuttle in particular. Anthropologist Ron Brunton also criticized the trial on the grounds that there is no cross-examination of those who bear their testimony or critical examination on the factual basis of the testimony.
History War
The Bringing Them Home report provides extensive details on the removal program and its effects. Sir Ronald Wilson, former President of the Commission on Human Rights and Equal Opportunities and Commissioners on Investigations, stated that "when it comes to the credibility of the stories, there is much credibility, not from cross-examination of the children themselves, laws, practices and policies allow for this forced transfer to take place.We have the support of every state government, they come to Investigations, come with file levers that set the law from the early days to the end of the assimilation policy, ie until the 1970s and more importantly, senior government offices were attended.In each case, these senior officers acknowledged that there were many atrocities in the application of such laws and policies. "
In April 2000, Aboriginal Affairs Minister John Herron filed a report in the Australian Parliament in response to a report by the Commission on Human Rights which states that, since "only 10% of Aboriginal children" have been removed, they are not the whole "generation". The report attracted media attention and protests. Herron apologized for the "understandable infringement done by some" as a result of his comment, although he refused to alter the report as it had been submitted.
The historian Peter Read calls the affected children the "Stolen Generation". Another historian, Robert Manne, defended the terminology, making an analogy that others call "the generation lost their lives in the First World War" without the meaning of more than 50 percent of young people at the time; instead, people use the phrase as a metaphor for collective experience. Similarly, he believes, some Aboriginal communities use the term to describe their collective misery.
Genocide debate
There is a continuing dispute among politicians, commentators, and historians, politics and law, whether forced displacement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children that occurred during the Stolen Generation can be accurately described as an act of genocide and especially whether they meet the definition of genocide in chapter II (e) of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. While it is generally not argued that this forced displacement occurred, the dispute overwhelmed whether they were enacted with the intent to destroy the Indigenous Australians. There is further argument as to whether those responsible for the Stolen Generation should be criminally responsible for genocide. In response to the submission by the National Aboriginal and Islander Legal Services Secretariat to the Royal Commission into Abortion of Deaths in Custody, Commissioner Johnston considered whether Australian Government policies and practices related to the Stolen Generation were a violation of the Convention but concluded that "[I] is not my function to interpret the Convention or decide whether it has been violated, mainly because the policies involved were modified in 1962 and abandoned in 1970 ". The Bringing Them Home report concludes that:
The practice of alienation of Indigenous children in Australia involves systematic racial and genocide discrimination as defined by international law. However it continues to be practiced as an official policy long after it is clearly prohibited by treaties that are voluntarily violated by Australia.
However, in the subsequent case of Kruger v Commonwealth , the High Court judge rejected the claim of the plaintiff that the official Ordinance Aboriginal Ordinance of 1918 as defined by the Convention and ruled that there was no law to implementing the Convention under Australian municipal law at the time. One of the recommendations of the Bringing Them Home report is that "the Commonwealth sets out to implement the Genocide Convention with full domestic effect". While genocide has been a crime under international law since the start of the Convention in 1951, in accordance with Article 51 (xxix) of the Australian Constitution, it is only a crime under Australian law since the commencement of the International Criminal Court (Amendment of Consequences) Act 2002 >, so the Stolen Generation can not be considered genocide under Australian law because the law is not retrospectively. In the twelfth report to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the Government of Australia is of the opinion that the elimination policies and programs do not constitute a violation of the Convention.
Sir Ronald Wilson, President of the Commission on Human Rights and Equality of Australia, Commissioner of National Investigations to the Separation of Aboriginal Children and Torres Strait Islanders from Their Families , and coauthor of > Bringing Them Home reports, arguing that the policy generated in the Stolen Generation is a genocide effort by the government, since it is widely believed that at that time Aborigines would die.
Manne argues that the views expressed by government bureaucrats, such as AO Neville, to assimilate mixed race children into the white population by means of "color breeding", and therefore eventually result in full blood being "forgotten", having strong similarities with Nazi racial views in the 1930s Nazi Germany. Manne points out that, although the term "genocide" has not yet entered the English language, Neville's policy and others are termed by some contemporaries as "dead" or "multiply" policies, giving an indication of their proposed intentions.. He also stated that academics "generally acknowledge" that the report authors "Bring Them" is wrong to say that the Australian authorities have committed genocide by removing indigenous children from their families. Social assimilation is never regarded in law as equivalent to genocide.
Although historian Paul Bartrop rejects the use of the word genocide to describe the colonial history of Australia in general, he believes that it applies to describe the Stolen Generation. Bartrop and US scholar Samuel Totten together wrote the Genocide Dictionary , which Bartrop wrote in Australia. He said he was used as a benchmark for the use of the term genocide of the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which was also cited in the Bringing Them Home report.
The term stolen white generation is used to distinguish this group from the stolen Indigenous generation. It is estimated that about 250,000 non-native children born in Australia were displaced from their mothers from the 1930s through 1982 in what was widely seen by society as a whole at that time as a positive thing for mothers and children. Mothers are sometimes drugged, tied to bed, or told that their baby has died. Many hospitals are involved in what is now known as institutionalized infant ranches, where babies born to those considered "unworthy" to parents are taken and adopted into the middle class.
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments