I have to do a history assignment on the stolen generation, and I'm stuck on this one part about the governments justifiaction for the removal of the children, so if anyone could help with info or a website I would really appreciate it...or even just your opinion I'll put it in the assignment
thanks everyone xoxox

unsure soz,

but im thinking is that the whites thought that the black were not taking proper care of their kids... that just a guess..


CLICKY CLICKY
My Photos

They felt that if the aboriginal children were introduced into white families or
christian missions, by adulthood, they could be fully functioning members of
'white society'.
Children were quite literally judged for their skin colour (The darker, the less
care was given).

The justification was that they could not be expected to live without white
man's society.
Ignoring the fact they'd lived for 40,000 years before.


Hope that helps


Every moral has a story;
And every story has an end.

It was all about assimilation and absorption into main stream society.
The assimilation policies of varoious State and Federal governments were persued around the country with the view of removing Aboriginal people by forced removal to reserves, missions or other locations.
in Victoria their was the Aboriginnes Protection Act of 1886, that gave that govt power to deal with Indigenous Australians...

link [www.bloorstreet.com]

Check out this site look under Autralian and im sure you will find heaps of info

Anyway it is quite complex and culminated around the year 2000 with a report to the govt called "Bringing them Home"



Hope this helps

cheers

Doc

This reply might be a little too late for your assignment, but perhaps you'd like to know anyway. Firstly, it's important to recognise that the "stolen" children were not just Aboriginals. A convenient racist myth has been perpetrated in Australia for political purposes. There were hundreds of thousands of white children "stolen" from their homes and families and institutionised. This was a social problem of poor management and lack of wisdom relating to dealing with children thought to be at risk of neglect or various types of abuse. The reality is that many of the children were not at risk. Many were taken wrongly. Others were kept away from parents wrongly. Many were abused or neglected in care - suffering far worse than they would have at home. Aboriginals were, in some cases, taken because they were half-caste and it was thought that their tribes might reject them. My husband, a white stolen child, was taken because his father suffered war injuries and couldn't support his family, and didn't know how to secure the pension to which he was legally entitled. Social workers took his children instead of helping him fill in a simple form that would have resulted in a steady income and solved his problem.
In some cases, removal was wise and necessary. In most cases, it was cruel, unjustified, and left a legacy of hurt - regardless of what colour the stolen child was!
What is tragic is (a) that the problem hasn't been properly acknowledged and victims fairly compensated; and (b) it's been made, dishonestly, into a racial problem.

You're in yr 10? Just go on about how they wrongfully believed that they were being neglected, abused, inhumane living conditions etc, and the assimilation policy. Pad out the idiea of white superiority and believing it to be for mutual good.

When I had to do an essay on Aboriginal rights, I just did how they didn't deserve them, we did nothing wrong and how Johny was right in not saying sorry ( I did the course last year). I'm having to do Wik, Mabo 2 and Native title act 1993 in legal studies now, so if you need help when you get to that, just ask. Had to do it enough for my bother, also doing his school certificate.