Jacob's Soap Box

6 February, 2008

The (socialist Labor) Federal government of Australia is going to say “sorry” to the Aboriginal people on behalf of the Australian people, for the so-called stolen generation. In a nutshell, the term refers to successive governments’, federal and states, policies of removing half caste Aboriginal children from their tribal neighbourhood for their safety and placing them in institutions, church missions, foster and adapting homes, between 1910 and 1970.

This policy did not apply to full bolded Aboriginal children.

Once again the Leftist/Marxists/Fabians/socialist/communists have taken upon themselves, to trigger our collective guilt conscience for action taken by some people in Australia generations ago. Can someone please let me know what those action have do with me? Halooowww?!

What is it about those people who feel the urge to continuously set off our collective guilt conscience? We are blamed for everything from climate change to terrorism, child obesity, skin cancer or death of dolphins by supermarket plastic bags, and now this. The answer is simple, control by guilt even if such guilt has to be invented.

The term “stolen generation” was coined by Professor Peter Reid, of white European descent, of Sydney University in 1981 who subsequently campaigned on behalf of 100,000 “stolen” Aborigine “victims”, a number which was never substantiated, nor was any theft of children was ever been proven – In fact, so far out of the bombastic number of 100,000 cases only a few got to court ,just to be thrown out for lack of evidence of mal doing.

At the centre of the dispute is a consistent bi-partisan policies, between 1910 and 1970, of state and federal governments to remove half caste aboriginal children from their native tribes in order to protect them from almost certain harm by way of ostracism, physical and sexual abuse and even possibly death, from the full caste members of their families and tribes. Mothers, often underage themselves, were required to agree and/or the Child Protection Officers had to fill in answers to an elaborate questionnaire on the prospect of the child being accepted by his/her biological family and the tribe. The officer had to answer the last question yes before the child could be removed:

Having considered all points separately is the child likely to live a more contented, happy and fuller life, if removal occurs, than if he is left where he is?

So much for “stealing” children.

The proponents of the lie go as far as fabricating “evidence” of babies that were “stolen” from hospitals and mothers being told that they had stillborn, the problem with this myth is that very few tribal Aboriginal births were carried out in hospitals making the whole claim myth. But as always is the case with lefties emotional blackmail, why let the truth spoils a good story.

Don’t get me wrong, I do not claim for a minute that the system was perfect, even less so by our current values , nor do I claim that that there was no element of racism or other unacceptable practice, but one thing is for certain and that is that those who were involved at that time had honourable intentions, and that what counts.

Andrew Bolt, an Australian journalist and author issued a challenge to the Aboriginal misery industry to provide him with only ten names (out of 100,000) of “stolen” children to be scrutinised. Instead he got a barrage of accusations for being racist but no names. Don’t you wonder why not? I don’t!

Andrew Bolt interviewed Ms. Lowitja O’Donoghue, the first chair of the (now disbanded) Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islanders Commission (ATSIC) who had claimed to be part of the “stolen generation”, after persistent questioning she confessed in the interview that her father had in fact had dumped her with her four siblings at the United Aboriginal Mission’s Colebrook Children’s Home in South Australia and went walkabout. Andrew Bolt commented:

“To look at her own history, the two missionaries who took her in – Sister Rutter and Sister Hyde – did a marvellous job in not just saving her, but giving her a brilliant future. They deserve her thanks, not these distortions and demands for compensation.”

When Ms. O’Donoghue’s mother was located, its further transpired that she, the mother, is an alcoholic. Only when Lowitja O’Donoghue changed her own status from “stolen” to “removed” (or a similar word).

I want to make it absolutely clear that neither I nor this essay is critical of the Aboriginal people as a group, nor would I wish this essay to become an Aborigine bashing exercise. I am critical of the radical loudmouths in the Aboriginal movement, that includes white European people too, doing their utmost to divide the Australian society with provocative statements such as white fellas systematic genocide of blacks and comparing of Aboriginal people to Jews in the Nazi occupation of Europe.

As a Jew I take exception to such stupid comparisons, it is not the ignorance that enrages me, it is trivialisation of the Holocaust by people who demand that I, not only respect Aboriginal culture (I have no problem with it), but that I should apologise for something that I did not do, something that in fact never happened.

As I said earlier, many Aborigines confirm that that policy of removing half caste children have saved their life, gave them opportunities they would have never otherwise received and they, those Aborigines see no reason for the Australian government to be sorry about.

Further, it is generally acknowledged that although there were instances of child abuse, those have been dealt with by the courts applying stiff penalties. In any event such child abuse cases were neither of Government making, nor were they limited to Aboriginal kids only.

Take heed that since the 1950’s, the laws in Australia regarding welfare of children was changed to ensure equality when establishing what constitute a child at risk, covering both Aborigines and non-Aborigines families. However, such is the impact of the term stolen generation (it is taught in schools) that child welfare agencies are so concerned of being accused of “stealing” aboriginal children that they rather leave some children at risk then rescue them.

In other words, the child protection agencies are damned if the do (protect the kids) and damn if they don’t.

In early December, 2007 Australia was shocked by an extremely lenient rape sentence imposed by (a woman) judge on 9 man who admitted to rape of a 10 years old Aboriginal girl in Cape York in far north Australia. This court ruling was publicised internationally with the usual racism accusation, through ignorance.

As part of the background to this case, it transpired that the girl had been removed to foster care, when she was 7 or so, but returned to her dysfunctional family just before she was raped, because she is aborigine and that the Queensland department responsible was concerned of being accused of child “stealing”. This rape would have never occurred had the girl stayed with her foster care family.

On 14 December, 2007 the Melbourne paper Herald-Sun wrote:

TELL me if you see any real difference between Mary, Topsy and Dolly, all Aboriginal girls, writes Andrew Bolt.

“Mary” is 10 and has had sex with many men, contracting gonorrhoea and syphilis.

Topsy is 12, and also has syphilis. Her father is gone and the whereabouts of her mother unknown. There is no treatment out where she lives, no school and no police.

Dolly is 13 and seven months pregnant. She’s not with her parents and works for no wages on a station, kilometres from anything. She’s had no schooling and needs care.

The difference between them? Time and a myth, mostly.

Mary you’ve read about all this week. She’s the Cape York girl, whose last nine rapists were allowed to walk free.

She was given to loving white foster carers after being raped at seven, but was sent back to her town because welfare officials didn’t want to repeat the “stolen generations”

Weeks later she was raped again, and has been removed again. Too late.

Topsy and Dolly, on the other hand, are two of the children Prof Robert Manne, the top “stolen generations” propagandist, named when I asked him to list just 10 of the 100,000 Aboriginal children we’re told were stolen from their parents for racist reasons, not welfare.

Name just 10, I asked. He named Topsy and Dolly, “stolen” by a Queensland protector of Aborigines a century ago and sent to missionaries for medical care, food and schooling.

In fact, it’s precisely because Manne and others told us we were racist to steal children like Topsy and Dolly that we don’t “steal” children like Mary.

So now the Rudd Government wants to say sorry to Topsy and Dolly for “stealing” them, yet is sorry Mary wasn’t stolen, too. Here’s a dangerous contradiction that needs resolving.

So who should we really say sorry, to? To the girl we didn’t save, I’d say. Her life we’ve broken.

And that’s the difference that counts.

Spare some thoughts for Dean Shillingworth, a two years old Aboriginal baby who was found dead inside a suitcase in a pond in Western Sydney. His mother was charged with his murder and is awaiting trial. It transpired that the child had been known to the (state) Department Of Community Services (DOCS) for some time prior to his murder, were they (DOCS) too concerned about “stealing” another child because he is Aborigine? I guess we will find out during the trial.

We are already hearing Aboriginal activists talking about $1 billion compensation taking a leaf from the Canadian “sorry affair” to their indigenous people. Our Prime Minister promises us that there will be no reparations but can he make such promise? Once a claim goes to court it is up to the legal system to decide the case and we all know on whose side our legal system is.

Most Australian just want get on with it, we have more pressing matters to deal with, or is it a sign that our 2 months old government cannot deal with our real concerns such as inflation, House affordability, interest rates, petrol (gas) prices, food prices etc. Well looks like not!

© Copyright Jacob Klamer (except attributable quotes)