Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro
This is not true.
This leads to three possibilities:
(1) Only part aboriginal children were abused. (Naive and highly unlikely).
(2) Only part aboriginal children were rescued from abuse (This is highly racist).
(3) The removal of aboriginal children had very little to do with welfare reasons.
Steven
|
Yes it is. Try (1) in your smug simple response - half caste were not accepted by black communities. They tended to be abandoned and abused. Aboriginals were covered by protective legislation that would now be considered paternalistic. It was a different set of rules that applied than white welfare.
and now we don't have any of that, we have:
http://www.facs.gov.au/internet/mini...in_02oct07.htm
"And those who have not read the report, Little Children are Sacred, its two authors visited 45 communities in the Northern Territory. They didn't find sexual abuse in some of those communities, they didn't find it in most of those communities, they found it in every single community; 45 out of 45. Think about that, the enormity of that for a moment. People coming forward with the most horrendous stories. We have children as young as three with gonorrhoea, we have twenty-four year old grandmothers, we have so many babies being born with alcohol foetal syndrome that their capacity to pass on the oral history of their people is gone before they're even born. We have physical and sexual abuse of boys and girls and men and women. It knows no boundaries. "
are you happy now Steven? They're not stolen anymore.