Stolen Generations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Stolen Generations (or Stolen Generation) is a term used to describe those children of Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent who were removed from their families by Australian government agencies and church missions, under various state acts of parliament, denying the rights of parents and children by making Aboriginal children wards of the state, between approximately 1869 and (officially) 1969.^{[citation needed]} The Australian Parliament has accepted that this was human rights abuse and on February 13, 2008, the federal government of Australia, led by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, issued a formal apology to the Stolen Generations.^[1]

It was asserted that these children of mixed descent were sometimes not accepted by their communities and were therefore at high risk of harm, especially where the father was absent. The policy typically involved the removal of children into internment camps, orphanages and other institutions.^[2]

The Stolen Generation has received significant public attention in Australia following the publication in 1997 of Bringing Them Home - Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families.^[3] The accuracy and fairness of the term “Stolen Generation” is still a controversial issue in Australia as the reasons for the removal of the majority of children are still a matter of debate and investigation.^[4] Questions regarding whether policies of removing children based solely on their Aboriginality were adopted or widely adopted, and on what scale it occurred, remain controversial topics within Australian political discourse.^[5][6] See below, "Historical debates over the Stolen Generation".

Contents 1 Emergence of the child removal policy 2 The policy in practice 3 Social impact on members of the Stolen Generation 4 Historical debates over the Stolen Generation 5 Public awareness and recognition 5.1 Australian Federal government apology 6 Legal status and compensation 6.1 Cases 6.1.1 Cubillo and Gunner 6.1.2 Bruce Trevorrow 7 Films and books 7.1 Rabbit-Proof Fence 7.2 Documentary Kanyini 8 See also 8.1 Notable persons 8.2 Comparisons 9 References 10 External links

[edit] Emergence of the child removal policy

The traditional view had been that the impetus for some of the various pieces of legislation arose from an observed need to provide protection for neglected, abused or abandoned mixed-descent children.^[7] It asserted that mixed-descent children were not wanted or welcome in some Aboriginal groups and communities. In the 1920s, the Baldwin Spencer report^{[citation needed]} made it known that many mixed-descent children who had been born during construction of the Ghan railway were abandoned at early ages with no one to provide for them. This incident and others spurred the need for state action to provide for and protect such children.

However, other historical documents indicate that the policy of removing Aboriginal children from their parents may have emerged from an opinion based on late 19th- and early 20th-century eugenics doctrine that the 'full-blood' tribal Aboriginal population would be unable to sustain itself, and was doomed to inevitable extinction.^[8][9][10] An ideology adopted by some at the time held that mankind could be divided into a civilisational hierarchy. This supposed that the civilisation of northern Europeans was superior to that of Aborigines, based on comparative technological advancement. Some extreme adherents to these beliefs also considered any proliferation of mixed-descent children (labelled as 'half-castes',^[11][12] 'crossbreeds', 'quadroons' and 'octoroons'^[13]) to be a threat to the nature and stability of the prevailing civilisation, or to a perceived racial or civilisational "heritage".^[14] This is similar in nature to the belief of Aryan supremacy in Nazism, in which persons of mixed blood and of "inferior" races are seen as threats to the racial purity of the Aryan race.

The earliest introduction of child removal to legislation is recorded in the Aboriginal Protection Act 1869. The Central Board for the Protection of Aborigines had been advocating such powers since 1860. This Act gave the colony of Victoria a wide suite of powers over Aboriginal and 'half-caste' persons, including the forcible removal of children and, especially, of 'at risk' girls.^[15]

By 1950, similar policies and legislation had been adopted by other states and territories^{[citation needed]}, and it has been alleged that this resulted in widespread removal of children from their parents and exercise of sundry guardianship powers by Aboriginal protectors over Aborigines up to the age of 16 or 21. The alleged aim was to culturally assimilate mixed-descent people into Australian society.^[16] Policemen or other agents of the state (such as 'Aboriginal Protection Officers') were given the power to locate and transfer babies and children of mixed descent from their mothers or families or communities into institutions. In these Australian states and territories, half-caste institutions (both government and missionary) were established in the early decades of the 20th century for the reception of these separated children.^[17]

[edit] The policy in practice

According to the Bringing Them Home Report, at least 100,000 children were removed from their parents, and the figure may be substantially higher (the report notes that formal records of removals were very poorly kept). It stated:

“

Nationally we can conclude with confidence that between one in three and one in ten Indigenous children were forcibly removed from their families and communities in the period from approximately 1910 until 1970. In certain regions and in certain periods the figure was undoubtedly much greater than one in ten. In that time not one family has escaped the effects of forcible removal (confirmed by representatives of the Queensland and WA Governments in evidence to the Inquiry). Most families have been affected, in one or more generations, by the forcible removal of one or more children.[18]

”

The report closely examined the distinctions between "forcible removal", "removal under threat or duress", "official deception", "uninformed voluntary release", and "voluntary release".^[19] It noted that some removals were certainly voluntary. Mothers may have surrendered their children for any number of reasons (due to sickness, poverty, living arrangements, racism, etc). There was also evidence that some Aboriginal parents voluntarily released their children, in the hope that at least in this way they would be able to retain contact with their children and some knowledge of their whereabouts.^{[citation needed]}

Conversely, evidence indicated that in a large number of cases children were brutally and forcibly^{[citation needed]} removed from their parent or parents, possibly even from the hospital shortly after their birth.^{[citation needed]} Aboriginal Protection Officers often made the judgement on removal. In some cases, families were required to sign legal documents to relinquish care to the state, though this process was subverted in a number of instances.^{[citation needed]} In Western Australia, the Aborigines Act 1905 removed the legal guardianship of Aboriginal parents and made their children all legal wards of the state, so no parental permission was required.^[20]

The report also identified instances of official misrepresentation and deception, such as when caring and able parents were incorrectly described by Aboriginal Protection Officers as not being able to properly provide for their children, or when parents were told by government officials that their children had died, even though this was not the case. One first hand account referring to events in 1935 stated:

“

I was at the post office with my Mum and Auntie [and cousin]. They put us in the police ute and said they were taking us to Broome. They put the mums in there as well. But when we'd gone [about ten miles (16 km)] they stopped, and threw the mothers out of the car. We jumped on our mothers' backs, crying, trying not to be left behind. But the policemen pulled us off and threw us back in the car. They pushed the mothers away and drove off, while our mothers were chasing the car, running and crying after us. We were screaming in the back of that car. When we got to Broome they put me and my cousin in the Broome lock-up. We were only ten years old. We were in the lock-up for two days waiting for the boat to Perth.[19]

”

The report discovered that removed children were, in most cases, placed into institutional facilities operated by religious or charitable organisations, although a significant number, particularly females, were "fostered" out. Children taken to such places were frequently punished if caught speaking local indigenous languages, and the intention was specifically to prevent them being socialised in Aboriginal cultures, and raise the boys as agricultural labourers and the girls as domestic servants. Many Europeans at the time worked in similar occupations. ^[2]

A common aspect of the removals was the failure by these institutions to keep records of the actual parentage of the child, or such details as the date or place of birth. As is stated in the report:

“

... the physical infrastructure of missions, government institutions and children's homes was often very poor and resources were insufficient to improve them or to keep the children adequately clothed, fed and sheltered.[21]

”

The report alleged a level of sexual abuse of overall 17% of females and 7.7% of males reported experiencing some form of sexual abuse while under institutional or foster care.^[21]

[edit] Social impact on members of the Stolen Generation

The social impacts of forced removal have been measured and found to be quite severe.^{[citation needed]} Although the stated aim of the "resocialisation" programme was to improve the integration of Aboriginals into modern society, a study conducted in Melbourne and cited in the official report found that there was no tangible improvement in the social position of "removed" Aborigines as compared to "non-removed", particularly in the areas of employment and post-secondary education.^{[citation needed]} Most notably, the study indicated that removed Aboriginals were actually less likely to have completed a secondary education, three times as likely to have acquired a police record and were twice as likely to use illicit drugs^{[citation needed]}. The only notable advantage "removed" Aboriginals possessed was a higher average income, which the report noted was most likely due to the increased urbanisation of removed individuals, and hence greater access to welfare payments than for Aboriginals living in tribal communities.^[22]

By around the age of 18 the children were released from government control and where it was available were sometimes allowed to view their government file. According to the testimony of one Aboriginal person:

“

I was requested to attend at the Sunshine Welfare Offices, where they formerly discharged me from State wardship. It took the Senior Welfare Officer a mere 20 minutes to come clean, and tell me everything that my heart had always wanted to know...that I was of 'Aboriginal descent', that I had a Natural mother, father, three brothers and a sister, who were alive...He placed in front of me 368 pages of my file, together with letters, photos and birthday cards. He informed me that my surname would change back to my Mother's maiden name of Angus.[23]

”

The Bringing Them Home report condemned the policy of disconnecting children from their "cultural heritage". Said one witness to the commission:

“

I've got everything that could be reasonably expected: a good home environment, education, stuff like that, but that's all material stuff. It's all the non-material stuff that I didn't have — the lineage... You know, you've just come out of nowhere; there you are.[19]

”

On the other hand, some Aboriginal people do not condemn the government’s past actions, as they see that part of their intention was to offer opportunities for education and an eventual job. According to the testimony of one Aboriginal person:

“

I guess the government didn't mean it as something bad but our mothers weren't treated as people having feelings...Who can imagine what a mother went through? But you have to learn to forgive.[24]

”

[edit] Historical debates over the Stolen Generation

Main article: History wars

Despite the lengthy and detailed findings set out in the Bringing Them Home report, the nature and extent of the removals documented in the report have been debated and disputed within Australia, with some commentators questioning the findings and asserting that the Stolen Generation has been exaggerated. An Australian Federal Government submission has questioned the conduct of the Commission which produced the report, arguing that the Commission failed to critically appraise or test the claims on which it based the report and fails to distinguish between those separated from their families "with and without consent, and with and without good reason". Not only has the number of children removed from their parents been questioned (critics often quote the ten percent estimate, which they say does not constitute a 'generation'), but also the intent and effects of the government policy.^[25]

Some conservative journalists, such as Andrew Bolt, have publicly questioned the very existence of the Stolen Generation. Bolt considers that it is a "preposterous and obscene" myth and that there was actually no policy in any state or territory at any time for the systematic removal of "half-caste" Aboriginal children. He has also labeled the Stolen Generation as a "theory"^[26] and "propaganda".^[27] Professor of politics at La Trobe University, Robert Manne, has responded that Bolt's failure to address the wealth of documentary and anecdotal evidence demonstrating the existence of the Stolen Generation amounts to a clear case of historical denialism.^[28] Much of the controversy between Andrew Bolt as a sceptic and Professor Robert Manne is centred on a key issue of the debate over the existence of a "Stolen Generation"; i.e. the identification of any particular person as having been 'stolen'. A great deal of the scepticism about the existence of such a policy has been based on the inability to identify, i.e. name, a significant number of persons as having been 'stolen' and to have that characterisation stand up to scrutiny in the form of court cases or other investigation, as opposed to such investigation indicating that they were abandoned, given up or removed for legitimate reasons. Many documents in state archives detail the policies and events that come under the term "Stolen Generation" .^{[29] [30]}

Some commentators such as the former president of Australia's Human Rights Commission, Sir Ronald Wilson, have alleged that the Stolen Generation was nothing less than a case of attempted genocide, because it was believed that doing this would cause Aborigines to die out.^[31] Indeed, in the 1930s, the Northern Territory Protector of Natives, Dr. Cecil Cook, described as follows the aim of the policy of removing "half-caste" children from Aboriginal communities in the hopes of marrying them into the white population:

“

Generally by the fifth and invariably by the sixth generation, all native characteristics of the Australian Aborigine are eradicated. The problem of our half-castes will quickly be eliminated by the complete disappearance of the black race, and the swift submergence of their progeny in the white.[32]

”

In April 2000, controversy stirred when the then Aboriginal Affairs Minister in the conservative Howard Government, John Herron, tabled a report in the Australian Parliament that questioned whether or not there had been a "Stolen Generation", on the semantic distinction that as "only 10% of Aboriginal children" had been removed, they did not constitute an entire "generation". The report received media attention^{[citation needed]} and there were protests^{[citation needed]}. Dr Herron apologised for the "understandable offence taken by some people" as a result of his comments, although he refused to alter the report as it had been tabled, and in particular the (disputed) figure of 10%.

[edit] Public awareness and recognition

Widespread awareness of the Stolen Generation, and the practices which created it, only began to enter the public arena in the late 1980s through the efforts of Aboriginal activists, artists and musicians (Midnight Oil's famous track "The Dead Heart" being one example of the latter). The extensive public interest in the Mabo case had the side effect of throwing the media spotlight on all issues related to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders in Australia, and most notably the Stolen Generation.

The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families commenced in May 1995, presided over by Sir Ronald Wilson, the president of the (Australian) Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, and Mick Dodson, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner at the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC). During the ensuing 17 months, the Inquiry visited every state and Territory in Australia, heard testimony from 535 Aboriginal Australians, and received submissions of evidence from over 600 more. In April 1997 the official Bringing Them Home Report was released.

Between the commissioning of the National Inquiry and the release of the final report in 1997, the conservative government of John Howard had replaced the Keating government. The report proved to be a considerable embarrassment for the Howard administration, as it recommended that the Australian Government formally apologise to the affected families, a proposal actively rejected by Howard, on the grounds that a formal admission of wrongdoing would lead to massive compensation litigation. Howard was quoted as saying "Australians of this generation should not be required to accept guilt and blame for past actions and policies."^[33] As a result Commissioner Dodson resigned from the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, saying in a newspaper column that "I despair for my country and regret the ignorance of political leaders who do not appreciate what is required to achieve reconciliation for us as a nation."^[34]

As a result of the report, formal apologies were tabled and passed in the state parliaments of Victoria, South Australia and New South Wales, and also in the parliament of the Northern Territory. On 26 May 1998 the first "National Sorry Day" was held, and reconciliation events were held nationally, and attended by over a million people. As public pressure continued to increase, Howard drafted a motion of "deep and sincere regret over the removal of Aboriginal children from their parents" which was passed by the federal parliament in August 1999. Howard went on to say that the Stolen Generation represented "...the most blemished chapter in the history of this country."^[35]

In July 2000, the issue of the Stolen Generation came before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva who heavily criticised the Howard government for its manner of attempting to resolve the issues related to the Stolen Generation. Australia was also the target of a formal censure by the UN Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.^[36][37]

Global media attention turned again to the Stolen Generation issue during the Sydney 2000 Summer Olympics. A large "aboriginal tent city" was established on the grounds of Sydney University to bring attention to Aboriginal issues in general. The Aboriginal athlete Cathy Freeman (who was chosen to light the Olympic Flame and went on to win the gold medal for the 400 metre sprint) disclosed in interviews that her own grandmother was a victim of forced removal. The internationally successful rock group Midnight Oil obtained worldwide media interest when they performed at the Olympic closing ceremony wearing black sweatsuits with the word "SORRY" emblazoned across them.

Prior to the Sydney Olympics a mockumentary called The Games was broadcast on ABC TV. In the episode shown on 3 July the actor John Howard made a recording "for international release" of an apology to the Stolen Generation, ostensibly on behalf of the Australian people.^[38]

[edit] Australian Federal government apology

On December 11, 2007, the newly elected Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced that an official apology would be made to Indigenous Australians by the federal government. The wording of the apology would be decided in consultation with Indigenous leaders.^[39] On January 27, 2008 Rudd announced that an official apology would be made to Indigenous Australians by the federal government on or soon after the first day of parliament in Canberra on February 12.^[40] The date was later set to February 13. The conservative Liberal Party was, at first, split in its reactions to the announcement. Liberal Party leader Brendan Nelson initially said that an apology would risk encouraging a "culture of guilt" in Australia, although other Liberal MPs expressed their support for an apology, as did prominent Liberal Party members such as Malcolm Turnbull, Peter Costello, Bill Heffernan and former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser.^[41] Former Liberal minister Judi Moylan said:

“

I think as a nation we owe an apology. We shouldn't be thinking about it as an individual apology — it's an apology that is coming from the nation state because it was governments that did these things.[42]

”

Nelson himself later declared he supported the apology.^[43] Following a party meeting, the Liberal Party as a whole expressed its support for an apology, which thereby achieved bipartisan consensus. Brendan Nelson stated:

“

I, on behalf of the Coalition, of the alternative government of Australia, are [sic] providing in-principle support for the offer of an apology to the forcibly removed generations of Aboriginal children.[44]

”

Rudd confirmed that the apology would not entail compensation.^[45]

Lyn Austin, chairwoman of Stolen Generations Victoria, has stated her view on why she believes an apology is necessary, recalling her experiences as a stolen child:

“

I thought I was being taken just for a few days. I can recall seeing my mother standing on the side of the road with her head in her hands, crying, and me in the black FJ Holden wondering why she was so upset. A few hundred words can't fix this all but it's an important start and it's a beginning. [...] I see myself as that little girl, crying myself to sleep at night, crying and wishing I could go home to my family. Everything's gone, the loss of your culture, the loss of your family, all these things have a big impact.[46]

”

On February 13, 2008, the following motion was put to the Australian Parliament as an apology to Indigenous people.^{[47] [48]}

“

Today we honour the Indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing cultures in human history. We reflect on their past mistreatment. We reflect in particular on the mistreatment of those who were Stolen Generations - this blemished chapter in our nation's history. The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia's history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future. We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians. We apologise especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country. For the pain, suffering and hurt of these Stolen Generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry. To the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry. And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry. We the Parliament of Australia respectfully request that this apology be received in the spirit in which it is offered as part of the healing of the nation. For the future we take heart; resolving that this new page in the history of our great continent can now be written. We today take this first step by acknowledging the past and laying claim to a future that embraces all Australians. A future where this Parliament resolves that the injustices of the past must never, never happen again. A future where we harness the determination of all Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, to close the gap that lies between us in life expectancy, educational achievement and economic opportunity. A future where we embrace the possibility of new solutions to enduring problems where old approaches have failed. A future based on mutual respect, mutual resolve and mutual responsibility. A future where all Australians, whatever their origins, are truly equal partners, with equal opportunities and with an equal stake in shaping the next chapter in the history of this great country, Australia

”

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's sorry was followed by a 20-minute speech to Parliament about the need for an apology ^[49][50] and then by a sorry from Opposition leader Brendan Nelson. The Parliament then unanimously adopted the proposed motion.^[51] The Rudd speech was widely applauded among both Aborigines and the general public^[52][53].

Sections of opposition leader Brendan Nelson's reply, however, drew heavy criticism and anger. Many Australians disagreed with this view and believed it was inappropriately negative, included out of context graphic descriptions of abuse and social ailments in current indigenous communities given the apology was for former Australian governments' wrongdoings, avoidance of the word stolen, the claim that the children were taken "with the best of intentions", that any suffering was most likely unintentioned, that among those stolen some ultimately derived benefits from their removal that would not have otherwise been possible, the stressing that the acknowledgment of the events should be more important that an apology, and the inclusion of the word boong (a pejorative similar in connotations to the word nigger) as part of his speech. Many of the criticized points in Mr Nelson's speech, however, had just been addressed and debunked by Mr Rudd's reasoning for an apology just seconds before Mr Nelson began to read his prepared reply.^[54][55] People watching Nelson's reply speech protested nation wide. Thousands gathered in Melbourne turned their back on the opposition leader; in Perth people booed and jeered until the screen was eventually switched off; those watching in parliament's great hall began a slow clap, finally turning their backs, with similar scenes in Sydney and elsewhere. ^{[56] [57] [58] [59]}

[edit] Legal status and compensation

The legal circumstances regarding the Stolen Generation remain unclear. Although some compensation claims are pending, it is not possible for a court to rule on behalf of plaintiffs simply because they were removed, as, at the time, such removals were authorised under Australian law. Australian federal and state governments' statute law and associated regulations provided for the removal from their birth families and communities of mixed-race Aboriginal children, or those who appeared mixed.

Despite its then legality in Australia, the actions may have contravened international law, although international law has no legal force in Australia unless specifically incorporated.

Indeed, it was for its very legalisation that the Rudd government formulated its apology on behalf of itself and previous Australian federal governments. This official apology is not expected to have any legal impact on claims for compensation.^[60]

[edit] Cases

[edit] Cubillo and Gunner

In the Federal Court of Australia cases of Cubilo and Gunner, their claims failed^[61]. The presiding judge, Justice Maurice O'Loughlin, noted in his summary judgment that he was not ruling that there would never be valid cases for compensation with regard to the Stolen Generation, only that in these two specific cases he could not find evidence of illegal conduct by the officials involved.^[62]

[edit] Bruce Trevorrow

On 1 August 2007, in a decision in the Supreme Court of South Australia by Justice Thomas Gray, Bruce Trevorrow, a member of the Stolen Generation, was awarded $525,000 compensation ($450,000 for general damages and $75,000 for exemplary damages) after a 10-year court battle with the South Australian government.^[63] The SA government has announced that it will pay the compensation awarded to Mr Trevorrow but has not yet indicated whether it will appeal the court's findings of law and fact.^[64]

The West Australian newspaper reported Bruce Trevorrow's story as follows:

“

Mr Trevorrow was separated from his mother in December 1957 after he was admitted to Adelaide's Children's Hospital with gastroenteritis. More than six months later, his mother wrote to the state's Aboriginal Protection Board, which had fostered him out, asking when she could have her son back. "I am writing to ask if you would let me know how Bruce is and how long before I can have him back home," she wrote in July 1958. "I have not forgot I got a baby in there". The Court was told the board lied to her, writing her son was "making good progress" and that the doctors still needed him for treatment.[65]

”

[edit] Films and books

[edit] Rabbit-Proof Fence

The 2002 Australian film Rabbit-Proof Fence was based on the book Follow the Rabbit-Proof Fence by Doris Pilkington Garimara. It concerns the author's mother and two other young mixed-race Aboriginal girls who ran away from Moore River Native Settlement, north of Perth, in order to return to their Aboriginal families. In a subsequent interview with the ABC, Doris recalled her removal from her mother at age three or four, arriving at the settlement in 1931. She was not reunited with her mother until she was 25 and, until that time, she believed that her mother had given her away. When they were reunited, Doris was unable to speak her native language and had been taught to regard Indigenous culture as evil.^[66]. Interviews have revealed that the movie was not true to real-life events in many ways, exaggerating the portrayal of poor treatment.

[edit] Documentary Kanyini

The principal persona of Melanie Hogan's film Kanyini,^[67][68] Bob Randall, is an elder of the Yankunytjatjara people, and one of the listed traditional owners of Uluru. He was taken away from his mother as a child. He remained at the government reservation until he was 20, working at various jobs, including as a carpenter, stockman and crocodile hunter. He helped establish the Adelaide Community College, and lectured on Aboriginal cultures. He served as the director of the Northern Australia Legal Aid Service, and established Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander centres at the Australian National University, University of Canberra and University of Wollongong. He was named 'Indigenous Person of the Year' and inducted into the Northern Territory musical hall of fame^{[citation needed]} for songs such as Brown Skin Baby, Red Sun and Black Moon (about the Coniston massacre). He is also the author of two books: his autobiography Songman and a children's book, Tracker Tjginji.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] See also

• A. O. Neville
• Sister Kate's
• History of Australia
• History wars
• Moseley Royal Commission
• Professor Sally Morgan editor of Echoes of the past: Sister Kate's home revisited (Centre for Indigenous History and the Arts 2002) with Tjalaminu Mia, photography by Victor France, she also authored My Place.

[edit] Notable persons

• Ken Colbung, Political activist and leader.
• Belinda Dann, Born as Quinlyn Warrakoo, forced name change to Belinda Boyd. Deceased at 107 years of age making her the longest lived member of the stolen generation.
• Polly Farmer, Australian rules footballer.
• Sue Gordon, Perth Children's Court magistrate.
• May O'Brien, Head of Aboriginal Education.
• Doris Pilkington Garimara, Author of Rabbit Proof Fence.
• Bob Randall, Indigenous Australian of the Year.
• Rob Riley (deceased), CEO of the Aboriginal Legal Service 1990-1995, author of Telling Our Story which instigated the National Inquiry into Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families.
• Cedric Wyatt, Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in WA.

v • d • e Indigenous Australians
People	Groups · Communities · Torres Strait Islanders · People from politics and public service · Activists · Sportspeople · Visual artists · Performing artists · Writers · Musicians · West Australians
Culture	Dreaming · Dreamtime · Mythology · Kinship · Avoidance · Seasons · Enumeration · Marn grook · Kurdaitcha · Astronomy · Songlines · Message stick · The Deadlys · NAIDOC · Torres Strait Islands · Bora · Outstation movement · Riji · Australian Indigenous national football team · Smoking ceremony
Languages	Language Groups  · Pama-Nyungan languages · Sign languages · Avoidance speech · Placenames · Loanwords into English · Gunwinyguan languages · Australian Aboriginal English · Kriol · Torres Strait Island
Organisations	Northern Land Council · Central Land Council · Aboriginal Medical Service · Media · Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation · Reconciliation Australia · In Europe · AIATSIS · National Indigenous Council · Aborigines Advancement League
Bushcraft	Bushfood · Bush medicine · Bush bread · Fibrecraft · Soaks · Shelter · Possum-skin cloak · Buka · Food groups · Sweet foods · Fire-stick farming · Woomera · Boomerang · Coolamon · Waddy · Spinifex resin
Arts	Visual Art · Bark painting · Papunya Tula · Music · Rock · Music groups · Didgeridoo · Vibe · NATSIA Award
History	Prehistory · History · Historical figures · Western Australia · 1946 Pilbara strike · Gurindji strike · Massacres · King plates · Day of Mourning · Tent Embassy · Caledon Bay Crisis · Native Police · Aborigines Progressive Association · ATSIC · Pintupi Nine · Tasmania
Issues	Stolen Generations · Land rights · Petrol sniffing · Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody · Media portrayal · Northern Territory National Emergency Response

[edit] Comparisons

• Americanization (of Native Americans)
• Canadian residential school system
• Native schools of New Zealand

[edit] References

[edit] External links

• The agony of Australia's Stolen Generation - The first of Australia's Stolen Generations to win compensation. BBC News
• Bringing Them Home: Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families. The official Australian government report.
• The (Australian) Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission website
• The (Australian) Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission's education module on the separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families
• Summary of the Stolen Generation from the Australian Parliamentary Library website
• An Index to the Chief Protector of Aborigines Files 1898 - 1908
• Rob Riley, CEO ALS 1990-1995 Telling Our Story ALSWA
• A Trans-Generational Effect of The Aborigines Act 1905 (WA): The Making of the Fringedwellers in the South-West of Western Australia
• Essay by Robert Manne
• Robert Maane's list
• Essay by Kenneth Maddock Argues that the child removal policy was not genocidal
• Why are we not so sorry? by Australian League of Rights
• White Over Black: Discourses of Whiteness in Australian Culture in Borderlands eJournal Focuses on debates about representing Australia’s colonial history, specifically in regard to child removal.
• Mark Stephen Copland, Calculating Lives: The Numbers and Narratives of Forced Removals in Queensland 1859 - 1972 Electronic full-text version of PhD Thesis.
• Home page of the Kimberley Stolen Generation Aboriginal Corporation
• Biographical Entry - The Australian Dictionary of Biography Online
• Guide to Institutions Attended by Aboriginal People in Western Australia Compiled by researchers employed by the State Solicitor’s Office
• Sister Kate's on the WA Government Heritage Register
• West Australian Government history of Noongar in the South West
• Aboriginal Western Australia and Federation
• Sue Gordon becomes a force for her people
• Fremantle Arts Centre Press - My Place by Sally Morgan
• Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission - Bringing them Home - The Report
• History News Network article on Rabbit Proof Fence and Sister Kates
• Genocide in Australia by Colin Tatz, AIATSIS Research Discussion Papers No 8
• WA's Black Chapter
• Journey of Healing: Rabbit Proof Fence
• The systematic removal of indigenous children from their families in Australia and Canada: the history – similarities and differences
• "Australia's 'stolen' children get apology but no cash", Barbara McMahon, The Observer, January 13, 2008
• "A sorry way to right a terrible wrong", Anne Summers, Sydney Morning Herald, January 12, 2008