sory or not , page-24

AT. Very disappointed in you for your 'selective' posting of Noel Pearson's article that coincides with your narrow point of view. I was hoping that you would read the WHOLE article and not just those sections that appeal to your prejudice. So in keeping with your selectivity I have posted below a SECTION that gives a more balanced aspect.


'The truth is the removal of Aboriginal children and the breaking up of Aboriginal families is a history of complexity and great variety. People were stolen, people were rescued; people were brought in chains, people were brought by their parents; mixed-blood children were in danger from their tribal stepfathers, while others were loved and treated as their own; people were in danger from whites, and people were protected by whites. The motivations and actions of those whites involved in this history -- governments and missions -- ranged from cruel to caring, malign to loving, well-intentioned to evil.'


A number of interesting points in the para are worth emphassing:



mixed-blood children were in danger from their tribal stepfathers

people were in danger from whites, and people were protected by whites

In relation to Pearson's observation that some Aboriginals were stolen (this does NOT equate to a generation or generations) there is no difference to those non-Aboriginal children who were stolen because:

their mothers were single parents;

those Pommie children who were sent to OZ under false pretences.

The whole Stolen Generation fuss is just a beat up aand simply a subterfuge for financial compensation.