Talk:Stolen Generations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


How did it end?[edit]

Needs a para on what happened (in the 1960s) to make it end. 120.16.26.193 (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)MBG[reply]

That's actually a really good question. I haven't seen the answer formally documented anywhere. It was probably all part of the progressive mood of the country at the time. This mood was shown in the Australian referendum, 1967 (Aboriginals), which was one of the few constitutional amendments ever passed in Australia, and it was passed overwhelmingly. It gave the federal government power to make legislation for Aboriginal people (it had previously been exclusively state government business), and said we would count Aboriginal people in the census. Without knowing for sure, I would guess that the state governments finally saw the light. I would love to hear from others on this. HiLo48 (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's been suggested that it's still going on. [1].

One of the first reactions people have to the film is, ‘oh my God, I had no idea this was happening. How can this still be happening, I thought this issue had been resolved.’

Daveosaurus (talk) 06:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chronology progressed something like this:
  1. the government perpetrated the Stolen Generations;
  2. the government made an Apology to Australia's Indigenous peoples for stealing children;
  3. the government simultaneously initiated the Northern Territory National Emergency Response to steal more children;
  4. as of 30th June 2020, 79% of Indigenous children in care live permanently away from their birth parents and 85% aren't reunited with their families.
so yes, "It's been suggested that it's still going on" seems right on the money there. I would suggest an "Aftermath" section be added to the article which highlights how little official policy changes have changed actual attitudes and interventions. While we're at it, adding the above context to each of the mentioned articles (and not just a bare mention in the See Also list) would improve their coverage too. 49.195.32.54 (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The STOLEN GENERATION continues, especially in the Australian state of Victoria 2403:5803:7E2B:7900:F40B:4AC7:BC27:E68E (talk) 05:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That requires a little further explanation. HiLo48 (talk) 06:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at the linked forced adoption article as the history of both are linked. by the 60's the idea of foced adoption had been removed from popular opinion and the practice stopped. as it no longer occured for white people they could not argue its inclusion for the aboriginal tribes also.101.167.226.85 (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's NOT an example of something still going on. HiLo48 (talk) 06:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did Australia have a civilisation before 1788?[edit]

WP:NOTAFORUM. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Civilisation did not begin in Australia until the last quarter of the eighteenth century.

Those are the opening words of Manning Clark's epic "History of Australia"[2] and it is very loose thinking to hold any other view. Civilisation is an urbanised society, and we talk of the Ancient Egyptian, Roman, Aztec and other civilisations in this way. To talk of a pre-European Australian civilisation gives the wrong impression. Or perhaps that is the impression being sought by partisan culture warriors; to pump up a land of wanderers into the sort of society we associate with civilisations, including all the infrastructure, government, specialisation and so on.

We can talk of a pre-European New Zealand civilisation, for the Maori certainly built cities and had a sophisticated society, but for Australia, I think that in the interests of accuracy we can find other words to refer to the culture and society of the inhabitants that the British colonisers found. Not to demean or downplay those inhabitants and their culture, but not to mislead our readers who come to Wikipedia seeking information. If we use a word, it should be apt. --Pete (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we wish to make a definite point about the contrast between European society and Aboriginal society, as your two edit summaries suggested ([3] [4]), then we need a reliable, published source that states that contrast explicitly. You did not provide a source, which is why I reverted to the article's status quo ante. Note that the statement is about Europeans' belief in their own superiority, not just a neutral classification of Aboriginal society as urbanized or not urbanized. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't the language used make exactly that point? But, I'm open to any suggestions that do not misleadingly describe Aboriginal Australians as having a civilisation. I note that our statement is listed as unsourced since January, and goes back at least two years without a source. --Pete (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that indigenous Australians did not have a civilisation is Eurocentric garbage unworthy of any further consideration. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A bold statement! What informs your thinking, Daveosaurus? --Pete (talk) 06:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see this as more of a linguistic problem than a definitional one. Pete is correct in saying that Aboriginal society was not a civilisation according to the somewhat rigid description in that linked article. The danger we face in saying that is any implication that Australian Aboriginal people were therefore not civilised. Unfortunately, with no written history, and the tendency of some even today to want denigrate Aboriginal people, that is an ongoing problem. We must not give ammunition to such people. Many might argue that 18th century European "civilisation" was not that crash hot, with the customs of its legal systems to take minor criminals and execute them, or send them to the other side of the world for seven years. I would prefer to avoid using the word "civilisation", and speak instead of levels of sophistication of society. No educated person would suggest that Australia Aboriginal society was not complex and sophisticated. Even the mention of "comparative technological advancement" is problematic. Europeans had what they saw as great land management technology, but much it turned out be be useless and quite inappropriate in the Australian environment. Think about ploughing and irrigating salt-ridden dry land. Aboriginal people had "technology" that worked here. But that's enough on comparison here. We won't include all of what I have just written in the article. I'm not sure what words to recommend, but hope others can add to my thoughts to develop a good set of words. HiLo48 (talk) 08:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Civilisation isn't about behaviour. It's a binary condition. A society either has urban development or not. That's the basis of the word. One can certainly discuss the quality of a society's culture and behaviour, and I agree that British civilisation of the Eighteenth Century was sadly lacking in many ways. Then again it's hard to find a civilisation of that era that was what we'd now call "civilised", a word which initially meant somebody with city manners, rather than the presumably less sophisticated airs of the countryside. --Pete (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to highlight the difference between "civilisation" as a noun describing a state of society, and the adjective "civilised" when describing a person or group of people. HiLo48 (talk) 09:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of settlers arriving from Europe in the Eighteenth Century, they regarded the locals as neither civilised nor possessing a civilisation. --Pete (talk) 10:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. HiLo48 (talk) 10:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

if we use the definitions of a civilisation as set by the ancient egyptians being recognised as the first civilised culture on earth than we can accurately say that with no fixed infrastructure, active trading, currency or agriculture tan no the aboriginal culture were not civilised and there for civilisation in australia did not start until the more likely english landed in sydney. you could argue chinese made settlements in NT but its unclear how much they settled vs just taking form the cultures in the area. the only evidence for this is rice farms they left behind. 101.167.226.85 (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Windschuttle as a source[edit]

Thread retitled from "Whitewashing".

I note the attempted removal by Sangdeboeuf of an article by historian Keith Windschuttle which was cited to support the following text"

There is ongoing contention among politicians, commentators, and historical, political, and legal experts as to whether the forced removals of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children that occurred during the Stolen Generations can be accurately described as genocidal acts and particularly whether they meet the definition of genocide in article II (e) of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Is anyone seriously doubting that this is a contentious issue? Removing all mention here of one side of the issue doesn't make it any less contentious. In fact it smacks of censorship and goes directly against NPOV.

Yes, I'm aware that Quadrant is on the list of perennial sources - as "generally unreliable" - but the contribution of editor Windschuttle do not fall under any of the objections raised in discussion.

Perhaps Sangdeboeuf could explain his thought processes on this? From where I sit it looks like there was no review of the material or our text, just a mindless elimination of everything from this source, regardless of any merit. --Pete (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the removal "whitewashing" is an odd move. Some might say that's what Windschuttle is doing. In any case, Windschuttle's published opinions as editor count as a primary source for any "contention", and so should not be used to support statements in Wikipedia's voice. If his views are WP:DUE, then more reliable sources will have noted them.
No one is removing all mention of any side of the issue. In fact the text of the article was not changed at all. Where does WP:NPOV say we have to represent "both sides" anyway? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please comment on the point I raised wrt the wording? Likewise wrt to the perennial source discussion. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See reply below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Removing all mention here of one side of the issue..." There are only "sides" for those who desperately seek confirmation from discredited, right wing bigots for their own position. To the vast majority, this is simply a historical article. If you really must promote a position of denial, please find a better source than Windschuttle. If your view is correct, there simply must be better sources. HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If an issue is contentious, then surely you accept that there must be contending views? There is a note at the top of this talk page that the issue is controversial. Are you seriously claiming otherwise?
Windschuttle is a noted historian who has written extensively and published books on this topic. I think WP:NPOV applies here? --Pete (talk) 01:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Windschuttle himself is extremely contentious. I'm sure you know that. HIS article should say that. You would also know that WP:NPOV does not mean including all fringe views. HiLo48 (talk) 04:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those two words are to be found in his BLP article. I suggest you take note of our BLP procedures, which apply on all of Wikipedia, including talk pages. The subject of this article is contentious, as noted. --Pete (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing no good reason to remove Windschuttle's scholarly article, apart from the superficial moans above. --Pete (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source isn't a scholarly article, but an editorial in a political opinion journal. If you want to make the case for citing Windschuttle's opinion as a recognized expert, then fine, demonstrate that his views are accepted in the scholarly community. I don't see how the Quadrant RfC is going to help you there, though.
You appear to be using the phrase "ongoing contention" in a Wikipedia article as a reason to go looking for contentious views to cite. That's the opposite of responsible sourcing, and reflects a bigger problem with this article, which is the apparent over-reliance on interpreting primary sources. Unless there's a source that directly comments on the "contention", then the whole paragraph should be cut, in my opinion.
The onus to achieve consensus is on users wishing to include material. That means incorporating all users' legitimate concerns, not dismissing them as "superficial moans".
NPOV does apply indeed. To wit: "Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity."
NPOV means following reliable sources. Citing an editorial in a magazine considered generally unreliable makes the article less neutral, not more. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you took the time to read the source you rail against, you would realise your mistake. It is not an editorial. It is an article written by the editor-in-chief, and as per the RfC discussion, which you also seem not to have read, is not the sort of user-submitted online content which is rightly considered unreliable. That's why I referred to your contribution here as superficial; you did not look at the material under discussion.
I do not need to list Windschuttle's credentials on a talk page. I refer you to his BLP article.
The contentiousness of the subject hardly needs defending; it is noted above in the talk page headers that the topic is controversial. HiLo's bizarre suggestion that a contentious subject involves a uniformity of opinion deserved a response; surely you do not share his view?
"Generally unreliable" does not mean "completely unreliable". I refer you to the ongoing discussion here where useful sourcing by notable authors has been removed by the sort of mindless robot editing you endorse. Perhaps you could participate in the wider discussion? --Pete (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"I do not need to list Windschuttle's credentials..." Such as his infamous pygmy paper written with a non-existent co-author? Windschuttle is a discredited fraud who edits a discredited journal. He panders to racists and right-wing bigots who pay for his journal. HiLo48 (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyring: editorial (noun): "a newspaper or magazine article that gives the opinions of the editors or publishers". The reason for avoiding such sources is that they lack independent fact-checking and other editorial oversight, which are key elements in any reputable source. Once again, the onus is on you to show how the source is reliable. It's not on me to go searching through user-created biographies for evidence supporting your argument. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Windschuttle has been a prominent scholarly participant in the topic for decades would be enough for most. I didn't write his BLP, which you don't appear to have read. Have you actually followed any of the sources provided? It makes it hard to AGF with someone just talking off the cuff. --Pete (talk) 02:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since he's such a prominent scholar, it should be easy to cite a peer-reviewed or other academic source for his views. But that still doesn't address the original research problem I mentioned regarding primary sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pete - Fifteen years ago I studied at a prominent, scholarly, Australian university. Part of my course involved (by choice and with the agreement of my scholarly course leaders) an in depth look at some historical Aboriginal issues. None of the scholarly academics I worked with, and none of the information I found in that scholarly university's extensive collection of relevant, scholarly books and journals, took me anywhere near anything by Windschuttle. When he was mentioned on a couple of social occasions, it was with laughter and contempt. Are you sure he's a scholarly participant in the topic? (I won't argue about "prominent". He is that. But not in a positive way.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

Race theories and practice in Australia in the 20th century 196.207.44.208 (talk) 06:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit semi-protected[edit]

In the Notable people section, for Belinda Dann, could you change deceased at 107 to longest known lived survivor and then put (1900-2007) next to her name?--2600:100C:A201:DA57:E107:4764:B6BA:AFC6 (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: It already says "deceased at 107 years of age making her the longest-lived member of the stolen generation" RudolfRed (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too many See Alsos?[edit]

Hello dear Wikipedians. While editing I realized there are a large quantity of See Also links - or, more than I am personally used to. I suggest that we cut down on these to maximize readability and prevent future readers from being overwhelmed by the many options. What do you think? Shall we cut down on these? If so, here are 2 possible pathways to reduce the size of the See Also.

Thank you and looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Evedawn99 (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2023[edit]

'The White Stolen Generations' section is irrelevant to main article and should be deleted. Instead, in the 'See also' section a link could be provided for 'Forced adoption in Australia'. Jack Charles should be added to 'Notable People' section. Contemporary child removal and discussions of a 'second Stolen Generation' should be included [1] AnElectricShangriLa (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions, AnElectricShangriLa. I have added Jack Charles, and moved and reduced the size of the section on white stolen generations, but IMO it deserves a mention to explain how and why that term was applied, specifically in Australia, so left it there for now. Others may disagree - happy to abide by consensus.
Agree that there should be mention of contemporary child removal - thanks for the link - but I don't have time for it now so will leave for someone else or another day. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

"Between one in ten and one in three children"[edit]

Although it makes perfect sense mathematically, using "between" in this way seems awkward. I might have expected instead something more like: "At least one in ten, but perhaps as many as one in three children ..." Toddcs (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent terminology[edit]

The terms used to refer to the affected children shifts around a lot in this article. Some of that seems due to direct quotes from different people or documents, but I noticed one point in the "policy in practice" section, which isn't clearly indicated as a quote, within the same sentence it uses both "half-caste" and "mixed-race" to refer to the same category of children. 2600:100A:B1E3:F50E:4C94:93A3:9918:5307 (talk) 06:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I read it, "half-caste" is only used in quotations or what are effectively quotations. It would be wrong to use it today outside quotations. "Mixed-race" is a term that wouldn't work to describe something happening in Australia today, but it's correct in the context of this article, where race was still a recognised concept for the duration of the stolen generations. HiLo48 (talk) 06:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]