Home > Stolen Generation

The nature of the removals, their extent, and its effects on those removed, is a topic of considerable dispute and political debate within Australia to the point that the term "Stolen Generation" is often referred to in the media as the "so-called Stolen Generation".

According to a government enquiry on the topic, at least 30,000 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). Percentage estimates were given that 10-30% of all Aboriginal children born during the seventy year period were removed.

Similar actions were undertaken in the United States, where Native children, such as Apaches were taken and put up for adoptions, and in Canada (where children were sent to residential schools).

1 The Policy in Theory

Although children of full Aboriginal descent were removed, in general the children of "mixed descent" (having one or more European ancestors) were the most targeted. A 1937 national government conference on "Native Welfare" concluded in its final report that "... the destiny of the natives of aboriginal origin, but not of the full blood, lies in their ultimate absorption by the people of the Commonwealth, and it therefore recommends that all efforts be directed to that end."

Therefore the aim of the policy was twofold, both of which are now considered highly racist: one was to assimilate mixed-descent Aborigines into the European society and culture. (Full-blooded Aborigines were considered too 'uncivilized' to be assimilated.) The other was to ensure mixed-descent Aborigines would intermarry with Caucasians rather than with Aborigines; although the Darwinist ideology prevalent at the time hold that the Aboriginal race would sooner or later die out, it was decided that the process was to be hastened by eventually 'breeding' the Aboriginal race out of existence.

2 The Policy in Practice

A recent government report noted that removals were certainly voluntary in some cases, as some mothers surrendered their children due to believing themselves unable to raise them for some reason. However a substantial body of evidence was gathered that indicated that in a disturbing number of cases children were forcibly removed from their parents using "force or duress". In general the practice was to remove children between the ages of two and four, although in some cases children were removed just hours after birth.

The official report observed that in many cases gross violations of human rights occurred. Children were in some cases forcibly removed from their mother's arms while still in the hospital. Other evidence gathered indicated that deception and brutality was used to remove the children. One account referring to events in 1935Events January January 1 Italian colonies of Tripoli and Kyrenaika are joined together as Libya January 7 World War II: Italian premier Benito Mussolini and French foreign minister Pierre Laval conclude agreement in which each power undertakes not to oppo stated that...

"I was at the post office with my Mum and Auntie [and cousin]. They put us in the police [vehicle] and said they were taking us to Broome. They put the mums in there as well. But when we'd gone [about ten miles] 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." [1]

The official report closely examined the distinctions between "forcible removal", "removal under threat or duress", "official deception", "uninformed voluntary release", and "voluntary release". Even in the latter case, there was evidence that in some cases Aboriginal parents voluntarily sent their children to religious missions, 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. With regard to official deception, the report identified several cases where parents were told by government officials that their children had died, even though this was not the case.

The report also acknowledged that in several cases the state took responsibility for children that were genuinely orphaned or in a state of neglect. Defenders of the removals, in fact, claim that mixed-race children were often severely neglected within Aboriginal communities. The evidence gathered also indicated a substantial number of cases where the care of the children after removal was extremely good. Nonetheless, the report condemned the policy of disconnecting children from their "cultural heritage". In the testimony of one Aboriginal; "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". [2]

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. 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. The report went on to note that "...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." Incidence of sexual abuse were disturbingly high, overall 17% of females and 8% of males reported experiencing some form of sexual abuse while under institutional or foster care. [3]

The social impacts of forced removal have been measured and found to be quite severe. 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. 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. 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.

It should be noted that Aboriginal children were not the only group to go through forced permanent removal from their families during this period. In the 1950sCenturies: 19th century 20th century 21st century Decades: 1900s 1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s Years: 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 Events and trends Technology United States tests the first fusion bomb. and 1960sCenturies: 19th century 20th century 21st century Decades: 1900s 1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Years: 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 Events and trends The 1960s was a turbulent decade of change around, children removed from their families for various reasons and varying levels of consent, were sent from the United KingdomThe United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a state in Western Europe, usually known simply as the United Kingdom the UK Britain or less accurately as Great Britain . The UK was formed by a series of Acts of Union which united the formerly to orphanages in Australia and Canada, where some experienced similar abuse to the stolen generation and were also left without family connections. See child migration .

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 entirely legal under Australian Law. Likewise, even though the actions may have contravened International Law, ruling on such a basis is outside the jurisdiction of Australian courts. At least two compensation claims have passed through the Australian courts and failed. The presiding judge noted in his summary judgement that he was not ruling that there would never be valid cases for compensation with regard to the Stolen Generation, only that in these specific two cases he could not find evidence of illegal conduct by the officials involved.