not stolen?

[cbr_girl]

this is a facinating article...

i'd love to know more... i don't know enough about this time. i guess it all depends on how you define 'stolen' as the article mentioned, if someone is taken for welfare reasons... can you say they were stolen.. if they only were taken for the fact they were black kids.. then yes... i'm so confused. Leave a comment

Comments

[alivicwil]

sorry, but I couldn't finish that article.

Made me too cranky.

If you read the Bringing Them Home report, there is documented evidence of children being removed because they are "black" - next to Reason: "black".

The author sites the case of a woman who was duped into signing a release form, and mocks her - she gave away her child willingly, he argues. Not if she couldn't read English, and was told her boy was going to get medical care. Or not if she was told he was going to a party -- that happened, too. Parties were held, children were invited. Parents brought them, then were told to leave. Never saw their children again.

'Welfare' was a very different kettle of fish back in the day. Today, children are taken away for domestic violence, drug abuse, sexual abuse etc... Back 'in the day' domestic violence wasn't looked at; but aboriginal children were taken away from their families because, on welfare grounds, they weren't wearing shoes, or eating white right, or getting a (white) education, or being taught the right

[cbr_girl]

Not argumentative at all.. informative, the whole reason i posted it, i don't know enough to make an educated statement on the situation and the more people tell me the more informed i become,

I don't wade into these discussions simply because i don't know..

I thank you.. i thank you a lot for this info and will keep listening and reading to find out all i can.

Thanks again!! :)