On Sun, 25 Nov 2012, Carl Turney <carl@boms.com.au> wrote:
The issue is not the overall survival rate but whether children were removed from safe family environments for no good reason.
Hmm, "no good reason". I personally consider saving as many children's lives as possible, using the most effective remedies known of at the time, as being a fairly good reason.
Removing children from safe environments is not "saving lives", it's recklessly putting their lives at risk given the possibilities of orphanages etc not working out well.
So I guess "they were all a pack of filthy racists, hell-bent on eradicating the Aboriginal People" must be much more logically patent and better-supported by the body of evidence.
It was a racially based policy.
In spite of the numerous accounts of sexual/physical/psychological abuse in foster homes and orphanages, I understand it was still significantly better for them (overall) than if they had not been removed.
The issue is not whether the damage that was done to the entire Aboriginal population by removing children from their families was worse than the damage that would have been done if no child had ever been removed from abusive parents.
Thank you for rephrasing my statement to its exact opposite, and then discounting it as irrelevant. Quite entertaining.
That is a false claim, I've pasted in your original text to keep the context. Feel free to address my point if you wish, but don't just delete your original claim and make stuff up.
My apologies... I had NO idea that you (or any other individual or group) had been empowered with deciding what is or isn't an issue to consider when addressing one of the most emotionally-charged and divisive topics of today's Australia.
I have the same right to make such decisions as you do. If you were less arrogant you would realise it.
There is also the issue of whether there are other interventions that could be done to improve things which didn't involve removing children from their parents.
How evil and sadistic of our elders, 50-100 years ago (?), to not have accurately predicted and employed modern-day preferred social service solutions. Thank you for the inspiration and new standards to follow.
I merely believe that they should have treated everyone equally regardless of skin colour. I don't think I'm being at all unreasonable.
But that's probably because I'm a Mensan with multiple and diverse degrees.
Consider what abilities are required to be successful in the FOSS community before trying to boast about such things.
It's true, as a mere (l)user in the FOSS community, I'm ill-equipped to comment in this forum on The Stolen Generation. My general intelligence,
I was obviously too subtle. I disagree with your arrogance. You seem to think that being in the top 2% according to an IQ test makes you special in some way. Around here that's not the case at all. Anyone who is good enough at computer programming to be well regarded for it in the FOSS community will make that grade easily. Your implication that I might be impressed by Mensa membership is insulting.
childhood of psychological abuse, Masters in Public Policy, and 59-year lifetime as the member of minorities much smaller than the Aboriginal one, are useless.
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Oppression_Olympics In discussions about treatment of minority groups that's referred to as Oppression Olympics. The above URL is one of many addressing it, I suggest you do a Google search and read a few others too. Being a member of a minority group can help give you a better insight on the disadvantages that other groups have. But that's not guaranteed. Sometimes members of minority groups are epically unsympathetic to members of other groups. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/