Hi all,
The standards that the British government had agreed to prior to colonising Australia prohibited treating people the way they treated Aboriginies, they just didn't regard Aboriginies as people.
Loopholes are =so= convenient... The USA refused to declare war on Vietnam, therefore they felt UNbound to the Geneva Convention. So they used Napalm, shotguns, hollow-point bullets, Agent Orange, torture, summary execution and a wide range of other prohibited weapons and tactics.
Read about the Stolen Generations. That sort of thing is unethical by any set of ethical standards apart from those which are actively racist.
Sorry, but that statement strikes me as being directly at odds with substantial empirical evidence. Many families adopted those children, loved them, and strived to raise them as equals to their own children. There were true beliefs by many at the time that pure Aboriginal races and cultures were unlikely to survive in the long term. The survival rate of forcibly removed Aboriginal children was far greater than their cohorts who remained in traditional settings. 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. I myself strive to not speak out on a subject, or take a passionate stance on one, until after I've adequately studied all major sides of it. But that's probably because I'm a Mensan with multiple and diverse degrees. Carl