Taking Back the Moral High Ground

The "stolen generations"

In past decades, the "cycle of poverty" amongst Aborigines was of great concern to many White Australians, whereby Aborigines would grow up in deprived circumstances in the outback, not attending schools regularly, not able to obtain regular employment, and then they would have children, who would follow the same pattern, thus continuing the same cycle.

As a result of these concerns, the "do-gooders" at that time decided to remove many Aboriginal children from families where they were considered "at risk", and place them in White-run institutions, or place them with White families, so that their health would be looked after, their education would be good, they would have a better chance of finding work, and the "cycle of poverty" would be broken, leading to new generations of Aborigines who had better survival rates (avoiding the high child mortality rates of Aborigines in the outback), and who were to be better educated and therefore hopefully more economically successful.

Of course, in the 1990s, it was decided by a new generation of "do-gooders" that the previous attempt to remove Aboriginal children from the "cycle of poverty" was actually a form of cultural genocide; these "do-gooders" claiming that the Australian government should apologise to Aborigines for what was, in fact, a sincere attempt to help the Aboriginal people break out of the poverty cycle. In effect, the "do-gooders" had created the situation, and then the "do-gooders" were claiming restitution - if this wasn't so outrageous and unbelievable, it would be funny.

Michael Duffy wrote in The Spectator in 2000 that,

    Racism is an extraordinarily potent issue in Australian politics these days. Although only about 2 per cent of people are Aborigines, issues involving them have become some of the main points of difference between the two major political parties. The latest explosion occurred earlier this month over a phenomenon known colloquially as 'the stolen generations'.

    In the first 60 or so years of the last century some part-Aboriginal children were separated from their parents and, in most cases, brought up in church institutions or boarding schools. 'Bringing Them Home', a government inquiry report published in the 1990s, found that this occurred to between 10 and 30 per cent of all Aborigines and that the predominant motive was racial assimilation. It concluded that the ultimate purpose was to 'breed out the colour' and destroy the Aboriginal race (it was assumed full-bloods would die off anyway), the practice amounted to genocide. This inquiry received an enormous amount of publicity and, building on other concerns about Aboriginal wellbeing, has created an atmosphere of enthusiastic shame surrounding the discussion of such issues.

    The problem is that there appears to be little truth in the report. The inquiry's attempts to identify how many children were separated were futile, but 10 per cent was probably the top of the range rather than the bottom. (This is the figure provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.) The inquiry did not interview any of the officials involved in the separations. They have subsequently come forward and helped establish that the motive for the separations was often welfare, not racial assimilation. For instance, some tribes in the late 1940s refused to accept the children born of liaisons between black women and Australian or American servicemen during the war. So their mothers asked the welfare people to take the children to church homes to he brought up.

    Mothers asked the white authorities to look after their children in many other circumstances, too. Charles Perkins is the most famous black activist in Australia. He was heard recently on the BBC predicting that Sydney would burn during Aboriginal protests at the Olympics. He is often portrayed as a stolen child, but in fact his mother asked that he be sent from the outback to a boarding school in the city to get a good education (just as white children in the same circumstances were also sent).

    ...The word 'racist' is used in Australia with surprising frequency. A fortnight ago it was revealed that the government believes the term 'the stolen generations' is hardly justified if the number separated (let alone 'stolen') is no more than 10 per cent. This led to a phenomenal uproar and Howard and his ministers were denounced as racists.

    It is enough to diverge from the Labor party's presumed moral monopoly to be branded racist. To refuse to apologise on behalf of the nation for 'the stolen generations' (as the Prime Minister is constantly badgered to do) is racist. Merely to seek the truth is racist. The government's modest comment on 'the stolen generations' was compared by some, on newspaper front pages, with denial of the Holocaust.

Other issues regarding Aborigines have arisen, whereby the media is quick to jump on the bandwagon and push a guilt trip upon the general Australian public, often on issues of dubious validity, and without any thorough and critical examination of the facts involved.

Usually, any critical review of the actual facts behind such false "White guilt" issues does not come out until after a long period of media front-page breast-beating, berating Australia as a whole for the publicized racial problem of the day, in effect, placing yet another guilt trip upon White Australians, whilst increasing a falsely-induced level of indignation and anger amongst Aborigines, encouraging a hatred of White Australians. Naturally, when contrary facts are revealed, the media gives them little or no attention; thus the real facts are concealed, whilst the "White guilt complex" remains, reinforced, which acts as a moral underpinning for future Multiculturalist actions.

Graeme Campbell and Mark Uhlmann, in Australia Betrayed, have revealed that, despite the media hype surrounding the question of Aboriginal deaths in police custody, the rates are proportionately similar to that of White deaths in custody.

    Aboriginal Affairs Minister Robert Tickner has for some time strongly backed proposed racial vilification laws. He is reported as saying in the Sydney Morning Herald of 16 March, 1992, "The report on racial violence took a strong stand on that issue as did the royal commission report [into black deaths in custody] and I do believe it's a key issue." He neglects to mention the shoddy quality of the Moss report and the fact that the Royal Commission, for all its value to lawyers and its moralising, found that the proportion of whites who died in custody was actually higher than Aboriginals. What was disproportionate was the Aboriginal arrest rate.

    The Institute of Criminology issued another survey in 1992, changing the definition of "custody" previously used, which purported to show that marginally more blacks than whites on a proportional basis die in custody than whites. On a numerical basis the survey still showed that far more whites than blacks died in custody.

    However another Institute of Criminology researcher, David McDonald, in partnership with West Australian Health Department Surveyor, Neil Thompson, found white and black deaths in custody to be proportionally about equal. ("Jail death risk equal for blacks, whites", The Australian 1 November 1993). This study examined all 527 deaths in custody from 1980 to 1989 and is the most comprehensive to date. Once again the researchers said they expected to find that, proportionally, many more blacks than whites died in custody. It is simply not the case, yet given all the previous publicity, any black death in custody is given wide coverage and produces a strongly emotional response, which is quickly manipulated by vested interests.

    The impression is still deliberately given and widely believed that proportionally far more Aboriginals die in custody than whites.

There is often a lack of journalistic inquiry and integrity displayed when reporting on "minority" issues. Compare the favourable reporting received by ethnic leaders to almost any media report on the activities and views of Nationalists.

The Hindmarsh Bridge issue was another example of deliberately shoddy and biased media reporting. Michael Duffy gave a background to the story:

    Unfortunately, this enthusiastic embrace of falsehood and delusion by many white Australians is typical of their approach to Aboriginal matters. In another famous episode in the 1990s a small number of black women fabricated a religious cult known as 'secret women's business' to stop a bridge being built to Hindmarsh Island in South Australia. This became an enormous story and the Labor government of the day banned the bridge. When other members of the local tribe exposed the fraud, they were ignored by virtually all the journalists, anthropologists, politicians and churchmen who had got themselves involved. Clearly, a tale of black suffering and white guilt is far more important to these people than truth.[62]

Graeme Campbell and Mark Uhlmann have outlined the media's tactics in regard to such issues.

    The general method of attack in these media campaigns is simple and ancient. On the basis of an element of truth and parading the supposed high morality of the cause, a problem is highlighted. Highly emotional and exaggerated claims are made about the extent of the problem, often based on dodgy statistics and surveys. Calls are made for witches to be burnt and for increased resources to favoured groups to combat the problem, so increasing their influence and power.

    If it is found, or admitted, much later that the campaign was based on misleading material, even deliberately misleading, the money will not be taken back, the laws will still stand and the corpses will remain burnt. We certainly cannot rely upon fair minded reports from parliamentary committees. Quite often such committee reports are effectively part of the lobbying.

There is no doubt that the future will see more "White guilt" campaigns by the media, based upon dubious issues. The pattern of media propaganda ignoring or hiding the full truth will remain the same.

The White "stolen generations"

Virtually ignored throughout the long-lasting debate on what the media came to call the "stolen generations", were the "stolen generations" of White children.

Due to society's attitudes in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, single mothers were often forced to give up their children for adoption. The Herald Sun reported on the case.

    Single mums whose babies were forcibly adopted between the late 1950s and early 1970s are fighting for the State Government to fulfill its pledge to investigate their plight... Ms Edwards [convenor of the mothers' representative group, Origins Vic] said many babies were taken away immediately after birth, while some women were told their babies had died.[64]

Also, there were the "stolen generations" of British children exported by the British government to Australia, with the assistance and support of the Australian government. The Age reported in 2001 on this issue:

    Richard King wants to go home. Fifty years ago, he and his brother and sister were among thousands of "child migrants" sent from Britain to Australia to a lonely and often brutal life in orphanages and work farms. Today, Mr King is angry at the governments responsible for the ordeal from which he and his family have never recovered, and which he said drove his brother to suicide two years ago."

    ...A Senate inquiry next month will hear evidence from Mr King and more than 100 other former child migrants about their experience of being "deported" to Australia, but the Federal Government has made it clear that neither an apology nor compensation will be forthcoming.

There was also a overlap between the issue of the "stolen generations" of British children and the issue of single mothers being forced to give up their children for adoption in Australia, as The Age further reported, as part of the same article, on the plight of one of the British child migrants.

    A 67-year old Bundoora woman described being the victim of rape, and subsequently being forced to give up her baby by nuns at an Adelaide orphanage.[66]

Yet, these issues never received anything like the publicity that the media gave to the Aboriginal "stolen generations" issue; nor did it achieve the same, or even proportionate, outcry and effort that Multiculturalists gave for the Aboriginal "stolen generations".

Why didn't these poor people receive the large-scale support of the Multiculturalists, especially the Multiculturalist-dominated media?

There are several reasons for this lack of media attention:

    1) Because the victims were the wrong colour.
    2) Because the victims did not fit the mould for Multiculturalist propaganda.
    3) Because the victims' tragedy did not further the cause of encouraging "White guilt".
    4) Because Multiculturalists are racist - against Whites.

Taking Back the Moral High Ground