British family refused service from "People of colour" or peeps with accent.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why is it their land? Because they got there first.

Actually, the reason they took the children away is so that they were raised in normal households, rather than violent drunk infested communities. Right or wrong, what won't be talked about it that it did work.

Anyways, I refuse to play these silly games of ignore the rest of the country and focus on one point. Whereas, ghettos line America and are in every single city. Furthermore, it's downright hypocritical that any American would dare mention them; considering what you guys did to the American Indians was 100 fold worse. Let's not forget the Canadian Aborigines.

Seriously, you think that is hypocritical?

I'll tell you what is hypocritical. It's one thing to come from a country which has historically benefited from slavery and exploitation, its quite another to take a position that denies those abuses or actually attempts to justify them, as you have done.

Why can't you be honest about you own country's dark past?

Imagine if a German took the same position on The Holocaust that you have done with the stolen generation. What would you call that?

Edited April 25, 2010 by Its a MADHOUSE

[Laveau 67]

I don't think there's anything wrong with asking that.

But all the people would have to do, to determine the race of a particular neighbourhood, was to sit outside a school when it lets out for the day.

This is not always true. I work at a high school in a predominately White neighborhood. Houses average $400K each. But watch who goes to school there. It's predominately Mexicans who are bussed. A lot of the people who live in the neighborhood send their children to private schools.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Stolen Generations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Stolen Children" redirects here. For the film, see The Stolen Children.

A fictional portrayal entitled The Taking of the Children on the recently installed (1999) Great Australian Clock, Queen Victoria Building, Sydney, by artist Chris Cook.

The so-called Stolen Generations (also Stolen children) is a term used to describe those children of Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent who were removed from their families by the Australian Federal and State government agencies and church missions, under actsof their respective parliaments. The removals occurred in the period between approximately 1869^[1] and 1969,^[2][3] although in some places children were still being taken in the 1970s.^[4]

The extent of the removal of children, and the reasoning behind their removal, are contested. Documentary evidence, such as newspaper articles and reports to parliamentary committees, suggest a range of rationales. Motivations evident include child protection, beliefs that given their catastrophic population decline after white contact that black people would "die out",^[5] a fear of miscegenation by full blooded aboriginal people ^[6]and a desire to attain white racial purity.^{[7][not in citation given]} Terms such as "stolen" were used in the context of taking children from their families – the Hon P. McGarry, a member of the Parliament of New South Wales, objected to the Aborigines Protection Amending Act 1915 which then enabled the Aborigines' Protection Board to remove Aboriginal children from their parents without having to establish that they were in any way neglected or mistreated; McGarry described the policy as "steal[ing] the child away from its parents".^[8] In 1924,^[9] in the Adelaide Sun an article stated "The word 'stole' may sound a bit far-fetched but by the time we have told the story of the heart-broken Aboriginal mother we are sure the word will not be considered out of place

Link as it is a long articlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations

[luckytxn 2,265]

Since British colonisation

British colonisation of Australia began with the arrival of the First Fleet in Botany Bay in 1788.

A small pox epidemic, which is believed to have been introduced by the macassans ^[20] is estimated to have killed up to 90% of the local Darug people in 1789 and has often been attributed to be caused by white settlers.

Wurundjeri people at the signing of Batman's Treaty, 1835.

A consequence of British settlement was appropriation of land and water resources, which continued throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries as rural lands were converted for sheep and cattle grazing

[spookyturtle 9,466]

You really are stupid.