> It is comments like these that make me very, very nervous about your
> position. If you said: this is another way of attempting to exterminate a
> people, but it is not genocide, I would accept your point.
That is one way of putting it.
> But that isn't what you are saying. You seem to imply that if
> you systematically removed children and indoctrinated them to the effect
> that they were not Aboriginal...
But that's not what the assimilationists did --- in effect, they told the Stolen Generations: "you are half castes and therefore inferior to white people, but at least you have the advantage that you are not full bloods and, if you accept our training with enthusiasm, you will have a better chance of producing descendants who are no longer discernibly Aboriginal". Thankfully, and needless to say, the racists "failed", at least in regard to the Stolen Generations.
> It's as if, in your view, a person could remain
> Aboriginal without having any awareness of the fact;
There are more than a few cases of people, for example the author Sally Morgan, who have "become" Aboriginal after discovering who their ancestors were, in spite of attempts by parents and/or other family members to conceal this. (They told Sally that they were Indian and/or Pacific Islanders. Which says something about contemporaneous attitudes in itself.) Morgan, in fact, is now accepted as Aboriginal by all concerned.
> or equally disturbing,
> as if the loss of linkage to Aboriginal tradition and society were small
> potatoes.
I do think the loss of tradition and society was tragic, but also that once _any_ settlement occurred, it became inevitable for a lot of people, especially in regions which were most densely settled by Europeans. I certainly do not think this was something which should have been supported or encouraged.
> Maybe I haven't understood what you are saying, so sorry if any
> of this sounds a little loopy.
Not nearly as loopy as Bill, so don't worry :-)
regards,
Grant.