They were trying to assimilate those children who were the offspring of an aboriginal

Assimilation was – at a policy level – to be accomplished by removing children from their parents and placing them with white families. Do you believe that removing children from their mothers and placing them in the care of white families for the purpose of “assimilation” is a legitimate objective? Surely it’s extreme? If assimilation is your purpose, your objective must be to erase the difference between black and white? Why is it necessary to break up families to accomplish that? Wouldn’t a bit of “political correctness” pointing out that black skin is no barrier to success in life be enough?
Why didn’t the governments simply declare aboriginal people to be full citizens worthy of equal protection?

There was no place for these children in full-blood society because they did not have any male protectors or mentors, because the child’s father, paternal uncles, was not a member of the tribe.

This – to me – is a spectacularly interesting viewpoint. Firstly you assume that there is such a thing as “full blood” society. Please provide me with some evidence that aboriginal mothers loved their children less because the fathers were white (see second point below).

Secondly you can only assert the existence of a full blood/half breed distinction by accepting that the fathers were white. Why?

Because the missions were casual brothels. The white lads would set out on a Saturday night and “have it away” with the “gins”. Who, if they became pregnant, would give the children the fathers surname on the birth certificate – so as to put their “paw on the bone”. (In the area where I grew up there are quite a number of half-caste people who share surnames with well known local white families – including my own. This is entirely unremarkable in the area, but the implications are never spoken about.)

So the reason why those kids had no father is because the father was white and would not acknowledge paternity.

Given that refusal to acknowledge paternity what would be the best public policy from the childrens point of view? Force the fathers to care for their children perhaps? Or force the children into semi-slavery?

Guess what happened.

Your argument proceeds as follows:- aboriginal mothers had half caste kids whose fathers didn’t acknowledge them, there was no “full blood” black guy to take responsibility for children who were not his own, while the real – white – father ran away.

Therefore punish the kid. And blame the black guys who refused to accept a responsibility that they never had.

As I said, risible.

I could tear the remainder of your comment apart in the same way, but it’s not worth it.

Sorry, I’m away for a few days (heading for the airport in about 30 minutes) and will have to come back and give you a more detailed response later.

I’ll see you then.

Your definition of ‘genocide’ is not the same as the UNs, as assimilation is NOT “genocide” nor is “cultural” genocide (whatever that means)

Now if the non-Aboriginal father did the right thing and stayed with the aboriginal mother and they raised their half-caste child, then that child never entered the mission system, or other destinations – such as stations – of non-full bloods who were either forced away or left their traditional ‘tribe’ voluntarily. However, as we sadly know, the non-aboriginal father was more likely to choof off, leavimng the aboriginal (or part) and the half-caste/quadroon kids with no home, no education, no skills, little effective kin support. This is how the missions evolved.

Now as we know even from our housing commission hell-holes today, children born into single-parent welfare homes and communities are on a highway to hell. It was little different back then.

As the numbers of these half-castes/quadroons/octoroons dramatically grew, so too did their social dissolution. There was much debate about what could be done for them. The idea of ‘breeding out the color’ was to encourage, to say ‘you know guys, white europeans and the indigenous aborigines can quite happily marry each, thus assimilating the non-full bloods fully into broader Australian life’ rather than letting the half-castes fester in the netherworld between the still functional, but independent, self-sufficient full-bloods and the broader european Australia.

You seem to think it was evil to desire aboriginal women and half-castes to marry Europeans, and other races. Jeesuz, in many parts of the world this form of miscegenation is still seen as disgusting, perverse even. But here we have not only official blessing of inter-racial marriage, but its encouragement from as early as the 1930s!

So what’s your beef? You do know that in 2010, 60% of Aborigines marry non-Aborigines

Not at all, JM. The Turks so far as I know never required “industrial strength death camps” in order to engage in genocide of the Armenians. They simply gathered them up and walked them into the Syrian desert.

What!? Now you will really need some evidence for that nonsense.

… were actually real physical actions.

So grabbing children and carting them off are just “virtual” actions are they?

Finally, the state can’t force people to marry.

This is a strawman. The state removed girls at the youngest age possible and placed them in white society to socialize them and make them marriagable.

Peter. What were the intentions of the people who wrote the words “breeding out the color”? What were they up to? What were they trying to achieve?

What was who up to?

“Breeding out the color” was an eccentric idea of a small number of bureaucrats, whose aims far from being racist and genocidal were premised on the idea of racial affinity between caucasians and Aborigines.

As half-castes, quadroons, etc. were banished from full-blood society, the idea was to encourage half-castes to marry whites. Now, I am sorry, if you think that is genocide you need your head read. Paternalistic, absolutely, and ultimately a failure due to administrative impossibility and lack of legal power. Finally, the state can’t force people to marry.

Part of your problem is you grab onto glittering million dollar phrases like “breeding out the color” and present them as though the existence of the words/phrases themselves were actually real physical actions.

What was their intention? What were they up to?