History and Australian indigenous child welfare policies

摘要

The term 'apologist' refers to writers defending Aboriginal child-removal policies. They argue that the policies were beneficial and intended to protect children, and that systematic mistreatment never occurred and parents supported the interventions. I locate the apologetic literature in larger accounts of child welfare. Their ethical framework is established and attention is given to question of ethical relativism with specific attention to Windschuttle. While querying the empirical value of apologist writing it is argued that they produce accounts of policy that are not morally defensible, evident in their framing of events, the omission of critical material and absence of significant scholarship.