Australians Are C***s:

A Satirical Look at the Country’s Reluctance to Confront Its History of Forced Adoptions.

9 min readDec 19, 2024

Australia, the so-called lucky country, excels at two things: barbecue and brushing off uncomfortable truths. While the first is harmless enough, the latter has catastrophic consequences – especially for the thousands of families fractured by forced adoption policies and their modern equivalents in child welfare.

In this sunburned land of mateship and mediocrity, meaningful reconciliation is dismissed as “divisive,” systemic reform is labeled “communist,” and calls for justice are met with a resounding *“just move on!”*

Let’s face it – Australia, for all its “fair go” rhetoric, remains allergic to any genuine reckoning with its ugly history. Whether it’s systemic racism, stolen generations, or forced adoptions, the nation’s collective response can be summed up as: *“Can’t we just move on, mate?”* Spoiler alert: no, we can’t.

Take the deeply entrenched resistance to the apology for forced adoptions, where policies ripped children from their families to serve the state’s assimilationist fantasies. Combine that with the so-called “debate” around land acknowledgments and reconciliation, and you’ve got a toxic brew of privilege, ignorance, and unrelenting denial.

Let’s unpack the Shane Bouel-Bette Hough-Ross Hardman trifecta, shall we? Bouel, a person of forced adoption, expresses a perfectly reasonable *“I will never forgive Australia!”* – a sentiment born of state-sanctioned family destruction and ongoing systemic harm. Enter Bette Hough, delivering the classic bogan rebuttal: *“Then LEAVE!”* Not satisfied with just one jab, Hough doubles down, questioning why Bouel is even complaining.

Ah, the quintessential Australian clapback: dismiss, deflect, and deny.

Then there’s Ross Hardman, swooping in with a vile “joke” about being hit with a Nulla Nulla as a child – because when in doubt, trivialize trauma and invoke colonial stereotypes. In this country, you’re not just encouraged to “move on” – you’re actively mocked for daring to demand accountability.

A Nation of Amnesiacs.

This isn’t just about online trolls, though. Bouel’s critics are parroting the mainstream Australian ethos: *“There’s nothing to reconcile. Stop reinventing history and look to the future.”* This sentiment, dripping with privilege, was perfectly articulated by commenter Kevin Loughrey, who dismisses reconciliation as a communist invention.

You know what’s real, Kevin? Families torn apart by policies rooted in control, racism, and classism. The ongoing surveillance and criminalization of vulnerable families – especially Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ones – by the very systems that inflicted these harms in the first place.

But sure, let’s “pay our respects” to settlers and soldiers, as though they were merely innocent victims of history and not active agents in colonization and assimilation.

But We Apologized!

Australia loves symbolic gestures, provided they don’t cost a cent or threaten the status quo. A Welcome to Country here, an apology there – just enough to ease white guilt without addressing the systemic rot.

What gets ignored? The welfare systems that continue to surveil, punish, and erode the dignity of families. The absence of reparations for the children stolen, the mothers silenced, and the intergenerational trauma inflicted.

Forced adoption isn’t just a historical footnote – it’s a template for ongoing abuses. But instead of dismantling these systems, Australians prefer to argue about whether *traditional ownership* is real.

“If You Don’t Like It, Leave!”

This refrain is as Australian as meat pies and casual racism. Shane Bouel moved to Bali – a move Hough sees as disqualifying him from criticizing the country. That logic would be laughable if it weren’t so sinister. It’s the rhetorical equivalent of *“love it or leave it”*: a silencing tactic meant to uphold privilege and suppress dissent.

Time to Grow Up.

Australia’s reluctance to engage with its dark past isn’t just embarrassing – it’s self-defeating. A nation that refuses to reckon with its history can never truly progress.

You can keep shouting “move on” all you like, but until you confront the harm done by forced adoptions, stolen generations, and ongoing systemic abuses, you’re just treading water in the shallow end of history.

Our Representatives

Take the comments of Kevin Loughrey, whose contribution to the discourse drips with privilege, historical revisionism, and an alarming disdain for accountability:

“There is nothing to reconcile. This matter is intended to divide us. There is no such thing as ‘traditional ownership.’ It was an invention of the communists to create a victim class they could exploit to divide this nation.
The people we Australians should pay our respects to are the early settlers and the men and women who fought in a succession of wars to safeguard the sovereignty of this nation.
So let’s stop trying to reinvent history and look to the future.”

His second comment

Shane Bouel just about everything you’ve written here is a perversion of fact. The records don’t support your distorted version of the past.
Your knowledge of what happened is a product of a mendacious education.
For example, the stolen generation was an obscene fabrication by. Marxists which, when finally put to trial, showed there was no case to answer. In both cases, Peter Gunner and Lorna Cabillo, the authorities acted in the best interests of the child.
Even now, if you Google the subject you will find Marxist drivel, the objective of which is to destroy national self esteem.

Let’s take this apart.

No Such Thing as “Traditional Ownership”?

Here, Loughrey embodies the quintessential Australian reluctance to engage with historical and systemic injustices. His argument hinges on the fantasy that acknowledging harm divides the nation, as if denial were a unifying force. Spoiler: it’s not.

Kevin’s response represents a textbook example of historical denialism. His claim that forced adoption and the Stolen Generations are “fabrications” designed to destroy national self-esteem ignores a mountain of documented evidence, survivor testimonies, government apologies, and inquiries such as the *Bringing Them Home* report.

To suggest that systemic removal of children was in the “best interests of the child” is a gross oversimplification that ignores the real intent: assimilation, control, and erasure of cultures deemed undesirable. The cases of Peter Gunner and Lorna Cubillo, which Kevin cites, are often weaponized by denialists, despite their unique legal contexts that did not disprove the broader existence or impact of these policies.

Kevin’s dismissal of survivors’ experiences as “Marxist drivel” is not just an insult to those who suffered but also a disservice to the nation’s understanding of its own history. Historical reckoning isn’t about destroying national pride; it’s about confronting past injustices to build a more equitable future.

Such denial perpetuates harm by invalidating lived experiences and ignoring the systemic issues that continue today, from overrepresentation of Indigenous children in foster care to the ongoing surveillance of vulnerable families. To trivialize this history is not only inaccurate but deeply harmful to those still living with its intergenerational consequences.

Kevin’s version of “national self-esteem” comes at the cost of truth, justice, and reconciliation – a price too high for any nation claiming to value fairness and equality.

Forced adoptions and stolen generations didn’t happen in a vacuum. They were deliberate state policies rooted in the same logic that denies Indigenous sovereignty and rejects the existence of traditional ownership. Denial doesn’t erase the fact that Indigenous peoples lived here for tens of thousands of years before colonization or that forced adoptions were a tool of erasure for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous families who didn’t fit the state’s vision of a “better” Australia.

“Move On,” They Say.

When people like Loughrey insist there’s “nothing to reconcile,” they’re really saying the burden of trauma should be borne by those who’ve already suffered the most. This refusal to reckon with systemic harm perpetuates the very divisions they claim to despise.

To dismiss forced adoptions, as Loughrey and his ilk do, is to ignore the ongoing surveillance and criminalization of vulnerable families – especially Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families – by welfare systems. The policies may have changed their names, but their impact is as devastating as ever.

Kevin Loughrey for Senate? Let’s Break It Down.

Kevin, your comments overlook the deeper, systemic issues at play here. This isn’t just about identity or access to resources – it’s about the deliberate, state-sanctioned destruction of families through policies rooted in racism, classism, and control. Forced removals, whether through adoption, fostering, or welfare interventions, were never about the best interests of the child – they were about erasing families, cultures, and communities.

Where is the outrage at politicians and systems that continue to perpetuate these harms? Welfare records still criminalize families, particularly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families, for generations. The same government bodies that tore families apart still operate unchecked, labeling, surveilling, and punishing the vulnerable while hiding behind symbolic gestures.

It’s easy to talk about a child’s right to identity or a parent’s access to resources – but what about dismantling the systems that deny these rights in the first place? What about accountability for the harm caused by policies designed to assimilate, control, and erase?

This is bigger than one aspect of the issue – it’s about standing with all families impacted by removal practices and pushing for real systemic reform. Until we address these foundational issues, everything else is just talk.

Let’s not forget that these are systemic human rights violations perpetrated by state and federal governments. These policies weren’t accidents or isolated cases – they were deliberate acts of control and assimilation, targeting the most vulnerable families. And let’s be clear: the harm caused by these practices isn’t just in the past. It continues to affect people today and will impact generations into the future.

If you’re unable to grasp the gravity of these ongoing injustices or recognize the need for systemic reform, then perhaps it’s time to step aside and let those who truly understand fight for justice and accountability. These aren’t abstract issues – they’re real lives, real families, and real trauma that demand action, not just words.

Kevin, your comment highlights a profound misunderstanding of both historical fact and contemporary discourse. My career in vocational education didn’t exactly intersect with the nuances of forced adoption policy – unless you count a Certificate IV in greyhound racing, which ironically seems more thorough in record-keeping than your grasp of history.
The Stolen Generations and forced adoption practices are not “Marxist fabrications.” They are well-documented systemic policies, acknowledged by governmental inquiries, survivor testimonies, and even formal apologies from state and federal leaders. To dismiss this as “mendacious education” or “Marxist drivel” is a tired denialist trope that does nothing but perpetuate ignorance.
As for your advice to Google, it seems like you’ve chosen some exceptionally selective results. Maybe it’s time to retire to the racetrack, mate – your grasp of historical accuracy is about as reliable as a long shot at Sandown Park!