1. Around the turn of the twentieth century, officials across Australia began putting into place policies whereby children of loving indigenous families -- especially mixed-race children -- could easily be taken away by the state. Which of these arguments was widely used at the time to justify the removal of mixed-race children from loving homes? The fact of their heritage left mixed-race children unable to be truly happy in an indigenous setting; they needed white influence in their lives. As products of miscegenation, mixed-race children suffered particularly from "original sin" and needed particularly strict guidance. Their heritage made mixed-race children "superior" to their purely indigenous relatives, who had not "earned" such children. Indigenous culture was doomed to extinction, but mixed-race children could be "saved" by assimilating them into white culture.

2. As tens of thousands of children were removed from their homes, state and local governments were faced with the Herculean task of finding places for all of them to live. Which of these was NOT routinely used as a possible placement option for indigenous and mixed-race children parted from their families? Religious institutions and orphanages Government-run institutions and orphanages Foster families with non-indigenous parents Foster families with indigenous parents

3. Some Australian states skipped the niceties entirely and simply placed all indigenous and mixed-race children under the official guardianship of the Chief Protector of Aborigines, without making any determination as to the fitness of the parents. In 1905, which of these jurisdictions became the first to pass such an Aborigines Act? Western Australia New South Wales Tasmania Australian Capital Territory

4. Families could be stricken by this policy in multiple generations. Author Doris Pilkington Garimara did not see her mother between the ages of four and twenty-five; it was only as an adult that she realized her mother, too, had been taken from her family as a child. What book did Garimara write about this time in history, describing her mother?s efforts to escape to her family? Follow the Rabbit Proof Fence Funerals and Circuses Caprice: A Stockman's Daughter Unbranded

5. Members of the "Stolen Generation" were removed from their indigenous birth families for the express purpose of assimilating them into white Australian culture. According to a 1990s government inquiry, which of these strategies was regularly used to aid in the assimilation process? Children were forbidden from speaking languages other than English. All of these strategies were frequently used. Children's names and birthdays were changed. Children were incorrectly told that their families did not love them, or that they were dead.

6. In defense of the removal of indigenous children from their families, some have argued that it was for the children's own good: they could be given better opportunities and improved living conditions outside of their local communities. According to the government's 1997 report, did the "stolen" children grow up to be generally better educated, better employed, and more law-abiding than their counterparts who were left with their families? Yes No

7. The beginning of the end of forced removal policies came in 1967, when an amendment to the Constitution of Australia was approved by a stunning 90.77% of voters. Which of these was a constitutional change introduced by this amendment? State and federal governments were specifically forbidden from removing children from their families without the unanimous support of a three-judge panel. Government welfare agencies were forbidden to house children in groups of more than five to a building. Indigenous Australians were, for the first time, granted Australian citizenship. The federal government gained the power to make laws that specifically related to indigenous Australians.

8. In 1995, after years of pressure, Attorney General Michael Lavarch ordered an inquiry into the government's removal of indigenous children from their families. Subtitled "Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families," their conclusions were presented to the Federal Parliament in May 1997. What is the report's title? Can Apology Suffice? Telling the Story An End to the Silence Bringing Them Home

9. In the months after the 1997 release of the governmental report on the Stolen Generation, a variety of Australian parliaments passed motions to apologize to Australian Aborigines and to Torres Strait Islanders. Which government did NOT officially apologize that year? The state government of Victoria The state government of New South Wales The federal government of Australia The state government of Western Australia

10. The seventh recommendation of the 1997 government report was for a National Sorry Day, "to commemorate the history of forcible removals and its effects." The day, observed every year since 1998, also commemorates other injustices in the treatment of Aboriginals. On what date is National Sorry Day held? December 25 July 14 October 12 May 26