The circumstances, which lead to the tragedy of the stolen generation, can start to be understood when viewed through three different perspectives. First to consider would be the views of the Aboriginal children themselves – the subject of this terrible act. The stolen generation were scarred by the drastic environmental change they were exposed to – an unforgettable experience. “I wonder how my mum felt losing a child. What about all the mothers, not just my mum?  They must have felt terrible. All the money in the world wouldn’t make up for what we’ve lost. We weren’t even allowed to talk our lingo”- Kathleen Farrel. Kathleen’s testimonial illustrates her source of lasting torment was the separation from her natural mother as she uses the pain and sorrow felt by her own parent to illustrate her personal anguish. She was removed at the age of 6 to an orphanage and has limited memory of her heritage including her traditional language or county(source 2). Cecil Bowden, a survivor of Kinchela Boys Home (source 1) , on the other hand dismisses the national apology as insignificant and focuses on the continued misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the lasting impact of these actions. “I want the world to know the truth about what’s been done to us. A lot of white people think we had it good but I had a terrible life, I’m telling you. The people in the home I was at and the police in Australia, they put me through hell. Kevin Rudd said sorry and he thinks that’s the end of it. He opened wounds but nothing has been done since to rectify things” The unfairness of the situation, reflected by the impacted aboriginal children, is also echoed by certain white authorities who were not clear why they were performing this task. Some questioned the legality of the process: “I don't believe that I, at any time during my career as a welfare officer, had the power to remove an Aboriginal child from its parents.”- Brian Bennett. This shows that even the ordinary white Australian felt uncomfortable with the potential impact on basic human rights. A High Court later (1997) ruled that there was no violation of these principles. Kevin Rudd’s apology in 2008 ignited much of the contemporary discussion on the topic. Not everyone felt the apology was the right thing to do as some believed the original reasons especially saving the children. Also with the distance of time they note that they weren’t directly involved.  Others, such as renowned TV journalist Andrew Bolt even questioned the facts and whether the circumstances were exaggerated- “a giant intellectual fraud with unforgivable consequences” and “no one has yet produced a single child who was stolen under a government policy to remove children just because they were Aboriginal and not because they needed help”(Korff, Jens. 'A Guide To Australia’S Stolen Generations'. Creative Spirits. N.p., 2015. Web. 3 Nov. 2015.)