Why do our governments and public institutions defame Australia by embracing an embellished 'Stolen Generations' narrative?

I believe that the case of the "Stolen Generations" narrative has elements in common with the Bruce Pascoe saga.

Bruce Pascoe in his book Dark Emu (which won the NSW Premier's Award for Literature) disputed earlier accepted history that Aboriginal people were nomadic hunter-gatherers.  He instead claimed that groups of up to 1000 Aboriginal people had lived permanently in solid dwellings in townships across Australia.  He also claimed they grew their own food, which was stored in granaries and underground storehouses.

There now seems to be a consensus that Pascoe's work was poorly researched, not fully sourced, and selective in its choice and emphasis of the facts.  Pascoe's own claim to be descended from several Aboriginal clans now also seems to be dubious.  Despite all this, there has been little official reversal of recognition for his version of history, and he remains a Professor of Indigenous Agriculture at the University of Melbourne.

So why do Australians so easily accept what appears to have been a false or exaggerated narratives?

My theory is that there are several reasons.

The biggest reason seems to be "colonial guilt".  Now don't get me wrong.  I do think that Australia (given its past) has an obligation to give special assistance to its Indigenous peoples.  A problem, however, arises, if we misunderstand or exaggerate past wrongs.

I don't think we can underestimate the effects of embellished narratives, that have received formal endorsement from officialdom.  In the case of the "Stolen Generations" a questionable report by the (woke) Human Rights Commission started the ball rolling, and the narrative was subsequently validated by the Rudd government's Apology.  Similarly, Pascoe's work received official awards and was endorsed by a number of organisations, such as the ABC, the University of Melbourne and some state governments.

Finally, the so-called moral high ground is always the easiest position to take on controversial issues, and questioning a victim narrative can easily come across as uncaring.  I think that people actually want to be seen as believing the victim.

Contrast the acclaim given to Rudd's Apology with protestors turning their backs on former PM Howard's more limited acknowledgment of past wrongs against Indigenous people.  Howard stated that he believes the Bringing Them Home report was wrong in its conclusion that genocide had been practised against Indigenous Australians.  Howard, when asked about his refusal to offer a formal apology to the stolen generations said that “I did apologise in a sense; I delivered a statement of regret to the parliament.”

I think that time may yield a more understanding reaction to Howard's position on this matter.

I also get the impression that neither the Turnbull nor Morrison governments displayed much appetite for courting controversy by in any way challenging the "stolen generations" narrative.  Challenging a narrative that so many people want to believe is likely to be politically unrewarding.