His 385 Paper

8/10/2019 His 385 Paper

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/his-385-paper 1/25

1

John was an average Aboriginal boy who lived within his tribe for the initial portion of

his young existence. He like other children his age had both a strong societal surrounding within

the context of his tribal culture as well as an extensive family unit which was both supportive, as

well as more than welcoming to the elements which he brought to their lives. However, John like

many other Aboriginal children, faced the reality of the long-standing colonization of their native

lands by the British settlers which had for the past century resulted in continual frontier strife, as

well as ongoing governmental suppression of their freedoms. It was through these legislative

avenues that the white settlers were capable of enacting laws and regulations which would

attempt to both suppress certain cultural traditions, while simultaneously attempting to “breed

out” the cultural differences between both cultures and result in a dominant white society free of

any Aboriginal complex. This forced John to be removed from his home in 1948, and placed into

an institution whose legal purpose was to integrate him into a white evangelical culture. “I was

definitely not told that I was Aboriginal. What the Sisters told us was that we had to be white. It

was drummed into our heads that we were white. It didn't matter what shade you were. We

thought we were white.”1 It is from these lost voices of the Aboriginal culture which express

obvious attempts on the behalf of the white settlers to implement practices such as noticeably

obtrusive policies as well as the direct removal of Aboriginal children in order to destroy their

culture.

While this subject matter includes an extensive amount of content, for the purpose of this

essay, I will discuss elements of the European colonial society which clearly depicts aspects of

ethnocide, in four differing sections. These sections depict critical moments, as well as aspects of

1 Australia and Meredith Wilkie, “Bringing them home: report of the national inquiry into the separation of

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families,” Human Rights and Equal Opportunity

Commission, 1997, 144.

8/10/2019 His 385 Paper


2

the historical events which occurred throughout the continued expansion of the European settlers

into to continent of Australia. First, we will acknowledge the initial arrival as well as first

contacts that existed between the white settlers and the Aboriginal populous. This section also

will include discussion of the British Parliament and their feelings towards contact with the

Aborigines, the preexisting undertones of racial tensions and the attempts at expansionism which

inevitably led to these two cultures colliding. Then the discussion will focus primarily on the

ideology of scientific superiority that had formed within the established settlements and the

belief that the Aborigines “fragility” would result in their culture‟s demise. Next, we will

examine differing policies which stemmed from an aggressive desire to assimilate the “half -

caste” portion of the Aboriginal population while simultaneously attempting to ensure the “full-

blood” population remained as dismal as possible. This was accomplished through policies

which allowed for the economic and political dominance over the indigenous population as well

as resulted in the initiation of child removal practices throughout the provinces. Finally, I will

discuss the nature of the institutions as well as the foster home systems that were established

which resulted in the ethnocide of Australia‟s indigenous peoples.

With the arrival of the British settlers, so to marked the introduction of a new society as

well as culture on the continent of Australia in the late eighteenth century. However, it was the

previous arrival of the Aborigines and their preexisting culture which marks the beginning point

in the eventual devolution of their cultural identity. According to historian Colin Tatz, the

Aboriginal population arrived in Australia some point between twenty-four thousand and sixty

thousand years ago. Their arrival in “Cape York ” marked a distinct moment in the history as the

only population that was capable of maintaining their culture until the much later arrival of the

British population. It was this seclusion from any other society or cultural influence which

8/10/2019 His 385 Paper


3

resulted in the Aborigines ability to grow in an expansive nature, reaching between five hundred

and seven hundred and fifty thousand members by the time the British crown arrived.2

The aspiration of the British Parliament to expand and form a new colony were first

realized following their failure to maintain an effective strong-hold on both the political and

economic activities that transpired within the American colonies. Following this unsuccessful

campaign, the British Parliament saw the Australian continent as a pristine opportunity to lay

roots and establish a colony which would not suffer from the same mistakes which had plagued

earlier ventures. It was explorer James Cook whose voyages in 1771 resulted in the Royal

Proclamation of territory off the eastern coast of Australia which allowed for this endeavor to

occur. It was Cook‟s early observations of the Aboriginal population which first brought notice

to the nature of the Aboriginal existence, stating “They live in a Tranquility which is not

disturb‟d by the Inequality of Conidyll; The Earth and sea of their own accord furnishes the, with

all the things necessary for life.”3 With an extensive population of convicts and an inability to

further unload them upon the American colonies, the British Parliament made the decision to

launch a penal colony on the lands within New South Wales which had been originally after the

voyages of Cook in 1770. Following the finalization of this legislative decision, the Crown

began to bring together the ships necessary to make the voyage to the Australian continent which

would be known as the White Fleet. According to historian Anthony Kevin Cavanagh, the fleet

itself consisted of eleven differing ships which included six transport ships, three store ships and

two naval escorts. This fleet also contained a total population of 548 male and 188 female

2 Colin Tatz, Genocide in Australia (Sydney: Aboriginal Studies Press), 6-7.

3 Ben Kiernan, Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur ( New Haven &

London: Yale University Press), 249

8/10/2019 His 385 Paper


4

convicts.4 From this we can see an obvious expenditure of the behalf of England who was

intending to further cement its presence within the global community and extend its economic

reach to the far stretches of the South Pacific.

Arriving in Botany Bay on January 28, 1788, the settlers began establishing the

foundations of their own colony in hopes of constructing a self-sufficient colony within a

relatively small time frame. It was the direct regulations given by King George III to insure that

the settlement had a positive impact on the lands and the encompassing populations of people

which they may have come into contact with. This point is further strengthened by the directions

of the first Governor of the British colony Arthur Phillips, who reiterated that his official

instructions were to “endeavor by every means in his power to open an intercourse with the

natives and to conciliate their goodwill, requiring all persons under his Government to live in

amity and kindness with them.”5 These policies which were flourishing throughout the

Australian colonial society garnered greater support when on February 19, 1836 The Letters

Patent, a formal document establishing the Province of South Australia stated “nothing should

affect the rights of the natives in regards to their enjoyment or occu pation of the land.”6 Still,

these notions of both cultural equality and the ability to economically coexist through the

application of colonial policies were just that, notions The reality of the situation was that the

inhabitants of the colony in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century had their own

personal perspectives of those who were dissimilar to the white settlers who they believed

controlled the majority of the continent. Furthermore, it was the great distance that these laws

and policies traveled with the European settlers which very often fell on deaf ears.

4 A.K. Cavanagh, “ The Return of the First Fleet Ships,” The Great Circle 12, no.2 (1989): 2

5 Tatz, Genocide In Australia, 8

6 Tatz, Genocide In Australia, 8

8/10/2019 His 385 Paper


5

Aspirations for continued expansion provided a major point of contention between the

European settlers and the varying aboriginal tribes which did come into contact with one another.

The white settlers saw the vast land plots throughout the Australian continent as valuable

opportunities to supply both colonial as well as the needs of the crown. This directly conflicted

with the motives of the indigenous populations whose intentions centralized around their own

personal subsistence. It was these varying environmental perspectives on the importance of these

land gains which led to one of the preliminary aspects of the ethnocide of the Aboriginal

population. According to historian Ben Kiernan, very often the desire to expand the land gains

which one society currently has very often played a pivotal role in genocidal actions. Based on

his cults of cultivation theory, “Genocidal conquerors legitimize their terrestrial expansion by

racial superiority or glorious antiquity at the same time as they claim a unique capacity to put the

conquered lands into productive agricultural use.”7 In the 1840‟s the desire for land expansion

erupted in varying forms such as sheep pastoralism and mineral mining. While the establishment

of agriculture had always in some sense been the focal motivation for land acquisitions, soon

after the formal establishment of the self-governing colony of Queensland mining for valuable

minerals resulted in the mass influx of settlers looking to an opportunity for wealth. “Colonial

occupation of most of Queensland was achieved by the agricultural industry between 1840 and

1884, by which time it had consumed most of the colony. The early rush into the into the

southern districts meant that by the time Queensland separated from New South Wales in 1859,

there 1300 squatting stations which leased approximately one quarter of Queensland from the

British Crown… .”8 It was actions such as these that directly conflicted with the lifestyles of the

indigenous populous and more importantly their primary means of existence. “ White settlement,

7 Kiernan, Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur , 29

8 Alison Palmer, Colonial Genocide (S. Australia: Crawford Housing Publishing), 87

8/10/2019 His 385 Paper


6

with its usurpation of hunting and food gathering grounds quickly undermines its economic life,

that is, the tribesmen‟s means of livelihood, and interferers drastically with the give and take of

social life.”9 From this, the initial aspirations of the European settlers to establish pastoral

colonies throughout much of Australia became obvious, directly resulting in an overwhelming

burden upon the Aborigines, whose nomadic lifestyle were inevitably affected. The white settlers

felt an increasing resentment as well as distain for the Aboriginal which would fester into an

argument to thoroughly remove the continent of such objections to European society.

In the decades that followed the white settler‟s first arrival to Australia, they quickly

assumed control over the Indigenous population. It was soon after this that the European

population developed a blossoming society which required increasing land to meet their growing

needs. The resulting land expansion campaigns had left the Aborigines attempting to maintain

their cultural identity through what little means had not been taken from them. Very often, the

results of these expansion were the complete removal of the Aborigines from these lands which

had been associated with their culture for thousands of years. This devastation forced the tribe‟s

population to either travel in hopes of acquiring other lands which had yet to be utilized or to live

on the very outskirts of the territories which white settlers were so quickly to overwhelm and

take. The colony of Victoria provided one of the harshest examples of this forced exile and

furthermore an element of cultural genocide with policies such as the Aborigines Protection Act

of 1886. According to historian Corinne Manning, it was the Victorian government‟s position

that the Indigenous population‟s lives were to be fully regulated and the construction of reserves

was to be completed in order to meet their specific living needs. It was this act in 1886 that

incorporated the protectorate ideals which were applied to the treatment of both the full- blooded

9 A.P. Elkin, “Reaction and Integration: A Food Gathering People and European Settlement in Australia,” American

Anthropologist 53, no. 2 (1951): 166

8/10/2019 His 385 Paper


7

Aboriginals as well as the „half -castes‟ who were of both Indigenous and European decent. This

policy target was to provide economic aid and housing in the form of mission stations for

Aboriginal people who were over the age of thirty-four and had families.10

However, most of the

time these policies garnered no aid from the European government and resulted in their failures

to support the Aboriginal people. This resulted in the eventual closure of nearly all the mission

stations within the colony, forcing the majority of the Aboriginal populous to construct and live

in slums which surrounded the white settler‟s society, commonly referred to as „humpies‟.

According to a 1997 report collected by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission,

on one humpie village within the Victorian colony, “about 59 adults and 107 children lived in the

most squalid conditions. Their „humpies‟ are mostly constructed of old timber, flattened

kerosene tins and hessian… They are not waterproof, have earthy floors, very primitive cooking

arrangements and no laundry or bathing facilities…”11

The conditions in which the European

settlers allowed for Aboriginal people to exist in expressed an obvious disregard for the culture

of these people all in the name of land expansion. White settlers made a conscious effort to

neglect the needs of the Aborigines and therefore allowed for their populous to deplete,

completing an act of ethnocide.

Among the varying societal objectives which have been mentioned, it is critical that one

investigates the mindset of a European settler during this period of colonization. Only then will

we have a greater comprehension of the actions for which they took against the Indigenous

people and their underlying purposes. Following the massive expansions of land control which

occurred primarily up until the late 1880‟s, the tensions which occurred as a result of the cultural

10 Corinne Manning, “A Helping White Hand: Assimilation, Welfare and Victoria’s Transitional Aboriginal Housing

Policy,” Laboour History , no. 87 (2004): 19311

Australia and Meredith Wilkie, “Bringing them home: report of the national inquiry into the separation of

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families,” 53.

8/10/2019 His 385 Paper


8

clash of the two socities was at an all-time high. The European society had continued to ascertain

political authority over the resistant Indigenous and with that maintain control over their

culture‟s evolution. With this need for control came an overbearing superiority complex which

widely attested to the overall hardiness of the European settlers and also the „fragility‟ of the

native populations for which they had come into contact with. These feelings towards the

Aboriginal‟s inferiority stemmed from varying portions of their culture, allowing the white

settlers to foresee their inevitable demise. Understanding this, we see that the white settlers

surmised that the existence of the Aboriginal tribes of Australia would soon come to an end. This

belief allowed for the political officials to in act legislation and adopt policies which would

directly result in the ethnocide of the Aborigines.

One of the most commonly mentioned political disadvantages of the Indigenous

existence was their absence of any system of formal government as well as lacking major

components of an effective society which the European settlers found critical for survival. “The

fact that initially there seemed to be no individualistic kings, queens, priests, warriors, or chiefs

with whom the British might negotiate, also helped to create an environment that could support

both genocide and its denial.”12

This misconceptions about Aboriginal society was a common

train of thought that permitted the white settlers to act in the nature they felt was most beneficial

for the expansion of their society, fully aware that this would be at the expense of the varying

tribes which from their perspective were often absent from the lands which they settled.

Historian Dirk Moses notes, “The absence of hierarchical social system and professional

warriors permanently organized for aggressive conflict helped to render the whole population

invisible, an attitude eventually confirmed in law when the extreme land annexations of the late

12 Dirk Moses, Genocide and Settler Society: Frontier and Stolen Indigenous Children in Australian History (New

York: Berghahn Books, 2004), 84.

8/10/2019 His 385 Paper


9

1820‟s and 1830‟s made clarification of Aboriginal people‟s legal position mandatory.”13

The

Aboriginal people were an obstacle for the settlers to overcome, rather than attempting to

produce a society which was culturally diverse and allowed for the inclusion of Aboriginal

sentiments.

Another major aspect which one must consider when discussing the European settler ‟s

treatment of the Aboriginal population was the over extending perspective that the indigenous

were incapable of sustaining their own existence and maintain an effective presence in the future.

Following the establishment of varying colonial and provincial governments throughout much of

the Australian continent, there was an open discussion as to the inferiority of the Aboriginal race

and the acknowledgement that their culture was coming to an end. During The Canberra

Conference in 1937, Dr. Cecil Cook stated, “If we leave them alone, they will die, and we still

have no problem, apart from dealing with those pangs of conscience, which must attend the

passing of a dying race.”14

However, what was very often disregarded by the white settlers was

the impact which they had upon the Aborigines and the resulting depletion of their population.

One of the most unmentioned of these actions were the diseases which plagued the Indigenous,

whose bodies were not familiar with these illnesses. With specific reference to smallpox, the

Aborigines were rendered helpless to the effects that stemmed from their inability to combat the

illness or ascertain the effective medication needed to stop its spread. Though this devastation

had been seen previously throughout differing attempts to colonize new lands, it was the method

in which the European settlers used these „ biological weapons‟ to ensure that the population of

the Aborigines would dramatically deplete. According to economic historian Noel Butlin, the

arrival of disease was turned into a purposeful act of extermination rather than an inevitable side

13 Moses, Genocide and Settler Society: Frontier and Stolen Indigenous Children in Australian History , 87

14 Moses, Genocide and Settler Society: Frontier and Stolen Indigenous Children in Australian History , 237

8/10/2019 His 385 Paper


10

effect of two cultures interacting of the first time.15

While there is an overall consensus among

historians that this epidemic did in fact occur and that the primary victims of this were in fact the

native populations, it was the position of the colonial government that the Aboriginal suffered

from fragility which made them more susceptible to these diseases.16

Even more disturbing was

that not only was there a widely understood cure for smallpox which continued to plague the

Aboriginal peoples until the late 1860‟s, but that the white settlers had this vaccine known as

variola readily available for usage within the colony. “Certainly, it was known that variola had

been brought with the Fleet, and understanding of variola‟s role in both preventing and

unleashing the disease was readily available to both the medical fraternity and the officer

class.”17

From this, the underlying motives of the European settlers became clearer and

thoroughly expressed an intent to destroy the Aboriginal culture. Furthermore, there is an

obvious willingness to actively stand by and watch the Aboriginal population be erased from the

Australian continent which showed that the colonial leadership had genocidal intentions.

According to then Chief Protector of Western Australia A.O. Neville, the demise of the

Aboriginal was the inevitable result of the theory of Darwinism and was destined to occur.

“Contact between the Aboriginal peoples and the whites was culturally lethal, the Aboriginal

social organization was unusually fragile, and thus that the extinction of these peoples as a

distinct entity was just a matter of time.”18

Other government officials such as William Gall, the

then Under-Secretary for the Home Department of Queensland suggested that the usage of

sterilization could be an effective measure when dealing with the half-caste population which

15 Tatz, Genocide in Australia, 11

16 Robert Krieken, “Rethinking Cultural Genocide: Aboriginal Child Removal and Settler- Colonial State Formations,”

Oceania 75, no. 2 (2004): 12617

Moses, Genocide and the Settler Society: Frontier and Stolen Indigenous Children in Australian History , 8118

Patrick O’Malley, “Gentle Genocide: The Government of Aboriginal Peoples in Central Australia,” Social Justice

21, no. 4 (1994): 52

8/10/2019 His 385 Paper


11

had continued to permeate the European colonial society.19

Still, it was this hardened belief in

The Doomed Theory among both the leading government officials as well the colonial society at

large, which allowed for the implementation of racially biased legislation, effectively leading to

the loss of Aboriginal culture. These perspectives were very often upheld by “scientific” research

which was collected on the behalf of the colonial governments in hopes of supporting their

discriminatory ideologies. These policies which would vary from colony to colony consisted of

proposed actions which at face value were stated to have bettered the lifestyles of the Aboriginal.

Overall however, these policies expressed an immense interest in taking both societal and

cultural actions which would render Aboriginal natives an extinct species. From these political

measures, a clear notion of ethnocide can be articulated which can also be supported by historian

Ben Kiernan‟s definition of these types of actions. “Imposing a new culture on a group, for

instance, by the enforcement of educational or linguistic restrictions, without necessarily causing

physical destruction or biological disappearance.”20

As time would progress, this would include

removal of Indigenous children from their indigenous family networks and leave them incapable

of identifying their cultural origins. Furthermore, this would result in suppression of their culture

in a manner which took on differing avenues.

The legislative variations which existed between the differing colonial governments of

the nineteenth century expressed the differing values which colonial leaders placed upon these

Aboriginal populations and more importantly their future forced incorporation into European

society. Specifically, it was the legislation‟s increasing focus on the assimilation or „merging „of

the Indigenous half-castes into white society which expressed an increasing belief that with the

proper regulations, the dream of a more fully integrated European society was possible.

19 Moses, Genocide and the Settler Society: Frontier and Stolen Indigenous Children in Australian History, 227

20 Kiernan, Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur , 13

8/10/2019 His 385 Paper


12

According to historian Corrine Manning, the process of assimilation was, “…associated with

federal and state government policies introduced in the 1950‟s and 1960‟s which were aimed at

socially re-engineering Aborigines and migrants to reflect the Anglo-Australian majority.”21

It

was this perspective which led to the beginning of discovering legal means to remove the

Aboriginal from their communities for the purpose of assimilation. The most fundamental of

these processes was the establishment of the Protectorate System in January of 1838. This

process was established within the colonies specific reservations or land claims which were

primarily for the housing of the Aboriginal who had been uprooted following the extensive

expansion campaigns which had occurred in the decades following the white settler‟s ar rival. It

purpose was to allow for the natives to construct their own self-sufficient communities which

were centralized around the pastoral agricultural values which had arrived with the Europeans.22

The establishment of both institutions and missionaries were also a mechanism to ensure that

Aboriginal influence would not interfere with the settler‟s claims to the lands which they had

been removed from. However, this method was unable to sustain the cultural results which the

Europeans desired and led to its eventual failure by the mid nineteenth century. This process

provided another means of ethnocide which inevitably left the Aboriginal uprooted from their

communities as well as dependent on governmental rations which had left, “the nomadic people

dependent on the new supplies and thus creating a sedentary population, more amendable to the

government of the missions.”23

Failing to find control of these Indigenous tribes through this

containment experiment, it was found that excessive regulation of the Aboriginal‟s very

21 Manning, “A Helping Hand: Assimilation, Welfare and Victoria’s Transitional Aboriginal Housing Policy,” 193

22 Australia, and Meredith Wilkie, “Bringing them home: report of the national inquiry into the separation of

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families,” 23. 23

O’Malley, “Gentle Genocide: The Government of Aboriginal Peoples In Central Australia,” 51

8/10/2019 His 385 Paper


13

existence was necessary in order to eliminate this problem which the settlers had failed to

complete from their initial attempts.

By the early portion of the twentieth century, with the establishment of the Australian

Commonwealth, the differing provinces were successful in enacting some forms of legislation or

construction of an overseeing board which maintained absolute control over the Aborigines.

Following 1911, each of the territories with the exception of Tasmania had established a Chief

Protector, whose focal purpose was to observe and manage the actions of the Aborigines. Other

legislation such as the Native Administration Act of 1936, establish by Chief Protector A.O.

Neville went further and regulated almost all personal freedoms which their white counterparts

were permitted to indulge in. “Native Administration Act of Western Australia gave the Chief

Protector of Aborigines direct control over Aboriginal peoples‟ sexual relations, social relations,

marriage, geographical mobility…custody of children – even over where they could camp and

what law referred to as their “tribal parties”.”24

This policy and others alike such as the

Aborigines Protection Act 1909 and the Aboriginal Welfare Board, were intended as a means for

the government to directly control the cultural practices of the natives. This authority which was

granted to these Chief Protectors would eventually lead to the ethnocide of the indigenous tribes

through the stealing of children. Specifically, it was the final intentions of the government to

dismantle the culture of the Aborigines with the formal removal of young children, as well as the

assimilation of the half-caste population into the European society. However, it was a meeting of

the Commonwealth and the state‟s Aboriginal officials on April 23, 1937 which would fully

solidify the government‟s position on the future of these natives and their role in the European

society which had been erected around them. “That this Conference believes that the destiny of

24 O’Malley, “Gentle Genocide: The Government of Aboriginal Peoples In Central Australia,” 48

8/10/2019 His 385 Paper


14

the natives of aboriginal origin, but not of the full blood, lies in their ultimate absorption by the

people of the Commonwealth, and it therefor recommend that all efforts be directed to that

end.”25

It was this understood mindset which led to the beginning of child removal and

furthermore the loss of Aboriginal culture. Though children had been removed by force ever

since the European settlers had arrived in Australia, for the first time the removal was done with

the intention of erasing their cultural existence.

With the introduction of this mindset, the removal process quickly began to be performed

throughout the provinces. It was the goal of the government and its officials to ensure that the

removal of as many children as possible would occur in order to deplete the Indigenous

population and further strengthen their European influence. Through the usage of the regulatory

powers that were held by the Chief Protectors of many of the provinces like Western Australia,

the government was able to separate the children from their family units and place them in the

state‟s care. This resulted in the increasing establishment of both missions as well as government

settlements which were to house the children. With these removals, very often the promise of a

formal education was given to the families and ensured that the well-being of the child was their

primary objective. Many officials understood that the Aborigines wanted to ensure that their

children would have the opportunity of higher education and a means to find success for

themselves as well as their community members. However, what was unknown was the low

educational quality of these institutions and very often the dismay that was placed upon the

children who were removed. “The authorities said I was removed from my parents so I could

receive an education but the fact is the nuns never gave me that education. I didn't receive an

25 Australian Commonwealth, Aboriginal Welfare: Initial Conference of Commonwealth and State Aboriginal

Authorities, 23, April 1937

8/10/2019 His 385 Paper


15

education. I was very neglected.”26

The actions of the officials who ran these varying institutions

often reflected an identical racial sentiment as to the policies that had led to establishment. Even

when some form of government financial support was provided to these stations quite often it

was not used for its intended purpose of maintaining a credible existence for its Aboriginal

inhabitants. With specificity to the education process, the lacking of attentive officials as well as

monetary backing resulted in an increasingly uneducated Aboriginal population who has no

ability to change this process. “I didn‟t have much schooling … Now, thinking about it, we were

told from the outset that we had to go to the mission because we had to go to school, but then

when we got in there we weren‟t forced to go to school or anything.”

27

The inability of the white

society to effectively establish an education system which in fact provided a worthy education

expresses that their intentions were merely to introduce the separation process into their society.

From this, we can see that the desire to assimilate had begun and the objective was to eliminate

the Aboriginals ability to maintain their individual sense of culture.

Very often, the pull of a formal education was not enough for the parents of the children

to allow governmental officials to step in and remove their children to these varying institutions.

The native families who opposed this process were subjected to biased legislative policies which

resulted in successful removal processes and therefore broke indigenous children away from any

cultural identity. It was the Chief Protectors such as A.O. Neville and James Isdell who would

employ removal processes which included the usage of the local police forces to hunt down and

collect half-caste children in order to bring them to these institutions and wipe them of their past

cultural identity. “In the removal work, Neville always worked closely with the police. He



Australia, and Meredith Wilkie, “Bringing them home: report of the national inquiry into the separation of


8/10/2019 His 385 Paper


8/10/2019 His 385 Paper


17

expresses the conditions for which the inhabitants experienced stating that the institution, “…had

rapidly declined under a brutal indifference. Here economy had taken the form of ignoring

maintenance and any improvement of buildings, reducing to a minimum the diet of „inmates‟ and

doing away with the use of cutlery- the children in the compound being forced to eat with their

hands.”31

Being unable to provide from themselves, the children were at the mercy of the

institutional employees whose continued neglect led to the suffering of the children. It was this

manner of neglect which was ensured by government leaders to cease when they were taken into

the custody of these institutions, and out of the „unbearable‟ living conditions that existed within

the tribal communities. “Sometimes at night we‟d cry with hunger, no food…We had to

scrounge in the town dump, eating old bread, smashing tomato sauce bottles, licking them.”32

It

is the nature of this direct testimony from Aborigines which speaks volumes as to the struggles

which had to be experienced on a regular basis.

Beyond the lacking fiscal support which was a clear act of negligence directed towards

the Aboriginal inhabitants, some of the biggest tribulations which they were forced to experience

were the physical and mental abuses which they were subject to. Within the walls of these

government operated institutions, there was an overwhelming degree of ill-treatment which was

for the most overlooked or blatantly unacknowledged for varying reasons, most of which

stemmed from racism. One of the most trying elements of these individual experiences was the

physical separation from their parents and family networks. A side from the physical attachment

most children had, it was also the complete disconnect from their cultural identity which also

was just as damaging. It was a focal purpose of most government officials to remove these half-

31





8/10/2019 His 385 Paper


18

caste children form their native environments in order to more effectively implement the

assimilation process upon the children. It was the hopes specifically of Chief Protector A.O.

Neville that this process would result in a more European and anglicized society. Based on his

theory which was referred to as the „Three Point Plan,‟ Neville expressed that only by

completely removing the children from the Aboriginal environment would assimilation process

work.33

Furthermore, it was believed that if completed successfully, assimilation would result in

a minute full-blooded Indigenous population which would be forced out of existence, based upon

a warped perspective of Darwin‟s Theory of Evolution which most white settlers possessed.

Within the institutions and missions, the primary abuse which was endured was the

complete subjugation of the Aboriginal society and their cultural distinctions which made these

children a unique body of people. Their cultural traditions including their unique dialects were

completely rejected and as a result were forced to conform to the norms established within the

white culture. “Y‟know, I can remember we used to just talk lingo. They used to tell us not to

talk that language, that it‟s devil‟s language. And they‟d wash our mouths with soap… So it sorta

wiped out all our language we knew.”34

The effectiveness of this cultural blanking was based

normally on the age when the children were taken from their families. Younger children were

more readily able to be persuaded or convinced that they were in fact a part of the white society,

regardless of their skin pigment. However, it was the older children who had a more vivid

memory of their cultural past and needed more convincing that they were to become European.

Upon reflecting on her experiences, one woman expressed, “Your family don‟t care about you

anymore, they wouldn‟t have given you away. They don‟t love you. All they are is dirty drunken

33 Tatz, Genocide in Australia, 25


Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families,”133.

8/10/2019 His 385 Paper


19

blacks. You heard this daily…”35

The children of the Aborigines were becoming more accustom

to the idea that they were a part of this white society and were learning their practices in order to

become more accepted within their culture‟s parameters. However, according to historian Patrick

O‟Malley, the point of this process was to eliminate any diverging aspects of culture within the

Australian realm and to have a cohesive society which answered to only one authority. “In the

evangelists eyes, it was inconceivable that a person Christian, and thus saved, and yet adhere to

traditional ways.”36

With this purpose in mind, we can fully observe a direct intention of

ethnocide from their practices, as well as the manner in which specific legislation reflected these

actions.

Much like the mental anguish which these native children were forced to embrace, so too

did they experience a varying spectrum of physical abuse which was directly connected to their

cultural values. The Aborigines were forced withstand the brutality stemming from both

institution and mission leaders who were left in charge of these government run programs and

were incapable of effectively maintaining order otherwise. These abuses also were the product of

general feelings of superiority and furthermore were violent attempts to ensure that assimilation

of the indigenous children was successful. “They were very cruel to us, very cruel. I‟ve done

things in that home that I don‟t think prisoners in a jail have to do today…I remember once, I

must have been eight or nine, and I was locked in the old morgue… I screamed all night but no

one came to get me.”37

Sexual violence was also a reoccurring issue which was commonly

overlooked, much like the previously mentioned injustices focalized around the Indigenous

children. Employees of these government programs were able impose themselves upon the


Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families,”134.36

O’Malley, “Gentle Genocide: The Government of Aboriginal Peoples In Central Australia,” 56 37


Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from the ir families,” 141

8/10/2019 His 385 Paper


20

children without fearing ramifications from other authorities. According to a report compiled by

the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, very often sexual assaults occurred

within these missions and were mostly never reported. Following this Inquiry‟s investigation, it

was found that on average almost ninety percent of sexual assaults were not reported.38

Compiled with the substandard living conditions, the inhumaneness of these institution‟s

environments exposes the true nature of the exploitation that was ongoing throughout almost all

of these institutions.

Employment of the Aborigines also expressed a great degree of racism as well as cultural

suppression throughout the process of integration. Beginning in the earlier portion of the

nineteenth century, the employment of the Indigenous population was a means to secure cheap

labor, as well as ensure that the authority remained within the hands of the white settlers.

Legislation soon followed, and effectively maintained that the governmental powers held by the

colonial leaders would remain so, and further suppressed the natives. Once again, reoccurring

themes of exploitation are quite visible, specifically among children. Prior to the implementation

of formal institutions, European settlers were known for stealing children from their families for

the purpose of employment. According to historian Shirleene Robinson, children workers were

perceived as excellent form of labor for varying reasons which included filling employment

shortages, as well as being considered pliable and easy to influence. Many white settlers also felt

as though employment provided an opportunity for native children to become „civilized‟ and

conform to European Society.39 Still, with what little wages these children received, the colonial

governments felt as though they were incapable of effectively managing their own monetary


Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families,” 141 39

Shirleene Robinson, “ The Unregulated Employment of Aboriginal Children in Queensland, 1842-1902,” Labour

History , no. 82 (2002): 4

8/10/2019 His 385 Paper


8/10/2019 His 385 Paper


22

inevitably led to the greatest physical and emotional changes among a majority of the Indigenous

population. According to a report founded by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity

Commission, the abrupt uprooting and the forced existence within the horrible conditions of the

institutions had varying permanent effects. “We had been brought up on the surrogate mother of

the institution and that whole lifestyle, which did not prepare us at all for any type of family life

or life whereby in the future we would be surviving or fending for ourselves…”43

These lacking

of needed skills can also be seen in the lacking of education, primarily stemming from the

institutions‟ failure to provide one. This inevitably limited many opportunities for the Aboriginal

children entering the employment world and seeking a feasible means to support themselves.

Finally, the traumas which occurred as a result of the forced stays within the

government institutions can be expressed as one of the biggest issues to never be fully addressed.

Without any means to receive treatment for their personal experiences, the children were forced

to endure varying abuses without help or proper protection from these events reoccurring.

According to this same report, witnesses who discussed their personal experiences very often

acknowledged long-term issues within their adult lives which included alcoholism, drug abuse,

isolationism and criminal involvement. “There is no doubt that children who have been

traumatized become a lot more anxious and fearful of the world and one of the impacts is that

they don‟t explore the world as much… because of the lack of trust in the outside world, children

learn to blunt their emotions and in that way restrict their spontaneity and responsiveness.”44

It is

from these long standing issues that observes can see that the actions taken by the European

settlers have led to a complete destruction of the Aboriginal culture. Through their actions, we


Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families,” 163 44


Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families,” 172

8/10/2019 His 385 Paper


23

now see that the effects have left this culture in shambles and additionally left a group a people

cultureless and disconnected from their families.

It was following the arrival of the British in 1788, whereby for the first time, we can see

deliberate actions taken against the Aboriginal population and their manners of existence. The

indigenous, whose goals of self-sustainability were the inevitable target group of the early white

settlers and their colonial aspirations which included terrestrial expansions as well as cultural

assimilation. With this understanding, we can see that it was the intentional actions taken by the

European settlers which directly led to the ethnocide of the Aboriginal populous. Furthermore, it

was the direct legislative measures taken by the colonial government, as well as the introduction

of the child removal process which further cemented both racial ideologies and fueled the desires

of eliminating the Aboriginal population. It is from this perspective that we can observe the true

genocidal nature of the British colonization and also acknowledge the long lasting effects of their

actions; leaving a major portion of the Indigenous population without any cultural ties to their

families as well as a loss of cultural identity.

8/10/2019 His 385 Paper


24

Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Australia, and Meredith Wilkie. 1997. Bringing them home: report of the national inquiry into

the separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families.

Sydney: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.

Australian Commonwealth, Aboriginal Welfare: Initial Conference of Commonwealth and State

Aboriginal Authorities, 23, April 1937

Elkin, A.P. “Reaction and Interaction: A Food Gathering People and European Settlement in

Australia.” American Anthropologist 53, no. 2 (1951): 164-186

UN General Assembly, Prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, 9 December 1948

Secondary Sources:

Atkison, Roslyn. “Denial and Loss: Obstacles to Litigation in Stolen Generation Cases.”

Hungarian Journal of English and American Studies 12, no.1 (2006): 47-59

Cavanagh, A.K. “The Return of the First Fleet Ships.” The Great Circle 11, no. 2 (1989): 1-16

Huggonson, David. “Aboriginal Trust Accounts in Queensland: How „Protection‟ Became

„Oppression‟.” The Australian Quarterly 62, no. 4 (1990): 366-370

Kiernan, Ben. Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to

Darfur . New York & London: Yale University Press, 2007

Krieken, Robert. “Rethinking Cultural Genocide Aboriginal Child Removal and Settler -Colonial

State Formation.” Oceania 75, no. 2 (2004): 125-151.

Manning, Corinne. “A Helping White Hand: Assimilation, Welfare and Victoria‟s Transitional

Aboriginal Housing Policy.” Labour History, no. 87 (2004): 193-208.

Markus, Andrew. “Genocide in Australia.” Aboriginal History 25 (2001): 57-69 Accessed

September 10, 2014

Moses, Dirk . Genocide and Settler Society: Frontier and Stolen Indigenous Children in Australian History. New York: Berghahn Books, 2004

O‟Malley, Pat. “Gentle Genocide: The Government of Aboriginal Peoples in Central Australia.”

Social Justice 21, no. 4 (1994): 46-65.

Palmer, Alison. Colonial Genocide. S. Australia: Crawford House Publishing, 2000.

8/10/2019 His 385 Paper


25

Robinson, Shirleen. “The Unregulated Employment of Aboriginal Children in Queensland,

1842-1902.” Labour History, no. 82 (2002): 1-15

Tatz, Colin. Genocide in Australia. Sydney: Aboriginal Studies Press, 1999.

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	tjonpom06
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

His 385 Paper

Documents