Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
The term Stolen Generation refers to Australian indigenous children that were forcibly taken from their biological families and were adopted by white families. The assimilation was appraised as the governmental concern about the extinction of the Aboriginal population of Australia and Torres Strait Island (Bates, D 1938). However, the child protection program turned out to be a discriminatory policy that even led to genocide (Blagg, H, 2008 p. 63).
Thus, the assumption of the Aborigines Protection Act in 1915 gave the right to the Protection Board officials to remove the child in case family consent was obtained (De Plevitz, L 2006 p.111). Adopted children were ill-treated and even injured. Therefore, the child removal policy is full of ambiguity so that Aboriginal people were incapable to sustain their population without governmental official interruption. Hence, the sufficiency of the term Stolen Generation is still a question at issue (Van Driesum, R. 2002 p. 17).
Originally, the child removal program was socially oriented and its major goal was to fasten the integration of indigenous children into the white population. The government intended to provide them with a diligent educational level and with further employment. Still, there appeared no considerable shifts for the better since Aborigines could hardly acquire a post-second education (Bereson, Itiel 1989). The white population was reluctant in accepting those children into their environment. Moreover, most of the children that reached the age of 18 were unemployed and could not gain wages.
The Bringing Them Home report of the National Inquiry stated that separation policy failed in improving the social position of removed children and did not manage to save them from abuse violence (Parliamentary Library 2008). The consequences of this socialization program were predominantly negative and had no legal justification. The Bringing Them Home report was accompanied by the reflections of those removed populations from their native families. According to the conducted interviews grown up, representatives condemned the Protection Board and accused them of depriving them of their biological parents. Here is the Aboriginal victims plain statement:
Its just like a mini-Army for kids &you used to feel like you were in the Army It was always strict. There was never any affection. We didnt show any affection. You know, we grew up pretty tough. (Haebich, A & Mellor, D, 2002, p. 30).
In addition, the Churchs mission did not surpass the childrens expectations for a better life. On the contrary, the establishment of Aboriginal settlements resembled fenced-off territories where children were used as a labor force. (Haebich, A & Mellor, D, 2002, p. 32). In other words, assimilated people did not feel governmental intention to improve their life for the better.
The deteriorative treatment of the Aboriginal children in the adopted families found its reflection in the press and was regularly discussed by many journalists and researchers. The Native Title dispute was the trigger point in the recognition of the burning problems related to the unjustified attitude of the government to the indigenous people. Mabos case made many people think about the real social position of Torres Strait Islanders.
Thus, the first who highlighted the problem of child removal was Peter Read. In his article Return of Stolen Generation (1998), the writer discloses the terrible consequences of that Mission and considers the survivors as the victims of the discrimination policy. The psychological pressure and regimental policy turned the victims either into outright representatives of Aboriginal organizations or into the refuse of society.
Rosanne Kennedy studies the case of the stolen generation, compares the government policy with the policy of genocide, and submits the ground basis for the reconsideration of human rights. Thus, she also regards Mabos case as the starting issue in the overview of the rights and freedoms of the Australian indigenous population. According to the article, the Bringing Them Home Report was a logical development of the struggle for social equality (Kennedy, R 2004 p. 48).
As it can be viewed, numerous articles and books were devoted to that topic and were a real testimony and recognition of the term Stolen Generation . The term acquired world recognition in different areas of life. For instance, the world witnessed the screen version of the book by Pilkington Rabbit-Proof Fence The book (Pilkington, D 2002) is an autobiographical story about assimilated Aboriginal children. The author describes the story of her mother, one of three young girls who were captured in the Moore River Native Settlement. The books and publications were a kind of protest of the society to the regimental policy towards the victims of child removal mission.
The mass media and social recognition of the problem provoked the start of legal procedures directed to the improvement of the situation. The Australian government acknowledged that their mission failed and only aggravated the life conditions of the indigenous people (Parliamentary Library, 2008). The first attempt, however, was not an official apology of the government. The content of Bringing Them Home report presented in May 1997 was just a factual statement where the government acknowledged the negative effects of the program.
In addition, certain recommendations were attached to the report where the Australian state guarantees the apology of political authorities, churches, and other organizations. In addition, they guarantee compensation and rehabilitation of the Aboriginal victims (Parliamentary Library 2008). Still, this report only implied the possibility of negotiating the apology with the indigenous population. The Australian parliament expressed its unwillingness to bear responsibility for the mistakes of previous generations and, therefore, rejected the recommendations to the Bringing Them Home Report. The Prime Minister, John Howard, did not justify the Commonwealths reluctance to recognize the past tragedy stating. His position toward Aboriginal people was brightly highlighted in the following statement:
I have never been willing to embrace a formal national apology because I do not believe the current generation can accept responsibility for the deeds of earlier generations. And theres always been a fundamental unwillingness to accept, in this debate, the difference between an expression of sorrow and an assumption of responsibility (Howard, J. 1997)
In his interview, he confessed that he would not give a formal apology to Stolen Generation. Instead, he expresses his sorry for the guiltiness of the old generation.
The representatives of the Aboriginal organizations were at a loss since they did not have an idea how to treat the apology of whether this sorry meant the confession of the present generations for the deeds of the earlier generations. In its turn, the Government still hesitated concerning the legal status of the apology. Probably, this was one of the main reasons why Australian authorities did not apologize to Aboriginal people (Parliamentary Library 2008). For the Australian parliament, the apology would mean the recognition of the Stolen Generation and the acknowledgment of the child removal processes as a crime, and the infringement of human rights (Blagg, H, 2008, p. 65).
The fact that the apology could cause legal liability forced the Commonwealth Parliament to the official expression of deep regret rather than to the outright and explicit begging for forgiveness. However, Kevin Rudd, the newly appointed Prime Minister, made a long-termed apology in February 2008 (Language Log 2008) The apology was gratefully accepted by the representatives of the Stolen Generation despite the numerous contradictions during the twentieth century. The apology was not only the acknowledgment of the existence of the removed generation. It also confirmed the fact of discriminative policy against the Aboriginal culture and customs. Language Log 2008).
The reasonable ground for expressing regret to the removed children was previous legal compensations granted to the survivors of the assimilation. In 2007, the representative of the Stolen Generation, Bruce Trevorrow, won the trial and was granted $ 525,000 compensation for false imprisonment and moral suffering (Read, P 1998). The court stated that he was unlawfully removed from the family and, as a result, the Trevorrow was doomed to endure a life full of pain and depression.
The case was succeeded by South Australias further discussions of the reasonableness of the compensation. The state denied the illegal interruption and regarded the Protection Board as its official custodian (Bell, D. 2009 p. 48). The case inspired other indigenous people to fight against pejorative policy towards them. Still, that case is considered the most successful among others even though Mr. Trevorrow died in the year after the trial.
However, the case was not beneficial. The problem is that the monetary compensation did not denote a plain statement of the government about the official recognition of the Stolen Generation (Van Driesum, R. 2002 p. 17). On the contrary, Trevorrows case was the only case that has a positive result and caused many disputes due to the decision of Justice Gray who acted in Treworrows favor. His decision was rather straight and unprecedented since it was the first official mentioning of the illegal nature of the Aboriginal Mission (Bell, D. 2009). That was the evidence of the neglected attitude towards the Stolen Generation.
It had not only caused the wave of further successful cases but it had a significant impact on the Australian parliament. Firstly, the case launched the process of accomplishment of the recommendations to the Bringing Them Home Report. Secondly, it was accompanied by gradual informal apologies of outstanding politicians and non-governmental organizations that vigorously participated in the Mission fulfillment (Parliamentary Library 2008). Trevorrows case was a breakthrough to the official apology of the new Prime Minister who put a logical end to the long-termed contradictions taking their roots in the nineteenth century. Rudds apology manifested the beginning and the reconsideration of the new relationships between European society and the Aboriginal population.
In conclusion, after an overhaul consideration of the problem we can speak about the validity of the term Stolen Generation since now we have obvious evidence of the Protection Mission failure (Blagg, H, 2008 p. 64). That fact is proved by numerous stories of the removed population and the experience of race-mixed children who witnessed the injustice stand to them. Moreover, although the first step to the reconciliation of the Aboriginal culture was made, there are still many issues on the agenda concerning the future of the Australian population.
List of References
Bell, D. 2009 Listen to Ngarrindjeri Women Speaking: Kungun Ngarrindjeri Miminar Yunnan National Library of Australia, Canberra.
Bereson, Itlel 1989 Decades of Change: Australia in the Twentieth Century Hienemann Educational Australia, Richmond, Victoria.
Bates, D. 1938 The Passing of the aborigines: a lifetime spent among the natives of Australia Murray, UK.
Blagg, H, 2008 Crime, aboriginality and the decolonization of justice, Hawking Press, Sydney.
De Plevitz, L., 2006. Walking the Wire of Prejudice: The Flying Fruit Fly Circuss 2004 Production of Skipping on Stars. Journal of Australian Studies, (88), p. 111.
Haebich, A & Mellor, D, 2002, Many voices: reflection on experiences of Indigenous child separation, National Library of Australia, Canberra.
Howard, J. 1997 Opening Ceremony Speech, Australian Reconciliation Convention, Melbourne.
Kennedy, R, 2004 The Effective work of Stolen Generations Testimony: From the Archives to the Classroom Biography, vol. 27 p 48.
Language Log 2008 Apology in Australia, Language Log. Web.
Parliamentary Library 2008, Background Note. Sorry: the Unfinished Business of the Bringing Them Home report, Parliamentary Library. Web.
Pilkington, D 2002, Rabbit-proof Fence Miramax Books, US.
Read, P 1998, The Return of the Stolen Generation Journal of Australian Studies p. 8.
Van Driesdum, R., 2002 Outback Australia Lonely Planet, US.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.