| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Is 'The Stolen Generation' a lie?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Is 'The Stolen Generation' a lie?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 13>
Author
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Is 'The Stolen Generation' a lie?
    Posted: 06 Jul 2010 at 10:45

Roger Sandall reviews The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, Volume Three: The Stolen Generations 1881-2008, by Keith Windschuttle. Excerpts of his review are below. Needless to say, there are no small number of Australians who disagree with Mr. Sandall. Obviously the makers of the recent film, "Australia" may be safely counted among those who hold that such children were 'stolen'.  Ah, a veritable feast for Carch.

"The myth of the Stolen Generations (aka Stolen Children) has several elements. The historian who invented it claimed that the separation of child and parent was intended to produce permanent and final institutionalization. Windschuttle found that was not the case. Contacts with parents were generally encouraged, and in New South Wales, during the period 1907-1932, more than half returned to their families. It was originally claimed that the state sought to take the youngest children possible since the main purpose was to destroy their "Aboriginality." Untrue again. Most were teenagers and the idea was to find useful employment for young people who would otherwise waste their lives. Were the missionaries and other custodians "monsters" and "psychopaths"? No. Just mortal men and women with the usual range of human frailties. As for the figure of 100,000, Windschuttle’s concluding judgment is that in the ninety-year period, for the whole continent, the total number of removals was about 8,250."

"It is disagreeable reading about frontier conditions on the outskirts of ranches and remote country towns, about the alcoholism and violence, the promiscuity and disease, the child abuse. But it is essential to set down these things, precisely because the regiment of academics who created the myth of Australia’s Stolen Children try hard not to mention them. In their eyes it is tasteless and insensitive to do so—and no doubt much else besides. Yet these pathologies are the blindingly obvious reason for child removal. Not racism. Not cultural genocide. These horrors constitute the suppressio veri that requires the complementary suggestio falsi of "racism" to explain why children were separated from their parents. Their suppression also constitutes the lie at the heart of the so-called Stolen Generations."

"Fifty years ago, the Australian Left strongly favored literacy, health, and the assimilation of indigenes. It was a broadly sensible goal. But Left progressivism is incompatible with the romantic idealization of hunting and gathering: the one wants to go forward, the other wants to go back. As anthropological romanticism triumphed in the sphere of social policy, the Left embraced "Aboriginality" over literacy and vocational skills, assimilation was denounced as supremely evil, and Australia’s northern indigenes began their slide into the oblivion of fixed dependency—illiterate, vocationally disabled, desperately in need of help. But to intervene, let alone to remove children, is today howled down as cultural genocide."

http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Aboriginal-sin--5337



Edited by lirelou - 06 Jul 2010 at 10:49
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jul 2010 at 11:28
Politicisation of history....again.
 
The key for the entire piece is the last paragraph which begins with "50 years ago the Australian left....".
 
I read some of this guy's work before and he writes in the same way 19th century racists (erroneously called "orientalists" and "anthropologists") write about western civilisation and the obligation of the "white man" towards savages which in his mindset include everything that is not western.
 
Al-Jassas
 
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7823
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jul 2010 at 11:47
Keith Windschuttle is a revisionist racist "historian" who was one of PM John Howards attack dogs used against anyone who suggested that the whites did anything other than bring about a utopia.
 
The policies varied over the "90" years, and in many respects still continue. It was considered that children that weren't 100% aboriginal should be raised as white. Regardless of the objections of their family.
Cultural genocide was definitely an objective of the period - in fact it remains an objective to this day. Children had to be educated, taught manners, and the protestant work ethic. It was [is] for their own good. Aboriginies (full or mixed blood) were confined to reserves thoughout the early 20th century where teaching culture and language were forbiddian. Children were taken away from parents who did not raise their kids properly. Not raising kids properly included teaching them Aboriginal language, culture or skills.
 
In modern Australia kids are still taken away from parents who don't raise their kids "properly", only the definition of properly has changed slightly to fit modern values.


Edited by Omar al Hashim - 06 Jul 2010 at 11:50
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 4853
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jul 2010 at 23:57
Omar is spot on, revisionist  right wing rubbish.
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Dec 2010 at 13:14
Ah, another Indigenous Australian has sold out her 'heritage' and gone over to the enemy by assimilating into the Western mainstream. And a Country and Western singer to boot. Has she no shame? (Evil Smile  We need en amoticon for "Carch and Penguin alert")

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/first-indigenous-rhodes-a-cause-for-song/story-e6frg6nf-1225972399265

Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Dec 2010 at 13:46
Be careful what you pray for Lirelou, you might get it as Teresa de Jesus Ahumada was fond of iterating. As for entrusting one's children to an organ of the state being a marked sign of oppression, then I guess we are all "oppressed peoples" the minute we pass that responsibility over to the public schools! OK a lot of sarcasm here but just what is the purpose of an elementary education other than the integration of the individual into the prevailing social norm!
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Dec 2010 at 14:18
Doc, you'll get no argument from me. I take it my attempt at dry humour has failed. Cry
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7823
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Dec 2010 at 15:34

Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Ah, another Indigenous Australian has sold out her 'heritage' and gone over to the enemy by assimilating into the Western mainstream. And a Country and Western singer to boot. Has she no shame?

I'm sure Carch could interpret it that way but apart from the Rhodes scholarship which is always exceptional her story from Stockman's daughter to higher education is not unusal for aboriginal or migrant Australians.

That's the advantage of having a flat social structure and an excellent public education system

Originally posted by DrG DrG wrote:

As for entrusting one's children to an organ of the state being a marked sign of oppression, then I guess we are all "oppressed peoples" the minute we pass that responsibility over to the public schools! OK a lot of sarcasm here but just what is the purpose of an elementary education other than the integration of the individual into the prevailing social norm!

Yeah, um, NO.
Even accounting for sarcasm that's not even funny. Your comparing a system designed to deliberately eliminate a persons culture, with a system designed to provide equal opportunity.
In the former system she would not even know her parents, in the latter she is a Rhodes Scholar. There is no comparision between the two.

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Dec 2010 at 00:36
The fact here, Omar, is that the objective is exactly the same, specially if you are referencing immigrants! Your idea that the fundamental purpose of public education is the provision of "equal opportunity" is little more than semantic obfuscation worthy of the nittering nabobs of the NEA (the National Educational Association of the US)! The purpose was and is the full socialization of the parts into an integrated whole and current antics within this milieu such as "Erkelization" (the war against droopy pants by capturing the dress code violator and "suspendering" him up to his teats) underscores the premise. Yes we can wax prolific over the PC and decry through exaggeration, but when one gets down to the bottom line the supposed "culture" wars and the assignment of some villanous purpose and evil tactics to periods beyond the norms of today is little more than misinformation! Let us say that the interpretation foisted here is essentially the vilification of yesterday's "do-gooders" so as to laud their contemporary versions.
 
By the way... Rhodes Scholarships have more to do with politics and connections than any supposed virtuosity predicating "genius"! Yes, you can go on-and-on about how cynical that observation might be but the essence of cynicism is truth-speaking to those that do not like what is heard! 


Edited by drgonzaga - 19 Dec 2010 at 07:41
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Dec 2010 at 10:51
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Keith Windschuttle is a revisionist racist "historian" who was one of PM John Howards attack dogs used against anyone who suggested that the whites did anything other than bring about a utopia.
 
The policies varied over the "90" years, and in many respects still continue. It was considered that children that weren't 100% aboriginal should be raised as white. Regardless of the objections of their family.
Cultural genocide was definitely an objective of the period - in fact it remains an objective to this day. Children had to be educated, taught manners, and the protestant work ethic. It was [is] for their own good. Aboriginies (full or mixed blood) were confined to reserves thoughout the early 20th century where teaching culture and language were forbiddian. Children were taken away from parents who did not raise their kids properly. Not raising kids properly included teaching them Aboriginal language, culture or skills.
 
In modern Australia kids are still taken away from parents who don't raise their kids "properly", only the definition of properly has changed slightly to fit modern values.


I suspected it.

By the way, this situation was also lived by several native groups in Latin America. In Chile, the Kawashkar and other natives of southern Patagonia suffered an even more tragic destiny. The charity organizations actually robbed the childrens from the arms of theirs native mothers, to protect them and "civilized" them Confused

History is tragic. This is not to blame people of the present but to recognize abuses existed.




Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Dec 2010 at 21:24
'Cultural genocide' makes no sense. It may have value as an emotion stirrer, but of itself it doesn't mean anything.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Jams View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 416
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jams Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Dec 2010 at 22:08

Quote Contacts with parents were generally encouraged

I know some who were institutionalised, and what happened. I believe the author is wrong - it may not have been many people, but it did happen the way as described in "Rabbit Proof Fence", for example. Maybe it didn't happen the same way in all cases, but in some cases there were absolutely no contact with the parents after the removal. Or rather, the Aborigine parent(s).

The idea was that when someone was of mixed heritage, they should be brought up as "white". Forced removals happened, and they made a camp on an island (Palm Island) from where nobody could escape. Mixed kids was most often the result of an Aborigine woman/White Anglo man relationship, so the kids initially lived with the mom, for obvious reasons.

Unfortunately, the "abuse" as a reason for removal doesn't really mean what is said in the article - they regarded the very idea of living as an Aborigine as abuse by itself - if the kids had a white, or part white parent. They didn't give a flying frig about "pure" Aborigine children in general.

The reason why they could escape at some point was that they moved the people off the islands, to the camp depicted in the above mentioned movie (and others) which was on the Australian mainland, because of the WWII.

They didn't really mean any harm, they truly believed that they did the right thing, according to their belief at the time. It was, however, clearly an exponent of racialist thinking. I think the article is revisionism much in the same way as Holocaust denial is revisionism*.

(* I'm not comparing the Holocaust with the "stolen generation" just to clarify!)



Edited by Jams - 18 Dec 2010 at 22:12
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Dec 2010 at 00:08
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

'Cultural genocide' makes no sense. It may have value as an emotion stirrer, but of itself it doesn't mean anything.


The proper term is cultural destruction. Something in which the European colonizers become experts.

Never heared the conquest was done by the sword and the cross? In other words, by violence and also by a systematic cultural destruction.


Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Dec 2010 at 00:11
Originally posted by Jams Jams wrote:

...They didn't really mean any harm, they truly believed that they did the right thing, according to their belief at the time. It was, however, clearly an exponent of racialist thinking. I think the article is revisionism much in the same way as Holocaust denial is revisionism*.

(* I'm not comparing the Holocaust with the "stolen generation" just to clarify!)



Yes. People should get informed about the many contradictions of assimilating natives peoples to the mainstream. It was something that had to be done, and in many cases there were abuses, but also there were many benefits. For instance: survival.

Just compare them with the Jesuit missions in South America. Without them, perphaps people like the Guaranies had becomed extincted, and a country like Paraguay would have forgotten Guarani by now.

Anglican missioners with Yaganes,























Edited by pinguin - 19 Dec 2010 at 00:19
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Dec 2010 at 00:49
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

'Cultural genocide' makes no sense. It may have value as an emotion stirrer, but of itself it doesn't mean anything.


The proper term is cultural destruction.
Much better, but still emotive. I'd prefer 'eradication'.
 
The thing is, killing people is inherently bad. 'Genocide' implies people are killed (if there's no killing '-cide' is totally inappropriate), genocide being simply a subclass of homicide.  
 
On the other hand, eradicating cultures isn't inherently good or bad. The work done to get rid of Nazism post ww2 was certainly good. Most human progress involves eradicating cultures.
Quote
Something in which the European colonizers become experts.
No more than anyone else.
Quote
Never heared the conquest was done by the sword and the cross? In other words, by violence and also by a systematic cultural destruction.
I've heard the phrase. I discard it for the unthinking sloganising it represents.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Dec 2010 at 01:32
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

...
Much better, but still emotive. I'd prefer 'eradication'.


That's not a good term, because it implies an intention. The cultural destruction happened both with intention and without it, just by cultural diffusion. Every time a native replace theirs pottery pots by chinaware or aluminium, a tradition was lost.
 
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

...
The thing is, killing people is inherently bad. 'Genocide' implies people are killed (if there's no killing '-cide' is totally inappropriate), genocide being simply a subclass of homicide. 


Certainly I agree. Genocide should be reserved only for extermination wars. Not even wars, but wars whose intention was not to defeat a population but to exterminate it.
 

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

...
On the other hand, eradicating cultures isn't inherently good or bad. The work done to get rid of Nazism post ww2 was certainly good. Most human progress involves eradicating cultures.


Nazism was not a culture, but a cultural movement inside the Western civilization. In the case of native cultures, lossing a language and a cultural tradition is a tragedy, no only for the very group but to mankind as a whose.
Certain pracises, such as human sacrifices, deserved to be erradicated, certainly.

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

...
Quote
Never heared the conquest was done by the sword and the cross? In other words, by violence and also by a systematic cultural destruction.
I've heard the phrase. I discard it for the unthinking sloganising it represents.


Slogan? Well that phrase resumes pretty well European colonialism in the Americas. That's why is repeated quite often.



Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Dec 2010 at 01:58
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

...
Much better, but still emotive. I'd prefer 'eradication'.


That's not a good term, because it implies an intention. The cultural destruction happened both with intention and without it, just by cultural diffusion. Every time a native replace theirs pottery pots by chinaware or aluminium, a tradition was lost.
I'd agree with that. It's just that I thought the theme here was in fact deliberate eradication. I don't like 'destruction' because it automatically implies something bad happening. So far I can't come up with a satisfactory answer. Ermm
 


Edited by gcle2003 - 19 Dec 2010 at 01:58
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7823
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Dec 2010 at 09:25

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

The fact here, Omar, is that the objective is exactly the same, specially if you are referencing immigrants!

I was referring to natives. From an Australian point of view, all immigrant cultures whether they be of 18th century English or 21st century whereever, share a culture similar enough that a common cirricumlum serves the interests of all. Private schools exist where people prefer a certain cultural flavouring to the ciriculum.

Aboriginal people are coming from a radically different background to immigrant peoples. I did allude in my first post & I've said it in other threads that a common theme in the Black-White relationship in Aus is the Whites wanting to make the black fellas into white fellas. Education has been a consistant theme and tool in that process for the last 100 years.
However, the white fellas aren't entirely wrong. You cannot force a person to abandon their entire culture and heritage to adopt another like was tried in the first half of the 20th century, but aboriginal people have no intention of keeping their culture exactly as it always has been. Education is critically important in the modern world. Sure it's not a pure hunter-gatherer way of life, but except for a small few living in the remote outback that way of life was dead 100 years ago. Everybody recognises the importance of education.

Originally posted by Jams Jams wrote:

The reason why they could escape at some point was that they moved the people off the islands, to the camp depicted in the above mentioned movie (and others) which was on the Australian mainland, because of the WWII.

Most of your post is spot on but I'll just clarify this point. There were numerous missions, camps, reservations and schools across the country. The one depicted in Rabbit Proof Fence and the Palm Island Mission are two such examples. They weren't necessarily on islands, depends on whatever suited the situation at the time of establishment, and they weren't moved during WW2. The Palm Island Mission still exists today in fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Island,_Queensland

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Dec 2010 at 10:13
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

I'd agree with that. It's just that I thought the theme here was in fact deliberate eradication. I don't like 'destruction' because it automatically implies something bad happening. So far I can't come up with a satisfactory answer. Ermm


In the Americas, at least, the destruction of the natives cultures is originated mainly by the extraordinary capability of the mainstream to absorve native people into it.

I know that for other ethnic groups, with racial features too different from an average brown Caucasian, the discrimination is quite strong and the assimilation is almost impossible or very slow. In the case of Native Americans, particularly half bloods, to "pass" into the mainstream is not a difficult task at all. Native Americas had the highest rate of intermarriage in the U.S., and elsewhere in the Americas the situation is not different at all. With that it mind the survival of Native American culture depends of the personal decisions of the natives themselves.

Migration to the cities, formal education, TV, intermarriage, religious preaching are some of the factors that influence natives as much as the rest in the Americas. So, to preserve those identities, languages,  handcrafts and traditions, a big effort is required by the states and by the natives themselves. Left alone, the Amerindian cultures of the Americas will dissapear in a century.


Edited by pinguin - 19 Dec 2010 at 10:14
Back to Top
Jams View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 416
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jams Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Dec 2010 at 21:29
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Originally posted by Jams Jams wrote:

The reason why they could escape at some point was that they moved the people off the islands, to the camp depicted in the above mentioned movie (and others) which was on the Australian mainland, because of the WWII.

Most of your post is spot on but I'll just clarify this point. There were numerous missions, camps, reservations and schools across the country. The one depicted in Rabbit Proof Fence and the Palm Island Mission are two such examples. They weren't necessarily on islands, depends on whatever suited the situation at the time of establishment, and they weren't moved during WW2. The Palm Island Mission still exists today in fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Island,_Queensland

I didn't mean to say that Palm Island was the sole camp, but the ones I know were camped there, and yes, they were moved during WWII to a camp like the "Rabbit Proof Fence" camp. I suppose they were moved back after the war, perhaps? Interestingly, they also ran away from the camp, and made the long journey to their people just like the girls in the movie. It happened regularly. I don't think it was the same camp, actually, since it's on the other side of Australia, but the documents claim that it was. In any case, it was far away from the people they belonged to. 

 

PS, there's no doubt that the motivation behind the removals also was that they wanted to "mix out" the Aborigine "blood", which truly was seen as inferior at the time. The sequence in the "Rabbit Proof Fence" movie, where Neville, the manager, shows how to breed out the Aborigine features is really what they thought. If not of the legislation, perhaps it was just the local administrators who thought like that - but it was effectively one of the reasons why they did as they did, at the time. I'm not sure whether the reasons for removals were the same after the war, but at the time, pre-WWII, it certainly was.

 

This may not be genocide, but they did want to breed the Aborigines out of existence, by claiming every mixed kid and by bringing that kid up as white - which the first gen never would be, obviously.

You think they would have the same life as an Anglo person after they left the camps?



Edited by Jams - 19 Dec 2010 at 22:47
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Dec 2010 at 23:21
Someone else using 'Anglo' in an irritating way.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Jams View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 416
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jams Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Dec 2010 at 23:34
What's irritating about it? The reason I wrote Anglo, is because it's much more specific that "white" which is a term that annoys me, because it's so inclusive.
The fact that those Brit descendent peoples were "causasoid" or whatever, is totally irrelevant, They were promoting the "English way" of life - not the "white way" because there is no such thing.
 
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Dec 2010 at 23:46

You're now confounding confusion by intoroducing the 'English' way of life. 'White' is undesirable for other reasons, but it's true it is also too inclusive. The trouble is you have thrown out the baby with the bathwater and made it too exclusive. 'English' is better than 'Anglo', 'British' would be better, but the real flaw here is using a racial designation at all.

You're correct that 'caucasoid' is irrelevant (I would have said nonsensical) but you overlook that trying to find any such shorthand designation is the root of the problem here. Specify the people responsible: if you can't do it any other way name them, or say 'X and his followers' or some such phrase. Leave out the racist stuff. 

Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Dec 2010 at 00:28
Anglo is good for me. It means people that speak English and that are historically related to the United Kingdom, and particularly to England. The immigrants and others are not problem because with times they had becomming Anglicized.

With respect to race, it is undeniable the United Kingdom originally was made by a people that where Caucasians, of Celtic and Germanic origins. That people today don't want to offend citizens of Jamaican or Pakistani descendant, living in the UK, is not argument to deny a British "race" used to exist.






Edited by pinguin - 20 Dec 2010 at 00:31
Back to Top
Jams View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 416
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jams Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Dec 2010 at 00:35
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

You're now confounding confusion by intoroducing the 'English' way of life. 'White' is undesirable for other reasons, but it's true it is also too inclusive. The trouble is you have thrown out the baby with the bathwater and made it too exclusive. 'English' is better than 'Anglo', 'British' would be better, but the real flaw here is using a racial designation at all.

You're correct that 'caucasoid' is irrelevant (I would have said nonsensical) but you overlook that trying to find any such shorthand designation is the root of the problem here. Specify the people responsible: if you can't do it any other way name them, or say 'X and his followers' or some such phrase. Leave out the racist stuff. 

I'm too tired to explain why I used the term "Anglo" and you tend to read other meanings into this than what I intended. There's nothing "Racial" in this. It's strictly culture. Some ideas just don't carry well across the net, and we're not on the same wavelengt, I'm sorry to say.
However, look at what I wrote and see the CONTEXT of my use of "white Anglo". There's a reason for my use of "Anglo" but you're either oblivious to that, or you include some other irrelevant issue, or you're just into semantics, I can't tell.
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Anglo is good for me. It means people that speak English and that are historically related to the United Kingdom, and particularly to England. The immigrants and others are not problem because with times they had becomming Anglicized.

With respect to race, it is undeniable the United Kingdom originally was made by a people that where Caucasians, of Celtic and Germanic origins. That people today don't want to offend citizens of Jamaican or Pakistani descendant, living in the UK, is not argument to deny a British "race" used to exist.

It's not just that, I'm talking about the Australian reasoning for the things they did, and that clearly originate from a prevailing Anglo attitude towards other people in the world. It's not a "White" thing, it is strictly a Anglo thing - other countries had nothing to do with this, in Australia.

 

Their argument is.

 

1. They are white, the kid is part white. So he belongs to them.

 

2. They're an extension of Anglo (yes Anglo) culture and thought.

 
3. Other cultures and way of life is inferior.

 

Now, I could have written British, but I'm talking about stuff like white mans burden, which was an Anglo phenomenon - it was not specifically English or British, but prevailing in every Anglo influenced country, including the USA anb Australia and even Canada. So ANGLO is the only word that covers. And it was also meant ironically when I wrote "White Anglo" if you see the context, although admittedly those kind of things doesn't carry well across the net, as I said.

It's slang, if you will.



Edited by Jams - 20 Dec 2010 at 00:55
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Dec 2010 at 01:20
Originally posted by Jams Jams wrote:


Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Anglo is good for me. It means people that speak English and that are historically related to the United Kingdom, and particularly to England. The immigrants and others are not problem because with times they had becomming Anglicized.

With respect to race, it is undeniable the United Kingdom originally was made by a people that where Caucasians, of Celtic and Germanic origins. That people today don't want to offend citizens of Jamaican or Pakistani descendant, living in the UK, is not argument to deny a British "race" used to exist.

It's not just that, I'm talking about the Australian reasoning for the things they did, and that clearly originate from a prevailing Anglo attitude towards other people in the world. It's not a "White" thing, it is strictly a Anglo thing - other countries had nothing to do with this, in Australia.

 

Their argument is.

 

1. They are white, the kid is part white. So he belongs to them.

 

2. They're an extension of Anglo (yes Anglo) culture and thought.

 
3. Other cultures and way of life is inferior.

 

Now, I could have written British, but I'm talking about stuff like white mans burden, which was an Anglo phenomenon - it was not specifically English or British, but prevailing in every Anglo influenced country, including the USA anb Australia and even Canada. So ANGLO is the only word that covers. And it was also meant ironically when I wrote "White Anglo" if you see the context, although admittedly those kind of things doesn't carry well across the net, as I said.

It's slang, if you will.



Interesting. This point in the argument is exactly the opposite to the One Drop Rule in the United States:

"1. They are white, the kid is part white. So he belongs to them."

In the U.S., mixed people was considered (and it is still considered) to be part of the non-European group. So, a half Amerindian was considered Amerindian and a half black was considered black.

The Spanish colonial attitude is closer to the Australian you describe: destroy the culture to save the natives.

Back to Top
Jams View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 416
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jams Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Dec 2010 at 01:25
They were not really considered white by anyone, they were considered as "belonging" to the white community, as a property kind of thing. You know "we own you" kind of. Typically those kids were not in touch with their non-aborigine parent as well. They were in touch with a boarding system, the state. The state that tried to bring them up with "Anglo" values (oops, there's that Anglo again). The whitening aspect was a long time goal, achievable by mixing for a few generations.

The whole long term idea was to breed the Aborigines out of existence.



Edited by Jams - 20 Dec 2010 at 01:27
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Dec 2010 at 01:28
It is curious that the same attitude existed among the European colones of Austral Patagonia, during the late 19th century and early 20th.

The attitude was: "we have to rescue these poor kids from the hands of those barbarians".

Curiously, this same attitude seems to exist in the minds of those that addopt kids in the Third World, to save the poor creature from those barbarian countries Confused


Edited by pinguin - 20 Dec 2010 at 01:29
Back to Top
Jams View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 416
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jams Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Dec 2010 at 01:42
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

It is curious that the same attitude existed among the European colones of Austral Patagonia, during the late 19th century and early 20th.

The attitude was: "we have to rescue these poor kids from the hands of those barbarians".

Curiously, this same attitude seems to exist in the minds of those that addopt kids in the Third World, to save the poor creature from those barbarian countries Confused
 

Yes, there's a dilemma there. I know some people who were adopted in this fashion - and they don't really know if it's a good idea - although they admit that they probably wouldn't change places - the financial situation just makes it undesirable.

 

However, for those people it's typically the mother who has given up on the child for various reasons, and not something that is forced directly, and certainly not some plan of racial eradication, as in the case with  the mixed Aborigine removals. Maybe it's part of the same condescending mindset, but it's not part of any racial plan.
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7823
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Dec 2010 at 08:23
Jams's use of the word Anglo is perfectly legitimate and accurate in the context of the thread.
In Australia, 'Anglo' is short for Anglo-Celtic, effectively the name of the cultural group of people decendent from Britain, Ireland, Germany, the Netherlands and Scandinavia. The vast majority in Aus being from Britain and Ireland. Using Anglo when talking about Australia is just as legitimate as using black when refering to African Americans.
White is usually a synonym for Anglo, but this can be confusing because it is not apparent that Balts, Slavs, and South Europeans are not usually included as white (There are not enough French in Aus to warrent giving them an ethnic group). On the other hand in the context of aboriginal relations, 'white' often means any non-aboriginal, which depending on the location of the topic in Australia can include Pakistanis, Chinese, and Malays.
So I think Anglo is a better word, because it refers to the one (mainstream) culture, whereas white can mean anything from as specific as Anglo to as broad as immigrant.
Originally posted by gcle gcle wrote:

Specify the people responsible: if you can't do it any other way name them, or say 'X and his followers' or some such phrase. Leave out the racist stuff.

It would seem difficult to have a discussion about racist policies white leaving out racial designators. Aboriginal is a racist designator too.
However I will use the opportunity to mention that after WW2 many English orphans were brought out from England and placed into state care in very similar institutions. While those institutions were brutal, at least you cannot wipe out an Englishman's culture by enforcing Anglo culture (though the question does remain over which team they supported in the Ashes )
Originally posted by Jams Jams wrote:

I didn't mean to say that Palm Island was the sole camp, but the ones I know were camped there, and yes, they were moved during WWII to a camp like the "Rabbit Proof Fence" camp. I suppose they were moved back after the war, perhaps? Interestingly, they also ran away from the camp, and made the long journey to their people just like the girls in the movie. It happened regularly. I don't think it was the same camp, actually, since it's on the other side of Australia, but the documents claim that it was. In any case, it was far away from the people they belonged to.

Perhaps your thinking of Bathurst Island north of Darwin? That was bombed by the Japanese and there was a mission there. Palm Island is too far away to be threatened by the Japanese.
Quote
You think they would have the same life as an Anglo person after they left the camps?

Certainly a lot of people didn't, I don't know how many did. What they really did was mess up the kids identity. Some hide the fact they are aboriginal and mix into the white (non-aboriginal ) community. Others hold onto their aboriginality even more tightly. A large number left as adults emotionally messed up without much of a past or future.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 13>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.