Australia´s Stolen Generation - Causes and Consequences

Englisch

Fachlehrer: Herr Munderloh

Bewertung:

Unterschrift des Verfassers Unterschrift des Fachlehrers

............................................

2

The Redfern Statement

"We took the traditional lands and smashed the traditional way of life. We brought the

diseases. The alcohol. We committed the murders. We took the children from their mothers.

We practiced discrimination and exclusion. It was our ignorance and our prejudice. And we

failed to imagine these things were done to us."

  C O N T E N T S  

1.  Foreword  5

2.  Introduction  5

3.  Historical Background  6

3.1  James Cook and his way of treating the Native Australians  6

3.2  The Treatment of the Indigenous People of North America  6

4.  The Treatment of the Aboriginals in the Australian society  7

4.1  Racism  7

4.2  General Consequences of the Racism  8

4.3  Reasons for the Children's Removal  9

4.4  Consequences of the Removal  10

4.5  Fate Report of a Stolen Child  11

5.  National Reactions and Situations  12

5.1  The Redfern Statement  12

5.2  Official Government Statement  12

5.3  The Progress of the Reconciliation  13

5.4  The Bringing Them Home Report  13

5.5  The Future of the Aborigines under the John Howard Government  14

5.6  The Sorry Book  14

6.  International Reactions and Conventions  15

6.1  The UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (9 th of  

  December 1948)  15

6.2  The Human Rights Committee  16

6.3  The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination  16

6.4  Reactions of other Countries  17

6.4.1  The Federal Republic of Germany  17

6.4.2  The European Union  17

6.4.3  The United States of America  18

7.  Conclusion  18

8.  Annotation  20

9.  Appendix  21

9.1  Bibliography  21

9.2  Tables  25

9.2.1  Sexual assaults reported by Inquiry witnesses  25

9.2.2  After-effects of forcible removal  25

9.3  Original Sources  25

9.3.1  Fate report of a Stolen Child  25

9.3.2  The 'Terms of Reference' of the 'Bringing them Home' report  26

9.3.3  The places visited by the 'Bringing them Home report' writers  27

9.3.4  The address of the Bundespresseamt  27

4

1. Foreword

I spent 11 wonderful months as an exchange student in the country at which behaviour I will look very critical in the following research paper. First of all, I am going to describe my relationship with Australia so the reader will get a better understanding of my point of view. One of the most shocking experiences I made by preparing this research paper was to realise that the racism in Australia is still alive. I had lived in this country for nearly a year and I did not realise at all, to what extent discrimination of Aboriginals goes.

During the preparation time of the Olympic Games in Sydney (New South Wales) there was a big discussion going on about the issue of The Stolen Generation. Stimulated by the arrival of the international media, politicians were fighting in public about paragraphs concerning the Stolen Generation issue on the back of the Aboriginal people. This discussion had special effects on me, as a foreign observer. At this point, I interpreted speeches of some supporters of civil rights as too fussy and simply disturbing. Now that I know about the background of this topic concerning some matters, I changed my mind completely.

After a stay of 11 months in Melbourne (Victoria), the time came for me to return to Germany. Many people were asking me whether I would be excited about going home. In these moments, I had to ask myself were my home was. At that time, the answer confused me because I felt my home was there. Certainly, I knew that Germany would turn again into my new/old home but at that very time, I felt quite strangely about this fact. All over, all I really feel privileged that I had the great opportunity to look over the borders of my own environment and to see another country and its way. This also is the reason why I will not mince matters.

2. Introduction

Australia has an unique status in the world. It is the oasis in the middle of several Asian third world countries. This status is hard to carry because on the one side, Australia has to respect the human rights and on the other side, it has to control the immigration. It is a very large country but there are only very few spots at which humans are able to live and to survive. This puts Australia into its special position.

A century ago, Australia started to form its own government. The Australian out of nine different states and territories became one nation. This nation had to learn to get on well with the Aborigines, which turned out to be a great problem for the whites. The young newly formed government decided to assimilate the mixed blooded children into their new and free

5

nation, not knowing that this would be the beginning of the Stolen Generation and would divide the country into half for a long time.

Back to the present: Through two world wars, the worldwide economic crisis and the cold war, the young nation grew up and became an adult nation. Now Australia realises what happened to it but its nation is unsure about how to cope with the problem.

3. Historical Background

3.1 James Cook and his way of treating the Native Australians

In 1642, the Dutch sailor Tasman discovered the Van-Diemens-Land, which today is called Tasmania.

On the morning of the 19 ^th of April 1770, Zachariah Hicks, the first officer of the Royal Navy Whitby Cat ¹ Endeavour, was the first European who saw the coast of Australia. The secret order James Cook got of the British admiralty was to discover the legendary Terra Australia Incognita. On the 28 ^th of April, the Endeavour dropped their anchors at Botany Bay and for the first time in history, a European crew got in touch with Down Under. James Cook was a very careful man and so he planned to make great effort to get on well with the native Australians. However, when Isaac Smith, who was a cousin of Cook's wife, made the first step on the new land, he was welcomed by a group of warriors, who were throwing stones and Boomerangs at him. Cook did not know what it was so he called it a Throwing stick ² . In these few days two completely different cultures clashed together. Both sides did not hesitate to use weapons to defeat themselves and their traditions. Cook shot in the air for a few times to increase the radius of the Aborigines who were standing around him and his group. It seemed to work. From this time on, Cook could not get in touch with the Aborigines anymore. There were a few more contacts between the crew and the Aborigines at some other spots of the east coast. However, every effort to communicate with this newly discovered culture was dominated by misunderstandings.

3.2 The Treatment of the Indigenous People of North America

Arriving in North America around 1400, the whites mainly planned to increase their wealth. This certainly led to a lot of conflicts with the actual indigenous population of America. An additional factor of aggression was the fact that the whites were convinced they were members of the most superior culture. Many conflicts were caused by this arrogance, starting

¹ A special kind of ship, which carried coal in the London dockland

² Aughton, Peter. Dem Wind ausgeliefert.

6

with casual trading and ending with the distribution of land. In the 16 ^th century, the church proclaimed that it was not even certain that Indians were human beings. In many cases, the whites accused Indian tribes to be barbarically. The only valid measures to compare the Indians with the Europeans were European values.

The main difference between the American indigenous politics and the Australian one was that in the U.S.A. there were treaties that arranged the living of both cultures. Often this did not lead to complete contentment on both sides. At least this gave the Indians a legal base for negotiations.

4. The Treatment of the Aboriginals in the Australian society

4.1 Racism

Many Aboriginal tribes lost their land when the Europeans started to colonize the country at the beginning of the 19 ^th century. Especially during the time of the gold rush (1851-1852), the Whites took the valuable land of the tribes and ignored their land rights. In 1937, the Commonwealth and all States passed the Policy of Assimilation, which guided the governments until the 1950s: The destiny of the natives of Aboriginal origin but not of the full blood lies in their ultimate absorption by the people of the Commonwealth, and [...] all effort should be directed to that end. Efforts by all state authorities should be directed towards the education of children of mixed blood at white standards, and their subsequent employment under the same conditions as whites with a view to taking their place in the white community. ³ . In the 1960s, the policy was replaced by the Policy of Integration, which said Aboriginal people could continue their cultural beliefs and live alongside others of different cultures. ⁴ .

In 1990, the government started the reconciliation process and founded the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, which purpose it is to solve the Mandatory Sentencing problem and the Native Title problem.

In 1993, the National Court of Australia passed the Native Title Act in which they declared that the Aborigines had the right to negotiate.

In 1995 and 1996, the Northern Territory and Western Australia passed the Mandatory Sentencing, which is designed to arrest people for property crimes up to twelve months. Poor social groups mostly commit these crimes. This leads to the assumption that its real use is to

³ New South Wales Department of Education. Social Justice & Human Rights Issue: A Global Perspective [online]

⁴ New South Wales Department of Education. Social Justice & Human Rights Issue: A Global Perspective [online].

7

criminalise the Aborigines. It is easier to discriminate an evil Aborigine than a good one. This behaviour of the government reminds one of general war tactic: Dehumanising the enemy for decreasing the inhibition threshold of the warriors.

Then in 1998, the newly elected government under John Howard, which still is in power nowadays, passed the Native Title Amendment Acts. These acts deprive the Aborigines of the right to negotiate and are the inversion of the National Title Acts of 1993. The UN is still very worried about these developments and asked Australia as the first democratic Western country to eliminate the racial discrimination: While the original 1993 Native Title Act was delicately balanced act between the rights of the indigenous and non-indigenous title holders, the amended act appears to create legal certainly for the Governments and third parties at the expense of indigenous title. ⁵ .

Does not this tactic of the Australian government show the real 'rights' of the Aborigines? In my opinion the Whites are the real criminals ⁶ . They illegally took the land of the Aborigines who afterwards realised it and claim their rights today. The government works very hard dehumanising the Aborigines, thereby making them less believable and trustable.

4.2 General Consequences of the Racism

In 2001, the population of Australia consisted of approximately 19 million people. Among them live about 427 000 Aborigines, which is 2 percent of all Australians. Compared to the Whites, the social situation of the Aborigines is in a very bad state. 15.5 Aboriginal babies out of 1000 die at birth, which are 10 more than of the Whites. The life expectancy of the Aborigines is 20 years less than the White's one. Diabetes, tuberculosis and suicide are the reasons for the high death rate among the Aboriginal population. 21 percent of the males and 9 percent of the women abuse alcohol. In 2000, the general unemployment-rate was 7 percent, whereas 23 percent of the Aborigines were unemployed. One reason for the high unemployment rate is the bad education of the Aborigines: Only 32 percent of the Aboriginal children finish school. Most Aborigines are employed by the communities or the government within Community Development Employment Projects, CDEP. They earn about A$ 10,000 per year, which is A$ 2,500 under the official poverty line.

⁵ Hett, Julia. Rassismus in Australien - GfbV-Stellungnahme zur Weltkonferenz gegen Rassismus [online].

⁶ Please refer to the Redfern Statement (5.1)

8

4.3 Reasons for the Children's Removal

From the beginning of white settlement great parts of the Australian society were convinced that a black child would not be able to survive in the high developed white society at all. Only to the mixed blooded children were given the chance to assimilate into white society. Many Australians thought that the problem's solution lay in the removal of mixed blooded children from home. The first law which regularised this was the Policy of Assimilation.

As described above, the government wanted to give those mixed blooded children the chance to assimilate into the white and therefore European culture, religion and society. From their point of view, the problem was that the families of these children had a bad influence on them. Thus the decision was made to raise these children among Europeans. The aim was that the children would forget their origin. In their opinion, they imagined the best possible result could have been comparable to a low class white. This was a rather naive way of thinking. As far back as in the 1900s, Sigmund Freud discovered that the first months of life are the most important and most fixing ones for a child's physical and mental development. All in all, one could ask itself why the Government did not make any effort to study the Aborigines and their way of life. For example, Aborigines live together in big families. In case of illness or death of the mother there are always the grandparents and other family members who will care for the child. The Whites did not know about these traditions or, which is more likely, they did not respect them.

Since before 1939 the Australian administrative bodies were given unrestricted power over all families with Aboriginal members ⁷ , the national Government passed the General Child Welfare Act in that year. Although that law required the proof […] the children were neglected, uncontrollable or had to live in misery [, which includes the living by Aboriginal traditions] more and more children were removed from their [origin] families. ⁸ . Analysing so called Welfare it does not seem very generously anymore. In theory at least the court process in the Child Welfare Act provided some safeguards against the unfounded separation of children from their families. But in reality, this was not a big help for neither child nor parents, because the courts often were located far from the Aboriginal communities. The parents were not able to seek legal assistance. This and the following example show inefficiency of the law: In that time we had nobody. No-one to talk for us or anything… We had to just go there… and… if we wanted to say something then, in court, it was too late. They

⁷ Kleinwächter, Sarah. Living between two worlds – the Aborigines’ stolen children [online].

⁸ Kleinwächter, Sarah. Living between two worlds – the Aborigines’ stolen children [online].

9

said it was already finished. And then, bang, they're gone. That was it (quoted by Wootten 1983 on page 15). 9

The following example underlines the arbitrariness of the General Child Welfare Act: The interpretation of neglected and uncontrollable, which was mentioned in the Child Welfare Act, was done very widely. The word neglect included poverty and destitution and was a constant feature of most Aboriginal families. Children who refused to go to school were labelled uncontrollable. Often the reasons why the children ran away from home were that they were sexual abused or even pregnant. Nobody cared about their conspicuous behaviour and besides that -nobody would have believed them. In such cases the parents in which were forced to consent to the removal of their children the Board did not have to show that a child was neglected or uncontrollable ¹⁰ .

These assimilation practices, which were displayed on examples of the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, carried on until 1975.

4.4 Consequences of the Removal

Most of the following text is based on the Bringing them Home report ¹¹ , which was published in 1997.

Every child of the Stolen Generation was in danger to turn into a victim of sexual abuse. Girls were in a higher danger to get raped then boys. 7.7% of the boys and 17.0% of the girls reported that they were victims of sexual abuse ¹² . Both genders often were victims of these crimes. Normally the children did not report those cases. The reason can mainly be found in the dependence the children had of their homes. The foster families were their only constant base they had, their only home. This is the reason why they were anxious of telling somebody what was done to them. In their opinion, the sneaking would have led to the destruction of their home. Usually the perpetrator put its victim under a huge pressure. Since in nine out of ten cases of sexual abuse the perpetrator came out of the child's very close social setting, the child was in a dilemma: Every option of revealing itself to its environment would have meant a great suffer for the young unsupported victim.

Because the children often were taken away at a very low age, they did not have any contact to their parents who would have taught them essential abilities such as trusting the own feelings. The raped child often did not know how to interpret this incident. Sure, it did not feel

⁹ Commonwealth of Australia. Bringing Them Home Report. Book 1, Page 34

¹⁰ Commonwealth of Australia. Bringing Them Home Report. Book 1, Page 34

¹¹ For more information about this report please refer to National Reactions and Situations (5.4) for further details

¹² Please refer to the Appendix (9.2.1) for further details

10

good about being raped, but how could it have known that this was wrong. For example, a lot of young children do not feel happy about going to school or taking a shower but as they are taught these things are necessary. Unlike, nobody taught them that sexual abuses are wrong and they were not given the chance to ask. If nobody teaches you the norms of society, how can you rely on them? These children did not learn how valuable their feelings are. Often they took themselves as a matter of cause as human beings of a second class. Since a major aim of the children's removal was the destruction of cultural links, the children were living between two different worlds. On the one side there was their origin they did not know anything about. On the other side there was the white society, which did not include them. In most cases these children went through an identity crisis. As an adult, they very quickly learned that they were not members of this society. There were still too many differences, starting with the colour of their skin and ending with the traumatic experiences during their childhood. This characterises the Aborigines until today: They don't know where they belong to. The first one does not accept them and the other one is nearly erased by the first one, trying to assimilate the Aborigines into the white man's society, which does not want them. [Do you get it? … I don't either.] A lot of Aboriginal tribes forgot their traditions and they are slowly recovering from the experiences with the European culture. Therefore, you can say that the cultural base the Aborigines originally had was dumped by the Whites. If a White now criticises an Aborigine to be a drunken bum [and this is quite often true], this white person should ask itself whose fault it is that this colourful and peaceful race lost its identity and forgot the sense of life.

It was forbidden for us to talk in our own language […] we weren't allowed to talk about anything that belonged to our tribal life. 13

4.5 Fate Report of a Stolen Child

John was removed from his home as a baby in 1940. Until he was 10, he lived at Bomaderry Children's Home, an ecclesiastical managed orphanage. He describes the place as a not really terrible home but very impersonal. The Sisters of the Bomaderry Children's Home were nice to the children, but they did not clear them up about their origin and background. All the children thought the Sisters were their parents. The only thing they told all these young Aborigines was that they were Whites. This was part of the assimilation. As a result of this, the children were not allowed to speak to coloured people.

¹³ Commonwealth of Australia. Bringing Them Home Report. Book 1, Page 152

11

At the age of 10, all children went on a train trip. None of the children knew what their destination would be. When they arrived at Kinchela Boys' Home, the first thing they had to do was to burn their backpacks with their little bibles inside. This was a great loss for the children, because those bibles were the only thing they had possessed. Every child got a number which was printed on all their clothes. The Boy's Home seemed to have their names deleted. Everybody's identity was minimised to a number. This was a terrible loss for the children, because a name always is an important base one's character. They lost the last part of their identity in a time of puberty. Their identity was taken off them with methods, which very strongly remind of the Holocaust. All this happened under the headline of assimilation. At the same time, the Holocaust was brutal reality in Europe and was criticised by the Australian government! 14

5. National Reactions and Situations

5.1 The Redfern Statement

The so called Redfern Statement is a speech which was held on the International Human Rights Day (10 ^th of December 1992) at the Sydney suburb of Redfern by Paul Keating (Australian Prime Minster, 1992) to launch the United Nations International Year for the World's Indigenous People.

This statement became very famous, because it was the first official confession done by an Australian Prime Minister. The second reason for its fame is the location the speech was given: Redfern is the Aboriginal ghetto of Sydney, only two train stations away from the Olympic village.

Many Aboriginal spectators started crying when they heard this true and honest admission of guild in Redfern. The general hope was that from this time on the reconciliation process would develop easier. It seemed the government's attitude towards the Aborigines had changed when the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) was founded. The purpose of this commission is to represent the interests of the indigenous people of Australia.

5.2 Official Government Statement

According to the Official Government Statement from 1997, the government believes very strongly in the urgent need of assisting family reunion ¹⁵ . The facts of the Stolen

¹⁴ For the original report of John, please refer to 9.2.2

¹⁵ Commonwealth of Australia. Australia Now - Separated Indigenous Children [online].

12

Generation are well-known to the government and its consequences are obvious. But still the government tries to palliate the facts: In the official government statement The Stolen Generation is called The Separated Indigenous Children.

5.3 The Progress of the Reconciliation

Since the 1970s, there were several tries to couch a formal treaty or agreement. The content was designed to regularize the rights of the Aborigines and provide a solid legal base for further negotiations.

The first serious approach was made in 1991 by the Australian Parliament. It unanimously enacted the 'Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Act' 16 . The council's task was to develop documents of reconciliation. The previous federal government and the current (1996-2003) one have rejected the plans of an agreement with the explanation that the general population would not be supported enough.

The next step was made on 26 August 1999; the Australian Parliament officially called the reconciliation process an […] important national inquiry for all Australians 17 . On 27-28 May 2000, the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation presented its report on the reconciliation process. This will be a measure for further steps of the reconciliation.

5.4 The Bringing Them Home Report

In 1994, there was the Going Home Conference in Darwin (Northern Territory). Every state and every territory was represented by one delegate. The members of the conference shared experiences and tried to find solutions for the Stolen Generation problem. The aim was to meet the needs of those children and their families who survived 18 .

In May 1995, the Government declared the Separation of Aborigines a national inquiry. The reason for this first official step was the concern that the public's lack of knowledge would cumber recognition of the needs of the sacrifices and would hinder the government in helping those victims.

On 11 May 1995, the Attorney-General, Michael Lavarch MP, launched the Bringing Them Home Report project. The inquiry started hearing victims on the 4 ^th of December 1995 and

¹⁶ Office of indigenous Policy – Department of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. Reconciliation [online].

¹⁷ Office of indigenous Policy – Department of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. Reconciliation [online].

¹⁸ Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission / Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Social Justice. Bringing them Home: The 'Stolen Children' report [online].

13

finished the hearing on 3 October 1996. During this time, inquiry teams visited various places in every Australian state and territory ¹⁹ .

Many public evidences were taken from different organisations and individuals. Most of the time these evidences were recorded but there are also some oral ones. All in all, the team collected 777 submissions of individuals, the church and the government. The Bringing them Home report is one main source of this research paper and provides the reader with personal experiences about the Stolen Generation.

5.5 The Future of the Aborigines under the John Howard Government

In general, it can be said that the Aborigines have to be aware of the fact that they face a murkily future.

Both major parties, the conservative coalition of John Howard and the labour opposition of Kim Beazley, think that the Aboriginal welfare is a serious policy. Further, both parties say that reconciliation is a priority. However, they differ over the way of achieving this goal: The governing party of John Howard does not believe that an apology would make any difference to the issue. The opposition leader, Kim Beazley, says that his party would make a formal apology to the Aborigines for past injustices. This would be one expectancy of the Aborigines. They would not care whose parliament would apologize.

All in all, one cannot expect too much, accounting that the conservative coalition was able to increase their votes up to 46% during the elections in November 2001.

Every Aborigine wished himself only to hear this small word: Sorry.

5.6 The Sorry Book

It started on 26 January 1988 (Australia Day), when four books started to go around the country. The books had blank pages. Every willing Australian had the opportunity to show his deeply regret towards the suffering of the Indigenous population of Australia as a result of European settlement. Within a few months the number of books increased up to around thousand with about 1 million signatures. These books, containing the people's apology, got famous and soon they were called the Sorry Book.

On 26 May 1998, the government organised the National Sorry Day. On this day, Sorry Books were lying out in community houses, town halls and other public places. In Sydney, hundreds of those books were presented to representative of the Stolen Generation.

¹⁹ For a list of all visited places, please refer to 9.3.3

14

6. International Reactions and Conventions

6.1 The UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (9 th of December 1948)

On 9 December 1948, 41 signatories and 133 parties ²⁰ corroborated the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Australia was one of these countries and signed the treaty on the 11 ^th of December 1948. At this time, shortly after the end of World War II, the German Holocaust was still very present in the minds of the world's civilisation.

The whole treaty has got 19 articles. The second article of this treaty is of special interest the Stolen Generation incident:

Article 2

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in the whole or in part, a national, ethnical, radical or religious group, such as: (a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of the life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. 21

The article no. 2 defines the expression Genocide very clearly. In part, (e) is written that the forcible transfer of children out of one group into another is called Genocide. This exactly is what the Australian government officially did from 1910 until 1979 (the details vary from 1970 until 1979).

Two years ago, the UN was trying to make a study on the racism in Australia: The Australian government simply denied its agreement to it ²² . This shows the actual power of the Australian government although it signed the convention mentioned before. According to this convention (article 6), Australia should have been charged with genocide by an international tribunal. Neither the European Union or the U.S.A. nor the United Nations reacted seriously on these facts.

²⁰ United Nations. Multilateral treaties deposited with the Secretary-General- TREATY I-IV—1 [online].

²¹ United Nations – Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide [online].

²² Racota, Despina. Werden die Aborigines um Entschuldigung gebeten?[online].

15

6.2 The Human Rights Committee

The UN Human Rights Committee tried for a few times to investigate the circumstances ²³ of the Stolen Generation Removal. Among other things, they asked for details concerning the present situation of the indigenous children (by now adults) who were taken away between 1910 and the 1970s ²⁴ . The representative of the Australian government could give no precise figures for the number of children involved, since the practice had taken place all over Australia […]. ²⁵ . This shows the disability and shyness the Australian government has to investigate this matter.

6.3 The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination is the second one after the UN Human Rights Committee (6.2), which worries about the situation of the Aborigines in Australia. In their summary record of the 1394 ^th meeting ²⁶ , it is said in Point 5 that The Commission [of Human Rights and Equal Opportunity of the UN] had made 54 recommendations concerning the responsibility of the Commonwealth, states and territory governments [of the Stolen Children Incident]. ²⁷ The Commission had requested all Australian parliaments to apologise for the forcible removal of ingenious children in the past. 28

Until the creation of this record summary, ²⁹ no Australian parliament had formally apologised to the ingenious population. They had argued that the Aboriginal children only had been taken away in cases of families being split up. Arguing like this leads to the consumption that the Australian parliaments completely ignored that Aborigines live in a greater family circuit, including uncles, aunts and grandparents.

It does not seem possible for the UN committees to talk to representatives of the Australian government about the Stolen Generation problem, because Australia does not face the facts of this issue.

²³ Brinkmeier, Friederike. From MenschenRechtsZentrum der Universität Potsdam, To Jonas-Benjamin Walther [letter].

²⁴ United Nations – Office of the High commissioner for Human Rights. List of Issues: Australia [online]. Point

6.

²⁵ United Nations – Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Summary Record of the 1856 th meeting: Australia [online]. Point 25.

²⁶ United Nations – Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Summary record of the 1394 th meeting: Australia [online]. Point 5

²⁷ United Nations – Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Summary record of the 1394 th meeting: Australia [online]. Point 5

²⁸ United Nations – Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Summary record of the 1394 th meeting: Australia [online]. Point 5

²⁹ S United Nations – Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Summary record of the 1394 th meeting: Australia [online].

16

6.4 Reactions of other Countries

6.4.1 The Federal Republic of Germany

The reaction of Germany to Australia’s Stolen Generation issue as well as to its Human Rights situation can be delineated very quickly: There is no reaction. ³⁰ . This was told me by Hans Wiesmann who is the chief of the Fachreferat Australian at the Bundespresseamt in Berlin ³¹ . A bit shocked through this answer I asked wether that would mean that the German Government behaves neutral towards the Australian Government. I learned that my country officially does not know about anything. The Federal Republic of Germany seems to simply ignore the facts, which is not a better behaviour than the Australian government shows towards the Aborigines.

The word Australia is mentioned only once in the Human Rights report of the Federal Republic of Germany. This happens in the connection with discussion about the discrimination of homosexual people.

6.4.2 The European Union

The European Union (EU) publishes human rights reports about nearly every country. In the opinion of the EU, Australia is not without problems, which is discussed in the Case Study: Australia ³² . This report says that although Australia received excellent reports of several world organisations that watch over human rights, it has to face the several human rights disregards. The most obvious and serious human rights abuses seem to the pervasive deaths of Aborigines in custody 32 .

The writer of this report, Saitta, believes that the main reason for the discrimination of Aborigines and other ethnical groups lies in the big variety of races, religious groups and the relationship to the Commonwealth.

He also compares the situation in Australia with the one in Russia. Although there are many differences between these two countries, the few similarities can show, why human rights are handled similar in both countries. Australia and Russia both are within a commonwealth and

³⁰ Wiesmann, Hans – Bundespresseamt. Reactions of the federal government on the 'stolen generation incident' [phone call].

³¹ Please refer to 9.3.4 for the address of the Bundespresseamt Berlin

³² Saitta, Maurizio, EU Information and Communication expert – European Expertise Service. Best practices in human rights strategies – a case study: Australia [online].

17

both have a multiethnic and multicultural compositions within one dominant group […] ³² . Both countries are spanned over big territories. This fact makes it hard to rule the country. All over all, you can say that the European Union is aware of the human rights problems in Australia, but does not draw consequences out of it. I am not sure wether the European Union is already that powerful, to act as an autonomous country or rather as an organisation.

6.4.3 The United States of America

Every year, the United States of America (U.S.A.) publish very detailed human rights reports of many countries. The latest versions are the Country Reports on human Rights Practices - 2001 33 .

In general, the report concerning Australia says that the Australian government respects the human rights of its citizens. The only reported abuse of the human rights is the death of 92 people in custody in 2001. This is a very significant number additional to that most of these people were Aborigines. Thirty-one deaths were attributed to suicide. Further, the police behaves very dominant especially towards the Aborigines. Six people died because of highspeed car chases with the police and another six people were shot by the police. The report does not mention the native title act or the stolen generation at all. The U.S.A. does not draw consequences out of these human rights abuses just as all other countries.

7. Conclusion

The things, which make Australia one of the most colourful and most open nations, are also its biggest problems. The Aborigines, the national and international conflicts and the huge variety of races formed Australia the country so many people love and want to experience today. It will take a long time to compensate all the heavy emotions involved in the Aboriginal and the White’s. As long as the Australian nation and its spirit do not give up, there will be the process of reconciliation.

As an example, I think of our own country, Germany. It took and still takes a lot of effort to digest the World War II. In times all people effected by the Nazis will be gone, there will be a new generation, untouched by the Holocaust but not unaffected by it. Through discussions with Australians, I got to know the opinion that alternative of dealing with the Nazi history of Germany: People were making jokes of the Nazis and Hitler, not cruel ones. For me, just to

³³ U.S. Department of State – Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Australia – Country Report on Human Rights Practices [online].

18

mention the Nazi regime in a joke was enough. I was stunned by it and asked myself how people could talk like this. But they can because the Holocaust is far away from them. It took place in the past. Time has moved on. Today’s Australians do not connect us Germans with Hitler anymore.

The Australian nation is going through a similar process, which will have an end at some point in the future. Probably at that time, there will be new conflicts, but they do not matter right now.

The Aborigines are the heartbeat of the Australian Spirit.

8. Annotation

While I read the collected material I researched to give this paper about Australia’s Stolen Generation a fundamental base, I realised to what extent this topic also effects the people outside of Australia. This was the motivation why I decided to concentrate on the reasons and consequences of this topic. Caused through the importance of those factors for us as members of a very important economic country we should be interested in influencing these consequences.

This paper is also designed to show the reader that Germany is not a country which respects the human rights in every regard. In my opinion, the verb to respect includes, that in the case of someone else not respecting something, you let him feel the consequences of this disrespect.

20

9. Appendix

9.1 Bibliography

1. Amnesty International Deutschland. Jahresbericht 1999 Australien [online]. 16 June 1999.

http://www2.amnesty.de/C1256A380047FD78/0/4F1D3FE14E370920C1256AA0004 2D021?Open (l.c. 12.02.2002)

2. Anonymous. Australians for Native Title – Sorry Day, 26 May 1998 [online]. http://www.nativetitle.aust.com/sorrybook/sorryday.html (l.c. 07.03.2002)

3. Anonymous. Australians for Native Title – What Does The Sorry Book Say? [online]. http://www.nativetitle.aust.com/sorrybook/what.html (l.c. 07.03.2002)

4. Anonymous. Australians for Native Title [online].

http://www.nativetitle.aust.com/index.html (l.c. 07.03.2002)

5. Aughton, Peter. Dem Wind ausgeliefert. 2nd edition. Munich and Zurich: Diana Verlag AG, 2001

6. Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission / Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Social Justice. Bringing them home: The ‘Stolen Children’ report [online].

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/stolen_children/index.html (l.c. 06.02.2002)

7. Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. HREOC Website: Moving Forward Conference [online]. Update 12 February 2002.

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/movingforward/ (l.c. 13.02.2002)

8. Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Website: Social Justice [online]. April 2000, update: 2 December 2001.

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/index.html (l.c. 13.02.2002)

9. Australian Immigration Department. Office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs [online].

http://www.immi.gov.au/oatsia/index.htm (l.c. 13.02.2002)

10. Auswärtiges Amt. Ausgabe aller Vertretungen eines Landes [online]. http://www.auswaertiges-

amt.de/www/de/laenderinfos/vertretungen/ausl_vertretung?land_id=13 (l.c. 13.02.2002)

11. Blickle, Nadja. The present situation of Aborigines in Australia [online]. 2000. http://www.hausarbeiten.de/archiv/englisch/engl-o-present.shtml (l.c. 06.02.2002)

12. Brinkmeier, Friederike. From: MenschenRechtsZentrum der Univerität Potsdam, To: Jonas-Benjamin Walther [letter]. 19 February 2002.

21

13. Commonwealth of Australia. Australia Now - Separated Indigenous Children [online]. 2000, update 27 September 2001.

http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/separated_children.html (l.c. 08.02.2002)

14. Commonwealth of Australia. Redfern Park Statement [online]. Speech held by Paul Keating, Prime Minister of Australia in 1992.

http://www.omen.net.au/~staffy/redfern.html (l.c. 12.02.2002)

15. Commonwealth of Australia. Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families. Bringing them Home Report. 1997.

16. Decoust, Michèle. Ein verdrängtes Kapitel australischer Geschichte [online]. March 2000.

http://www.geographie.uni-stuttgart.de/~mma/presse/aborigines.html (l.c. 18.02.2002)

17. Fenner, Patricia. Down Under – Images of Australia. Berlin: Cornelsen Verlag 1989

18. Gesellschaft für bedrohte Völker. Dossier Sydney 2000 - Update 14.08.2000 [online]. 11 August 2000, update: 14 August 2000.

http://www.gfbv.de/voelker/pazifik/olympia/update_5.htm (l.c. 13.02.2002)

19. Gesellschaft für bedrohte Völker. Olympiade 2000 in Australien. Ureinwohner Opfer von Rassismus. Sep. 2000 [online]. September 2000.

http://www.ines.org/apm-gfbv/3dossier/australdt.html (l.c. 18.02.2002)

20. Hohmann, Sybille. Stolen Generation – das Verbrechen des Kindesraubes and den Aborigines in Australien [online]. 1998.

http://www.gfbv.de/voelker/pazifik/olympia/stolen1.htm (l.c. 25.01.2002)

21. Kleinwächter, Sarah. Living between two worlds – the Aborigines’ stolen children [online]. March 2001.

http://www.hausarbeiten.de/rd/archiv/englisch/engl-text155.shtml (l.c. 25.01.2002)

22. Klewitz Dr., Bernd. Australian Encounters. Berlin: Cornelsen Verlag, 2002

23. Kramer, Jörg. "Seid stolz auf euch!" [online]. Der Spiegel. Ed. 38/2000. 18 September 2000.

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,93726,00.html (l.c. 05.03.2002)

24. Krohn, Boris. Ein Leben zwischen Resignation und kultureller Renaissance [online]. Die Welt ed. 15 September 2000.

http://www.welt.de/daten/2000/09/15/0915au191070.htx (l.c. 12.02.2002)

25. Mercer, Phil. Winning Australia's aboriginal vote [online]. BBC News. 25 October 2001.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_1619000/1619506.stm (l.c. 6 March 2002)

22

26. New South Wales Department of Education – Charles Stuart University. Social Juustice & Human Rights Issue: A Global Perspective [online]. August 2001. http://www.gfbv.de/uno/durban/durban_1.htm (l.c. 13.02.2002)

27. New South Wales Department of Education – Charles Stuart University. Social Justice & Human Rights Issue: A Global Perspective [online].

http://hsc.csu.edu.au/ab_studies/rights/global/social_justice_global/sjwelcome.policies .front.htm (l.c. 03.03.2002)

28. Office of indigenous Policy – Department of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. Reconciliation [online].

http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/atsia/facts/reconciliation.pdf (l.c. 18.02.2002)

29. Public Affairs, Australian Embassy Berlin [presse@australian-embassy.de]. Re: Auskünfte für eine Facharbeit über ‘The Stolen Children’ [Email]. 8 February 2002.

30. Racota, Despina. Werden die Aborigines um Entschuldigung gebeten? [online]. 12 February/March 1999.

http://www.geogr.uni-goettingen.de/kus/apsa/pn/pn12/australien.html (l.c. 20.02.2002)

31. Romeo, Antonella. Die geraubte Generation [online]. Die Zeit ed. 23/2000. 2000. http://www.zeit.de/2000/23/200023_australien_neu.html (l.c. 12.02.2002)

32. Saitta, Maurizio, EU Information and Communication expert – European Expertise Service. Best practices in human rights strategies – a case study: Australia [online]. 13 February 2002.

http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/projects/ees/projects/docs/RUS36_annex_i_comp endium_final_version.doc (l.c. 09.03.2002)

33. Sondermann, Ariadne/Rathgeber, Theodor. Australien vor den Wahlen vom 3. Oktober 1998 [online]. 28 September 1998.

http://www.gfbv.de/dokus/memoabor.htm (l.c. 13.02.2002)

34. Stahl, Branko. Appell Australien [online].

http://www.amnesty.de/de/3610/aust1198.htm (l.c. 18.02.2002)

35. Supp, Eckhart. Australiens Aborigines, Ende der Traumzeit. Bonn: Bouvier Verlag Herbert Grundmann, 1985

36. U.S. Department of State – Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Australia – Country Report on Human Rights Practices [online]. 2001. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/eap/8249.htm

37. United Nations - Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Summary Record of the 1059 th meeting: Australia [online]. 18 August 1994. CERD/C/SR.1058 http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/cerd.c.sr.1059.En?Opendocument (l.c. 13.02.2002)

38. United Nations - Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Summary record of the 1058 th meeting: Australia [online]. 5 August 1996. CERD/C/SR.1058.

23

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/cerd.c.sr.1058.En?Opendocument (l.c. 12.02.2002)

39. United Nations – Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide [online].

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm (l.c. 19.02.2002)

40. United Nations – Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Summary record of the 1395 th meeting: Australia, Tonga, Zimbabwe [online]. 3 April 2000. CERD/C/SR.1395.

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/cerd.c.sr.1395.En?Opendocument (l.c. 12.02.2002)

41. United Nations – Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Summary record of the 1394 th meeting: Australia [online]. 9 February 2001. CERD/C/SR.1394. http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/cerd.c.sr.1394.En?Opendocument (l.c. 12.02.2002)

42. United Nations – Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: Australia [online]. 24 July 2000. A/55/40.paras.498-528.

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/A.55.40,paras.498-

528.En?Opendocument (l.c. 12.02.2002)

43. United Nations – Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Summary record of the 1856 th meeting: Australia [online]. 28 July 2000. CERD/C/SR.1856. http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/cerd.c.sr.1856.En?Opendocument (l.c. 12.02.2002)

44. United Nations – Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. List of Issues: Australia [online]. 25 April 2000. CCPR/C/69/L/AUS.

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/ccpr.c.69.l.aus.En?Opendocument (l.c. 12.02.2002)

45. United Nations. [21 Jul 2000] HR/CT/580 : HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE STARTS CONSIDERATION OF REPORT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS IN AUSTRALIA [online]. 21 July 2000.

http://srch1.un.org/plweb-

cgi/fastweb?state_id=1015515649&view=unsearch&numhitsfound=1&query=HR%2 FCT%2F580&&docid=1310&docdb=pr2000&dbname=web&sorting=BYRELEVAN CE&operator=adj&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1 (l.c. 13.02.2002)

46. United Nations. Multilateral treaties deposited with the Secretary-General- TREATY I-IV--1 [online]. 9 October 2001.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/treaty1gen.htm (l.c. 18.02.2002)

47. Universität Potsdam. MenschenRechtsZentrum der Univerität Potsdam [online]. http://www.uni-potsdam.de/u/mrz/rechts.htm (l.c. 07.03.2002)

48. Völkermord Verhütung International / Prevent Genocide International. Völkermord, Konvention über die Verhütung und Bestrafung des - - Völkermord Verhütung

24

International [online]. Update: 2 April 2001. http://www.preventgenocide.org/de/recht/konvention/text.htm (l.c. 18.02.2002)

49. Wiesmann, Hans – Bundespresseamt. Reactions of the federal government concerning the 'stolen generation incident' [Phone call]. 22 February 2002 at 13:53. Phone number: 01888/272-4145

9.2 Tables

9.2.1 Sexual assaults reported by Inquiry witnesses

9.2.2 After-effects of forcible removal

9.3 Original Sources

9.3.1 Fate report of a Stolen Child

"We didn't have a clue where we came from. We thought the Sisters were our parents. They didn't tell anybody – any of the kids – where they came from. Babies were coming in nearly every day. Some of the kids cam in at two, three, four days old – not months – but days. They were just placed in the home and it was run by Christian women and all the kids thought it was one big family. We didn't know what it meant by 'parents' cause we didn't have parents and we thought those women were our mothers.

It 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. They said you can't talk to any of them coloured people because you are white.

I can't remember anyone from the welfare coming there. If they did I can't remember… We hardly saw any visitors whatsoever. None of the other kids had visits from their parents. No visits from family. The worst part is, we didn't know we had a family.

When you got to a certain age – like I got to 10 years old… they just told us we were going on a train trip… We all lined up with our little ports [school cases] with a bible inside. That's all that was in the ports, see. We really treasured that – we thought it was a good thing that we

25

had something… the old man from La Perouse took us from Sydney – well actually from Bomaderry to Kinchela Boys' Home. That's when our problems really started – you know! This is where we learned that we weren’t white. First of all they took you in through these iron gates and took our little ports [suitcases] off us. Stick it in the fire with your little bible inside. They took us around to a room and shaved our hair off … They gave you your clothes and stamped a number on them … They never called you by your name; they called you by your number. That number was stamped on everything.

If we answered an attendant back we were ‘sent up the line’. Now I don’t know if you can imagine, 79 boys punching the hell out of you – just knuckling you. Even your brother, your cousin.

They had to – if they didn't do it, they were sent up to the line. When the boys who had broken ribs or broken noses – they'd have to pick you and carry you right through to the last bloke. Now that didn't happen once – that happened every day.

Before I went to Kinchela, they used the cat-o'-nine-tails on the boys instead of being sent up the line. This was in the 30s and early 40s. [This time should remind all German of the Holocaust and now compare it with this story!]

Kinchela was a place where they thought you were animals. You know it was like a place where they go around and kick us like a dog… It was just like a prison. Truthfully, there were boys having sex with boys… But these other dirty mongrels didn't care. We had a manager who was sent to prison because he was doing it to a lot of the boys, sexual abuse. Nothing was done. There was a pommie bloke [Englishman] that was doing it. These attendants – if the boys told them, they wouldn't even listen. It just happened... I don't like talking about it. We never went into town… the school was in the home… all we did was work, work, work. Every six months you were dressed up. Oh mate! You were done up beautiful – white shirt. The welfare used to come up from Bridge St, the main bloke, the superintendent to check the home out – every six months.

We were prisoners from when we were born… the girls who went to Cootamundra and the boys who went to Kinchela – we were all prisoners. Even today they have our file number so we're still prisoners you know. And we'll always be prisoners while our files are in archives. (Confidential evidence 436, New South Wales)" 34

9.3.2 The 'Terms of Reference' of the 'Bringing them Home' report 35

• The first was to examine the past and continuing effects of separation of individuals, families and communities. The inquiry relied upon Indigenous and non-Indigenous individuals, government and non-government organisations to participate by making submissions or giving evidence to the Inquiry.

• The second was to identify what should be done in response, which could entail recommendations to chance laws, policies and practices, to re-unite families and otherwise deal with losses caused by separation.

• The third was to find justification for, and nature of, and compensation for those affected by separation.

• The last looked at current laws, policies and practices affecting the placement and care of Indigenous children. This included looking into the welfare and juvenile justice systems, and advising on any changes in the light of the principles.

³⁴ Bringing them Home report, Book 1, Pages 126-127

³⁵ Quelle 24

26

9.3.3 The places visited by the 'Bringing them Home report' writers

New South Wales – Redfern, Campbelltown, Nowra, Sydney, Grafton, Dubbo, Broken Hill and Wilcannia

Australian Capital Territory – Canberra

Victoria – Melbourne, Lake Tyres, Bairnsdale, Morwell, Ballarat, Geelong, Framlingtown, Portland, Mildura, Swan Hill, Echuca

Queensland – Brisbane, Rockhampton, Palm Island, Townsville, Caims and Thursday Island South Australia – Adelaide, Coober Pedy, Glossop, Murray Bridge, Port Lincoln, Ceduna, Raukkan, Mount Gambier, Port Augusta and Berri

Western Australia – Perth, Halls Creek, Broome, Bunderry and Katunning Northern Territory – Darwin and Alice Springs

Tasmania – Hobart, Flinders Island, Cape Barren Island, Wybalenna, Launceston, Burnie

9.3.4 The address of the 'Bundespresseamt'

Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung

Dorotheestr. 84

10117 Berlin

Telefon: 01888/272-0

27

10. Proclamation

Selbstständigkeitserklärung

Hiermit erkläre ich, dass ich die vorliegende Facharbeit selbständig angefertigt, keine anderen als die angegebenen Hilfsmittel benutzt habe und die Stellen der Facharbeit, die im Wortlaut oder im wesentlichen Inhalt aus anderen Werken entnommen wurden, mit genauer Quellenangabe kenntlich gemacht habe.

Hiermit erkläre ich, dass ich damit einverstanden bin, wenn die von mir verfasste Facharbeit der schulinternen Öffentlichkeit zugänglich gemacht wird.