The chapter of the so called "Stolen Children" is certainly one of the darkest in Australia’s history. White people determined by ethnocentric convictions attempted to assimilate Indigenous people and, therefore, destroyed countless lives. The film "Rabbit-Proof Fence" by Phillip Noyce (2002), which is well-known and often screened in classrooms, impressively depicts the fate and suffering of three of them and gave the impetus for the present paper.
The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that the policy of removing children from their families did not accomplish any “good work” but happened with the aim of controlling and assimilating Aboriginal people.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 The policy of institutionalising children
3 Life in Institutions
4 Effects
5 Conclusion
Objectives and Core Themes
The primary objective of this paper is to examine the historical governmental policy concerning the removal of Aboriginal children from their families, demonstrating that these actions were motivated by the desire to control and assimilate Indigenous populations rather than by altruistic intentions. The study explores the legal frameworks of these policies, the harrowing daily realities faced by children within institutional settings, and the long-term psychological and social consequences for the Stolen Children.
- The role of governmental legislation in the forced removal of Aboriginal children.
- The systemic assimilation strategies employed within missions and foster homes.
- Daily life, labour exploitation, and institutional abuse within these facilities.
- The enduring long-term effects on identity, social integration, and mental health.
- The critical rejection of the "rescue" narrative in favor of a genocide classification.
Excerpt from the Book
1 Introduction
The chapter of the so called Stolen Children is certainly one of the darkest in Australia’s history. White people determined by ethnocentric convictions attempted to assimilate Indigenous people and, therefore, destroyed countless lives. The film Rabbit-Proof Fence by Phillip Noyce (2002), which is well-known and often screened in classrooms, impressively depicts the fate and suffering of three of them and gave the impetus for the present paper.
The practice of removing children from their families aimed to exterminate Aboriginal culture and assimilate Aboriginal people into white society within three generations by making it almost impossible for Indigenous people to pass on their language and culture to the next generation (Korff 2015). In particular, half-caste children were removed because, on the one hand, they were perceived as a threat for white society (Rowley 1986: 103), and on the other hand, their removal “was seen as a rescue operation for children whose ‘blood’ offered hope for their ‘improvement’.” (ibid.) It can only be estimated how many children were stolen between the 1890s and 1980s since records are rare due to loss or conscious destruction (Korff 2015). The Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1997, 31) states that most Aboriginal families have been affected, many of them in more than one generation. However, some Australians still consider that the children were not stolen, but rescued (Korff 2015) while a substantial number of researchers consider the stealing of children to be genocide (Read 1981, 3).
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: Provides an overview of the Stolen Children's history, highlighting the motivation for the paper through the lens of the film Rabbit-Proof Fence and the genocidal intent behind assimilation policies.
2 The policy of institutionalising children: Details the legislative framework—such as the Aborigines Act of 1905—that facilitated the removal of children to missions and foster homes to "breed out" Aboriginality.
3 Life in Institutions: Examines the harsh realities of institutional life, including the systematic dismantling of identity, forced labour, emotional deprivation, and physical/sexual abuse.
4 Effects: Discusses the long-term repercussions for the survivors, focusing on identity crises, difficulties in social autonomy, and enduring mental health challenges.
5 Conclusion: Summarizes the findings, affirming that the state policy was a tool for control and genocide, and noting that reconciliation cannot erase the irreparable harm inflicted on the Stolen Children.
Keywords
Stolen Children, Indigenous Australians, Assimilation policy, Genocidal intent, Institutionalisation, Aboriginality, Human rights, Cultural identity, Forced labour, Institutional abuse, Missions, Social integration, Collective trauma, Reconciliation, Protected history
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
This paper examines the history and impact of the governmental policy known as the Stolen Children, focusing on the forced removal of Aboriginal children from their families in Australia.
What are the primary themes discussed?
The central themes include the legislative basis for child removal, the reality of life within state-run institutions, and the enduring psychological and social effects on the affected individuals.
What is the main goal of the research?
The goal is to demonstrate that the removal of Aboriginal children was not a benevolent rescue attempt, but a calculated effort to control and assimilate Indigenous people through institutionalisation.
Which methodology is employed in this study?
The paper utilizes a qualitative analysis of historical documents, government commission reports, personal testimonies of survivors, and relevant scholarly literature.
What is addressed in the main body of the paper?
The body chapters detail the specific governmental policies and laws, the systematic exploitation and abuse of children within institutions, and the subsequent lifetime struggles related to identity and social adaptation.
Which keywords best describe this research?
Key terms include the Stolen Children, assimilation policy, institutional abuse, cultural destruction, and the socio-psychological impact of intergenerational trauma.
How were children's identities affected within the institutions?
Institutions systematically stripped children of their culture by forbidding contact with families, changing their names and personal records, and enforcing propaganda that portrayed Aboriginality as undesirable.
What were the consequences of leaving institutional care?
Survivors often faced severe disruption, homelessness, and indebtedness due to a lack of preparation for autonomous life, combined with deeply ingrained psychological issues like low self-esteem and identity loss.
How does the author view the "rescue" narrative?
The author strongly rejects the "rescue" justification, arguing that the accounts of survivors and historical evidence identify the policy as a form of genocide that resulted in catastrophic suffering.
- Quote paper
- Carmen Peresich (Author), 2015, The Stolen Children and Aboriginal Culture. Governmental Policy and Institutions, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/295563
