The Stolen Generation - Policy and Politics - Essay Example

The Stolen Generation Introduction Aboriginal individuals and people from the Torres Strait Island, who had been forcibly segregated, were described as the Stolen Generations. This separation was with regard to their community, culture and family, and had been performed during their childhood. Such forcible separation was in practice for more than a century, and resulted in untold misery and injury that prevailed upon the successive generations[Sto13]. History From the latter half of the 19th century to the middle of the 20th century, the Australian states and territories enacted laws that grossly discriminated against the indigenous families. Some of these despicable and inhuman measures were discriminatory legislation, networks of institutions, state control of families and the forcible removal of children[Hae11]. During that epoch, there was an unrelenting archetype of practice that was ably supported by the government. This intervention was based on racist assumptions and was believed by the white majority to provide a viable resolution of the Aboriginal problem. It was contended by the white community that children in the Aboriginal families were prone to neglect and other evils. The solution proposed and adopted was to forcibly remove these children and rear them in white society[Hae11]. This was to a certain extent, similar to the ideas of the 19th century Australia, which recommended the protection of the emerging generations of the working classes. However, the discriminatory notions harboured by the white community, with respect to the indigenous community, remained in force for a much longer duration. Thus, Aboriginal children were forcibly confined to white homes or institutions, with a view to civilising them[Hae11]. The Bringing Them Home Report, which had been prepared by Dodson and Wilson in the year 1997, was a veritable indictment of the Australian authorities. This report had as its background, international human rights, and its language was deemed to be provocative by the parochial sections of Australian society. One of the most distressing conclusions was that the transfer of indigenous children by force was nothing short of cultural genocide. This was in accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Genocide Convention of 1948[Hae11]. This Convention had been ratified in the year 1949, by Australia. The general public of Australia correlated this forcible movement of indigenous children to be tantamount to the extermination policies of the Nazis. A section of the populace expressed concerns regarding the compensation to be paid to the victims of this great iniquity. The Bringing Home Report had recommended the employment of the United Nations’ van Boven principles[Hae11]. These principles addressed issues related to the victims of gross human rights violation. In addition, these principles had recommended a wide array of reparation measures, such as compensation, restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantee of non – recurrence. It was in this context that a recommendation had been suggested from a national apology to the victims[Hae11]. The extant high level of socio – economic disparity to be seen in Australian society can be traced to the discriminatory treatment accorded to the indigenous population. With regard to education, employment, income, housing and health, the members of the indigenous society are the most disadvantaged in Australia. As a result, the Council of Australian Governments has allocated substantial resources towards the Closing the Gap policy[Bid13]. This policy is aimed at eliminating the diversity in life expectancy between the indigenous and other sections of Australian society. The indigenous Australians constitute a small proportion of the total population. However, these people tend to be located in remote regions of the Australian continent. Consequently, in some regions, the indigenous population is in the majority[Bid13]. Policy and Politics Until the 1960s, it was the practice in Australia to remove children from their families. This was done with regard to children who were considered to be abused, destitute, or neglected. The problematic social groups targeted by these policies were children of the poor whites or indigent families, which included single mothers, and orphans of the empire. Subsequent to being rescued, these children were allocated to foster families, public institutions, or welfare institutions run by non – governmental organisations[Bes13]. In several of the instances, these displaced children were not provided with the necessary attention to ensure their proper care. This unfortunate state of affairs continues in contemporary child protections systems. It was as late as the 1990s, when several historic and public debates were conducted. These related to the removal of indigenous children, and were given a major impetus by the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission’s report regarding the stolen generations[Bes13]. The Australian welfare system was based on the contention that the policy makers had altruistic motives, and that the welfare agencies engaged in practices that were basically beneficial and philanthropic. This manner of thinking was dominant until the 1970s. The emphasis, during those times, was upon democratic, modernist, and reformist values, with regard to the policies and programmes pertaining to child welfare. In this system, children regarded as targets of state intervention were the forsaken, illegitimate, neglected, and orphaned. These attributes were deemed to be sufficient grounds for forcibly removing them from their parents[Bes13]. The iniquity perpetrated by these measures caused considerable distress to the Australians. However, some individuals, such as Windschuttle obdurately persist in attempting to justify this great evil. Windschuttle has adopted the stance that the moral ideas of the era, when children were forcibly removed from their families, were sufficient justification[Bes13]. In addition, he contends that the whites attempted to provide the Aboriginal children with the same opportunities that were available to children of the working classes. The provision of separate boarding facilities for the Aboriginal children was the best possible intervention for them. However, it has to be realised that Australian child welfare policy tended to treat even white children in an inequitable manner, when they were born out of wedlock. Until the 1970s, such children, irrespective of their race, were removed from their families[Bes13]. Impacts Countries, such as the erstwhile Soviet Russia, China, and the nations of Asia and Africa have engaged in diatribes against Australia at the United Nations. This was with respect to the appalling treatment accorded to its Aboriginal people. In addition, there had been a resurgence of interest in the plight of children at the international level. This was the consequence of the traumatic wartime experiences of orphans, child evacuees, and refugees[Hae11]. It was in this context that Australia adopted a novel policy. This new policy was aimed at assimilation and was founded on the notions of indigenous citizenship and equality. However, the Aboriginal people were required to eschew their cultures and mores of life, in return for such assimilation. It has rightly been pointed out that is nothing more than another example of repressive erasure[Hae11]. In order to promote this policy, a number of promotional campaigns were conducted across the length and breadth of the nation. These invariably projected the Aborigines as leading an Australian lifestyle consisting of nuclear families in suburban dwellings. This indicated a substantial alteration in the official paradigm, because the governments were now showing their commitment to keep families together and to improve their standard of living[Hae11]. This ostensibly noble intention failed on account of paucity of funds, racism, the incontestable allegiance of the Aboriginals towards their cultures and traditions, and the persistent penchant of officialdom to remove children. An instance of this failure is the Warburton Mission[Hae11]. At that place, the difficulty encountered in assimilating traditional dwellers of the desert was made much worse by military and scientific interventions. The foremost among these interventions were the atomic tests, which had a major impact upon the Central Reserves and the intrusions of the international mining conglomerates[Hae11]. Ethics From the time of the invasion of Australia by the British forces, the indigenous people of this country have been subjected to persistent harm. There is widespread discrimination against the Aborigines by the whites. The racist issue has not been resolved in Australia. Moreover, a sustained effort had been made, over the years, by the Australian government to eradicate the Aboriginal people in a systematic manner[Han11]. As such, it is inequitable, unjust, and unethical to destroy a culture, on the basis of assumed cultural superiority. Conclusion Several policies aimed at destroying the Aboriginal identity had been formulated by the government, notably that leading to the Stolen Generations. This cultural genocide failed miserably, and the Australian government has adopted a policy of appeasement towards the indigenous people. As such, it is immoral, unprincipled and inhumane to separate children from their parents, on grounds of cultural inferiority. References Bessant , J. C., 2013. History and Australian indigenous child welfare policies. Policy Studies, 34(3), pp. 310 – 325. Biddle, N. & Wilson, T., 2013. Indigenous Australian population projections: problems and prospects. Journal of Population Research, 30(2), pp. 101 – 116. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948. Paris, France: United Nations General Assembly. Haebich, A., 2011. Forgetting Indigenous Histories: Cases from the History of Australia's Stolen Generations. Journal of Social History, 44(4), pp. 1033 – 1046. Hanisch, M., 2011. The Stolen Generations. Norderstedt, Germany: GRIN Verlag. Stolen Generations Victoria, n.d. Between Two Worlds. [online] Available at: [Accessed 9 August 2013]. Read More