The Term Stolen Generation - Essay Example

Stolen Generations Name Institution Introduction The “stolen generations” depicts one of Australia’s darkest times. This term has been used to refer to children of aborigine nature who were forcibly taken away from their homes. The event spanned across two centuries, from the 1890’s to the 1970’s. This shows that this incident had an effect on generations. The aborigines were considered to be primitive, depraved and degenerates by the whites. These and other reasons led to the removal of young children from their homes. According to Read (2006), this move can be equated to genocide; this is because it was an attempt to wipe out the culture and ways of the aborigines. According to the whites, there was an aboriginal problem that involved persons of aborigine nature who were against change. Adults were not as responsive to change as the whites would have hoped. It is for this reason that the whites decided to take the young children (Read, 2006). These young children were much easier to assimilate since they were not used to their traditional culture. Most of such children could not even return to their families and homes since they had been taken at a very tender age, and by the time they were allowed to go back home they had forgotten their parents and families (Ban, 2005). This paper involves a historical discussion of the causes and the effects that this event had on the aborigine community and Australia at large. There are many contradicting reasons as to why this event took place. This is mainly because of the different perspectives that exist. In order to further look into this topic it is important to identify the causes that may have led to the policy of child removal. There have been several legislations on the policy of child removal, the first one being recorded in 1869 (Kennedy, 2001). This had been after fierce lobbying of the act from 1860 (Kennedy, 2001). With this legislation in place, the Victorian colony would have control over the aboriginal families. By 1950’s different legislations that favored such policies had been enacted in different other states. Children were taken away from their families and placed in foster homes where they would live till they attained the age of 16 or 21 (Read, 2003). Most of the children who were targeted were mostly of mixed descent. Many institutions were set up in Australia to handle this growing number of children (Ban, 2005). These children were brought up in such institutions or foster homes, completely cut off from their culture and practices. In some cases, severe punishment was carried out on those who were found using their aboriginal dialect. These children were brought up in separation, with sexual and physical abuse being the norm. Many experts have drawn a comparison of these conditions with the German concentration camps (Read, 2006). Some of the different institutions that were tasked with bringing up these children include, Kahlin Compound, Kempsey, Box Hill Boys Home, The Bungalow, Mittagong Boy’s Home, Bomaderry Children’s Home, Kinchela Aboriginal Boy’s Home and Cootamundra Aboriginal Home for girls (Zogbaum, 2003). Causes of the Child Removal Policy The causes of the enactment of the child removal policy have been widely debated for a long time, with different opinions and explanations given by different affected parties. The Australian government, to begin with, has denied allegations that it was involved in activities related to the “stolen generations”. The government maintains that there is a distinction between the acts performed by the government and those related to the “stolen generations”. According to the government, policies had been implemented to better the welfare of the children within the aboriginal communities (Tikka Jan, 1997). The government continues to add that parental consent was a requirement before a child was taken away from their family. The policies that led to stolen generations and which still apply today were concerned with the removal of children who were considered to come from dysfunctional families (Tikka Jan, 1997). At this instance, this paper is going to explore some of the official reasons given for the enactment of such policies, and, which led to the claims of a stolen generation. Professor Peter Read, the founder of Link-Up (NSW), has been on the forefront speaking against the acts that led to the stolen generations. He has directly or indirectly influenced studies and research carried out on matters to do with the stolen generations. According to Read (2006), the officers from welfare were tasked with removing children from their homes purely because they were aboriginal. These officers intended to make the children lose their aboriginality. Read claims that these officers used welfare euphemisms to carry out such heinous acts; however, he learned the opposite through investigations that he personally conducted (2006). Read has gone on to claim that some of these officers and managers have openly admitted to taking the children because they were aboriginal. However, most authors are of a contrary opinion. They believe that Read is misrepresenting the facts (Tikka Jan, 1997). Read makes it seem like there are many entries on files in the ward registries with the claim of holding children due to their aboriginality heritage. Read’s influence has continued to be felt, especially in the “Bringing Them Home” report. It is claimed that authors of this report did not carry out their own research into the claims and issues; instead, they employed Read’s ideas and opinions in the report. This report, states as its first reason that the children were being removed from their homes primarily because they were aboriginal (Ronald, 1997). This report seems to dismiss the other reasons given for removing the children, but go on to quote Read on the report. At this point, it is not clear which faction is telling the truth. The ward officials and the government has categorically insisted that children were mainly removed from their homes primarily to better their lives or to take them away from abusive or neglecting families (Goodstone, 2000). Most young adults were offered employment or apprenticeship opportunities. Some of these policies still exist today, with children being forcefully taken from their homes. This is because there are still children who are still neglected, abused and left to run wild and free within the aboriginal community. Hence, it is necessary to take these children away to give them a better life than the one that they currently have (Kennedy, 2001). The government, however, does not deny that there exist some children who were taken away due to their aboriginal heritage. In the end, therefore, it becomes a matter of opinion and point of view. Most of those who were negatively affected are against this move, while those who benefitted from this move support it. Looking at it critically, the move in its essence is a great one. However, those tasked with enforcing it should be well educated and informed about the actual victims or candidates of this program. This is because if these policies are efficiently enforced many children will benefit. Consequences and Effects The effects of the child removal policy are of diverse nature. For purposes of this discussion, this paper will refer to all forms of child removal policies. This means all policies intended to help children from neglected families or those intended to better the lives of children after the parents consent in explicitly given. In this regard, the effects can be categorized as either negative or positive. The government through the policies it employed was able to assist many young children better their lives. Children were educated and offered employment, in order to be self-sufficient (Koolmatrie & Williams, 2000). However, due to the nature of the negative effects of the child removal policy, there are a few documented cases of the positive effects of these policies. The negative effects of these policies seem to outweigh the positive effects. There are many negative effects associated with the enactment of these policies. However, the one that has been preached for so long relates to the loss of identity and cultural affiliation (Goodstone, 2000). This effect is so profound and has led to the phrase “stolen generations”. These children were taken away from their parents at a very tender age and were not allowed to leave until they attained the age of 16 or 21. This means they missed all cultural and spiritual activities practiced by their aboriginal community. Most stolen generations have reported that it is difficult for them to go back to their homes (Rosalie, 1998). Some of these individuals, whose parents passed away while they were still in the wards, have reported that their relatives are not receptive when they return home (Rosalie, 1998). Most of them have spent too much time away such that they have forgotten their aboriginal language; therefore, language still becomes a barrier (Read, 2006). There have also been cases where individuals do not have identifying documents. For most of these individuals, their birthdates or any important day in their lives is usually an estimate since their documents have been lost one way or another. It has also been noted that trauma has been passed on from generation to generation. Children and families continue to be affected by the loss and grief that their ancestors or grandparents went through. According to a survey conducted on Australian children, it has been discovered that there is a negative effect associated with children who are raised in families that have gone through the forceful child removal policy (Tikka Jan, 1997). The trauma inflicted on these individuals is so severe to the extent that most of them are unable to hold or manage any form of relationships. They are so used to abusive relationships and rejection such that they are not able to forge new relationships (Rosalie, 1998). In some cases, this turns out to be a case of the abused becoming the abuser. For those who end up in relationships and become parents, it is an uphill task for them. They are not able to show love to their children since they have not experienced it. Most of these cases end up in divorces since the individuals do not comprehend the concept of being lovers. In the end, and with the common divorces and failed marriages between such individuals, the children end up in foster homes (Goodstone, 2000). Therefore, it turns out to be a vicious cycle does not seem to end. Most individuals who have gone through this system are not able to trust. Distrust among these individuals spreads from other people to the government. Such individuals tend to hold back information from other people primarily because they were not brought up in a family setting that promoted trust (Kennedy, 2001). It may be assumed that after attaining the prime age of 16 or 21, these children would be excited, since they would be allowed to go back home. However, this was not the case for most of them. Searching for one’s identity did not go as planned for most of these children, especially those who were taken at a very young age. Most reported cases have indicated that upon return to their homes some of these individuals have not been able to connect with their parents (Kennedy, 2001). In some cases, the parents are not willing to form a bond with them, resulting in further anguish and hurt (Kennedy, 2001). Conclusion The matter of stolen generations has been on that has been marred with controversy. With two different factions offering opinions and ideas on how the events took place, it becomes quite difficult to ascertain the truth and to understand the issues behind it all. Stolen generations refers to children who were forcefully taken away from their homes at a young age and allowed to return once they attained the age of 16 or 21. Hence, a gap was formed in their lives since they were not able to catch up on their aboriginal traditions and culture. These children were brought up in foster homes or institutions, which were specifically set up for them. The causes of these removals differed depending on the faction being questioned. According to government and ward officials, policies had been put in place to ensure that the welfare of aboriginal children was not neglected. Therefore, they were allowed by the law to take in any child that they felt was neglected by the parents or families. The government has also insisted that in other cases full parental consent was provided before the child was taken away. The official reasons indicate that all these policies were aimed at enhancing the lives of the children by providing them with an education and better living conditions. However, some other factions are of the opinion that this was an attempt to wipe out the aboriginal community. This is because the children were taken away at a young age, long before they had mastered their beliefs and cultured. While in the institutions these children were not allowed to practice their religions or speak in their aboriginal language. The officers at these institutions made efforts to try to assimilate them. They were to drop their cultures, beliefs and practices for those of the white man. Such factions have been criticized for categorizing all forms of child removal as genocidal attempts. It should be noted that these policies are still existent today mainly because there are more and more children being neglected, abused and violated by their parents and families. In the end, this issue becomes a matter of opinion. Despite the differences that exist as to the cause of stolen generations, one thing for certain is that the negative effects outweigh the positive effects. It is said that the officials enforcing these policies believed that they were doing the right thing. The reality, however, is that most of the individuals involved underwent mental, physical and emotional anguish at their hands. Reference List Ban, P. (2005). Aboriginal child placement principle and family group conferences. Australian Social Work, 58(4), 384-394. Briskman, L. (2001). Beyond apologies: The stolen generations and the churches. Children Australia, 26(3), 4-8. Goodstone, A. (2000). Redressing harm: A proposal for the establishment of a stolen generations reparations tribunal. Indigenous Law Bulletin, 4(30), 10-12. Goodstone, A. (2003). Stolen generations victory in the victims compensation tribunal. Indigenous Law Bulletin, 5(22), 10-11. Kennedy, R. (2001). Stolen generations testimony: Trauma, historiography and the question of 'truth'. Aboriginal History, 25, 116-131. Koolmatrie, J., & Williams, R. (2000). Unresolved grief and the removal of indigenous australian children. Australian Psychologist, 35(2), 158-166. Nicholls, C. (2000). Indigenous australian art and the stolen generations. Artlink, 20(1), 36-39. Read, P. (2003). How many separated aboriginal children? Australian Journal of Politics and History, 49(2), 155-163. Read, P. (2006). The Stolen generations: The Removal of Aboriginal Children in New South Wales 1883 to 1969. Sydney: NSW Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Ronald W. (1997). Bringing Them Home: A guide to the findings and recommendations of the national inquiry into the separation of aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their families. Sydney: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Rosalie, F. (1998). Shadow child: A memoir of the stolen generation. Sydney: Hale & Iremonger. Schaffer, K. (2002). Stolen generations’ narratives in local and global contexts. Antipodes, 16(1), 5-10. Tikka Jan, W. (1997). In the best interest of the child? stolen children: Aboriginal pain, white shame. Canberra: Aboriginal History. Wootten , H. (1998). Ron brunton and bringing them home. Indigenous Law Bulletin, 4(12), 4-8. Zogbaum, H. (2003). Herbet basedow and the removal of aboriginal children of mixed descent from their families. Australian Historical Studies, 34(121), 122-138. Read More