Film Analysis 3: Rabbit-Proof Fence (2002)

1. The story of Molly, Gracie, and Daisy is a moving one because the plight of three young girls appeals to audiences as just that: three girls whose lives were dramatically altered because of their race.  To the Australian officials of the 1930s, Molly, Gracie, and Daisy were part of an unwanted third race, a hideous hybrid of pure ethnicity and undesirable melanin.  Mr. Neville, nicknamed “Mr. Devil”, sought to rid the future generations of this mutilation.  He is represented as being quite proud of the fact that three generations of outbreeding stamps out the black color entirely.  Truly, his motive was to uplift a fallen race, to restore them to caucasian purity, the ideal human state.  This goal was motivated by an Anglo-Christian prerogative to further evangelical unity through uniformity, comparable to the North American concept of manifest destiny.  

Contrary to his position, the Aborigines did not support Neville’s belief of their need to change.  Rather, they enjoyed their deeply spiritual life on the land and saw no reason as to why their race needed to be extinguished.  It is this attitude Mr. Neville is addressing when he says, “In spite of himself, the native must be helped.”  He later remarks that the bush natives need to be protected from themselves and if only they would understand what we, the organized regulatory government, are trying to do for them.  Disturbingly, but not surprisingly, the revealing motive benefits the establishment only and is not designed to improve the Aborigine culture.  

Ultimately, the missionary-minded conquering of culture led by Mr. Neville, Chief Protector of the Aborigines, is detrimental to the independence and identity of the Aboriginal people of Australia.  The continued efforts to track down the girls who have run away coupled with the general attentiveness to who the half-castes are and when they can be taken away from their families underscores the underlying assumption of dominance.  The white decision-makers deemed their culture to be superior to any other, especially that of the Aborigines.  The solution was then to eliminate anything, and anyone, who posed a threat to the Christianizing practices of assimilation.  This move explains why the Stolen Generation of young children were taken from their homes and families, told that their loved ones would be punished if they ran away, and taught that their clothing, habits, and language was the cultural equivalent of “jabber.”  

Mr. Neville is the face given to the missionary movement, but he represents a system of thinking that rejects regional values and substitutes institutional guidelines by which everyone is expected to live, and for which everyone should feel grateful.  It devalues the role that individual cultures play in the collective overall picture and promotes muted Anglo tones over a multi-faceted mosaic.  

2. This film as the sole informant on Australia’s intercultural interactions paints a very sad story for all parties involved.  The white power structure imposed a regulatory ban on a voiceless nation within their own country lines.  Intercultural expectations were null as the concept of a multi- or dual-cultural experience was not accepted.  In fact, those who were different were actively attacked and measures taken to make them less different in language, behavior, and location.  Devastatingly enough, the half-caste children could see that within the white-only system, there was no hope for them.  The best that could happen was that they could breed with someone lighter-skinned than themselves and give their children a foot-up in the next generation’s social spheres.  

The experiences of Molly, Gracie, and Daisy are sadly believable and their collective resistant reaction to the process of acculturation is justified.  Not only did they cling to the memory of their mothers, they used the tracking training of their upbringing to outsmart the native tracker and prove their superiority to the white law-enforcement system in place.  From this story alone it is clear that the experience of the Aboriginal girls places them at an advantage within their environment.  This picture of Australia reveals how the outdoor survival skills are replaced by the appropriate responses to white authorities, for example the nun who is bathing Molly asks her how it feels to be clean and then feeds her the answer of “Very nice, Miss.  Thank you, Miss” so the girl will learn, not only how to behave in proper white society, but that her own people are dirty, uneducated, and undesirable, as Molly's daughter, Doris Pilkington Garimara,wrote.

If this film were the only depiction of Aboriginal life in Australia, it would lead me to believe that there is a gap in understanding racial diversity.  In fact, it would suggest that racial diversity is an  unfortunate byproduct of cross-breeding and each race should strive to become as light-skinned as possible in order to advance socially and intellectually.  This idea is supported by the way children are assessed in the Moore River Native Settlement.  The film shows each child being called on and checked for lighter shades of brown under the shirt.  Those who pass the test were taken to a more advanced classroom and presumed to be more intelligent.  The story behind the film is also telling because it shows Molly making the same trip a second time, walking along the fence across the desert from Moore River to Jigalong, because she had been relocated there again in her adult years with her two young girls.  Credit copy following the feature indicates that half-caste children were removed from their families as recently as 1970, which indicates that this is a very fresh wound and a raw issue with many of the Aborigines today.  

3. The story of the Stolen Generation is similar to that of the young First Nations members who were taken from their families and forced to attend Residential Schools in Canada, but different from the recorded experience of Native Americans in the United States.  There is the same separation from the familiar and rejection of one’s culture only to replace it with the Anglo-European substitute, but whereas the Aborigines and the First Nations were removed from their familial units, the Native American children appear to have been allowed to remain with their tribes for longer.  In the case of the Moore River Native Settlement, it appears as though the worst representatives of Aboriginal culture were brought there simply because they could not care for themselves, and this represents a typical attitude towards Indigenous people on reservation land and welfare.  As described, it would not make for an ideal environment in which to train a future generation and certainly lends to the perpetuation of unflattering stereotypes.  

A little reading into the subject reveals that the institutionalization of Aboriginal children along with the forced assimilation practices initiated by the white government is considered to be genocide.  The policies concerning Aboriginal offspring are likened tot hose put in place by the Nazi government in Germany around the same timeframe.   The article cites editors Ann Curthoys and John Docker in saying, “Settler colonies like ‘Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the United States, and Canada’ led the way in setting out to achieve what the Nazis also set out to achieve, the displacement of indigenous populations and their replacement by incoming peoples held to be racially superior”.  

The issue of belonging as members of the half-blooded race is not unique to the Australian Aborigines.  The plight of the Stolen Generation, Molly and her relatives in particular, is reminiscent of Charlie and George Bent.  Dee Brown (2012) references them as having witnessed the Sand Creek Massacre and both brothers agreeing that “as half-breeds they wanted no part of the white man’s civilization” (p. 113), instead moving to live with the Cheyennes.  It is also seen echoed in the Canadian government’s acknowledgment of Metis as holding equal rights as members of the First Nations.  Another reference is found in the Among Us text when Samuel M. Edelman writes of Jewish culture and identity being lost through post-World War 2 assimilation.  He writes, “What is most frightening is the significant part of the Jewish population that is no longer Jewish” (p. 36), and that “the disappearance of Jewish culture, or ethnocide, is happening all over America” (p. 37).  

Being part of one world ethnically and choosing another culturally is conflicting, but also freeing.  Identity is tied to much more than race.  It is the daily practices of one’s life.  That is why the story of the Stolen Generation is truly sad, alongside the forced settlement of North America, and the choice to leave a religious identity behind.  These illustrations are examples of culture being lost on account of it being forgotten.  Whether executed by coercion or choice, the loss of daily practices is the loss of something much greater than routines or lifestyle.  It is the traditions of a nation, of a people, of an entire pre-settled history that is removed and replaced by a homogenous story.  The intercultural element of this perspective is that all cultures must be appreciated for what is unique to them and that is how the stolen generations of every story can be returned.  

4. Cultural history must present in the minds of this and the next generation, who can then move beyond injustice to promote a world where peace and intercultural communication prevents violent misunderstandings.  We must become educated in the past in order to reconcile the present.  Remembering the mistreatments of cultural history around the world should produce a feeling of compassion for those who struggle with identity and self-government.  It should also act as a cautionary tale for those in a decision-making position with regards to contemporary intercultural interactions.  

Cultural history should also provide a definitive answer to the question of racial superiority.  There is no superior race, even though opportunities and advantages may leave one people in a position of dominant power over another.  However, knowing that all people are equal and all people across the globe are entitled to the benefits of human rights is enough to reinforce the lessons of the intercultural past.  One government does not have the right to intrude on another’s territory, impose a specific set of societal expectations, and implement educational measures to “improve” another group.  One group of people does not have the right to subjugate another, especially in the name of a religious affiliation.  

The mistakes of the past can help prevent similar mistakes in the future, if they are remembered and reflected on.  The burden of guilt belonging to the dominant nation should encourage empathy towards nations who are currently experiencing the effects of history’s losses.  The empathy can extend into forgiveness, which can build intercultural bridges and improve communication competence between parties.  Moving forward does not mean forgetting what took place, nor does it mean that all that was lost can be restored.  It does, however, mean making the most of current opportunities for improvement and moving towards a celebration of the cultural practices and beliefs that have survived to this day. 

Works Cited: 

Brown, Dee (2012).  Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West (3^rd illustrated edition).  New York, NY: Sterling Signature Publishing.

Edelman, Samuel, M. (2006).  To Pass or Not to Pass, That is the Question: Jewish Cultural Identity in the United States.  Among Us: Essays of Identity, Belonging, and Intercultural Competence, 2^nd ed.  (Myron W. Lustig and Jolene Koester, Ed.s).  Boston, MA:Pearson Education.  34-43.  

Film Analysis 2: The Power of Forgiveness

Forgiveness is for giving

There is always a need for forgiveness, but the more intimate the injustice, the more difficult to move past the pain.  That being said, not all offenses are created equal simply because the values of an individual and those of a group are not equal.  Forgiveness is needed after some kind of violation, but my threshold for hurt will differ from another’s.  

For example, if someone insults me by association to one of the culture groups I belong to, the blow will be relative to the group.  My nationality and my ethnic associations are valued, but are not as close to my heart as my surname or my denomination.  Attacks against a general population of which I am a part are easier for me to forgive than those launched against my person and those I love.  

Belonging to several different classes of culture groups,  I feel it is imperative that members of a culture critique and evaluate the practices and values of their own culture group.  This action should translate into both public and private behaviour, which indicates a reflective vision enabling a culture group to move forward past collective wrongs.  

There are some for whom the self-deprecating action of admitting wrong and asking for forgiveness is not enough to erase the compounded hurts of personal or societal transgressions.  People who fall into this category do not accept general apologies from a group’s spokesperson.  Instead these people use the vulnerability of the group’s acceptance of responsibility to attack the validity of their values.  However, I believe that this minority negative response should not undermine the strength and vitality of a culture group.  In fact, the admission of guilt and seeking forgiveness only serves to reinforce the credibility of the person or group, as well as increase my admiration for the communicating party.  

In no way does an apology or admission of wrong that emerges from introspective criticism undermine the strength and value of a culture.  If anything, it demonstrates an awareness of how the group’s actions impact those on the cultural periphery of a group’s influence.  It is also an important step towards acknowledging weaknesses and moving towards positive change.  Only through the process of reflection and reevaluation can culture groups determine best practices for future interactions.  

Forgiveness on a cultural level compares to personal forgiveness in its scope and serves the same purpose of relationship restoration.  It can be either sought or unsolicited, but in each case the victimized party offering forgiveness releases themselves from the burden of carrying anger and also the other party from the burden of blame.  While those causing pain through their action or inaction are still accountable for what they did or did not do, they are no longer responsible for the emotional obstacles of those offering forgiveness.  

On a cultural level, forgiveness is found in taking responsibility, apologizing for the part one group played in hurting another, and asking for forgiveness; much the same as when forgiveness is sought on a personal level.  For one culture group to admit a wrong is humbling, but does not guarantee that they will be forgiven. 

In Canada, Prime Minister Stephen Harper “recognized that the absence of an apology for Canada’s role in the misguided policies of the Indian Residential Schools was an impediment to the healing and reconciliation with the Native peoples...He then asked for the forgiveness of the aboriginal people of this country for failing them so profoundly” (Augi, 2011, paragraph 1).  The Residential School system was designed for the education of First Nations children, but involved practices of removing children from their immediate families and enforcing punishments for any use of language or ritual that was not Anglo-approved.  Unfortunately, there are many reported cases of physical, mental, and sexual abuse associated with these experiences and the breakdown of the First Nations social infrastructure is linked to the separation of families.  It is a sad part of Canada’s inter-cultural history and the effects are felt by those of many generations.

Prime Minister Harper’s apology allowed First Nations people to be “much more healed than before because [they] have been able to come to a place where [they] can say ‘I forgive’” (Kenny Blacksmith, cited in Gyapong, 2010, paragraph 3).  Similar sentiments were shared at the National Forgiven Summit that was organized by the Gathering Nations International organization.  This coalition of First Nation, Inuit, and Metis provides a cultural foundation for forgiveness of the dominant Canadian government’s omission of action.  The apology incited discussions of forgiveness, which led to the drafting of the Charter of Forgiveness and Freedom (2010) signed by survivors and children of survivors of the Residential School system in Canada.  Moving forward with this officially forgiving step was empowering to the First Nations people, who “knew that forgiveness had to be a step of faith and trust in God to achieve the impossible. [They] knew that [they] could not demand restitution in the form of compensation nor could [they] ask anyone to make all things right first before [they] could forgive” (Augi, 2011, paragraph 2).  

Drafted in response to Prime Minister Harper's 2008 apology.
Signed June 11-13, 2011 at the National Forgiven Summit.

Compared to cultural forgiveness, personal forgiveness appears to be more involved than legislated kindness.  While the cultural responsibility of the Canadian government is to ensure that the types of travesties that were committed in the Residential School system do not occur later, that particular wrong has ceased and the wronged culture group has officially forgiven them.  Essentially, it appears to be finished and wrapped up in a neat documented package.  Personal wrongs are experienced on a day-to-day basis, which makes the forgiveness of personal violation more important and impressive. 

For example, the recent story of a man befriending his brother’s killer bears the headline: From Anger to Forgiveness (Arce, 2013).  It explores the 20-year journey of a man whose innocent brother was senselessly murdered.  He encountered his brother’s killer while visiting another friend of his in prison, and “The meeting would transform both men’s lives” (Arce, 2013, paragraph 16).  The brother approached the perpetrator and said that he had been praying for him.  The murderer had expected a different reaction.  Their relationship continued as the brother of the victim advocated for an early parole and took steps to help his brother’s killer get his life back on track.  

Michael Rowe, the murderer, says that “I think for me, forgiveness will come in doing good works, trying to help others.  But as far as forgiving myself I don’t think I will ever get to that place” (Arce, 2013, paragraph 20).  

Michael Rowe and Anthony Colon

The personal forgiveness to which Rowe refers is both that extended to him by the brother of the man he murdered, as well as that he can grant to himself.  On both personal levels, it is a challenge.  Accepting the forgiveness offered by the hurt family member is somehow easier than extending forgiveness toward himself.  In this way, personal forgiveness is more difficult to attain and maintain than is cultural forgiveness.  Responsibility has been taken, retribution has been served, but the act of forgiving will be a daily and inconsistent practice, both for the wronged and the wrongdoer.  

Forgiveness can be taught, but it is more meaningful to instruct on the importance of the action rather than the process.  We can model forgiveness, and teach how to move past a difficult event, but I feel that the cultural and personal significance of why forgiveness is needed should be emphasized.  A rationale of why we forgive includes promoting unity, allowing healing, reducing violence, providing opportunities, and serving community on a global, local, and personal level.  This topic could be taken by an academic course and adopted into the discussions of ethics, social justice, communication, legal frameworks, business, education, and nearly any other disciplinary focus.  Teaching students, both young and old, about the importance of forgiveness will precede the practice.  By illustrating the implications of a forgiving person, society, and culture, these ideal environments can be formed on the foundation of knowledge.  

In my first year of teaching, I was a person in progress, more immature and insecure than I am today.  I was the 21-year old adult in charge of a classroom of children whose ages ranged from 9-15.  It was hard.  As children will do, the community I was shaping pushed boundaries that I hadn’t known I needed to establish and I took a great deal personally.  

In one instance, I had set up a course of drills for the students to complete in partners and left the classroom to take care of a brief errand.  When I returned, I found that the students had reorganized themselves into an equally valid and similar activity, but not the one I had asked them to do.  In retrospect, they were still practicing the skill I had instructed them in and they had demonstrated creativity and problem solving in finding a way to integrate my lesson and their own interests.  But I only saw a threat to my authority, and I reacted badly.  I asked them to stop and explain why they couldn’t simply do what I had asked them to.  I had them form a line and respond to the question of who was the teacher in the classroom, them or me.  They knew the answer, even when I might not have.  

An unlucky coincidence was that the timing of this conversation fell right at the end of the time allotted for the activity, but they didn’t know about this scheduling happenstance.  All they knew was that after I interrupted their deviant activity, I told them that this section of our study was complete and they needed to return to the classroom immediately to continue with our math exercises.  It was intentionally abrupt and interpreted as punitive, which in an unplanned way it kind of was.  I felt vindicated and justified at the time, and now only feel remorse.  I didn’t value the organic learning opportunity that presented itself, and I curbed the enthusiasm of a class of cooperating creative students, who were demonstrating the very traits that I intended to elicit.  Following my first year of full-time instruction, I had a difficult time forgiving my students for making life so difficult for me.  

Now, several years removed from that time, I hope that my detrimental attitude did not deprive them of any significant or formative experience.  I know now that I have only myself to forgive for the failures I remember.  And goodness knows I remember a lot.  I remember a note that two thoughtful grade five girls co-authored that read: “Dear Mrs. Ruiz, sometimes it feels like you don’t even want to be here.”  They were right, and I was so wrong.  I can’t go back and change who I was then and the year that we had, but I can forgive myself and be better.  It is difficult, and at this point, I can only try.  It will take time, but the guilt and the shame I feel about my behaviour as a leader and a role model has moved me to revalue all of my actions and my interactions.  I am a better listener, communicator, evaluator, planner, and community-builder because of the lasting negative memory from that classroom.  

I am ashamed, but I am improved.  I am more forgiving towards others, and attempting to love myself as I have grown to love my neighbour so that I can properly adhere to the golden rule.  

Like many of the testimonies shared in the documentary film, I believe that there is a strong connection between faith and forgiveness.  In practicing forgiveness in our daily lives, we can embrace the forgiveness extended towards us by God.  I know I will never be worthy of it, but its presence in the face of my personal unworthiness moves me towards recognizing injustice and intolerance on a cultural level.  I want to be a forgiving person and belong to culture groups that faithfully forgive as well.  

Works Cited: 

Arce, Rose (2013).  From Anger to Forgiveness: Man Befriends Brother's Killer.  CNN Belief Blog.  Retrieved 

from: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/13/from-anger-to-forgiveness-man-befriends-brothers-killer/?hpt=hp_c3 on April 14, 2013. 

Augi, Robert Moses (2010).  The Door of Restoration.  The Charter of Forgiveness and Freedom.  Retrieved from:   http://gatheringnations.ca/charter/ on April 14, 2013.  

Gyapong, Deborah (2010).  First Nations Offer Forgiveness.  The Catholic Register.  Retrieved from: http://www.catholicregister.org/news/canada/item/8546-first-nations-offer-forgiveness on April 14, 2013.