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.
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 (3rd
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, 2nd ed. (Myron W. Lustig and Jolene Koester, Ed.s). Boston, MA:Pearson Education. 34-43.
No comments:
Post a Comment