Jw Bleakly Case

It is a commonly known issue in Australia that as a minority group, the people of Indigenous Australian ethnicity have always been treated, or at least perceived, differently to those of non-Indigenous disposition. This can be applied to different contexts such as social, economic, education, or in relation to this essay – legal contexts. Generally, Indigenous Australians face issues such as less opportunity for formal education, less access to sufficient income, more health issues, and higher rates of imprisonment (Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service

These ideals were inevitably challenged when white society was confronted by people of mixed blood. The lack of conformity by the Aboriginal race to a white lifestyle was seen as a problem as was the growing number of ‘half castes’.[17] Some Australians found it offensive to see almost white children living amongst Aboriginal families.[18] As a solution to this problem, in 1937 the Federal Government adopted the Policy of Absorption as the future destiny of the Aboriginal people of Australia.[19] This decision was based on prevailing scientific and anthropological knowledge which suggested that Australian Aborigines were descended from the Caucasian race[20].

To begin with, a clarification must be made. Although for the purposes of this assessment I will be using the term Indigenous Australians, it is not the most appropriate term to be using, as the technical definition of indigenous is ‘originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native’ (‘Indigenous’, 1987). The more correct term would be Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander.

In the early 1890’s, protectionism gave way to state and commonwealth government regimes of segregation. In the development of the constitution, politicians included sections specifically excluding Indigenous Australians, such as the white Australia policy, ensuring that racism became entrenched in the new nation’s future. Reserves and missions were set up far from white settlements, to exclude and control Indigenous Australians, especially those of mixed descent (Hampton & Toombs, Racism, colonisation/colonialism and impacts on indigenous people, 2013).

Throughout the early 20th century, the Australian public was led to believe that Aboriginal children were disadvantaged in their communities, and that there was a high risk of physical and sexual abuse. Aboriginal children were being removed in order to be exposed to ‘Anglo values’ and ‘work habits’ with a view to them being employed by colonial settlers, and to stop their parents, families and communities from passing on their culture, language and identity

Assimilation policy proposed that ‘full blood’ Indigenous people should be allowed to ‘die out’ through a process of natural elimination, while ‘half-castes’ were encouraged to assimilate into the white community. This approach was founded on the assumption of black inferiority and white superiority. It was assumed that Indigenous people would enjoy the same quality of life as white Australians if they adopted European customs and everyone would live together as a single white Australian community. In actuality, assimilation policy further destroyed Indigenous identity, culture and families. It also was justification for the removal of Indigenous children from their

The roots of the 'White Australia ' policy can be outlined to the 1850s. Until the 'White Australia 's policy was abolished in the twentieth century, Australia was officially defined as white. Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander people were not considered the part of White Australia, and indigenous Studies was not required in the school curriculum. This meant schooling was culturally unsuitable for indigenous students. Furthermore, the Australian students were not educated to appreciate Indigenous cultures either in past or present. Aboriginal Studies is about social justice for all Australians -- equity, human rights, a fair go and mutual respect for our fellow Australians. It is hard to define social justice but everybody

Despite the echoed understanding that white and black shared the same law, the introduction of legal procedures such as coronial inquiries into Aboriginal deaths on Queensland’s pastoral frontier highlighted that justice for Aboriginals in the criminal law institution would not be achieved (Nettelbeck, 2013, 358). Today Indigenous Australians are severely over-represented as a group in the criminal justice system. It is well documented that Indigenous Australians are more likely to be sentences to a period of imprisonment, less likely to receive bail and are frequently overcharged (Allard et al., 2010 and Carpenter & Ball 2012,97)

The White Australia Policy is one of the most infamous acts passed in Australian history. It discriminated against countless of different races. The policy was created with the purpose to recreate the image of a ‘White Australia’. This was the old approach taken by the Australian government to select immigrants from the white countries like the United Kingdom and stop the entry of immigrants not from white countries. Australia was following the example set by Great Britain, as shown in a statement made by W.G. Spence “If we keep the race pure,

It was the belief of the time that this full blood Aboriginal population would eventually die out. In 1937 the Commonwealth-State Native Welfare Conference was held and the agreement that was reached was “this conference believes that the destiny of the natives of aboriginal origin, but not of the full blood, lies in their ultimate absorption by the people of the Commonwealth, and it therefore recommends that all efforts be directed to that end” (Arrufat 1930).By the 1950s these children began to be placed with white families to be servants or sent to work as under paid labour. It is unknown how many Aboriginal people where taken form their families but today there are thousands of people with out a family history because most of these children now known as the stolen generation never sore their families again. Even siblings where separated, usually for life. It was an ethnocentric view of Non-Aboriginal Australians to think that these children would be better off growing up without their Aboriginal Families.

‘Australia’ also showed how the government controlled how children of Aboriginal descent were brought up with language used such as “The mixed raced children must be dislocated from their primitive full blooded Aborigine, how else are we to breed the black out of them”. This presented again the reason as to why the Aboriginal children were taken away from their own cultures to be raised in something completely different.

Haskins notes that the Aborginial men were misapprehend about the way they treated their families and as known as they were violence, hunters and rapist to their children. In that way the ‘NSW Aboriginal Protection Board’ legislation find

O Neville’s appointed in 1915. Neville had similar a background and credentials as they were both raised in England and previous to appointment did not engage with the aboriginals. However, Neville’s approach to his self-declared ‘problem of the native race’ (AWC, 1937) was far tougher than the stance exhibited by Prinsep. Neville proclaimed that he could ‘do nothing’ for the ‘full-bloods’, who he believed to be dying out but could absorb the ‘half-castes’ into white society (Bring Them Home, 1997). This led to a full-scale approach on the assimilation of half-caste children with a further fifteen new aboriginal child institutions being established between 1915 and 1940. This indicates towards a more rigorous system of operation taking place under Neville’s leadership. However, a regulatory policy was also introduced in the form of the State Children Act Amendment Act (1919), which commanded that ‘in committing any child to an institution the court must have regard to the child’s future welfare’. However, as raised earlier, the argument of ‘welfare’ and ‘best interests’ is a contentious subject that is very subjective. Therefore, Neville’s statement

The white Australia policy was one of the first acts passed by the parliament in Australia, and called the Immigration Restriction Registration Act 1901. This aimed to rid Australia of ‘non-white’ migrants by restricting entry to the country, and deporting those of ‘undesirable migrants.’

The recent Australian film, Rabbit Proof Fence, similarly condemns the social, political and cultural mores of colonial and post-colonial Australia in relation to its past treatment of indigenous Australians. Like To Kill a Mockingbird, it too, is set in the 1930’s and reflects similar attitudes and values whites have to black people. The film is a true story based on the book by Doris Pilkington Garimara, the daughter of one of the half-caste children in the film who, together with two other Aboriginal girls, was forcibly removed from her family in Jigalong, Western Australia. These children form part of what is now known as the “Stolen Generation”. They, like many others who lived in the first part of the 20th century, were the victims of the official government assimilationist policy which decreed that half-caste children should be taken from their families and their land in order to be made “white”. The policy was definitely aimed at “breeding out” Aboriginality, because only half and quarter caste children were taken.