The forced removal of children, when considered as part of this extensive government policy towards Indigenous Australians, meets the definition of genocide. Notably, the removal of these children meets the legal standard of a physical act of genocide set by the United Nations. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide explicitly defines “forcibly transferring children of [a] group to another group” as genocide. Therefore, recognition of this action is enough to categorise Indigenous policy as genocidal. However, it is necessary to prove a “clear intent to cause the offence [of genocide]” under this law. Accordingly, similarities between the outcomes of similar legislation prove consistent intent to destroy …show more content…
The top-level of government, and their public statements, form this genocidal context. Notably, key facilitators of policy must demonstrate a purposeful intent to commit the crime in order to establish an ulterior intent. Collective statements from individuals at the top-level of government emphasises the relationship between popular ideas of biological absorption and the formation of policy. The minutes of the Conference of Commonwealth and State Aboriginal Authorities in 1937 stresses that this theory was integral to broad Indigenous policy. These key facilitators agreed that “all efforts should be directed” to the absorption of Indigenous people, and that there should be a “uniformity of legislation” across States to achieve this outcome. As a result, this consensus links to the purpose of individuals within government. For example, Chief Protector Neville’s statements in favour of biological absorption likened the removal of children to the “application of the surgeon’s knife”. This confirms ulterior intent, within government, to use legislation as a tool to commit the act of genocide. The wide belief in biological absorption at the top-level supports the existence of purpose-based intent. Furthermore, implicit reference to this theory highlights how child removal policy “blurs the boundaries” between cultural and physical destruction. Due to this, this ulterior intent …show more content…
This allows for a determination of the extent to which genocidal intent exists at each level of the structure. The role of purpose categorises the level of intent that any definition of genocidal intent would require at different levels of the decision-making structure. Purpose-based intent should apply to “top-level perpetrators”, and “general knowledge of the genocidal context” must exist outside of that, due to the structure of government. As discussed, the combination of legislation and correspondence indicates that there was a strong intent to commit the offence at the top-level. However, it is difficult to determine the extent to which a genocidal intent existed amongst the general population. The role of historical enquiry in this context implies that evidence may be “partial [or] inadequate”. This is particularly relevant in relation to forms of genocide that do not inflict direct physical harm, such as the removal of children. Windschuttle suggests that this highlights the failure of similar evidence to convince the High Court of Australia to define the removal of mixed-race children as an act of genocide. As such, it is important to note Windschuttle’s disregard towards oral or secondary sources in historical study. It remains necessary to accept these
The policy of assimilation of Aboriginal people was first developed in 1937, by all of the Australian States and the Commonwealth Government during the Aboriginal Welfare conference. During the course of the meeting, the Western Australian Chief Aboriginal Protector, Auber Octavius Neville, concluded that, “In 50 years we should forget that there were any Aborigines in this country” . This proposal meant the total annihilation of Aboriginal people. At the conclusion of this meeting, the agreed desired outcome was for Aboriginal people to be assimilated into white society.
The Aborigines Protection Act 1909 (NSW) was a law that changed Indigenous Australian lives forever. The act enabled the New South Wales Board for the Protection of Aborigines to essentially control the lives of Aboriginal people. It was the Aborigines Protection Act 1909 (NSW) that had major provisions that resulted in the containment and suffering that Aboriginal people endured. This suffering included the practice of forcible removing Indigenous children from their families. These major provisions help us understand what the Aborigines Protection Act 1909 (NSW) involved and the impact it has had on the daily lives and cultures of Indigenous Australian peoples today.
Since the time of federation the Aboriginal people have been fighting for their rights through protests, strikes and the notorious ‘day of mourning’. However, over the last century the Australian federal government has generated policies which manage and restrained that of the Aboriginal people’s rights, citizenships and general protection. The Australian government policy that has had the most significant impact on indigenous Australians is the assimilation policy. The reasons behind this include the influences that the stolen generation has had on the indigenous Australians, their relegated rights and their entitlement to vote and the impact that the policy has had on the indigenous people of Australia.
At the turn of the twentieth century the systematic forced removal of Aboriginal children from their mothers, families and cultural heritage was commonplace. There were several reasons that the government and white society used to justify the separation but the prevailing ideology of nationalism and maintaining Australia for the ‘whites’ was the over-riding motivation and justification for their actions[1]. Progressive sciences such as anthropology espoused such theories as eugenics, miscegenation, biological absorption and assimilation which legitimated governmental policies relating to Aboriginal affairs[2]. It was
Kevin Rudd’s apology was to the Aboriginals; but in particular, to the Stolen Generations. From 1909-1969, the Australian Government forced a policy know as assimilation upon the Aboriginals. Assimilation is the forced integration of minority groups onto the dominant society. Inhumane acts were inflicted upon these proud people because of the ‘Aborigines Protection Board’ which entailed that the Australian Government had full rights to forcibly remove half-caste children from Aboriginal care without parental consent nor a court order.
Assimilation policies existed in purpose of allowing the removal of Aboriginal children legal and believed as to be the right thing. The removal policy was managed by the Aborigines Protection Board. The Aborigines Protection Board was a government board established in 1909 with the power to remove children without parental consent and without a court order. These policies were especially detrimental to the Aborigines as a ‘government’ act prevented them with having authority over their own children and having no power in stopping the abducting of their children. Over causing a significant discrimination against the indigenous race, breeding hatred and inequality in Australian society, the implementation of these policies caused immense heartache and anguish for the Aboriginal parents for losing their children, the children of the Stolen Generation experiencing solitude and confusion for majority of their lives and the rest of society,
After this time, many atrocities occurred, such as the fact that Aboriginals were often killed for sport, and massacres such as Myall Creek were occurring, where 28 Aboriginal men, women and children were murdered near Myall Creek Station in 1838. There was also the problem of the Stolen Generation, when Aboriginal children were forcibly taken from their homes to be raised as though they were white. It was only recently in 2008, that Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister of Australia at the time, apologised for the actions that the government had undertaken. In another apologetic move, Prime Minister Paul Keating delivered a powerful speech regarding the fact that Aboriginal Communities were still segregated despite the fact that laws had been changed a number of years ago. This shows that the idea of atonement by Australia is quite a new topic. Does this prove the challenges that Aboriginal’s faced nearly 200 years ago are still present in today’s society? It was enough to force the Aboriginal men, women and children to begin act in support of their rights.
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
Government policies authorising the removal of Aboriginal children have caused extensive and unrepairable damage to every aspect of Indigenous culture. It could be argued that the emotional turmoil which occurred as a result of this policy, is greater than any physical abused ever faced by the Australian Aboriginal people. The act of child removal would be a scarring experience for parents and children of any race or culture. This policy had a particularly damaging impact on the Indigenous people as their identity is based within a set of strong traditional guides and teachings. These lessons are not recorded, but can only be taught through speaking with elders and learning through a connection to others within the mob, connection to art forms
Each example given has also shown how self-determination was and continues to be a major struggle for Aboriginal people. Beginning with the Whitlam government, the Land Rights Act was going to be the national recognition that Aboriginal people had been waiting for, however the swift dismissal of the government and subsequent changes to the bill meant that an uninformed government would dictate claims of Aboriginal land rights. This was continued in the Heritage Protection Act for Western Australia in which no monitoring of abuses of power within the authoritative ministry was assessed; hence damage to heritage sites for the development of industries occurred. Finally the Racial Discrimination Act although making racial discrimination illegal has clearly been violated by the government in the Northern Territory interventions and hence is not valued by Australia despite the international commitments made to recognising Indigenous rights. Although legislation has been introduced to recognise Indigenous rights, there seems to always be a catch. A final reoccurring theme in the legislation discussed is the uninformed views of the non-Indigenous government as decisions are made on behalf of Aboriginal people; hence two major statements were discussed that precisely define Aboriginal self-determination by Aboriginal
The term ‘war’ as defined by the Oxford Dictionary is explained as “a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country” (Oxforddictionaries.com, 2016). The concept of war has created contrasting views on the relationship between war and genocide as well as the effect that war has on genocide. The term ‘genocide’ literally means ‘the killing of a race’ and is arguably the most atrocious crime conceivable (Gunter, 2011). It is a specific term that refers to crimes that are committed against groups with intent to destroy their existence (Ushmm.org, 2016). There are various motives and numerous reasons as to why genocides may occur, however this paper will seek to address the extent to how, if at all, the concept of war being a necessary condition for the occurrence of genocide, as well as looking at correlations between war and genocide using specific examples to determine whether war is a necessary condition or not.
Governments soon felt that to banish Indigenous Australians, the children needed to be removed from their family and assimilated with non-indigenous families, believing this was the best option to breed out the aboriginal race and to fit them into mainstream society.
‘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.
64, Commonwealth of Australia 2011). Policy then moved towards more assimilationist strategies in which attempts were made to convert Aboriginal Australians into ‘responsible citizens’ (Gilbert 2005, Haebich 2000). The protectionist and assimilationist policies share the core values that Aboriginal culture is inferior and on its way to an ‘evolutionary end’ (Gilbert 2005, p. 64).
Genocide, a dire event, has been recurring time and time again throughout history. In the past, there was the Holocaust, where Hitler exterminated over six million Jews based on his anti-semitic views. Elie Wiesel, a Jewish author, has become a very influential man in educating the world of the true events of the Holocaust due to his involvement in the disaster. Presently, a genocide is occurring in the Darfur region of southern Sudan, in which according to Cheryl Goldmark, “a systematic slaughter of non-Arab residents at the the hands of Arab militiamen called Janjaweed” has been taking place since 2003. (1) Not only is genocide a tragic historical event, it also continuously occurs today.