What Does Mr Neville Represent

Throughout the 1890’s and 1970’s the event of the Stolen Generation occurred. The Stolen Generation is where Aboriginal and Torre Strait Islander children were taken out of their parent’s custody, by the Australian State and Federal agencies and church commissions. These children were forced to live in so called ‘white’ methods and were to follow their teachings and understandings. This presentation of the Stolen Generation will be demonstrating; what the stolen generation was, why the white’s only took away the Aboriginal children away from their families, how did the Stolen Generation affect the children and their families, what happened to the Stolen children and what happened to the family members that weren’t stolen.

The text highlights the changing attitudes through society, shown towards the Aboriginal culture, after life threatening events, bringing these men closer than ever before, “Back in France, back in the mud. Blokes like you shook my hand. We dragged blokes like you through the shit and blood. We saw each other when we were like babies. Like animals.” (wright 71). This text also, I believe, has an inner meaning of morals and mateship as evident in the closing stages of the play, where the stereotypical white soldiers are starting to get along with the archetypal black soldiers, who we follow through the play. Following their ever-changing story for a better future of equality and understanding. This all has an origin, which starts at the very beginning of the play, showing mateship between the Aboriginal men. As the play moves on the bold line separating the two different cultures, ever so slightly becomes fainter until it is just a blur. The inner meaning for this text, I see it as recognition towards difference and what is mismatched between the two cultures and how, this divergence from the normal, is why the black culture, represented as archetypal characters, we follow them through the play as they try to become just another face in the crowd, no different from the white man standing next to

Good morning ladies and gentlemen, I am here to discuss the effects that Neville Bonner had on the land rights and freedoms of aboriginal Australians. Australia has a history of discrimination. This is proven by the amount of effort it took to change the rights of indigenous Australians. One of the most effective aboriginal Australian’s was Neville Bonner, who I will speak about today. Neville Bonner had a significant impact on the rights and freedoms of indigenous peoples due to his involvement in parliament and his determination to live freely as an aboriginal. We will discuss throughout the speech Neville’s background and childhood, the changes he made to the rights of aboriginal peoples and who they impacted, as well as why he decided to make a difference to the lives of aborigines.

Davis adds to the audience’s understanding of race relations gained from Jimmy’s insights through stressing some particularly harsh actions of the whites. Even when drunk Jimmy can make the wisecrack, “Only time blackfellas git a ride off [the sergeant] is when he’s takin’ you to gaol.” The white attitude to the Aborigines shown in this comment is wry, as gaol is understood by Jimmy to be “yuart, [nothing] only a wetjala thing. Don’t worry about it.” But the punishments dealt out for being drunk are severe: Jimmy gets “three months with hard labour” for his sixth alcohol offence, which is quite a jump from the 14 days he received for his previous offence. White authority is highlighted by Davis in the figures of Chief Protector of Aborigines, Neville, and Superintendent Neal. Both these men act outrageously to those in their care. In the third scene of the play, Neville is presented as an efficient but cruel white administrator as he balances his budget in

Hyp: Neville Bonner’s focus was for the lives of the Aboriginal people to be changed so everyone was equal. Neville also wanted the rights for aboriginal people to be able to give birth in hospitals as it is a risk many aboriginals take and have taken in the past to give birth in places such as trees, as Neville was born in a tree.

In conclusion we are very fortunate country that others envy but like all countries, we have a dark side. This dark side is unleashed in "Tri" by Franc Echin and in "Fifties Australia" by Philip Knightly. The stories both share some of the racism that is Australia's history. These texts do not exaggerate the horror of racism as we have all seen or know individuals that suffer racism, so racism must be changed from Australia to improve our

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

In 1937 Conference of State and Federal Ministers of Native Welfare, the debate about the policy for indigenous people, the aboriginal issue has been divided into two populations, the ‘full-bloods’ and the ‘half castles’ (Hollinsworth, 1998). The first group was assumed would be die out eventually, and the second group can trained and absorbed into white family as a servant. In fact, Indigenous children kidnapping as servants was existed since European new arrival. And the removals and the blocking of return to Indigenous families was became common while the growth of ‘mix race’ people (Hollinsworth, 1998). In NSW, the legislation trying to remove the ‘mix race’ children from their family and placed them in foster care (Haebich 2000), while the prohibition of marriage and contact between racial categories has been legislated. Removed children are broken emotionally by told that their parent were dead out or abandoned them, and forced to neglect their own culture, as well as physically, as

Further indication that Neville’s policies were not beneficial is the fact that the standard of living of modern Aboriginals is still in the same place it was under Neville’s leadership (F). The lives of the ancestors of these Aboriginals had not been improved by Neville’s policies, and, as a result, neither had their own lives. Source F states that “the conditions of life in which they find themselves remain impoverished and highly oppressive”. Modern Aboriginals are more susceptible to serious diseases, have an abnormally low life expectancy for both genders, which is odd for a well-developed country such as Australia, have a high unemployment rate and those which are employed are paid less than their white counterparts (F). This is further demonstrated in Source H, where Aboriginal children were withdrawn from schools if white parents complained, which now directly correlates to the high unemployment rate.

“policy of absorbing Aboriginal people into white society through the process of removing children from their families. The ultimate intent of this policy was the destruction of Aboriginal society.” (George G. and George K. , 2013)

The incident that I have been investigating is the “Stolen Generation”. The Stolen Generation act took place in Australia from approximately 1890 until 1970, when the white people took aboriginal children away from their families. They did this for numerous amounts of reasons, none which were justifiable for their actions. The white did this because they believed that they would have been steeling their language, tradition, knowledge, dances, spirituality and future. They also thought that by taking the next generation of aboriginals that their whole race would just “die out”. When stealing the children, they tend to take more of the mixed descent kids because the white people believed that they would “fit in” easier. After the aboriginal children

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).

Many aboriginals were not accepted. Ever since the first fleet, many aboriginals have not been truly accepted. In the poem ‘Grade one primary’ it displays a child being treated badly just because of his race, “You half-caste dog, you coon, you boong, You stinking bloody abo” are just some of the words the child is called in this poem, the author of this poem gives a voice to many brutal realities aboriginal people faced. In ‘the burnt stick’ it is said that the mothers and other families will 'soon forget' as the children don't belong to them. it also states that they 'don't have feelings' calling them sub-human. Even now many aboriginals are still treated differently.

It states in the book that, “the European colonist saw the indigenous peoples as primitive and their land as terra nullius, owned by no one, and therefore freely available to settler” (pg. 450). It was not until the 1930s that rights were set aside for the Aboriginal population, but they were still marginal and without access to services and skills that needed to be provided. They were an invisible population amongst the other people groups by not being counted in the census or having the right to vote. They were thought to be one cohesive culture; however there were other distinct cultures within the Aboriginal people. A way that Australia tried to intermix them into society was to take the children from aboriginal families and place them in to white foster care homes and institutions. This was called the “Stolen generation” and it was not until the 1990s that the Australian government spoke out for this population. Multiculturalism has been a growing concept that still needs to be worked on today in every