E
estesbob
Guest
My wife and I wnet to see this despite the tepid reviews and thought it was one of the best movies we have see in years.
And easily one of the longest.My wife and I wnet to see this despite the tepid reviews and thought it was one of the best movies we have see in years.
Agreed-it was really two movies in one. But I enjoyed it a lotAnd easily one of the longest.![]()
How is a free Catholic education not a favor?I’m sure that one of our Ozzie members will chime in with more accurate information, but what the movie depicts is essentially true–and in fact was not discontinued until 1971, I believe.
Now, movies being movies, the cruelty of it is probably overstated–remember, at the time they thought they were doing these kids a favor–but there is no doubt that this activity took place.
By forcibly stripping children of their cultures and depriving their families of the right to raise them.How is a free Catholic education not a favor?![]()
That’s just what I was thinking.Are we sure that these were Catholic and not Anglican missions? Australia, after all, was a British colony…
Oh yes. It was bad. As a Canadian I absolutely acknowledge it. Unfortunately it was normal to think at the time that the Native’s should be assimilated. The popular phrase was that the schools were “to take the Indian out of the Indian”. That was not a proud part of our history.If Australia’s experience with the forced separation of Native children from their families, and relocation to boarding schools where they were “turned white” is anything like what took place in the Canada, then Protestants are likely to be guilty along with Catholics.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system
(US also had forced boarding schools, but these seem to have been government run, rather than church run)
By forcibly stripping children of their cultures and depriving their families of the right to raise them.
The movie, “The Rabbit Proof Fence” is factually incorrect. All you have to do to determine that the movie incorrectly protrayed what happened is to read the book. The girls were not taken while ‘happily playing with their friends’. They were ostracised by the full-blood kids and were ‘running around’ with white men in the area, a euphemism for having sex with them. They were picked up by one policeman on horseback, not put in a cage on the back of a ute. They were not given burlap sacks to wear. The film producer played fast and loose with the truth when telling this ‘true story’.Hello all,
I’m an Auzzie so thought I would chime in. Yes, the stolen generation, which involved the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youths taken away from their families and put forcibly into schools or forced to work as housekeepers, cooks or labourers is a horrific event in Australian history. It did continue for a long time and it continues to be a major issue due to its ramifications e.g. families who lost contact with each other and lost their heritage and traditions. This was enforced by the law and conducted by the police and missionaries of many different faiths. History details that these people thought that they were improving the lives of the Aboriginal children (obviously I do not share this view). The children were not able to practice their heritage and some never saw their parents/family again.
A very moving Australian film that looked at this history was “Rabbit Proof Fence” which follows siblings who escape custody and try to return to their family. It is very emotional film but does capture what happened.
If you are interested further you can research into Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s apology to the Stolen Generation. This apology caused a bit of controversy but I won’t go into it here.
These events are slowly being addressed by the Australian government, namely with health care and education to reduce poverty and increase ATSI life expectancy.
Hope this brief history helps.
Kind regards,
Chappers.
The truth is that Neville did not take these three girls under some blanket policy to steal all half-caste children. Indeed, Windschuttle says he removed only one other child in 1931 from all camps in Western Australia.
And as I’ve reported, Neville told the 1936 Moseley Royal Commission into the treatment of Aborigines: “The children who have been removed as wards of the Chief Protector have been removed because I desired to be satisfied that the conditions surrounding their upbringing were satisfactory, which they certainly were not … “
What concerned Neville was their welfare - which is precisely what concerns us still about such children, and has us remove more today than Neville ever did.
Many of the central facts - that they WERE taken entirely without their consent or that of their parents, taken many hundreds of miles from their homes and families, and were so miserable that they broke out and escaped not once but twice, walking back those many hundreds of miles in very tough circumstances each time - are true. As are a lot of the more general restrictions on Aboriginals at the time that are portrayed, such as not being able to move or marry without consent of the Protector of Aborigines, being punished for using native language and the like. Under no circumstances are these sort of restrictions on human liberty OK.The movie, “The Rabbit Proof Fence” is factually incorrect. All you have to do to determine that the movie incorrectly protrayed what happened is to read the book. The girls were not taken while ‘happily playing with their friends’. They were ostracised by the full-blood kids and were ‘running around’ with white men in the area, a euphemism for having sex with them. They were picked up by one policeman on horseback, not put in a cage on the back of a ute. They were not given burlap sacks to wear. The film producer played fast and loose with the truth when telling this ‘true story’.