Translator

Ethnocentric Proof Fence

Most movies are a form of escape from the viewer’s ordinary lives, but every once in a while a film does the opposite and drags the viewer into a reality, immersing them into a way of life and a past that still affects people even today. The movie, Rabbit Proof Fence recreates the Australian government’s theft of half aboriginal have European children from aboriginal mothers from 1875 to 1954, showing us how extremely ethnocentric and sexist their actions truly were and how it effected the culture and well-being of aboriginal tribes of today.

History:

Australia passed the 1905 Aborigines Act who’s purpose was to “…bring about permanent segregation of Aborigines of full descent, who were believed to be near extinction; and temporary segregation and training of those of part descent who would re-enter society as domestics and farm-workers, eventually blending with the white population through intermarriage” (Haebich). The man put in charge of carrying out the “Blending” was Auber Octavius Neville.

A. O. Neville, son of an English clergyman, was the Australian Government’s chief protector of Aborigines and shaped official policy towards aborigines from 1915 until his retirement in 1940. (Haebich)  Some aborigines appreciated the help of the government and Neville while others spoke about “’Mister Neville’” as if he was something to be feared. (Haebich)  His use of local police contributed to aboriginal hostility of policemen. As one retired policemen put it, “A police visit was feared because it meant one of two things: all the dogs would be shot or any half-caste child under twelve would be taken away.” (Williams)   The Neville administration’s goal was to assimilate aborigines through economic and social absorption; or in other words, or as Neville wrote in his book, Australia’s Coloured Minority, he wished to breed out the aborigines. (Haebich) Neville established the Moore River settlement in 1918.

Moore River was a training institution and repository for juvenile and adult people of mix color, unmarried mothers, orphaned children, and the elderly and indigent. (Haebich) At these run-down institutions, the children were given a basic education and then sent out to work as domestic servants and laborers (Williams) Many of these children were taken from their aboriginal mothers by force. These children became known as the “Stolen Generations.”

Mothers of Australia’s “Stolen Generations” had no legal rights over their own children and they could be sent to Moore River or another settlement for any reason. (Williams) The theft of these children went on until the 1970s and the number of children taken was over forty thousand.(National Sorry Day Committee)  Today thousands of Australians have expressed sorrow and shame over their government’s previous treatment of aboriginal people at Reconciliation and Sorry Day marches.

The Film:

Rabbit Proof Fence is a 2001 feature film directed by Phillip Noyce and based on Doris Pilkington’s book, Follow the Rabbit-Proof Fence, about Pilkington’s mother Molly Craig and two other young aboriginal girls who were stolen from their mothers and placed in the Moore River Settlement. Pilkington herself attended the Moore River settlement for eight years and knew nothing of her mother’s incarceration and escape from Moore River until she was an adult and told the tale by her aunt Daisy. (Quin) The film takes place when Molly Craig was 14 and stolen from her mother along with her sister daisy and her cousin and taken to the Moore River Settlement. The girls escaped the settlement and used a 1500 mile rabbit proof fence to find their way back home to Jigalong. The film was advertise as “A True Story” but many people have pointed out inconsistencies with the facts and with Doris Pilkingtion and her mother’s account of the story. The movie has won twenty-one awards and was nominated twenty-four times including a Golden Globe. (Rabbit-Proof Fence (2002))

The Depiction Ethnocentrism and Sexism:

While scenes of children being forcible stolen from their fighting and screaming mothers affects most people with feelings of sorrow and is a culturally universal “wrong,” the film really shines as a way of showing ethnocentrism and sexism. Throughout the whole film we see major differences between gender and cultures. At the beginning of the film we can see how A. O. Neville truly thinks he is doing the right thing. His character isn’t one of a Ku Klux Klan leader chasing down aboriginal people with a burning cross for no better reason than pure racism. He is doing this because he feels that he is doing what is morally right. He wishes to breed out a people that he finds inferior to his own and by doing so, help the people and the culture he is destroying. Just like the white Europeans who colonized America and justified their treatment of Native Americans, both dominate cultures thought of themselves as superior to a culture they didn’t understand. Mr. Neville never considers that there is anything wrong with just being an aboriginal person from Jigalong. This is shown perfectly at the end of the film when A. O. Neville says, “If only they would understand what we are trying to do for them.” If only Mr. Neville could hear what Molly Craig said about the people of his settlement, “This people… make me sick!”

The film does a great job at showing cultural differences. The westernized audience of this film goes through a mild form of culture shock, as they watch Molly’s mother beating the side of her head with rock after the children were stolen. While we as westerners can fully understand her emotional state we are lost at seeing such an act. There are other moments that we may not culturally relate or understand. The praying of the women at the end of the film may seem foreign or even creepy, but it is the ceremonial chanting and dancing that guilds Molly and her sister back to their mother in the darkness of night.

Although the film isn’t as much about the treatment of woman as it is about the treatment of aboriginals or racism, it is a major factor of the film. The fact that most of these “Half-casts” are the results of a white male and an aboriginal female that results into most being raised as aboriginals is a little lost, because the male black tracker in the film seems to be serving the Europeans because they have his “Half-cast” daughter, but the film still shows that these terrible things are primarily happening to women. They don’t show anyone forcibly removing children from a father or a male having secret unwanted sexual encounters with his master of indenture servitude, but they do show or suggest those things happening to women. While it is obvious that the the 1905 Aboriginal Act was devastating on both male and female aboriginals, the film suggest that it was even more difficult for an aboriginal or “Half-cast” woman.

Opposition:

The film, as well as the term “lost generations” have both received intense criticism. Many people have claimed that the children were removed for their own good, citing the conditions that the aboriginal people were living in during the great depression. “The former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, John Herron, told a Federal parliamentary inquiry that it was a misnomer, that there never was a stolen generation. (Williams)” Like most things in the world, perspective matters a lot, and the term “lost generations” is now used politically and may be the cause of why it is so fought.

The film’s criticism is less political, because there are real inconsistencies with the original book. In particular; the heart wrenching scene in the beginning of the film is nothing like the none violent taking of the girls on horse back that is described in the book (Bolt). The depiction of “Mister Neville” is another point of controversy. The film’s explanation as to why the children were taken is because the Australians and Neville are racist ethnocentrics, but the fact that those children were outcasts among full aborigines and were in danger because they were “running wild” with the whites, whom often would sexually exploit girls of mixed race, is not depicted at all in the film (Bolt). While some criticisms of the film are legitimate, this still doesn’t change the fact that the interference that the aboriginal people received was ethnocentric and took no account of the traditions and rights of a people who were devastated by a new European culture.

Conclusion:

Rabbit Proof Fence may not be one hundred percent accurate, but that does not change the fact that from 1878 to 1954 a culture that was different then that of white Europeans had a piece of who they were stolen along with their children. The Australian government feared what a culture of what they called “Half-Casts” or “Creamies” would have done as they grew in populations. Luckily we are a new generation of people and have proven over and over again that we don’t find different races and cultures as something to be feared, but as something to celebrated. The aboriginal people of Australia will never be the same, but hopefully our newly evolved and mixed cultures have truly become superior and learned to accept one another for who we all are, human beings.

Works Cited

Haebich, A., and RH W. Reece. “Neville, Auber Octavius (1875 – 1954) Biographical Entry -.”Australian Dictionary of Biography Online. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.

National Sorry Day Committee. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.

Quin, Karl. “Molly’s story.” Kooriweb Homepage. The Sunday Age, 17 Feb. 2002. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.

“Rabbit-Proof Fence (2002).” The Internet Movie Database (IMDb). Web. 13 Dec. 2009.

Williams, Robyn. “Ockhams Razor: The Stolen Generation.” ABC.net.au. 1 Jan. 2002. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.