Translator

By N2H

Science

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.

My Bones, Stones and Human Evolution Class

When I started my Bones, Stones, and Human Evolution class at Mesa Community College, I thought I had a good understanding of evolution and Natural Selection. I mean, I have read things here and there and watched the Discovery Channel, that made me an expert in my mind. Can’t blame me, because it turns out that our minds were the last thing to evolve, which is something I didn’t know until I took this class. The truth is, I didn’t learn as much about human origins as much as I learned how little I know about our origins. Learning that the time line of and how we developed is not something that is currently set in stone. Our collective knowledge about our origins is truly amazing when considering how lucky we are to have found the evidence that we have. Everyday we learn something new and every time we do, we answer one question and seem to have a thousand new ones. It is as if we are the greyhound and our origins are the stuffed rabbit that is always just out of reach. If I had to choose what the most valuable lesson of this class was, I would say that it was that we know we evolved from some kind of primate and that natural selection was the designer, but that we are just barely discovering the specifics of our evolution. This is truly an amazing time of discovery and I can’t wait till I am a part of it.

While we were studying our hominid ancestors, a new discovery was made, Ardipithecus. This new Paranthropus was added to our studies and was an example of how things change. Many anthropologist theorize that we evolved from chimpanzees but the more we discover, the more likely this was not the case. We may share a common ancestor but after the discovery of Ardipithecus, we are not finding that we share enough with Chimps. For one, they are knuckle walkers and Ardipithecus does not seem to have any signs of ever knuckle walking. Our separate lineage with Chimps may be far older than we originally thought.

In class we were able to get a glimpse of how we evolved by just studying all the other primates on the planet. There are primates of all different types, sizes and environments. It is very possible that our oldest ancestors were a primate similar to small monkeys that later developed into other larger primates. Perhaps those primates developed social systems similar to the kinds we share with baboons and maybe that was the beginnings of our brains evolution. Maybe that animal evolved into a tree walking primate like the orangutans. Before Ardipithecus, I might have said Chimpanzees but now it seems that our direct ancestor walked in the trees instead of on its knuckles. I say maybe it was something like the tree walking orangutans but as of yet, no on knows. Perhaps our ancestor developed similar to Chimpanzees and grew more intelligent like they have and started eating meat for the same reasons the chimps eat meat. Perhaps our ancestors lost their large fangs because our females chose to breed with less aggressive males, like the highly aggressive males we seen in chimpanzee groups or tribes. Maybe that is why ours have virtually disappeared while all other primates still have them. We continue to find new fossils like Ardipithecus which helps us answer some of our questions, but until we have more artifacts, the study of primates is revealing a lot to us.

The biggest one of these unanswered questions would be, why are we bipedal? In class we learned a great deal about primate bone structures and how it relates to our own. While we are closest to the skeleton of a Chimpanzee, our bones still have similarities with all primates. Some noticeable differences are that, primates have longer arms compared to their body size and they have a Sagittal Crest that allows them to eat hard plants. Another major difference between us and other primates is our pelvis. We are bipedal, so we require a more bowl shape when compared to the longer primate pelvises. While we need our ribs and pelvis to be balanced other primates need them to be more flexible for swinging in the trees.
Still none of that answers the question, why are we bipedal? One theory we learned was about was heat absorption. An experiment showed that by being bipedal we expose less of our bodies to direct sunlight which keeps us cooler. Do to natural selection, we became better at cooling ourselves. We lost our fur and started sweating, no other primate sweats. This points to an animal that was more successful  because it cooled itself better. Studying the skulls of hominids showed that we developed better ways of controlling blood flow to the brain, and as we became human we became better at cooling our brains through blood flow. Some people even theorize that the cooling of our brains may be one of the causes for the development of a larger smarter mind.

According to the fossils we have found, many different types of hominids existed at the same time and were the most successful. Some of the later types of hominids have such similar fossils to us that it becomes harder and harder to tell us from them. The one thing we know for certain is that us humans have been more successful than our extinct hominid cousins and ancestors.

There is one major and obvious difference, our ability to make art. Art is truly the thing that makes us say, “this person was human.” We have found cave and rock art all around the world and they share similarities with one another. We know that people had language by the simple act of making art. Art requires the ability to think in the abstract. You have to be able to say that one thing represents another and it is the basis of our languages. We make sounds that represent something else, and we are able to understand that meaning. No other animal or hominid has had this ability and it maybe why our hominid cousins, the neanderthal, did not survive while we did. We don’t know for certain, but I suspect that one day we will discover the answer.
While we were not the first hominids to leave our home base of Africa, we certainly did leave and learned to adapt to all other environments. As we left Africa our tools began evolving faster and faster. Our populations are abundant because culture and tool use made us more successful. Today, we are 99.9% the same according to genetics and are not that  much different than the first people who left Africa, yet we now wield the power of the atom and the electron.

It took our species millions of years to evolve from a tree walking primate into the varying cultures and booming cites of today. Even now that we have developed car driving and space exploring societies, we can recognize our lineage in our everyday lives. We still war like Chimpanzees, we still have a sweet tooth and crave fat even when we have reached our daily need. We still display aggressiveness. We even share cultural responses to populations size with the Japanese Macaque.

.
These are just some of the things I have learned in Bones Stones and Human Evolution; the other major part of the class is learning how to think scientifically and how to do your own experiments. We learned about dating archeological sites using techniques such as dating using the depletion of carbon 14, dating by counting and comparing tree rings, dating using the topography, and dating by comparing fossils to pig fossils. (Pigs adapt quickly to their environments so you can use the changes in their fossils as a way of dating when you compare it to climatic changes.) We learned that anthropology really is interdisciplinary and brings in other sciences such as genetics, geology, and forensics. We learned how to properly come up with research projects. We learned the basics of digging at an archeological site. In short, we learn what the scientific community has learned about evolution, how they learned it, and how to go about thinking of new ways of learning more.

As I reflect back on all of the things I have learned in Bones Stones and Human Evolution, I think the most important thing was that theories are very powerful things. That we landed on the moon based on our theories. While there is a trend for people to act as if theories are just guesses, I learned not only how powerful they can be, but what actually makes them qualify as a theory. They are no mere guesses. Theories are a purposed answer to a question that is testable and has not been disproved by a test.

I have become satisfied that I have learned something useful to my future and understanding of my world. To bad more people don’t take anthropology classes. Maybe seeing data and learning about its collection would end some of the doubt brought on by religious zealots and give a stronger voice to the more educated among the clergy and religious spokespeople.

Speciation of the Poorly Drawn Wire Head Creature.

Many people do not understand Charles Darwin’s “Origin of Species” or speciation, because people like to over explain things. I mean I could blab on and on about Darwin’s finches and how they relate to the theory of evolution, but most people don’t care enough to have an hour long lecture about the different species of finches on the Galapagos islands. Hell, I’m an Anthropology major and even I found it totally dull. That says a lot, coming from a guy who get his kicks cataloging archeological artifacts. The following is my easy to read solution to defining natural selection and explaining speciation on the world wide web.

First members of the Poorly Drawn Species are separated geographically. This can be caused by climatic changes, separation (River/Ocean), migration, forced movement.

Original Habitat		Watery Habitat		Predator Infested Habitat		Cold Habitat
No Change!		Due to Natural Selection, a Poorly with a mutation that gives it more pointy ears makes it a better swimmer in this new environment. The Poorlies with this mutation, out perform the other Poorlies making it a better breeder. Over time the Poorlies with this Mutation breed out the original Poorlies		Due to Natural Selection, a Poorly with a mutation that gives it bigger ears, can hear predators better than the other Poorlies making it a better breeder in this new environment. Over time the Poorlies with this Mutation breed out the original Poorlies		Due to Natural Selection, a Poorly with a mutation that gives it smaller ears makes it better at avoiding frost bite in the new environment. The Poorlies with this mutation out perform the other Poorlies making it a better breeder. Over time the Poorlies with this Mutation breed out the original Poorlies
No Change!		Over a million years and being isolated from the original poorly population, these Poorlies continue to mutate in the new environment.		Over a million years and being isolated from the original poorly population, these Poorlies continue to mutate in the new environment.		Over a million years and being isolated from the original poorly population, these Poorlies continue to mutate in the new environment.

The DNA has mutated between these Poorlies so much that they are no longer able to breed.