Review: The Stolen Generations
Category: Genocides
Author: The Church Missions and Government of Australia
Rating: 82%
The phrase ‘stolen generations’ was first used by human professor Peter Read, an Australian historian, to describe the practice of abducting children of Australian aboriginal descent. The practice, initiated by the Church and various government bodies, was commonplace between 1869 and 1969, and continued on a smaller scale well into the 1970s. During this time, the combined forces were able to relocate as many as 100,000 native children. The rationale behind the abductions is unclear; however, various sources cite the prevention of miscegenation, and child protection. On the 13th of February 2008 CE, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd formally apologised for the stolen generations.
The stolen generations scheme puts a new twist on the old classic that is genocide. All the classic
themes are here: racial purification, religious motives, and even propaganda. The Australian government wasn’t afraid of committing a textbook genocide, but they were smarter than that: they realised they could do it without actually killing anyone. Quick thinking, Australia! One of the more rapey genocides you’ll come across, I think.
And you know what? It just worked. This is probably the longest unbroken period of ethnic cleansing since the Middle Ages, and it took more than a hundred years before anyone began to question it. That’s, quite frankly, a bloody good run. They even had a plan for afterwards: they said that they were removing the aboriginal children because they were worried that, with the introduction of European people to Australia, the indigenous peoples might go extinct because of all the new diseases that they brought. It wasn’t enough that they had brought new diseases to the aborigines, or that they were stealing the Aborigine children: the Australian government actually wanted the aborigines to THANK THEM FOR IT.
The legislation concerned encouraged authority figures in the settler population to relocate any child of which they became aware- especially girls. This is where the ‘child abuse’ story falls down. Generally speaking, goodwill charities and adoption agencies with good intentions don’t tend to make requests for specific genders. This is, broadly speaking, a bad sign. Further legislation made it easier for the ‘saved’ children to pay off their debt to society. Guess how? Unpaid labour! It’s so simple, and yet it works so well.
William Garnet South, however, the ‘Chief Protector of Aborigines’ (10/10 for coming up with that title), was not satisfied with this situation. Oh, no. That’s why, in 1911, he lobbied for the power to remove aboriginal children from their homes without any prior notice or paperwork- too fiddly. He couldn’t get the government to support it, but what they did do is pass the Aborigines Act of 1911, which made him the legal guardian of every child with aboriginal blood. I guess he just seemed like the right guy for the job.
So, while extra points are certainly awarded for combining sexual exploitation and slavery with the initial genocide, I wouldn’t say this could be counted as an example of TRUE ethnic cleansing (it was more of a genealogical spring-clean). Despite the fact that the genocide was not effectively completed, due to the distended timescale of the method, peoples the world over must recognise that this has been the last word on the practice effective ethnic cleansing. An incredible example of what you can get away with if you’re based far enough away from the UN. My heartiest congratulations to the Australian government for pulling off an absolutely immaculate genocide, running to record time. Adolf who?
