Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Reflection on aboriginal
The role of government in policy
Aboriginal history and culture
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Reflection on aboriginal
However, these categories do not mention the methodology of determining aboriginality, nor does it mention under what circumstances the aboriginal children were to be forcibly taken. Although, the State Children Act (1907) stated that a ‘destitute child’ was to be classified as a child whose relatives are in ‘indigent circumstances’ or whose parents are not present; whilst also setting the classification of a ‘neglected child’ as ‘sleep[ing] in the open air’ and is without home and/or habitually begs or receives alms. This is arguably irrespective of the cultural practices of the aborigines, as it can be seen that this aspect of sleeping nude, in the open air is an integral part of their culture. This has been documented in a newspaper in 1838 …show more content…
However, this cultural clash being witnessed in 1905 is still evident in 1936, with the similar argument being put forth in The Aborigines Act (1936) arguing that children living in ‘insanitary or undesirable’ living conditions should be removed. Although, like previously, this does not set a criterion for the conditions that constitutes as this and thus was left open to interpretation.
However, the Moseley Royal Commission (Moseley, 1935), established to ascertain the treatment of aboriginal people, described the aboriginal living conditions in Northern Kimberley as being either in ‘the bush in their natural state’ or in ‘pastoral stations’ with the tribes fashioning shelters out of recycled petrol-cans, bags, and bush material. This is still reflective of the conditions that the State Children Act (1907) deemed to be unacceptable and when considering this in the aspect of child welfare and protection questions arise as to whether this aspect of aboriginal culture can be observed as in the best interests of a child. However, Moseley (1935) continues his report on these conditions with a statement that ‘the children… [were] trained from an early age to make [such improvised materials] useful’ and that they ‘wanted for nothing and displayed no signs of unhappiness’. This raises a fundamental issue regarding the ‘Stolen Generation’ practice; whilst the children were deemed to be in ‘undesirable’ conditions by the white settlers, it could be suggested that the children’s state of happiness undermines their ‘destitute’ state of
In 1901, the same year Australia was federated, the Commonwealth constitution stated that “Aboriginal natives votes shall not be counted” and thus placing them into the flora and fauna section and introducing the white Australian policy (Korff, 2011). David Unaipon was just 29 years old when this occurred (Gizmodo, 2004). While Unaipon was alive there were many instances of institutionalised racism that further widened the gap between aborigines and Caucasians (Gizmodo, 2004). In 1926, when Unaipon was 54 years old 11 aborigines were murdered, however when the criminal was caught, they were let free (Korff, 2011). This shows that aborigines were being discriminated against throughout Unaipon’s life with many laws targeted against them and many legal options being taken away from them. It was only in 1967 that the indigenous were given basic rights, and were included in the Australian census and fully classed as a “person” and recognised for this (Korff, 2011). Sadly, this was held 109 days after Unaipon died and proves that he had to endure racism during the entirety of his life. It is evident through these examples that racism played a major role in why David Unaipon’s ability was not used in science and this is seen through the institutionalised racism present during Unaipon’s life.
Charles Perkins was an Australian Aboriginal Activist who experienced firsthand the poor living standards and treatment of Aboriginals as he lived in aboriginal reserve until 10 then in a boy’s home (Anon., 2013). He was a well know national fi...
In the 1950s and 1960s, the government began abolishing the compulsory residential school education among Aboriginal people. The government believed that Aboriginal children could receive a better education if they were integrated into the public school system (Hanson). However, residential schools were later deemed inappropriate because not only were the children taken away from their culture, their families and their people, but the majority of students were abus...
Each year, there are thousands of children that are misplaced from their families and are seeking a permanent living placement. Their permanent placement may be found with family members or friends, or even through a private adoption. There are federal laws and state mandates that are implemented to ensure that the best interests of all children involved in an adoption or placement proceedings are heard. The best interests and needs of a child may include educational needs, medical needs, housing/placement preferences, or finding a family that reflects the ethnic and cultural heritage of the child in question. One federal mandate ensures that the heritage and familial background of children is protected and the best interests of the children are served. The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) of 1978 is a federal law that seeks to keep Indian-American children with Indian-American families. This law was created in response to an overwhelming population of Indian-American children being displaced from their families. This law was created to protect youth and help keep Indian-American children with their native tribes. In this paper, we explore the historical factors leading to the implementation of the Indian Child Welfare Act and the purpose of this Act. Further, we explore the development of this law, implementation of this federal law, and the contemporary debates that relate to the implementation of this law.
“To kill the Indian in the child,” was the prime objective of residential schools (“About the Commission”). With the establishment of residential schools in the 1880s, attending these educational facilities used to be an option (Miller, “Residential Schools”). However, it was not until the government’s time consuming attempts of annihilating the Aboriginal Canadians that, in 1920, residential schools became the new solution to the “Indian problem.” (PMC) From 1920 to 1996, around one hundred fifty thousand Aboriginal Canadians were forcibly removed from their homes to attend residential schools (CBC News). Aboriginal children were isolated from their parents and their communities to rid them of any cultural influence (Miller, “Residential Schools”). Parents who refrained from sending their children to these educational facilities faced the consequence of being arrested (Miller, “Residential Schools”). Upon the Aboriginal children’s arrival into the residential schools, they were stripped of their culture in the government’s attempt to assimilate these children into the predominately white religion, Christianity, and to transition them into the moderating society (Miller, “Residential Schools”). With the closing of residential schools in 1996, these educational facilities left Aboriginal Canadians with lasting negative intergenerational impacts (Miller, “Residential Schools”). The Aboriginals lost their identity, are affected economically, and suffer socially from their experiences.
Throughout history, the government has been in charge of creating and regulating different types of laws. Many of the laws have been created to protect those who reside in that country and therefore are expected to be followed. However, not everyone believes that they should follow the law and in return decide to either ignore them or rebel against them. When members of society violate the simple law that has been set in place to protect those who do not possess the capability to protect themselves, it becomes a dangerous and horrendous tragedy. One of the most horrific laws that people violate is that of child abuse and neglect.
Following the death of eight-year old Victoria Climbié in 2000, the Government asked Lord Laming to conduct an inquiry (Laming, 2003) to help decide whether to introduce new legislation and guidance to improve the child and young protection system in England.
This essay will first address the statute used and interpretation of the threshold test by the courts, and then focus on cases involving vulnerable children to assess whether the statute in The Children Act 1989 is sufficient in protecting these children from harm. I will look at the argument in favour of the current approach taken by the courts, and the counter-argument in favour of changing the current approach. The arguments are delicately balanced and the law is always developing, so it will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court resolves this issue in future.
...ed in out-of-home care during those years were Aboriginal, yet Aboriginal children made up less than 5% of the total child population in Canada (Brown et al., 2005).” The number of First Nations children from reserves placed in out-of-home care grew rapidly between 1995 and 2001, increasing by 71.5% (Brown et al., 2005). In Manitoba, Aboriginal children made up nearly 80% of children living in out-of-home care in 2000 (Brown et al., 2005). These staggering numbers are the reason why researchers and advocates blame the residential schools as the main historical culprit for today’s phenomenon of the over-representation of Aboriginal children in the child welfare system. The sections below will highlight how residential schools shaped child welfare system in Canada today, which help to explain the over-representation of Aboriginal children in the child welfare system.
The assimilation policy was a policy that existed between the 1940’s and the 1970’s, and replaced that of protectionism. Its purpose was to have all persons of aboriginal blood and mixed blood living like ‘white’ Australians, this established practice of removing Aboriginal children (generally half-bloods) from their homes was to bring them up without their culture, and they were encouraged to forget their aboriginal heritage. Children were placed in institutions where they could be 'trained' to take their place in white society. During the time of assimilation Aboriginal people were to be educated for full citizenship, and have access to public education, housing and services. However, most commonly aboriginal people did not receive equal rights and opportunities, for example, their wages were usually less than that paid to the white workers and they often did not receive recognition for the roles they played in the defence of Australia and their contribution to the cattle industry. It wasn’t until the early 1960’s that expendi...
Within Australia, beginning from approximately the time of European settlement to late 1969, the Aboriginal population of Australia experienced the detrimental effects of the stolen generation. A majority of the abducted children were ’half-castes’, in which they had one white parent and the other of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent. Following the government policies, the European police and government continued the assimilation of Aboriginal children into ‘white’ society. Oblivious to the destruction and devastation they were causing, the British had believed that they were doing this for “their [Aborigines] own good”, that they were “protecting” them as their families and culture were deemed unfit to raise them. These beliefs caused ...
Parbury (1999:64) states that Aboriginal education “cannot be separated” from the non-Aboriginal attitudes (racially based ethnocentricity that were especially British ie. white and Christian) towards Aborigines, their culture and their very existence. The Mission Schools are an early example of the connection between official education policies and key events in Aboriginal history. Aboriginal children were separated from their parents and placed into these schools which according to McGrath (as cited by Parbury, 1999:66) it was recommended that these establishments be located ‘as far as possible’ from non Aboriginal residents so as to minimize any heathen influence that Aboriginal children might be subject to from their parents. Mission Schools not only prepared Aboriginal youth for the manual labour market but also, adds Parbury (1999:67) their aim was‘to destroy Aboriginal culture and replace it with an Anglo-European work and faith ethic.’ Despite the NSW Public Instruction Act (1880) which made education free, secular and compulsory for all children Aboriginal children could be excluded from public schools based on prevailing dominant group attitudes. Consequently, the NSW Aborigines Protection Act (1909) was introduced as a result of a perceived public education crisis and Laws had already been passed, similar to protectionist type policies. This Act gave the State the power to remove Aboriginal children from their families whereby this period of time has become known as ‘Stolen Generations.’ It was during this time that Aboriginal children were segregated from mainstream schools. (Parbury, 1999; Lippman, 1994).
In 1911, The Chief Protector, Neville, introduced a policy to remove all children who were partially Aboriginal (those who were assumed to have a European parent or grandparent) from their families. The reason for this policy was that he was worried about the creation of a so-called "third race" - people with mixed Aboriginal and European descent. Neville thought that his plan would make the half-caste children become white and he pointed out the following that through three generations, traces of native origin would not be apparent. Under his policies, mixed descended Aboriginal children were forcibly separated from their homes and sent to government or church organized institutions such as missions, orphanages and reserves. Neville wanted to give half-caste children the “benefits” of white community because he felt responsible to save them. Some of the children were adopted or placed temporarily with foster families, while other children were trained to work as house servants and farm workers. They were forcibly taught to forget their culture and their ethnic background in order to be assimilated into the white population. Nevertheless, there were also many children who were subjected to sexual abuse and violence. Many of the children never saw their biological parents again.
As established earlier, Zizek identifies subjective violence as that which is performed by identifiable agents. The Little Children Are Sacred Report finds that “children likely to suffer neglect, abuse and/or sexual abuse are...particularly apparent in Aboriginal communities,” (Northern Territory Government, 2007, 5). In this case, the Northern Territory Government has identified that the aboriginal community is an agent inflicting violence upon its children. Furthermore, the report cites “alcohol and drug abuse,” as major underlying drivers behind this violence (Northern Territory Government, 2007, 5). Yet on the other hand, factors like “poverty, housing shortages and unemployment,” are identified too (Northern Territory Government, 2007, 5). These factors are all products of the violence perpetuated by the economic and political systems of Australia. As a result, it would appear that the findings of the report identify subjective and objective violence both play significant roles. Furthermore, the report’s 97 policy recommendations also attempt to address economic and political issues within the aboriginal community, thus suggesting some attempt has been made to mitigate the objective violence that has been inflicted upon the aboriginal community. As a result, the Little Children Are Sacred Report does focus upon
Throughout its history, varying philanthropic, socioeconomic, and imperial and societal factors and contexts have influenced the motives behind child migration from Britain to Australia during the twentieth century (Coldrey, The Scheme p124-8, Sherington and Jeffrey, Fairbridge pxi-xii and Lost Innocents Report 2.26). Though founded on a humanitarian desire to provide underprivileged British children with new opportunities in the Empire’s colonies and dominions, there is an underlying imperial current that ran throughout the schemes, as both Britain and the receiving countries believed that the presence of ‘British stock’ would consolidate the empire. In relation to Australia’s ‘White Australia’ Immigration policy, British children were regarded