Hello World Lit Students Fall 2013!
This is your first blog for our class. The purpose of the blogs is to start building good essay development, but the blog is less formal and allows you to express your personal feelings about our films and texts. All blogs may be used in formal essays written for this course so the blog is a great place to start your rough draft and explore your good ideas. Scroll down to the bottom of this post and there is a space for you to enter your blog. Feel free to write it on Word and copy and paste it in. Be sure to click on labels to the right and put your name so I can find your blogs easily :).
1. I want you to articulate your personal reaction to the film--tell me what moved you, what made you angry, what made you want to find out more about what happened to the Aborigine people during this time and about the ideology of the colonizers, the British law that governed at the time.
2. Please review the materials in our course pack: the definition of terms we discussed on day one (ideology, grand narratives, hybridity etc) and the two articles by Loomba and Smith. Find two ideas about the colonial/postcolonial condition and connect them to the film. Quote directly from the articles in your blog (twice!) and explain how the "theory"(analysis) is connected to what the film depicts.
3. Since this is a literature course, feel free to think about how the characters, the setting, the story itself, depict the colonial situation, what specific characters represent, how the values of the colonizer clash with those of the Aborigine people...
3. Here is an example:
In Rabbit-Proof Fence, the "fence" is real and it is a symbol: it is a symbol of British power and at the same time, the limited vision, the desire to create boundaries and rules that are imposed on the indigenous population. There were no "fences" before the British came. Fences "embody" British ideology, a desire for roads and boundaries that are used to control not only animals but also people--in this case people who are not considered fully human. Linda Tuhiwai Smith in Decolonizing Methodologies explains that Europeans and indigenous Australians have very different ideas about physical space. The British need "to establish boundaries and to mark the limits of colonial power" (53). She explains that "the establishment of military, missionary or trading stations, the building of roads, ports and bridges. . . all involved processes of marking, defining and controlling space" (52). What is most powerful in the film is the way the deeply intelligent, connected to the land, Aborigines, find a way to escape the boundaries of the British Protectorate.
Some MLA rules that you need to know:
Titles of books are in italics.
Titles of articles are in "quotes"
Put the page number of the article in parentheses after the quote and before the period--see above.
One of the most frustrating scenes in the film was in the very beginning, right before the white men kidnapped the three children, when the doctor was demonstrating to a room filled with women how they can “help” the indigenous people and make them “better”. The doctor spoke about taking them away from their environment and bringing them into their own so they could assimilate, get married and have whiter, better children who can improve the world. In Linda Tuhiwai Smith’s Decolonizing Methodologies Smith explains how colonizers were not impressed by how the ‘natives’ differed from them in terms of life style and the things they valued. “The belief that natives did not value work…provided ideological justification for exclusionary practices…” (54). This belief held by the colonizers painted the ‘natives’ in a negative light. This belief only helped reinforce not only how different the British were when compared to the ‘natives’ but how much the colonizers felt they needed to intervene into the ‘natives’ lives. Later, Smith also states that the British were so confident in their lifestyle that they saw it as the only “proper” and “decent” way of life. “Research ‘through imperial eyes’ described an approach which assumes that western ideas…are the only ideas to hold…and the only ideas to which can make sense of the world…” (56). Both of these quotes help us to better understand the actions the British people took in the film. The aborigine people were being kidnapped and sent to school in order to become “educated” and once they were seen as being “fixed” they were sent to yet another new environment in where they could take on new lifestyles and a new set of rules to which to live by. The oldest girl who is kidnapped in the film represents the old traditions that the ‘native’ people hold. Because she was raised for many years in her peoples way of life she is strongly tied to her roots and can identify right from wrong. However, her younger sister and cousin represent how the oppressed conform to their own oppression. They are very young and so they cannot easily identify with their native ways which is why they tell the older sister they want to stay in the school. They only reason why they escape is because the older sister forces them to.
ReplyDeleteJorge--good use of pocol theory texts--and I admire your insight about the older girl being stronly tied to her roots!
DeleteI cannot help but feel utterly repulsed by the British power in Rabbit Proof Fence. In the film, we see an Imperial British colony who believes themselves the authority over a peoples impose their ideologies, laws and systems upon them. The Aborigines were a people who felt an inextricable connection to their land and their language and their culture, however, because Westerners believed themselves to be superior to indigenous people, the Aborigines found themselves subjugate to the British colonialists. At the start of the film we see the Aborigines respect for nature and the family structure; we see the British respect for law, Christian religion and their own ideas. In the scene where the children are being torn from their mother Mr. Devil continues to proclaim that he has all the necessary paperwork to protect and justify his actions, so there is "nothing that can be done". This is a perfect example of Western systems being forced onto indigenous people. I hate the idea that for centuries Europeans have been showing up on land that is not their own, wedging themselves between cultures and people that they could care less to understand from the inside and waving around documents and decrees and then managing to completely rape and overthrow said culture (of course, there is the introduction of military, guns and ruthless violence to really get the point across). In Linda Tuhiwai Smith's "Decolonizing Methodologies", it is stated that "It is an approach to indigenous peoples which conveys a sense of innate superiority and an overabundance of desire to bring progress into the lives of indigenous peoples- spiritually, intellectually, socially and economically"(56). While, overall I agree with this--missionaries claiming to enlighten a "primitive" group with the word of a Christian God might believe they are doing good, I also believe that the heart of colonialism is wicked and self serving--knowingly.
ReplyDeleteThe history of the Aborigines is not much unlike the story of African Americans. The violent separation of natives from their land to the Americas, given a new name, a new language, a new religion, all to service Western ideology and growth. No concern is given to the natives or their traditions or their well being. All that matters is the American/ European bottom line, which comes down to consumerist interests and the perpetuation of Western mentality as supreme. I will go so far as to say that overall, still today, the effects of colonialism have left us all divided. Many (not all)whites cannot see outside of their own entitled position because white supremacy continues to protect that position, and many displaced people (coming from a background other than European) struggle to find a recognizable and supportive space within that white supremacy. Imperialism has come to govern everyone's lives while continuing to maintain a hierarchy that does not well serve those whose ancestors were thrown into the system against their own will. In Ania Loomba's "Situating Colonial and Postcolonial Studies" it is written that "national 'development' has no space for tribal cultures or beliefs"(29). Imperialist interests have only imperialist interest in mind. People are a commodity just the same as nature and beliefs are.
Keeks--a passionate response, good use of sources, and insight into imperialism and continued white supremacy
Deletei agree with this blog point of view and concept of oppression of the British and European colonialism of foreign continents. history has documented plenty of cases of oppression and abuse of power to enslave people who are considered less hierarchy.
DeleteI completely agree with everything you wrote. Like you wrote above the effects of colonialism are still in effects till this day. Just look at globalization. Many innocent people are suffering from poverty and violence and they are forced to work in factories with little pat and terrible working conditions.
DeleteRabbit - Proof Fence was an emotionally intense film. The horrific reality the Aborigine people had to endure was not an option they had; the law was the law and it had to be obeyed. Although the natives were oppressed, discriminated, and humiliated, by the British, there families were brutally separated as well. It was disturbing to see the three young native girls viciously taken away by the police without any mercy; their pride and ideology was more crucial than a desperate crying mother. It angered me when the youngsters were forced to diminish their own language; all for the sake of speaking English, “the proper language”. They simply had to eliminate everything that made them Aborigine.
ReplyDeleteEurocentrism was portrayed in the film when the British tried inculcating their culture, beliefs, and religion upon the children they captured. Not only did they have to apply everything they were taught, but their skin color was a critical issue. “White” was the ideal skin color and as a European that was essential. Although the Chief Protector was racist, he still accepted those who had fare skin because that meant that they were capable of generating a white family. After all the lighter skin and European status was one of the many ultimate goals. As a colony run by the British government, no one who had the liberty to be who they were, especially non-white people. According the article Situating Colonial and Postcolonial Studies by Loomba and Smith, “…colonialism can be defined as the conquest and control of other people’s land and goods (25)”. Certainly the Aborigine’s had no control of their territory or even their people. Everything was under the empowerment of the British Government. A great example Loomba and Smith provide is Shakespeare’s drama, Othello. The great commotion on culture, loss of identity, and oppression can be noted when he mentions “Shakespeare’s drama is about a black man trying to live in a white society, assimilating yet maintain his identity/his loneliness is an integral feature of the play- he is isolated from other black people, from his history and culture (31)”. The young Aborigine girls are obligated to live a life they aren’t accustomed to; they’re given a new identity, a new culture, religion, and language. As children it is easier for them to absorb everything they are taught and shown. We can see Molly’s 8 year old sister Daisy beginning to like the new environment she now lives in. She doesn’t want to leave the things the British people had offered her and soon she’ll forget she was an Aborigine.
Irma--I guess we could extend the definition of colonialism to include not only conquest and control of lands and goods but also families--as shown in the film!--nice connection to the Shakespeare quote.
Deleteit's an interesting connection you made here. I agree that Shakespeare had a concern about racism and changes. I believe white society presented in the movie was scared of losing power over the native people. Hybrid kids would mean a different way of treating them and later on it will demand a change.
DeleteRabbit-Proof Fence is a 2002 film about three young aborigine girls, referred to as “half-castes” for having mixed-race parents. The girls are taken from their mother and community and forced to live their lives in the Moon River Native Settlement, where they are meant to remain in segregation from the white community and used for labor. The girls manage to escape, however, and attempt to find their way home by following a large fence that runs north to south through Western Australia. The film is based on a true story, but through analyzing the dialogue of the main characters and finding symbols within the film, the viewer is able to recognize elements of a colonialist ideology that exists regardless of time or geography.
ReplyDeleteIn Colonialism/Post Colonialism, Ania Loomba describes the mind-set of the colonizer, who believes that “[n]ational ‘development’ has no space for tribal cultures or beliefs” (10). Loomba writes that colonizers believe that non-Western people “are mysterious, superstitious, uncivilized, backward….[T]hey are like children who need to be brought in line with the rest of the country” (10). One of the most important ways for any culture to retain their beliefs and “superstitions” is through language. The colonizers recognize the importance of language as both a tool for indoctrination and as a thread that connects the non-Westerners to their past and to each other, a thread that must be cut. The viewers of the film witness the degradation of the Aborigine’s native language on several occasions, when the nuns repeatedly refer to the girls’ native language as “jibberish” and “jibber-jabber,” and even an older Aborigine man at the settlement, one of their own, harshly informs them that English is the only language to be spoken. The constant use of English and the eventual erosion of their native, familial language slowly yokes the native to the culture and narrative of the colonizer.
The fence in the film is a symbol that can also shed light on some of the ideological beliefs held by colonizers. A fence does many things; it can create boundaries and parameters, serve as a post or point of recognition on maps and surveys, and it can also separate. It is a line that can delineate somebody on one side of the fence as being on the inside and everything else, living or dead, as being on the outside. Linda Smith states that “the ‘line’ is important…to mark the limits of colonial power” (53). She further explains that “[t]he outside is important because it positioned territory and people in an oppositional relation to the colonial centre; for indigenous Australians to be in an ‘empty space’ was to ‘not exist’’’ (53). This oppositional relation of existing or not existing depending on what side of the fence one is on is symbolic of the young girls hybridity. Their blood is of two races- the colonizer and the colonized, and in order to find their way home, to find their true identities, one could say, the girls must toe the line between the inside and the outside.
Matthew--thoughtful discussion of role of language in relation to culture and why the British want to suppres it. (Moore River Native Settlement.) Hope to discuss "fence" more--good thoughts!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the movie Rabbit-Proof Fence, the scenes are so crucial and intense. The movie is based on the horrific impacts of the colonialism. The British power and their rules come to the land of the Aborigine people, and these people cannot live in a peaceful environment in their own land anymore. In my opinion, the most bitter scene is being taken away of three young girls from their mother. However, this situation is so normal for the British in the land because their duty is creating a new generation, which will be “appropriate”, in the land. So, taking away especially the young children is very logical to create a new generation because they will not even know what is happening. So, they can easily forget their roots. However, in the movie, the oldest sister of those three girls literally knows what is going on, and she tries to escape with her sisters even though other girls get used to live in their new environment and do not leave it. Other important points in the movie are that people have to get permission from the Chief Protector in order to get married or even buy new shoes. The duties of those colonizers are imposing their own rules and religion to the Aborigines, destroying the natives, and make them “white”.
ReplyDeleteEurocentrism has the key role in the movie. According to this term, European culture is the superior culture and more advanced than the other cultures. In the movie, the British people are the superior ones because they are European white people. So, being white is the most important thing. That is why they try to make the native people “white” in all ways for their new land. They also impose their culture, religion, and language. In the article “Situating Colonial and Postcolonial Studies”, Ania Loomba says, “The process of ‘forming a community’ in the new land necessarily meant unforming or re-forming the communities that existed there already […]” (2). In the movie, there is already a community and culture in the land. However, the British colonizers occupy the land and try to impose their own culture in the land in order to destroy the Aborigine community and their culture, even their color. In the another article “Decolonizing Methodologies”, Linda Tuhiwai Smith says, “Research ‘through imperial eyes’ describes an approach which assumes that Western ideas about the most fundamental things are the only ideas possible to hold […]” (56). We can analyze the same thing through the scenes of the movie. The children are being taken away from their mother as if she is not a human or she does not have any rights or feelings. Those colonizers see their own culture at the top of everything, so they want to make the Aborigines just like themselves. The Aborigine children are not allowed to talk in their language. They have to pray and sing just like the British do. So, the process is taking away the children from their own families, imposing them the British culture and moral, educating them in the British rule, and making them white in order to destroy the Aborigine culture from the land completely.
Simge--good point about how children can be indoctrinated more easily and thanks for mentioning the extreme control of colonizers--the fact that natives have to get permission to marry. Does the film also show the fallacy in thinking Western ideas are the only possible ones to hold?
DeleteThe film Rabbit Proof Fence is as eye opening as it is heartbreaking. It portrays the struggles that the Aborigine people went through in Australia in the 1930’s. While viewing the film, I was completely appalled at the way the British colonizers were treating and talking about the native people. They spoke as if the natives were less than human, like a subspecies that needed to have the color “bred out” of them. What really struck me was how as the British were ripping children out of their parent’s arms, some of them, like the nurses, nuns and others in charge, seemed to believe that they were doing good by the indigenous people; that they were helping to create a better class which would help the Aborigine in the long run. As the viewer, we look at these British colonizers as monsters, invaders and destroyers of family and culture. However, it seems as if the British see themselves as heroes and saviors.
ReplyDeleteLinda Tuleiwai Smith puts this idea simply in her article “Decolonizing Methodologies.” She states that the fact that the British see themselves as saviors, “conveys a sense of innate superiority” on behalf of the imperialists and a “desire to bring progress into the lives of indigenous people” (56). This desire comes partly from a place of not understanding the indigenous culture. She states that how they “organized their daily lives confused and horrified western observers” (53). This “provided ideological justification for exclusionary practices”(54). As seen in Rabbit Proof Fence, the view that indigenous people were different and “less than” also provided the British with justification to restructure the family unit and devastate people’s lives all in the name of progress. Of course, the terrible truth is, natives like the Aborigine people did not need to be saved and their culture did not need progress. They could have continued living like they had for hundreds of years, if not for these outsiders who destroyed their families, homes and culture.
I look forward to watching the rest of the film and doing further research on this part of Australian history. Often, as Americans, we tend to think of imperialism and colonization in terms of our country’s history and the atrocities that were done to Native Americans and African Americans. As harsh and uncomfortable as it is to watch, Rabbit Proof Fence provides a different perspective of colonization and its effect on a country other than ours. This film is a powerful vehicle to help us understand just how much imperialism and colonialism impacted the world as a whole. Sometimes we try and put certain evils behind us, whether they happened in our country or a different one. However, it is important to remember these parts of history to make sure that they never again happen in our lifetime.
Brooke--your opening contrast between monsters and saviors does capture the contrasting ideologies in play. You use the sources well in showing how Smith pinpoints Westerners' horror and confusion at the way the native people organize their lives and the way this justifies their practices. One wonders if there are still remnants of this kind of thinking locally and globally...
DeleteThe film Rabbit Proof Fence was an incredible film that portrayed the power that authorities possessed over Aboriginal children. The British's attempt to eugenicide Aboriginal children could not be viewed without possessing similarities that also occurred in Germany under Hitler's rule. The film depicts the struggle that the natives were exposed to psychologically. Being "culture-shocked" in our lives is an understatement to what occurred in the film. A scene in the film that was stamped in my thoughts occurred at the Moore River Native Settlement when the sisters were told, "We don't speak that jibber-jabber here, you speak english." The reason that the scene stood out the most was the simple fact that they were stressing this strongly to helpless children. Children that may develop psychological issues relating to identify. As viewers immediately focus on the children, one must not forget the agony that their families experienced. In our country today, women are often in higher authority over men as a family, and in many cases even have the "benefit of the doubt" to higher authorities. In the film the fathers are nonexistent, and authorities may do as they wish. It is a sad truth to what colonialism looks like behind settlers version of history as Loomba states, "...quite remarkably, avoids any reference to people other than the colonisers."
ReplyDeleteManuel--I admire the way you point to the "sad truth"of what colonialism looks and feels like to those who experience it. We will talk more about what removal of language does to people and their culture.
DeleteI picked up on the "jibber-jabber" comment too, Manuel, and the sad thing is that our education system in the U.S. still sometimes uses approaches to bilingual education that are the equivalent of those nuns' dismissive attitudes. Politicians who support this "English only" approach constantly say it's "for the children," but they're destroying students' ties to their native language, solely for money and/or political longevity.
DeleteRabbit Proof Fence reveals a part of Australian history which is often concealed from the public eye or overlooked by Western historians. Watching the despicable way Mr. Neville treats the Aborigines invokes a feeling of repugnance compared to that which is invoked when watching movies about the atrocities committed by the Nazis. Nonetheless, images of the consequences of colonialism for Native peoples around the globe are very scarce, if not rare. The dismissal of Native peoples and their history in a post-colonialist era then seems to be a continuation of the marginalization which is portrayed in the movie. As Linda Tuhiwai Smith points out, Natives peoples’ history is still dismissed nowadays “because it is not only the story of domination; it is also a story which assumes that there was a ‘point in time’ which was ‘prehistoric” (55). In other words, because time is viewed from a Eurocentric perspective which regards progress as a result exclusively of European achievements, Native peoples’ history is nullified, making their history only that of subjugation and them the weakest in “systems of classifications and representations which lend themselves easily to binary oppositions, dualisms, and hierarchical orderings of the world” (55).
ReplyDeleteGuilherme--good point that we actually don't see much of the effects of colonialism unless we do a specific kind of historical research--we should note that the writings in our course pack are by native people themselves--it took a long time for western historians to begin to uncover , to confront their own biases! Good reference to the binary oppositions and dualisms that underlie colonial thinking.
DeleteI agree with Guilherme. Rabbit Proof Fence has shown me a part of history that I knew nothing about. Unless we have experienced colonization ourselves, or our parents, or grandparents, we know nothing about the real treatment of the colonized people and the consequences they have had to face. It is hard for all of us to watch how the Aborigine people are treated because we are told so often how these things are wrong and everyone should be treated as equals. Meanwhile, this has been the way of the world since the beginning of time. To think this isn't still taking place somewhere else in the world today would be foolish.
DeleteWhat you wrote makes a lot of sense. Not only is the life of native people rarely discussed but when it is people tend to erase important facts like the fact that they were oppressed, killed and that they suffered immensely. When i was a child they would teach us about thanksgiving and about how the Europeans meet the native people, however, they would describe it as a pleasant event as if the Europeans and the native people got along and were treated as equals. I was so ignorant about this topic it was only when i got older that I was taught the truth.
DeleteWhat struck me the most about Rabbit Proof Fence was the scene where the children were taken from their mother. As a mother myself, I can’t imagine my son being taken away from me. It was very hard for me to watch. How would I have handled something like that? I tried to put myself in that woman’s shoes, and I can’t. She was completely helpless and our society is so different. Could she have lived in hiding being that she suspected this day was going to come? It made me curious to find out more about Mr. Neville and how it is that he became the legal guardian of all the children. He tells the children once they are “under his care”, that their “watch words” are duty, service, and responsibility. Linda Tuhiwai Smith tells us in Decolonizing Methodologies, that native people are believed to be “devoid of work habits, … lazy, indolent, and with low attention spans (53)”. This is how Mr. Neville treated the Aborigine children. He believed that he would instill values in them that they weren’t being taught in their own homes. He would also check their scalps and backs to check for lighter skin. Children with lighter skin were believed to be smarter and would then receive proper schooling. This reflects back to Smith and how she says colonizers believe “darker skin peoples [are] considered more ‘naturally’ indolent” (54). These are beliefs Westerners have had for several thousands of years. Thinking they are superior, they impose their ideologies onto the natives of any land they colonize
ReplyDeleteTamika, I also find it hard to believe that the whole project to "breed out" the Aborigenes was legal. It is revolting that the British considered themselves superior to the Natives and yet they submitted children and their families to such cruelties. Not only their argument was groundless, but hypocritical as well since their practices went against their own religious values which they coerced the children into learning.
DeleteThe sad thing about all this is that there are still many people, many ignorant people, who still believe that a persons race defines every single thing about them such as their intelligences, skill and goodness. Like you wrote, the Europeans saw the natives as "lazy" and the way they lived their lives as "wrong" and "pointless" which makes me extremely frustrated. I always get angry when people believe that their way of life is not only better but correct and then they try to intervene in other peoples life forcing them to change.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe movie "Rabbit proof fence" gives the audience a point of view of being an aborigine and half-caste (half aborigine and half British) under the oppression of British rule in Australia. The most dramatic scenes was when the officer displayed a piece of paper stating that half caste children must be taken away from the mother and using physical force to take them to the camp. This scene gave the audience the sense of oppression British rule had over the aborigines. After the children were taken away, an old lady took a stone and hit her head with it repeatedly, symbolizing the sense of frustration, weakness and hate of what it felt being an aborigine in those times. The aborigines use the term "Devil" to call the British colonist throughout the movie by the mother and half caste children in the camp. Also in the camp; the nuns,staff and the doctor in charge show their intent to detach the half cast children from their culture and move toward a more British ideology by forcing them to speak English and recite Christian beliefs. What upset me about the film was the intent the doctor had towards the children: his idea to exclude the race out of the children through crossbreeding and changing their culture, depicting the sense of prejudice and discrimination.
ReplyDeleteIn the article of Loomba and Ania in the article "situating colonial and post-colonial studies" connects with the movie displaying British colonialism and imperialism to pressure aborigines of Australia. In the article it is suggested that "Colonialism is not just something that happens outside a country or a people, not just something that operates with the collusion of forces inside, but a version of it can be duplicated from within".(30) which in the movie both half-caste and aborigines were living under the oppression of both the British and other aborigines working together to suppress the native people. Another point of view that the article related to the movie quotes "the process of forming a new community in the new land necessarily meant... Trade, plunder, negotiation welfare, genocide, enslavement and rebellions"(25). The movie displays dramatic events of what happened to these half-caste children and also the hardship of being aborigine under British hegemony. Molly is a representation of rebellion to overcome her oppression of British imperialism.
I think it's great that you bring up this quote:
Delete"Colonialism is not just something that happens outside a country or a people, not just something that operates with the collusion of forces inside, but a version of it can be duplicated from within" (30).
It reminds me of the male Aborigines, especially Moodoo (the Tracker). They are told and "taught" to track down fugitive girls or face consequences. It makes me think that if they continue this route they will eventually internalize the tasks and ideologies they were forced to hold and that they will eventually be the oppressors of women should the setting become "postcolonial."
All very true, Carlos! I agree that the doctors intentions were nothing less than despicable, and the thing that is even more unfathomable is that they (the doctor, the nuns, etc...) believed that they were committing noble actions for the Aborigines. Pfft...
ReplyDeleteDid anyone else recognize Professor Gilderoy Lockhart?!?!
ReplyDeleteSorry, still experiencing post-Potter depression.
Rabbit-Proof Fence is a difficult film to watch. It tells the heart wrenching story of a young girl’s escape and her journey back home to her mother. The beginning of the film provides enough context for the viewer to be made aware of the misery that the film will bring. It then proceeds to a scene portraying a lovely mother-daughter moment that shows how close the pair is, the film depicts how strong family units are among the Jigalong peoples and how powerless they are against the British. I think we can all agree that the most devastating scene is where the girls are being taken away from their family, their fight and cries are futile but it leaves an impression. Young Molly, Daisy, and Gracie are taken to Moore River Native Settlement, where they will be molded into “domestic servants and famer laborers”, the sole purpose of this settlement (which is more like a camp) is to slowly but surely integrate the Aboriginal peoples into white society. In Decolonizing Methodologies, Loomba and Smith discuss this idea; “It is an approach to indigenous peoples which still conveys a sense of innate superiority and an overabundance of desire to bring progress into the lives of indigenous peoples – spiritually, intellectually, socially, and economically” (33). At the settlement these girls are expected to be obedient, speak English only, and basically adopt the imposed European ideologies.
There is a specific scene that is the epitome of disgust; it contains Mr. Neville presenting to a crowd of fellow Brits what his work at the Moore River Native Settlement consists of. He mentions that half castes are an “unwanted third race” and they should be advanced to the white race. He also stated that by the “third generation there should be no trace of aboriginal left, that they would have been ‘bred out’”. Loomba and Smith state that the natives “…disappeared after contact, wiped out physically by disease and abuse, and later, genetically and socially, by miscegenation, and lastly, culturally, by the religious and political practices of the Europeans” (28). This is an idea that Mr. Neville clearly believed in and was carrying out. At the conclusion of his presentation he states that the Aboriginals “cannot be left as they are” and that they “must be helped”.
(Originally Posted Sunday, September 15. Reposted Tuesday, September 18)
ReplyDeleteThe ironies in Rabbit-Proof Fence (film) carved themselves into my memory. The title “Chief Protector of the Aboriginese” given to A.O. Neville (as depicted in the film) could not have been more ironic. His actions showed the exact opposite of what his title meant to me: forced assimilation, indoctrination, and the erasure of all things Aboriginese (language, tradition, culture, etc.). He declared, along with his intention to do so, that the Aboriginese can be “bred out” from the hybrids by forcing them to mate with whites through as many generations necessary. He also claimed that “the native must be helped despite himself” - this reveals a flawed rationale whose purpose is to mask and justify British hegemony. First of all, the act of “helping” is a voluntary action on part of the doer – to be accepted or rejected by the receiver. To “help” someone while robbing them of choice is contradictory. To say that “the native must be helped despite himself” is to say that the native is ignorant, inferior, and unable to make sound decisions as if he is a child. The previous idea shows a “binary opposition” where the colonizer labels the indigenous people as “irrational” and “childlike” and therefore (by opposition) calls himself “superior” and “patriarchal” to borrow conviction for his atrocities.
While I acknowledge that some supporters of the British effort of that time might have had genuinely good intentions, and that it is easy for us to sit and hurl criticisms at their entirety because we do not live in the same time and place, what was depicted in the film is sheer tyranny by the British colonizers. The colonizers saw a world that differed greatly from theirs and labelled it "savage" to justify changing that world into the spitting image of theirs and fulfill their need for homogeneity (and perhaps justify the current state of their own "superior" society). The colonizers brought with them their concepts of time, space, and "progress." The idea of "progress" and "salvation" were associated with the British way of life: the emphasis on structure and work ethic. This eurocentric belief, in contrast with the Aboriginal way of life, "provided ideological justification for exclusionary practices..." (Smith 54). These exclusionary practices separated the "black" and "savage natives" from the "fair," "proper," and "rational."
The scene in the film where Mr. Neville tries to garner sympathy from the British settlers also upset me. By highlighting the difference in skin color between the Aborigines(including hybrids) and the British, and their purported differences in temperament he persuades the settlers that their cause is "just," all the while sweeping the inhumanities that the Aborigines had to suffer (inhumanities that the Aborigines never knew existed) under the rug. This reminds me of how a dominant force "rewrites history," divorcing itself from blame and criticism. This is the same peculiar maneuver that Ania Loomba exposes in "Situating Colonial and Postcolonial Studies" where she shows how the Oxford English Dictionary removes any possibility of "conquest and domination" from the word "colonialism" (1). Though I recognize a dictionary's need to stray away from controversial discourse, I can't help but scoff at how inaccurate the description is for historical application. The mask of innocence and "goodness" that such a definition gives for colonization casts a thick veil of ignorance that the world must see through.
Watching the film Rabbit-Proof Fence I realize how unfair the treatment was against the Aborigine people. The scene that took my attention and really made me understand the problem with this people in control was when the permission to take the three girls was given and they were removed from their family in such a cruel way. This whole idea of helping the natives was just a way to cover their actions as to take out some seriousness about the wrong done to these people. By the closeups and angles of the camera a superiority face was stated from the British government in this colonized country side. Actions like putting down the natives and even deciding their fate was seen right or at least justified by their ideology of trying to keep both races apart as finding a way to fix the hybrids kids. These themes of oppression and control were present the whole time in the film but what really made me mad was their brainwash actions on those naive children who did not get to choose being part of the while society or even had the opportunity to fight back.
ReplyDeleteIn the article "Situating colonial and Post colonial Studies" Ania Loomba describes a interesting point which goes this way "Colonialism was challenged from a variety of perspectives by people who were not all oppressed in the same way or to the same extent" (28). In other words hybrids would take an important role at ending colonialism since they were treated different and with it would be able to change the law standards in those colonies. I am pretty sure that the British colonies were aware of this theory and therefore knew that mixed children would weak their government and it had to be solved. The way they used to solve this problem was by eugenics, bringing this hybrids kids into the white environment, brainwash them, treat them as equals ( or make them believe so), marry them to white people and make sure that after three or four generations these people would not have any native characteristic and would look as any other white person. Having only two separated races would later on allow the British colonizers to obtain or recover fully control over the natives. In this conditions Loomba would predict that "within two or three generations they were greatly reduced in number and politically and socially marginalized from the new center of power" (28). This way British colonizers would be able to take over the land and expand their power in their search of power.
The movie Rabbit-Proof Fence presents characters that allow us to see how different this two cultures are and how destructive good values can be if they are used for wrong goals as how ignorant and cruel people can be for power and control. Those three little girls made a deeply connection to my concerns with my people in this country were we are seen by stereotypes. differences between people can mean a lot when one side of this people use them to out down the other people like British colonizers did at stating while skin was the only good skin and that white people were on top of any race.