DEBUNKING THE MYTHS ABOUT
THE STOLEN GENERATION IN QUEENSLAND
The Stolen Generation:
The Queensland government over the period of about one hundred years forcibly removed children from their Aboriginal parent/s and put them in institutional care ( state- or church-run) under the pretext of neglect on the part of the parent/s. Thus the government made itself the guardian of these children and legally had a duty of care towards them.
Criticism of this policy has always been met with arguments that the government was well-meaning and provided a better standard of care, health and education than the children would have had otherwise.
Myth No.1: The government ‘ rescued’ children from neglect
Not only neglected children were removed. For removing children from their family no proof of neglect was required. From 1865 on any child under 15 with an Aboriginal mother could be removed. And from 1897 on ‘all children of Aboriginal parentage and all Aborigines except mixed-race males over 16 years’ were subject to state control. Thus the state did not need any reason at all, just force, to remove children from their parents. Aborigines had no say in the removal decision and no avenue of appeal. The removal was without due process.
Myth No.2: The government cared for the children
The Queensland government hardly put its money where its mouth was. It deliberately and chronically under funded institutions caring for Aboriginal children. For example, the amount it paid for Aboriginal children usually was only 30% of the subsidy for a white child! Such discrimination did not only happen in the 19th century but was standard policy of all Queensland governments until the 1980s. The support paid was so little that all institutions, state-run or missions, continually struggled to make ends meet. Means commonly employed were to drastically cut the cost for food, maintenance and health, to use child labor ( well into the 1950s) to supplement income and to send children out to forage in the bush for food.
Myth No.3: The children were better off in institutions.
The chronic and severe under funding of child support in state institutions and missions ( which received even less child support than the former) led to typically appalling conditions during the 20th century. For example,
-
Dormitories were usually either primitive, rough or simply bare shells of buildings, sometimes structurally unsafe, often with leaky roofs, offering little comfort and no warmth in cold winter nights;
-
They were overcrowded and under equiped and children more often than not had to sleep on earthen floors or share beds which often lacked mattresses;
-
Sanitary conditions were usually appalling , toilet and washing facilities were often missing or grossly below standard. Water was mostly scarce and often not clean;
-
The lack of hygiene resulted in dormitory children being prone to all kind of diseases: rampant skin infections, worms ( as many as 85% in some institutions) , Tb and gastric illnesses. The lack of shelter from rain and cold caused colds, influenza and pneumonia;
-
Malnutrition was chronic in government institutions, but even more so on missions ( in spite of their raising of funds from private sources they struggled to feed the children assigned to them). Typically milk was reserved for small children, fruit and vegetables were distributed irregularly and meat rations were unheard of or rare.
Thus the death rates of newly born babies, children under 5 and older children was very high. In fact conditions in settlements and missions were so bad and chronic that they would have provided reason for prosecution if the agent responsible had not been the Queensland government.
Myth No.4: Children in government care received a better education.
Even though legally schooling was compulsory for all children, Aboriginal children were commonly denied their right to education. Schooling in settlements was confined to 4 years, after which the government sent the children to work (which helped it to save costs). Schools in state settlements were inadequate, lacking decent rooms and equipment and teachers there received lower pay than their counterparts teaching white children. Schooling in missions was better because of their own fund raising and dedicated teachers.
Myth No.5: The standard of care was appropriate.
The Queensland government claims that conditions on settlements and in missions were in line with the standards of the time. However, the support the Queensland government paid for Aborigines in its ‘care’ was much less than what other states paid. For example, in 1911 the Queensland government paid only 10 shillings per Aborigine per week for support, which was less than half of what WA paid and less than 15% of what NSW paid and less than 4% of what Victoria paid ( their figures are , in pound, 1.10, 4 and 14 respectively).
**********************************************************************
How do we know what happened ?
The facts are taken from the Ros Kidd’s book “Black Lives – Government Lies”. Ros was the only historian who has had access to a large number of the government’s own files on its Aboriginal administration.
Who were the people who criticised the government?
They were government bureaucrats, who were held responsible for the welfare of Aborigines, such as e.g. heads of settlements, head masters of schools and medical doctors. Often also officials who had to investigate problems, such as circuit judges, government accountants or auditors. Others were heads of church missions who had to take the people assigned to them by the state but who were not sufficiently funded by the state.
How come this information is so different from what we know?
It is different because Aborigines were not educated enough and/or allowed to keep their own records ( not even their own saving account books). The government regulated every aspect of the Aborigines lives, including their education, jobs, housing, money, whom they could marry and when etc. Thus the government files on individual families are very extensive. It has a monopoly on this information. But since much of it is incriminating, the government does not like to have them known. Instead it has manufactured an image that it did everything for the best of the Aborigines.
Karin Chai, Ecumenical Social Justice Group Western Suburbs Inc, June 2002
|
