Analysis Of Rabbit Proof Fence

Every country has its own unique stories regarding races and how it treated the Indigenous peoples of the land. Australia’s history – shaped by the arrival of European settlers, notwithstanding any concord with the Aboriginal people, had led to the government’s policies of forcible removal of Indigenous children from their families over the period between 1905 – 1970. The movie Rabbit Proof Fence told one such story. Rabbit Proof Fence’s value does not only lie in its influence on the history of Australia’s silver screen but also in its heartfelt depiction of the Stolen Generations. Yet, conservative historian and journalist – Keith Windschuttle – had published articles and books in contemplation of denying the accuracy of the film and the

He reiterates that both the phrase “Stolen Generations” and the corresponding assertion of genocide are unwarranted. According to Windschuttle, only a small number of Aboriginal children was removed from their family and it was based on the consideration of child welfare. Most of the removed children were orphaned, neglected, abandoned and homeless (Windschuttle, 2008). His own estimate of the total number of Aboriginal children separated from parents and placed into institutions in total is 8250, which accounted for 5.2% of the Aboriginal population at the 1976 census of 160,000 (Windschuttle, 2010). Of course, Windschuttle had to pick the lowest estimate mentioned in the HREOC report. It is indeed very difficult to precisely determine how many Aboriginal children were forcibly removed. However, in a survey conducted with 320 adults in Bourke NSW in the 1970s, Dr Max Kamien had come to a conclusion that the actual number could have been as high as “one in three” (Wilson, 1997). Clearly, Windschuttle relies completely and selectively on the statistics that serve his purposes. One of the main grounds for Windschuttle’s denial of the existence of the Stolen Generations is child welfare, claiming that the children are severely malnourished and neglected. With his exaggerated description and

He claimed that the policy’s intention was genuine, regarding child welfare, apprenticeship and protection over the girls due to early sexual activity, yet, there are strong evidences to dispute his contentions. Although Windschuttle has brought new perspective to this significant event occurred in the past and demonstrated his thorough research on the subject, what Windschuttle missed is empathy for individuals who were the victims of the