DiscussMormonism.com

This is an insightful movie about the Aborigines in Australia who were half Caucasian, and bore the term "Half Caste". The setting takes place in the early 1900's. The heart of the film deals with the Australian governments decision to take these half breed children away from their own mothers, and raise them in encampments with the intention of integrating these children into society. Part of this plan was to breed out the darkness from the eventual posterity of these "Half Caste" children, as well as their prominent features.

It seems as there exist some parallels to the Lamanite placement program and its partial purpose of helping these Lamanite children become "White and Delightsome". I am not too familiar with SWK intents, or the implementation of this practice. Any links or summaries available?

Maxrep wrote:
It seems as there exist some parallels to the Lamanite placement program and its partial purpose of helping these Lamanite children become "White and Delightsome". I am not too familiar with SWK intents, or the implementation of this practice. Any links or summaries available?

The parallels are superficial. For a start, it involved half-caste Aboriginal children, so the aim was not to make them "whiter", but to assimilate them into European society. They did not take "pure" Aborigines. Many of them also suffered physical and sexual abuse. It was also considered by some to be an "act of genocide". Most were very young, under 5 years old, and were brought up to think they were white. They were forcibly removed, and parents were not told where their children were.

One link: http://www.eniar.org/stolengenerations.html

Consider Kevin Barney's comment:

Murphy comes down extremely hard on the Church’s Indian Student Placement Program. He writes: “The Placement Program, deemed cultural genocide by critics, removed over 70,000 Native American children from their homes from 1954-96 and placed them with urban white Mormon families in systematic efforts to turn Indians ‘white and delightsome.’” The shrillness of this statement is irresponsible and reflects a lack of scholarly balance and detachment. The Placement Program grew out of informal arrangements between Utah beet farmers and children of Navajo migrant pickers in the 1940s. Eventually it became a formal program, whereby Native American children were housed with Mormon families during the school year so that they could attend school; they returned to live with their families during the summers. The goals of the Program were both educative and acculturative. Now, perhaps trying to help Native American children gain the tools to succeed in the dominant anglo culture was not an appropriate or worthy goal. Certainly there is plenty of room for responsible criticism of the aims, administration and effects of the Program. But to evoke images of the Holocaust or ethnic cleansing in Bosnia with the incredibly hyperbolic “cultural genocide” is in my judgment an irresponsible way to go about it. To the contrary, many Native Americans have been upset that the Church has terminated or greatly scaled back both the Placement Program and other programs intended to serve Native American interests. So the Church is damned if it tries to help, and damned if it does not. To say that the children were “removed” in the passive voice ominously suggests to the uninformed reader that this was somehow done against their parents’ wishes. This is simply not true. For the reader interested in a more balanced anthropological consideration of the Placement Program, I recommend the studies indicated in the accompanying

http://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php?p=1951

To be sure, there are divided opinions on this.

What I find worse, and I've never made any bones about this, is "persuading" young single mothers to give up their newborn babies to be reared in "faithful LDS homes".

PS: I attended university with one of the "stolen children", who was in my Australian History tutorials. She was the first Aboriginal stolen child to bring a test lawsuit against the Australian government, which failed.

More information: http://nativenet.uthscsa.edu/archive/nl/9310/0009.html

Joy was quite a rabble-rouser, and I mean that quite objectively, but no one tried to silence her, and everyone listened to her viewpoint. Every time she came to tutorials she wore a tee-shirt with an Aboriginal flag, and was more interested in "rights issues", than Australian history. This may have been partly to test reactions, from students and staff, and it was after this, long after, that she launched the lawsuit.

(That's my post for today.)

Ray A wrote:For a start, it involved half-caste Aboriginal children, so the aim was not to make them "whiter", but to assimilate them into European society. (That's my post for today.)

Ray,

thanks for the links. I mentioned "parallels" for the reason that SWK said that the Lamanite students would become white and delightsome. The narrative of the movie showed a photographic chart of how the off spring of the half-caste children could become white, and without distinction, once the aboriginal blood line could be reduced to 1/8th.

I'm sure you agree that "Rabbit Proof Fence" is a very worthwhile film!

Maxrep wrote:
I'm sure you agree that "Rabbit Proof Fence" is a very worthwhile film!

Max,

I haven't seen Rabbit Proof Fence (only trailers), largely because though I enjoy movies, my first resort to finding truth is real history, preferably from primary sources. I did a lot of reading on Aboriginal history while at university (and wrote several essays on this), so "movie graphics" could only really emotionally enhance what I already knew. Rabbit Proof Fence also has its critics. Hollywood, or Ozwood, isn't perfect. But I think it can convey the sense of betrayal felt by the victims.

If you want to see another good film about Aborigines, see "The Chant of Jimmy Blacksmith".

Whether it be polygamy, the Indian placement program, or the Stolen Generations, there are always complexities involved, and making black and white present day judgements is not always conducive to a wider picture. What the Australian government did was atrocious, and no one can downplay that that. The fact is, overall, Aborigines have benefited enormously from European colonisation, or, as they say, "invasion". I don't have time now, but can later refer you to the speeches of Noel Pearson, an Aboriginal lawyer who has some interesting perspectives on this, and present day problems.

Assimilation has in fact occurred to a large extent. Today, you can't always tell who has Aboriginal blood. The misconceptions and short-sightedness lay in forced assimilation. I have two grandchildren with Aboriginal blood, whose near, and alive grandparents, are half-castes (or one of them in the marriage), but you'd never know this from the physical appearance of the children, who both look Anglo, as do their mothers. So they are between two civilisations, so to speak, and for them to outright condemn one or the other would be difficult. All of this should be considered. As bad as it was, polygamy is way overshadowed by what happened to Aboriginal Americans and Australians, and I presume you've read books like Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee.

That's my post for today, and I'm running late.

I woul invite everyone to listen to the NPR story about the Latter-Day Saints and the Indians.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4463101