Yesterday this photograph

Until the mid-60s, the Aborigines came under the Flora And Fauna Act, which classified them as animals, not human beings. This also meant that killing an Aborigine meant you weren’t killing a human being, but an animal. — 

Like · · Share

 

appeared in my Facebook timeline. It came to me via two very well respected authors of children's books - one I know and one I do not know. I hasten to say that the one I know had issues with it, just as I did. I am not able to comment on what the other author thought although I was surprised she "shared" it.

The caption is absolute nonsense and it is a disgraceful piece of misinformation. Although there were some appalling acts of violence committed against them they were never able to be killed as animals.

Indigenous Australians have been able to vote in Federal elections since 1949 - if they were on their state roll or were a member of the armed services.  It should, of course, have been much earlier than that - especially given that there were men from indigenous communities who fought in World War One. If you are going to fight for your country then you should have every right to vote in the elections of that country. 
In 1967 there was a referendum which recognised the need to count indigenous Australians in the census and required them to be on the electoral roll like all other Australians. Many people confuse that referendum with "giving Aborigines the right to vote". What happened was that they ceased to be under the protection of the Crown and became subject to the Crown. Yes, it should have happened sooner. My paternal grandfather was one of those who had fought for the change.

The photograph has apparently been "shared" more than 6,500 times. It will have been seen by many thousands more. The vast majority of them are going to believe that caption.

It reminds me of another issue that is often raised in relation to indigenous Australians, that of the "stolen generation". This is the idea that hundreds - even thousands - of indigenous children were forcibly removed from their families and placed in orphanages and elsewhere to be brought up away from the influence of their own culture. There was a long and very expensive inquiry into whether this actually happened. The conclusion was very different. No evidence was found for the claims which were being made. Yes, some children were removed - but for the same sort of reasons that other children in the community would be removed. They were considered to be "at risk".  My personal view here is that, like anywhere else, there is a possibility that a small number of children were removed through cultural misunderstanding. Mistakes were made.

I don't like the idea that mistakes were made. I feel for immense sympathy for those involved. It does not however make for a "stolen generation". Despite that the term is still used. It is used in the media. It is used by members of the indigenous community who still believe it happened. It is used by those who want to feel outraged.

The photograph was probably first shared by someone who wanted people to feel outraged - and I do. I don't like the idea that the photograph was taken. It distresses me. I don't know the circumstances under which the photograph was taken but nothing makes it acceptable.

But "sharing" it like that with information which is so misleading does nothing to help or heal. It hurts.