Films on Liberty and the State
Rabbit-Proof
Fence (2002)
If only there were more films like this! This top quality film highlights an evil of the State that actually occurred but at its center the film is about a courageous quest for liberty worthy of Tolkien. In 1931 Australia, it is the official policy of the government that all “half-caste” children (half Aborigine, half white) are to be taken from their families and raised by the State. When three young girls (aged 14, 10 and 8) are taken 1200 miles from their home, they escape and determine to make the epic journey back across desert and wilderness with no resources and with the minions of the State on their trail. The film is notable for the sincere good intentions of the Chief Protector of the Aborigine Populace, Mr. Neville (Kenneth Branagh) and the cleverness and bravery of the 14 year old that leads the escape, Molly (Everlyn Sampi). A libertarian aspect of Molly’s story (a true one) that most reviewers seem to have missed is that the breakdown between those who aid the girls and those who seek to recapture them is not a racial one. The Aboriginal tracker Moodoo (David Gulpilil) who works for the government tries just as hard to recapture the girls as the whites. Conversely, whites independent of the government are glad to help the children on their way. Mr. Neville’s chilling words sum up the view of the ruthless social engineer: “We face an uphill battle with these people – especially the Bush natives – who have to be protected against themselves. If they would only understand what we are trying to do for them.” See this review.
{ 6 comments }
I’m afraid you’re reading into this what you expect to find. This film was made by people with a left wing agenda, drawing on received views prevalent among left wing sources.
For one thing, the actual events weren’t at the hands of the state but at the hands of charitable groups who had arranged rules favouring them.
For another, this particular case was done with parental consent – as indeed most were.
Finally, many of those taken into care had effectively been abandoned by their parental support groups – tribes – as not being full blooded members of the particular tribe in question, generally because they were part-white.
This is not to say that any single part of this film is pure fiction, but the film is a composite of the worst parts that could possibly be found, under the worst possible interpretations.
Nothing like this ever happened.
Lawrence may be on to something. Here is a salvo against the historical accuracy of the film:
http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/mar03/keithw.htm
Anyone have a rebuttal? I’m certainly willing to remove the film from the list if it is historical rubbish. (I know of at least one film reviewer who never lets historical accuracy enter into his judgement of a film. But I disagree with that stance. I have no problem with poetic license in details, but alterations must be made to make the story in some sense more true, not less true).
OK, here’s a historian arguing that the film is giving an accurate history (if taking some poetic license with the story of the girls).
http://hnn.us/comments/7988.html
What I need is an Australian libertarian who is leery of both left-wing racial conflict mongering and right-wing rationalizations and who has been following this debate. Wait a second… I think I know just the person!
1. That ‘historian’ who argued the story was accurate is the left-leaning Robert Manne, criticised by Keith Windschuttle who attacked its accuracy in the first link (to the New Criterion.)Both have been embroiled in a long-running battle over the history of white-Aboriginal relations in Oz. Windschuttle objects to the ‘black armband’ approach. The left are desperate for _something_ to attack Oz society — solidly old-fashioned & therefore ‘right-wing’ working class. (Even the Oz Communist Party is the most ‘right-wing’ of the lot.)
2. What neither mentioned was that Aboriginals were _not_ given equality under the (common) law: they were made wards of the state. The local copper was generally the ‘Protector of the Aborigines’. The latter needed permission to move from the district, etc. This disappeared by the 1950s. And, in the referendum on the question (reqd by the Oz constitution), more than 90% of the voters — all white — voted _in favour_ of giving Aborigines the vote. It is the _only significant_ referendum the govt has won. This was _before_ the so-called ‘white Australia’ immigration policy was changed.
I forgot to add that Aboriginal stockmen were widely employed, esp. in Queensland — supposedly the most ‘racist’ of the states — because of their great skills. They were generally far better than whites. This _before_ any great supposed change in racial attitudes. Then — guess what — the State in its wisdom imposed a minimum wage. This naturally led to unemployment, increased numbers on the dole (‘govt sit-down money’), & large numbers drifting to cities — not because they wanted to, but in a policy-forced search for work. This led to further problems. Naturally the left found ample grounds for blaming the ‘racism’ of white Oz society…
As near as I can tell through all the fog of disinformation, many of the component parts of this film are indeed factually based, although given heavy artistic licence. It’s just that extreme incidents never came together like this, and they were never typical. So, unlike the miniseries “Holocaust” which did bring together typical events as happening to a single fictitious family, for dramatic purposes, this film brings together atypical although loosely factually inspired events, creating a wholly false picture of that time and place.
P.S. I am giving my judgment on this from Australia.
Comments on this entry are closed.