Racist Attitudes In Rabbit Proof Fence


Published on

Racist Attitudes In Rabbit Proof Fence

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Racist Attitudes In Rabbit Proof Fence

  1. 1. Racist Attitudes in the Movie, Rabbit-Proof Fence Mehdi Hassanian esfahani (GS22456) Canadian and Australian Literature Lecturer: Dr. Malachi Edwin Vethamani February 2009 UPM
  2. 2. Introduction Rabbit-Proof Fence, an Australian drama based on Garimara’s book, Follow The Rabbit-Proof Fence, is a 2002 movie directed by Phillip Noyce, which depicts a true story of the author’s mother who was forced by Protector of Aboriginals and the law to leave her own family when she was 14, in order to be grown up and educated in a civilized Western society; studying in a government-run school so that be prepared to live in their houses as servants. Rabbit-Proof Fence narrates this removal, and the girl’s attempt to run away with her sister and her cousin to join her mother. This runaway includes a 1500 miles walk along the rabbit-proof fence, in which Molly (the elder girl and the main character, played by Evelyn Sampi) leads the other two. On the other hand, it is A.O. Neville (played by Kenneth Bragagh) who is the Chief Protector of Aboriginals; one who decides for their marriage and their lives. Presented as Mr. Devil, he is the villain who considers himself responsible of breeding out the half-castes over multiple generations, and, as a result, orders the girls’ capture and their recapture after their runaway. It is also worth noting that the release of Rabbit-Proof Fence aroused various reactions. Two distinct criticisms aroused regarding the innocence of girls and aboriginals set against the cruelty of invaders, and the inaccurate representation of Westerns in general and Mr. Neville in particular in Australia. The former praises the movie and its encouragement to portray the issues [2]
  3. 3. related to the stolen generation in a realistic view, and the latter accuses it of wrong information and a misunderstanding of the book. Among them is Herald Sun’s columnist Andrew Bolt, who compares ‘facts’ and ‘represented events in the movie’ and claims that “crucial parts [of this story] are false or misleading. And shamefully so”. However, the historical accuracy is out of this study and I am to consider the movie as a credible text. In the following, I will discuss the colonizer and colonized relationship and briefly the screen writer’s use of gendered stereotypes to intensify racism and cultural superiority. The whole essay can be an introduction to the study of cultural imperialism and its signs in the movie. Racist Attitudes in Rabbit-Proof Fence From the very beginning of colonization, the colonizers always had an inferior view to the colonized (or aboriginal) people. Whether this superiority was due to their developed technology, their weapons and artifacts or just a benefit of their different color, white people advertised what Howitt calls ‘ethnocentrism’ or cultural racism, which is the representation of a group’s superiority to another one, regarding their social values, beliefs and the cultural norms, wherever they established a colony. He explains furthermore that this ethnocentrism studied in universities, and lead to the ‘scientific racism’ which tensed the situation. In 1790s, European scientists claimed that people of colour [3]
  4. 4. are “biologically inferior to whites and ... intellectually and morally incapable of self-government” (Harrold). As an example, Peterson discusses the legal doctrine on which Britain claimed that Australia, at the time of Captain Cook’s exploration, was ‘terra nullius’ meaning ‘land belonging to no one’ and clarifies that this “denied that Aboriginal people had any rights to or ownership of the land” though a number of 300,000 to 500,000 aboriginals is estimated to be there in 1788. Assuming the colonized people primitive and barbaric, the colonizers consider their people supreme and of high culture, who have the right to do anything with uncivilized and indigenous people. Rabbit-Proof Fence, shows this quality in depth, and brings many examples in behavior and ideology of both groups; the colonized and the colonizer, to deal with the reality of white settlers in Australia, aboriginals, half-caste children and the child removal policy. To highlight the internal tension, the screen writer creates these two opposing groups of people with distinctive values and lifestyles, where Whites are well-equipped and they have cars (even the tracker who works with them rides his own horse) but aboriginals walk with bare feet. White men are dressed up, Neville’s office is tidy and he acts punctually, but aboriginals have nothing to show off, and they are left to spend their lives on the lands. The highest point of this contrast is when the girls are brought into the settlement; they are [4]
  5. 5. washed and given ‘new cloths’ as if they are entering a new world and cannot fit into it by the appearance they already have, and they are firmly asked, in the following scene, to forget their language and speak English. These rules continue, when they are forced to attend the church, sing English songs and do things which don’t come from their own culture, but roots in the colonizer’s culture. In this case, the movie is more than a true story or a political act against the cruel rules of western invaders, it is a documentary on an intrepid girl’s journey, to come back home, to leave the foreign culture she is forcedly imposed to, and return to the traditions. It is against racism, as well as imperialism. However, the movie doesn’t make any judgments upon these two. Even Neville is presented as a benign protector, according to Holden, and a responsible man. Emerson claims that it “avoids being offensively and unsubtly judgmental, rightly assuming that everyone seeing the film will be aware of how inhuman and damaging the [child removal] policy was.” Child removal policy, which is a shocking fact, was practiced in early 20 th century. From 1905 to 1971, white Australians built “special detention centers … across the continent to keep the mixed-race children from ‘contamination’ the rest of Australian society” (Russell), the policy which allowed the legal kidnapping of aboriginals, and caused the misery of ‘stolen generation’. [5]
  6. 6. The title, ‘rabbit-proof fence’, is also a repeated image through the movie. Calling it “an audacious project to fence off wild Australia from the respectable white people” Johanson believes that the fence is “one of the miserable ironies in a story laden with euphemism and mendacity” as Australia doesn’t have a native rabbit, and they were brought by European. The whole thing roots to the colonization of Australia. According to Olsen it was “part of a colonial attempt to make a strange new land familiar”. She explains that when Early Europeans arrived, there was a need to detach themselves from native belongings and it was “vital that a clear distinction be maintained between Aboriginal hunting and the Hunt”. As a result, they brought rabbits and foxes to Australia to continue the hobby they had ‘back home’. The over reproduction of rabbits, which was a threat to agriculture was the cause of the fence, and the over mention of the ‘fence’ which connects south to the north of Australia, presents the colonization of Whites in that country. They mystery of Molly’s father, who ‘works on the rabbit fence’ and has left the family, demonstrate the relationship between the colonizer and the natives. There hasn’t been a marriage or love; it was just gaining a benefit of the opportunity they found. Assuming themselves superior, Westerns considers it their right to order, and treat aboriginals in the way they like, which is showed in this movie by white people in the settlement. [6]
  7. 7. There is also a predictive scene in the movie, to reveal the reality of these girls’ future; when another aboriginal appears (who is segregated and probably educated by white men and now is working as a servant with a white family) and the husband of that family comes at night to have sex with her, which is presented in a way as if it is a usual, every night happening, and not a sudden act of rape. To separate aboriginals from colonizers, Noyce also shows different ways of communication; while westerns need to be said and yelled, half-casts communicate by eyes. “Portraits are built up through actions, and actions often have a great deal of subtext” (Emerson). There aren’t a lot of dialogues in the movie, especially when aboriginals need to communicate. It seems that they have a way with nature, and with each other, and they can feel everything. Another point is the use of masculine stereotypes in the movie, to intensify this gap between natives and their opponents. To show the power, which is a false one but apparently brings superiority over aboriginals, Rabbit- Proof Fence, divides Australian people to white men and indigenous women. So that Noyce would be able to present the weak and strong, and distinct black and white. Cruelty of masculinity and innocence of femininity is a familiar theme in early 21 st century, and the director has used it to increase the effect of his movie, and the brutality he wants to display. [7]
  8. 8. To make a long story short, the movie deals with cultural racism, and racist rules which were really practiced upto the 1971 in Australia, and lead to the killing of aboriginals, and situation so-called ‘stolen generation’. This attitude was a common, but inhuman and false policy by most colonizers towards indigenous people, and Noyce has depicted this shocking fact in his movie, Rabbit-Proof Fence, to share the pain Australian aboriginals tolerated innocently, and record what happened in this part of history. [8]
  9. 9. Work Cited Bolt, Andrew. "Rabbit-proof myths ". Jim Ball. February 5, 2009 <http://members.optushome.com.au/jimball/Rabbitproofmyth.html>. Emerson, Dan. "Rabbit-Proof Fence - Movie Review". Stylus Magazine. February 5, 2009 <http://www.stylusmagazine.com/articles/movie_ review/rabbit-proof-fence.htm>. Harrold, Stanley. "Abolitionist Movement." Microsoft® Encarta® 2009 [DVD]. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation, 2008. Holden, Stephen. "Movie Review - Rabbit-Proof Fence ". The New York Times. February 5, 2009 <http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review ?_r=2&res=9C0DE0DE1238F93AA15752C1A9649C8B63> Howitt, D., and J. Owsus-Bempah. The racism of psychology: Time for a change. London: Harvester and Wheatsheaf, 1994. Johanson, MaryAnn. "Rabbit-Proof Fence (review)". Flick Filosopher. February 5, 2009<http://www.flickfilosopher.com/blog/2003/01/rabbitproof_ fence_review.html>. Olsen, Danielle. "Dividing Australia: The story of the rabbit-proof fence". Things Magazine. February 5, 2009 <http://www.thingsmagazine.net/text /t14/rabbits.htm>. [9]
  10. 10. Peterson, Nicolas. "Aboriginal Australians." Microsoft® Encarta® 2009 [DVD]. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation, 2008. Russell, Jamie. "Films - Review". BBC. February 5, 2009 <http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2002/10/16/rabbit_proof_fence_2002_ review.shtml>. [10]