April 21.
Artwork by Glenn Loughrey
Racism and the taking of children
Twentieth-century developments: the child wasn't taken because she was neglected, she was taken because she was 'almost white'.
[William Garnett] South* took up his new position [as Protector of Aborigines] on 1 March 1908 and would oversee the introduction of a new interventionist regime of Aboriginal administration. In 1911, the same year that the Northern Territory was passed from South Australian to commonwealth control, an Aborigines Act was finally passed by the South Australian government. Under this legislation, the Chief Protector became the legal guardian of every Aboriginal and 'half-caste' child under the age of 18, regardless of whether they had living parents or relatives. Aboriginal freedom of movement now became strictly controlled by the state. The Chief Protector was able to restrict any Aboriginal person to, or remove them from, a reserve or institution. It was illegal for an Aboriginal person to leave or be removed from his or her district without permission, and for a non-Aboriginal person to be on a reserve without permission. The Chief Protector could direct any Aboriginal people who were camped, 'or about to camp', near towns or municipalities to remove to another location as directed. Any individual found loitering in any town or municipality 'and not decently clothed' could be directed to move on. And any township or municipality could be declared a prohibited area. Only those people in lawful employment were exempted from these regulations. [1]
...It was under South's watch that the policy of systematically removing children of mixed descent was implemented. South's response to protests about the removal of a girl from Stuart's creek in 1911, whom he described as 'almost white', distils the attitude of the time. The child's heart-broken mother, who was absent when the child was taken, approached a local pastoralist who wrote to the Chief Protector on her behalf. He explained the woman's distress, pointed out that her children were 'well dressed and cared for' and asked for the child to be returned to her mother. The Chief Protector's response was that this 'quadroon girl' would in the long term be best cared for by the State's Children Council:
I sympathise with her in the loss of her child, but no right thinking person can say that a girl of about 10 years of age who is practically white is under proper care & control while running about in a blacks' camp.
It is bad enough for half-caste boys to be thus brought up, but every bushman knows the inevitable fate of the girls.
It appears from your letter that the mother has had to submit to that fate as she has three children already. [2]
Typical of many cases of removal in the first part of the twentieth century, the child wasn't taken because she was neglected, she was taken because she was 'almost white'. [3]
An Act to make better provision for the better Protection and Control of the Aboriginal and Half-cast Inhabitants of the State of South Australia, no. 1048 of 1911, paras 12-23.
SRSA GRG 52/1/1911/21.
Robert Foster, '”endless trouble and agitation”, Aboriginal Activism in the Protectionist Era', in Journal of the Historical Society of South Australia, no. 28, 2000, pp. 17-19.0.
Acknowledgment: Amanda Nettlebeck & Robert Foster, In the Name of the Law – William Wilshire and the Policing of the Australian Frontier, pp. 170-171, 172, 206 n.28, n.33, n.34.
* William South had been a Mounted Police Constable and was the police officer who arrested William Willshire on 27 April, 1891 – Amanda Nettlebeck & Robert Foster, In the Name of the Law – William Wilshire and the Policing of the Australian Frontier, p.1.