Rabbit-Proof Fence by Doris Pilkington (Movie Review Sample)
the film Rabbit Proof Fence and Orrin's article on blood quantum: Write a two page summary of the film about the main events in the film, then include a one page discussion on blood quantum as described in Orrin's article and Schooling the World; specifically, there are two ways dominant culture has tried to erase indigenous people, one is by education/assimilation and the other is by losing tribal membership due to low blood quantum. Discuss these two using evidence from your film, article, and video.
This film Rabbit Proof Fence takes place in Australia, but Americans did the same thing here. We removed Indian children from their homes and families and put them in schools. The children's story is a powerful one of courage and endurance. Also, notice in this film the values and reasons why the children were removed; In America as well as in Australia, taking the children was seen as "for their own good."
then select the film Rabbit Proof Fence
Measuring Blood: The American Indian Blood Quantum
Well, the way the government defines whether someone is a "real" Indian or not is they measure their blood. They have some arcane way of doing this by dividing the number of generations since all your ancestors were pure-blood by the number of marriages with people who aren't pure-blood. By their counting, I think I'm 7/8 Indian. Some of it is Muskogee, but they don't care about that. They're just trying to see how close we are or are not to white. We argue about this so much because nobody likes it. It's a really bad way to define somebody's culture and almost everyone agrees on that, but everyone can't agree on a better way, so there's a lot of complaining and it doesn't change.
Basically, there are four problems with this. One, it puts pressure on Indians not to marry white people or their children will lose their heritage, and that bothers a lot of people. Two, it means that if some of your ancestors aren't in the records, you can be denied being an Indian. Three, it's wrong for outsiders to tell you if you can or can't belong to an ethnic group. Nobody makes African-Americans prove their entire family line and apply for some governmental Certificate of Degree of African Blood before they can get a scholarship from the NAACP or put "Black-owned" on their business if they want to. And four, most disturbingly: it guarantees the extinction of the American Indian. By this standard, white is the default, and everyone is approaching whiteness. Someone who is 1/8 Indian is considered white, and that is the end of their Indianness-- they are white and their children will be white, forever. On the other hand, I am 1/8 white, but that doesn't mean that's the end of whiteness in my line. It keeps sitting there, just as it has since the 19th century when my white ancestors entered my family. Eventually one of my descendants will marry a white person again and hah! We will be 1/4 white. A person can get more white, but not more Indian. Do you see what I mean? Every generation, there are fewer people this system thinks are full-bloods, and all the blood quantums get smaller.
For my part, I think a mixed-blood Indian is just an Indian. Before white people came here, the tribes all mixed around a lot, and it didn't make anyone's culture disappear. You just belonged where your mother belonged, or, maybe some tribes did it where your father belonged. They didn't have to prove who they were. I'd personally like to see it that way again. But there's a problem with that, and it's resources. Indian tribes don't have a lot of resources now. There is hardly enough money for programs for the people we have. If we let in anybody who wanted to come? It would be very difficult practically. And it would be impossible to get federal money if we couldn't prove anything about blood, and few tribes are wealthy enough to get by without that. And, too, there are complaints from Indians that too much intermarriage and 'passing' and leaving the tribe is making us lose our culture. Certainly it is making us lose our languages. So a lot of people don't want a solution that would encourage more of that. That is why there's disagreement on this issue. Personally, I would rather see five non-Indians get Indian status than one Indian be denied it. Not all Indians agree with that, but it's what I think. The white politicians, of course, want just the opposite.
Actually, the more I think about the non-Indians--or people with very, very tenuous Indian ancestry who know nothing about the culture--trying to be Indians, the more I think it's not so bad. I will admit, I can get very annoyed by wanna-be's. Especially, when I was younger they used to think I knew about drugs, and I could get them magic mushrooms or something. Now they just think I can get them a spirit guide. I guess that's progress. But anyway, my point is this: assimilation has devastated us. They took us and sent us to boarding schools as children to rob us of our languages. They made our religions illegal. They turned our culture into something for history class only. Now, some yuppie white girl finds out she had a Cherokee great-great-great-grandmother, or somebody says she did, and she wants to be a Cherokee. Well, why not? In the past, a lot of Indians had rituals where you could take the place of the dead. So if someone killed my son, maybe he could end our families' fighting by giving me one of his sons, to take the place of the one he killed. Maybe these "wannabes" have come to take the place of what we have lost. Why not accept them? Not make them citizens of our nations, perhaps, but let's take them in and teach them our ways and our languages and help them raise their children to be some of us. Maybe they do have a little bit of Indian blood and it's finding its way back to us. That's what I think. White people assimilated us. Why turn away those who want to assimilate back?
Indians being disenfranchised or oppressed by blood certificate requirements that are too strict, deceitful non-Indians exploiting requirements that are too lax, mixed-blood people caught in the middle. A really good solution isn't going to come until our nations are empowered enough to make these kinds of decisions ourselves without having to answer to the federal government about it, in my opinion, but that doesn't seem likely to happen under a system that keeps splintering away more of us with every passing year.
Rabbit-Proof Fence movie review.
The rabbit-proof fence is a movie adapted from a book by Doris Pilkington based on a true-life story of Australian Aboriginals kidnapped and detained in Moore River settlement in 1931. The movie revolves around the families of the Aborigines who were separated by a government policy, forcing the mixed-race children from the Outback communities to live in the settlement camps because of their skin color. The children are forcefully indoctrinated into the white customs and religion as part of the ongoing assimilation that was more of an act of slavery by the government.
The movie begins with a presentation on an act called Aborigines Act of 1905. The act allowed the government to forcibly remove aboriginal and half-caste children to provide protection or care. Three Aboriginal girls, fourteen-year-old Molly, her sister Daisy aged eight, and their cousin Gracie a ten year old girl, lived close to the small depot of the Jigalong Desert with their family. The girls learned tribal lessons despite the fact that their fathers were white and had moved on. However, the chief protector upon learning of their existence, asks that they are unceremoniously taken from their home and to the Moore River Settlement School.
Moore River Settlement School project was initiated by the government to ensure that all half cases were eradicated after getting married to the whites and being assimilated into white culture. Neville, the chief protector believed that it is possible to breed out color through overseeing marital unions of the half-caste. While in school, these children were taught specific skills that would later enable them to work as domestic workers. Nuns at, the school instructed them not to speak Jabber a local language, English was the official language The children had to endure a lot of suffering and the separation from their families traumatized them.
Several incidences of racial discrimination are evident in the movie, for example, Mr. Neville visits...
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE
- Steven Spielberg's movie “The Post”Description: In “The Post”, the movie generally explores journalistic message. In particular, the movie seeks to pass across the message of media freedom....3 pages/≈825 words | No Sources | MLA | Literature & Language | Movie Review |
- Reel Injun: The Portrayal Of Native AmericansDescription: Released in 2009, Reel Injun was a Canadian documentary film that beautifully explored the portrayal of Native Americans. It highlighted the lifestyle of figures like Iron Eyes Cody, an Italian American who was able to reinvent himself as an American on screen....3 pages/≈825 words | 1 Source | MLA | Literature & Language | Movie Review |
- Family As An Institution In Lukas Moodisson's "Together"Description: Together or Tillsammans is not your typical film and for people who cannot stomach the truth, it is best that you avoid it. Released in 2000, the film takes a different approach in how it reveals the themes within....5 pages/≈1375 words | 2 Sources | MLA | Literature & Language | Movie Review |