One small history question (1 Viewer)

[morganforrest]

Yeah pretty much, acevipa answered it well. Important to remember that within Protection there was a deliberate policy of segregation as Darwin's Great Chain Of Being theory still ran dominant. They were deliberately separated, marriage and reproduction was discouraged (even illegal? someone should check this for me) as the Aborginals were seen as a lesser form of human and hence needed Government protection simply to survive.
This policy of segregation flowed over into assimilation but was no longer official government policy. Some things are hard to change and this was one of the reasons, from a White point of view, that assimilation was such a failure. The whites simply didn't want them because they had been taught the Aboriginals were lesser human beings for so long and hence didn't want them to assimilate.

 

[Tutored]

Right so, as the topic title says, 'one small history question' is exactly what I have. In the topic 'Changing Rights and Freedoms', you have the 4 main Aboriginal Policy's Protection, Assimilation, Intergration and Self-Determination, right. So, based on what we've covered at school about Protection and Assimilation, I cant really see any specific difference between them. Would someone please be able to point the difference out?

 

[D347H574R]

Ok, I'm not gonna say this is right 'cos it probably isn't the exact answer but I believe that with protection, the govt. looked after them on reserves etc and was hoping they would die out eventually. Whereas with Assimilation they were encouraged to join in with society and do things the aussie way..
Hope that helps

 

[acevipa]

There is a pretty big difference. Protection was a policy implemented in the 1850s. It resulted in paternalism (which was part of the protection policy). Remember, paternalism is the policy of looking after Aboriginal people in the way that a father looks after small children who cannot look after themselves. They implemented this policy of protection and paterrnalism as they believed that white people were inherently superior in all ways to Aboriginal people. They saw the Aboriginal culture as primitive, worthless and in desparate need of help. As a result, the formed 'protectorates', to protect Aboriginals, which reflected paternalism. The aims of this were to, civilize and protect Aboriginals, educate and teach them the ways of civilized British society, Chrisitianis them. They achieved this mainly by forming reserves and controlling their lives.

Assimilation on the other hand is quite different. It is the policy of encouraging migrants and Aboriginal people to move away from their traditional ways of life and cultures and to adopt white Australian ways. As much as they both may seem similiar, assimiliation was different, as it required Aboriginal people to become independent (not be looked after/protected). Steos were taken to achieve assimilation and include:

• 1950 Assimilation Act
• 1962: Voting rights
• Citizenship
• Moving Aboriginal people from the reserves and into towns.

So, yeah, in a way they are quite similiar and quite different. Remember that protection involved paternalism (looking after Aboriginal people) as they were seen as primitive. Assimiliation involved providing Aborigines with a degree of independence and for them to behave like white people so they would eventually be treated like them. Yet again, of course, the intention and view of Aborigines were the same in both cases. Their culture was seen as worthless and hence these policies were sought.

 

[Tutored]

Ok so in short, The protection policy was where they were forced to outlive their traditional method of life, and then in Assimilation they were encouraged to give up their old way of living and become christian and of an acceptable European standard?