A large portion of my extended family is indigenous, mostly aunts, uncles, great-aunts and great-uncles many who are / were part of the stolen generation. Some grew up as orphans of the state, some evolved into and then out of the clergy, it wasn't uncommon for females in the stolen generation to take vows, particularly if they were the offspring of mixed relationships.
Oddly, they are not the ones complaining about their life, yet they are the generation frequently portrayed as abused and bitter and looking for remediation.
Many of the matriarchs in our family will tell you they weren't stolen but saved, saved from a lifetime of abuse under a strongly patriarchal culture that saw women and children as possessions. But their opinion is drowned out but screaming children.
The loudest voices of protest are not the victims but their children or grandchildren, who assert that they are abused or under-privileged in some way by their parents history. It's a constant source of angst between older family members and the youth.
How can this difference in perception exist?
I suspect a lot of the loudest protests and complaints grow out of circumstance, not everybody is guaranteed a happy existence, and much like the abuse by the church there will be those in indigenous society that have suffered at the hands of immigrants. They will always be the loudest voices and rightly so, but the volume of speak is not a proxy for the generalisation of circumstance.
In my opinion this is where the Voice failed, it was built on a generalisation that came from listening to the loudest voices.
Oddly, they are not the ones complaining about their life, yet they are the generation frequently portrayed as abused and bitter and looking for remediation.
Many of the matriarchs in our family will tell you they weren't stolen but saved, saved from a lifetime of abuse under a strongly patriarchal culture that saw women and children as possessions. But their opinion is drowned out but screaming children.
The loudest voices of protest are not the victims but their children or grandchildren, who assert that they are abused or under-privileged in some way by their parents history. It's a constant source of angst between older family members and the youth.
How can this difference in perception exist?
I suspect a lot of the loudest protests and complaints grow out of circumstance, not everybody is guaranteed a happy existence, and much like the abuse by the church there will be those in indigenous society that have suffered at the hands of immigrants. They will always be the loudest voices and rightly so, but the volume of speak is not a proxy for the generalisation of circumstance.
In my opinion this is where the Voice failed, it was built on a generalisation that came from listening to the loudest voices.
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"