Right: The Matron at Moore River Native Settlement holding two infants. (Source: the Berndt Museum of Anthropology, AO Neville Collection.)
Arguments in favour of banning the film, 'Rabbit-Proof Fence'
1. The film is not an accurate representation of history
Historian Keith Windschuttle has questioned the veracity of the film 'Rabbit-Proof Fence' in the third volume of his series, 'The Fabrication of Aboriginal History' .
Windschuttle claims that the film does not include all the details of the original story. Windschuttle claims he has researched the experiences of sisters Molly Craig, 14, Daisy Kadibill, 8, and their cousin Gracie Fields, 10, for his book. According to the historian, Molly and Gracie were removed from their families on the Jigalong Depot because of their 'sexual activity with white men working in the area'.
Windschuttle claims Molly and Gracie were sexually promiscuous, and were removed for that reason. He refers to a letter from Mrs Chellow (a farmer's wife from near Jigalong) to A.O. Neville (the Protector of Aborigines in Western Australia), in which she accused the girls of 'running wild with the whites'. Windschuttle further claims that the film's assertion that Neville removed the children because he was seeking to breed out Aboriginality was simply false.
Windschuttle has stated, 'That is the big lie of the film. Neville did not use child removal in order to breed out the race.'
Windschuttle maintains that the Aborigines Act in Australia at the time of Neville's tenure was not racist and was motivated by a genuine desire for child protection. He states that the claims in the film which attribute other motives for the Aborigines Act are wrong.
2. The film is presented as accurate by teachers and accepted as such by students
It has been claimed that one of the dangers represented by the film, 'Rabbit-Proof Fence', is that it is a substantially fictional work that is presented by teachers as though it were historically accurate. This is said to be a concern because students come away with false impressions that they believe are fact.
In an opinion piece published in the Herald Sun on December 16, 2009, commentator Andrew Bolt stated, 'I am often asked to talk at schools and almost always ask students three questions about a film that lies about the "stolen generations".
First: "How many of you have been shown Rabbit-Proof Fence?"
Answer: every one.
Second: "Have you been shown the movie as a great piece of film-making, or as a history lesson?"
Answer: in every case as history. You know, like you learn America's history from John Wayne movies.
And third: "How many of you have checked whether the film is actually true, by, say, reading the book on which it's based?"
Answer: of thousands of students, just two have raised their hand.
And that alone is reason enough for me to agree with historian Keith Windschuttle, who this week called for Rabbit-Proof Fence to be banned from our schools for being "grossly inaccurate".
Lies are being taught as truth, and until the teachers know the difference, it's mischievous and damaging to so deceive young children about their country's past. '
3. The film is less accurate than the novel on which it is based
The movie the film is based on the book 'Follow the Rabbit Proof Fence', which was written by Molly Craig's daughter, Doris Pilkington Garimara. Although the screenplay was co=written by Doris Pilkington Garimara, critics claim it contains errors that the book does not.
Keith Windschuttle has acknowledged that Pilkington Garimara's book is an acceptable account of what occurred, however, he has claimed the film version should not be taught in Australian schools as it is 'grossly inaccurate'.
Windschuttle has stated, 'If teachers want to teach this stuff, they should use the book and not the film because the film is not the true story. In fact it is simply very bad history.'
Critics of the film note that it attributes attitudes to the West Australian Protector of Aborigines that the book does not. The book is written much more exclusively from the perspective of the three girls involved and so does not make the larger, more political statements that the film does.
4. The film is part of an unduly negative, apologist view of Australian history
It has been claimed that the view of race relations presented in 'Rabbit-Proof Fence' is an extreme and prejudiced one which is typical of that promoted by many current historians.
Critics like Andrew Bolt have argued that schools should be fostering a more balanced and positive view of Australia's history. This point is made in an opinion piece written by Andrew Bolt titled, 'Schools must mend fences'.
A similar view was first promoted by former Prime Minister, John Howard, in his 1996 Menzies Lecture. Mr Howard argued that 'our history as a nation... [must] not [be] written definitively by those who take the view that Australians should apologise for most of it.
This 'black arm band' view of our past reflects a belief that most Australian history since 1788 has been little more than a disgraceful story of imperialism, exploitation, racism ... and other forms of discrimination...
The debate over Australian history ... risks being distorted if its focus is confined only to the shortcomings of previous generations. It risks being further distorted if highly selective views of Australian history are used as the basis for endless and agonised navel-gazing about who we are...
We are right to be proud of having established one of the most ethnically diverse societies in the world in which tolerance, respect for differences and opportunities for all have been the distinguishing features...
Australian history should never be a source of smug delusions or comfortable superiority. But nor should it be a basis for obsessive and consuming national guilt and shame.
We need to work hard to remove the disadvantages which some Australians continue to endure as a legacy of our history. But we need to recognise that our history is also the story of a great Australian achievement in which we can, and should, take great pride.'
5. Some parents object to the manner in which 'Rabbit-Proof Fence' is taught within Australian schools
It has been claimed that many parents do not approve of the way in which 'Rabbit-Proof Fence' is taught within Australian schools. The historian Keith Windschuttle has recently stated, ''I have had many parents of students at various Sydney high schools complain to me that film is compulsory viewing. [The film] is a work of dramatic fiction masquerading as a true story.'
An email sent to Andrew Bolt on December 16, 2009, gives some detail as to what these parents' objections are. Stephen H of Sydney wrote, 'My 10 year old has been watching this movie this week as school wraps up (NSW Public School)and it too has been sold as factual education.
I find it strange how a film rated PG can be shown without parental consent. I find it stranger that as school winds down they could not find a more fun movie for children to watch - eg. Monsters vs Aliens rather than some political diatribe.
School is meant to educate children on how to think not to mandate what they should think.'
On the same date, Brian of Noble Park Melbourne emailed the following comment to Andrew Bolt, 'Nowadays, if Australian history is taught at all, our children are told how wicked the pioneers were and how they raped and pillaged the Aboriginal inhabitants and stole their land and dignity etc etc.
It is hard to believe that our children are being told that they should be ashamed of the early history of this country and being taught lies in place of truth.
No wonder more and more people are sending their kids to private schools to get a decent education.'