matjjin-nehen

a linguist without a language

Stolen, not Separated

with 6 comments

It seems that Gerard Henderson, former culture warrior, has coined a new euphemism in relation to Australia’s indigenous history. Henderson has always disputed the term stolen generation, because the population of stolen aboriginal people hardly comprised an entire generation, so it’s odd that this new euphemism of his retains this word.

Here’s an excerpt from Henderson’s column in today’s Herald:

Most of the separated generation had European or other genes - in addition to indigenous ones. This means that an abject apology would require that some of today’s indigenous Australians apologise to their indigenous predecessors for the actions of some of their European predecessors.

Leaving aside the fact that this is a spurious conclusion, the choice of the word separated is curious, but is glaringly deliberate - Henderson uses it twice in the same article, and all three instances of the term stolen occur either in direct quotes or, in one case, in the name of a lobby group, the Stolen Generations Alliance.

I think Henderson’s intention here is crystal clear; stolen is such a harsh term; it connotes malevolence when, in his view, clearly no such malevolence existed since it cannot be proved with official bureaucratic documentation. But as the rest of us know, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Separated though, is far too light a term. Couples separate when they’ve had enough of each other. Potassium nitrate separates when it cools. Breasts are separated (and lifted) with the help of the appropriate undergarments.

Separate, the verb, when applied to humans, implies reciprocal volition, mutual agreement, as it were. The forced removal of aboriginal children from their parents in an effort to effect linguistic and cultural homogeneity, involved no such volition on behalf of either parent or child; these families didn’t actively separate, they were forced apart by racist policy.

Moreover, separated, in its unmarked form, is an unergative verb, it necessitates no agent, no one who causes the sepatation to occur. They separated is far more natural than he separated them.

Stolen however, necessitates that someone, an agent, willfully acted to cause the theft. The forced removals that led to the existence of the stolen generation had an agent; the Australian Government. Thus in my opinion, stolen is a perfectly accurate word to describe what happened to aboriginal children in Australia’s Colonial past.

Written by jangari

January 15th, 2008 at 4:54 pm

6 Responses to 'Stolen, not Separated'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Stolen, not Separated'.

  1. I was going to try n be funny n say that someone separated my friend’s bag at a nightclub the other night but then the semantics are thrown out of whack.

    ‘Separated generation’? that’s just silly. every generation is separated from the one before it anyway… like I have no idea what these Gen-Y folk do these days.

    If ’stolen’ is too harsh, what about ‘removed generation’… that’s a bit more passive. Why don’t we tell Gerard.

    wamut

    16 Jan 08 at 12:04 pm

  2. I agree that removed would be a lot better than separated, as it implies an agent, but unlike stolen it doesn’t preclude the parents’ consent. You can give permission for something being ‘removed’, but you generally aren’t asked for permission for something being ’stolen’, or to put it another way, you hire ‘removalists’, ‘thieves’ do it for free.

    By the way, did you and your bag get reunited?

    jangari

    17 Jan 08 at 1:58 pm

  3. it was my friend’s bag and yes, the two were reunited a-couple-of-hundred-dollars-PRIV but new-digital-camera-my-Prada-glasses-creditcards-personal-effects-COMIT. Go figure.

    wamut

    17 Jan 08 at 6:11 pm

  4. Well, that was courteous of the separators.

    jangari

    18 Jan 08 at 1:05 am

  5. [...] The opposition, under Dr Brendan Nelson, has given its in-principle support, but wants to see the exact wording before it goes to parliament, adding that “It’s essential that the Australian people have the opportunity to understand what is going to be said by their Parliament on their behalf.” (Update: the opposition are most concerned over the term Stolen Generation apparently. Perhaps they’d prefer to use Gerard Henderson’s newest euphemism, Separated Generation?) [...]

  6. [...] The opposition are most concerned over the term Stolen Generation apparently. Perhaps they’d prefer to use Gerard Henderson’s newest euphemism, Separated Generation? [...]

Leave a Reply

Comments will be sent to the moderation queue.