Australia and the Holocaust: A Koori Perspective (original) (raw)
Related papers
Australian reactions to German persecution of the Jews and refugee immigration, 1933-1947
1972
one Je'.vish grandparent were defined as 'non-Aryan' 8 The great 1najority of non-Aryan civil servants, university and school teachers, doctors, lawyers, journalists and 1nusicians were dismissed from employment. 'fhe livelihood of about 25,000 Jews, together with 23,000 dependents, was affected.9 At this stage, the Government took no legislative action against the country's 200,000 Jews who were engaged in commerce and industry because it feared that Germany's unstable economy would be completely disrupted. Any major interference with Jewish business was prohibited until the end of 1934. On 25 April, the law against the 'overcrowding of German schools and universities' limited the percentage of non-Aryans in educational institutions to their percentage of the total population. The Nazis made little effort to hide their antisemitic violence and legislation. International attention was focussed on the new Nazi regime and foreign press correspondents in Germany kept the world wellinformed of the latest developments. In Australia, both the press ana public condemned the Nazi antisemitic campaign. Press commentators referred to other instances of persecution in the history of mankind and drew parallels-•-•-between the present situation and Nero's treatment of the Christians, the activities of the Arabs at Alexandria and the antis~mitic terrorism of the Middle Ages. 10 For more 8. This definition became known as the 'Aryan paragraph' which is quoted in full in The Yellow Spot, London, 1936, p. 130.
Discourses of genocide in Germany and Australia: a linked history
Aboriginal history, 2001
For decades before the Nazis began the legal persecution of Jews, anti-Semites had been active in Germany. They created a climate in which genocide-or so it seems with hindsight-became possible. In 1996 an American scholar, Daniel J Goldhagen, went further. He argued that in Germany 'eliminationist anti-Semitism' had created a culture that produced 'Hitler's willing executioners'. The 'common sense' of German society during the Nazi period was grounded in years of discussion about getting rid of the Jews. 1
2011
With small brush-strokes this publication paints details into the portrayal of Germans in South Australia. In a clear attempt to wipe away any stereotype of a homogeneous group of immigrants, Germans portrays a wide cast of characters, some receiving a much deserved biographic treatment, others playing their part in a broader story. This publication celebrates not just Germans who came to stay, but those who contributed, either to their own field or to the advancement of South Australian society, no matter how long their stay on our shores. In the introduction Peter Monteath tells of Friedrich Gerstäcker, a German traveller who was trouble by the disunity he found amongst his countrymen in Adelaide. In this way Monteath emphasises the 'sheer variety' of Germans in South Australia (ix). Diversity is the theme of this compilation and Monteath sets the scene by introducing not just Lutherans but Catholics and Jews and those with ill-defined ties to church; not just labourers but urban craftsmen and tradesmen arriving as 'economic refugees' (xiii); not just rural farmers but the well-educated who 'brought with them an intellectual energy and cosmopolitanism which bestowed huge benefits on what was still a tiny and precarious colony' (xv). The first four chapters focus on the interactions of Germans with South Australia's indigenous population. Peter Mühlhäusler's chapter highlights the communication between Germany's 'armchair academics' (2) and an adventurous young fieldworker, Hermann Koeler. A twenty-four year old doctor, Koeler was amongst the first Germans to visit the colony. In 'A vision frustrated', Christine Lookwood presents a sobering depiction of the fight of Dresden missionaries to recognise land rights and encourage the use of indigenous languages in relations with South Australia's indigenous population. Using their letters and diaries, Lockwood presents South Australia's colonisation through the eyes of missionaries Teichelmann, Schuermann, Meyer and Klose. Bill Edwards traces the origins of the Moravian Church and its presence in South Australia. Edwards provides a brief biography of each of the German Moravian Brothers who were chosen for mission work in South Australia, and examines their influence on the Point McLeay and the Point Pearce missions and their missionary career in Australia and abroad. In 'Nothing pleasing to impart?, Mary-Anne Gales provides a closer examination of the work of one of the Dresden Missionaries, Eduard Meyer, by detailing his work with the indigenous population of Encounter Bay. While he left eight years later, disillusioned 'over his failure to win over a single convert' (63), Meyer left behind a rich legacy in the form of extensive word and grammar lists in the Ramindjeri language. German missionaries, by insisting on preaching in the mother tongue of their intended converts, at a time when assimilation policies wrought so much damage, provided invaluable tools to facilitate modern-day 'language renewal programs' in indigenous languages (78). Another German who left a lasting legacy amid a backdrop of perceived failure is the ethnographer Erhard Eylmann. Wilfried Schröder's captivating biographical sketch leaves no doubt that Eylmann's
DOCUMENTS THAT SHAPED AUSTRALIAN GENOCIDE
Whenever the subject of Australian genocide arises, so does the question of State intentionality: did Britain, its administrative functionaries (bureaucrats, police, military) and its settlers intend to exterminate the Aboriginal population as the necessary price for confiscating the land? Many argue: there is no set of official policies or instructions that ordered and encouraged the categorial behaviour and indictable actions of genocide; and therefore that Aboriginal extermination may have been an ‘unintended consequence’ of forcible land dispossession, if they acknowledge retrospective culpability at all. We will show that there were key Government documents and policies that placed genocidal intention (mens rea) in clear view, along with official orders to act (actus rea). We will further show that arguments against Australian genocide are misconceived at best or reflexive at worst. It raises troubling questions: If Australian history has been manipulated, then why and by whom? And can we change? Can we acknowledge the past? Or are we forever to perpetuate more palatable myths of heroic settler triumphalism in benignly ‘taming’ the land?
Documents that shaped Australian genocide i DOCUMENTS THAT SHAPED AUSTRALIAN GENOCIDE
Deconstructing Australian Genocide: Britain's legislative and procedural agency in the destruction of Aboriginal society Whenever the subject of Australian genocide arises, so does the question of State intentionality: did Britain, its administrative functionaries (bureaucrats, police, military) and its settlers intend to exterminate the Aboriginal population as the necessary price for confiscating the land? Many argue: there is no set of official policies or instructions that ordered and encouraged the categorial behaviour and indictable actions of genocide; and therefore that Aboriginal extermination may have been an ‘unintended consequence’ of forcible land dispossession, if they acknowledge retrospective culpability at all. We will show that there were key Government documents and policies that placed genocidal intention (mens rea) in clear view, along with official orders to act (actus rea). We will further show that arguments against Australian genocide are misconceived at best or reflexive at worst. It raises troubling questions: If Australian history has been manipulated, then why and by whom? And can we change? Can we acknowledge the past? Or are we forever to perpetuate more palatable myths of heroic settler triumphalism in benignly ‘taming’ the land?
After the Holocaust: Consciousness of Genocide in Australia
Australian Journal of Politics & History, 2008
New conceptions', wrote Raphael Lemkin in 1944, 'require new terms'. The term he coined was 'genocide', and inevitably the context of the time was to give it very specific associations. Because I want to consider our understanding of this term in a different context, and in relation to those associations, I shall quote his original definition of it at length. Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group.
'To Prevent the Extinction of the Aboriginal Race': The Unresolved Case of Genocide in Australia
Despite the brutal history of colonisation in the continent now known as Australia - including the massacre, rape, forced displacement and child removal of Indigenous peoples - the term 'genocide' is still hotly disputed, and outright denied. This paper critically analyses the term 'genocide' in an Australian context, including the flawed development of the UN Genocide Convention, and discusses domestic attempts to bring the issue of Indigenous genocide to the courts of law. Ultimately, this paper concludes that an independent, international legal body is required to adjudicate on this important, contemporary issue in Australia.
Debates and Conflicts: Australian Jewry, the Claims Conference and Restitution, 1945–1965
Dapim: Studies On The Holocaust, 2014
Between 1933 and 1960 the population of Australian Jewry more than doubled in size, increasing from 23,000 to 61,000. Given that official government policy prohibited the expenditure of funds for Jewish refugees and survivors, this demographic growth created severe financial challenges for the local community. This article will argue that the involvement of Australian Jewry in German restitution and with the Claims Conference was a significant aspect of postwar Australian Jewish history, one that has not been investigated. The community's involvement was a burning issue with different emerging conflicts. First, there was the question of whether the Australian Jewish community should be involved with what some claimed was 'blood money.' Then, there was a battle over representation between prewar refugees, represented by the Sydney-based Association of New Citizens and the newly created and officially recognized roof body of Australian Jewry, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ). Finally, while the two main Jewish communities in Sydney and Melbourne largely cooperated in the efforts of the ECAJ, there were some significant tensions. In contrast, the Australian Jewish community was united in regard to individual restitution, but faced difficulties with both the Australian and German governments. How these various debates and issues played out and were resolved was significant for the development of the postwar Australian Jewish community because Claims Conference funds assisted in the resettlement of 25,000 Holocaust survivors in Australia with the resultant growth of the community.