Blog 9/ Rabbit-Proof Fence

1) In chapter 3 of Rabbit-Proof Fence by Doris Pilkington, many points on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are violated by the European settlers.  When they came to Australia, the land they came to was already owned by the Aboriginals.  They knew that when the settlers came, it meant the "destruction of their traditional society and the dispossesion of their lands.  They had no respect for the laws and culture of the Aboriginals. The europeans denied the natives of many things.  They couldn't hunt because the hunting trails were blocked by fences.  They settlers also disregarded the natives land and went ahead and built huts and tents.  The natives had no right to equality because the "white man" ignored their laws and took everything. The settlers gave them no right to fair public hearing because as soon as someone did something they didn't like, they had them shipped off to a different island or a prison for the rest of their life.  One man even had his wife stolen and in return, received a bag of flour.  There was much discrimination against the aboriginals. The biggest human right that was violated was freedom from slavery.  The europeans soon learned that they could put the aborignals to work.  They found it was much easier then putting englishmen to work because they required much pay.  They paid the natives with little things such as rice which according to George Fletcher Moore, author of Diary of Ten Years, was their "simple diet".
2) Manifest Destiny is defined as the belief that the U.S should be able to expand out west and further its growth among America. This meant getting rid of things and people by any means nessasary. The native americans were already living in the west but settlers came and took the land, food sources, and the rights of the people anyway.  This mirrors the "civilizing" of Australia and the aborignals.  It seems that the european settlers and the english colonists had the same thing in mind when they moved in.  They had no respect for the natives laws and cultures.  They used their own sense of goverment, which included the use of guns and muskets, to get the natives to move.  They stole the food source and land from them without any consent from the natives.
3) I do not at all think that what the government did was morally justified.  How is relocating kids of mixed descent justified.  From reading the passage, I got the idea that life with the kid's regular family wasn't so bad.  The had a food source, a loving family, and an education.  Just because the life wasn't the best life possible, they didn't need to be relocated.  Besides, the only reason the kids were being relocated was for them to get an education on how to be a labor worker.  I don't see how the goverment was able to pass that law without the consent of the aborignals.  This in a way, kind of goes against the "right to participate in goverment and free elections".