Why is Doris Pilkington so matter affact about how she portrays the story in Rabbit Proof Fence?

I feel that Doris Pilkington, author of Rabbit Proof Fence, tells her story so "matter affect" without taking sides on the matter because she accepts the difference in people. At the time of the story, peoples' attitudes were completely different in the scenes of what is right and what is wrong. The white men in the story who shot and persecuted the Native Aborigines did not think of what they were doing as wrong, but just as a way to teach these other people what they have to do. Many of the Anglo-Australians thought of the Aborigines, not as humans, but as animals and would treat them such. "Shoot one to teach the others a lesson." was a common sentiment about the way to "train" the Aborigines. Now, in this day in age, people would be disgusted at the thought of such a brutality to a people who did not understand this new way of life. As a whole people in our time period take great lengths to understand and communicate with others who do not understand what we are "all about."

Doris also embraces the fact that Aborigines are not perfect in the way that they dealt with the immigration of Anglo-Australians. Bitterness overtook them for the way that the white man trampled over their own way of life and the disrespect shown for their traditions. They may not have understood all that the white people were doing, but they were not above trying to get compensation for the wrongs done their people. In the story, young hunters in particular, held the idea that, "They have plenty and will not miss the one we will take."

I think that Doris presents both sides of the story in an un-bias way that lets you see the true, underling feelings. When one side is held up as being the "right" side and has been wronged by the corresponding side it is hard to understand what is really happening. Doris is focusing on what is really going on, the facts and actions, not the interpretation of those actions.