Framing the debate of saying sorry to the Stolen Generation
Apologizing is a difficult thing to do. I don't mean that forming the words of the apology itself, and verbalizing such sorry words, I mean that an apology must contain the capacity of recognizing the wrong that has been done, and bear witness to the hurt felt by the other party. While the words are important, it is the witnessing that must be done that is the tricky part. It is difficult to bear witness as part of an apology as it requires the wrongdoer, not just to speak sorry words, but to truly listen to the hurt party.
In Australia great numbers of Indigenous children were taken away from their families in a state sponsored eugenics program that lasted until 1970. This is detailed in the Bringing them Home report commissioned in 1997, over ten years ago now. The eugenics program was enacted in parliament and carried out by police officers and social workers who were rational 'well meaning' Christians. They were not insane, nor was enjoyment necessarily gained from doing this, although arguable there was certainly benefits to the white population in terms of the use of unpaid indigenous labour, and further disenfranchisement of Indigenous people from a connection with the land. But nevertheless these 'rational' and 'enlightened' people committed an evil act.
The effects of the forced removal of children are still being felt today upon Indigenous communities today (see here, here and here). I find it difficult to imagine the pain that separation from one's family and not knowing one's family origins must have caused. But there seems more than enough speculation by others, let alone me to speculating about the pain and suffering caused to the Stolen Generations. I am more concerned about the apology that must be given by the Australian Federal government, and this being derailed by a misguided debate over what apologizing entails.
I write this as I was concerned to see on Ninemsn a news article by Daniel Street about the character of the apology to Indigenous people in Australia. The headline itself is 'Huge list of demands made for Aboriginal apology'. Three words in the headline operate as discursive tricks - 'huge', 'list' and 'demands' - and all of which precede the word 'apology'. Daniel Street, like many journalists do, is trying to frame the debate in a particular way.
The impression that the word 'huge' gives is that there are an inordinate amount of conditions within such an apology, and that the condition of being 'huge' affects somehow makes such an apology unfair on those doing the apologizing. All up there are a mere 54 conditions as per the Bringing them Home report, hardly hundreds or thousands of conditions that the word 'huge' summons up.
The word 'list' is one that the public can associate with the demands of kidnappers and terrorists who have taken hostages and are issuing a 'list of demands', or perhaps 'lists' being viewed as procedural, boring, or unnecessarily bureaucratic. There is no doubt there are 54 key conditions to apologizing, but these are well founded and part of the necessary listening to those hurt and wronged.
The last word preceding 'apology' is 'demand'. We do not like those who 'demand' things of us, us 'whiteys' like to be 'asked', as us whiteys like to think of ourselves as 'good' people who are more than willing to consider a reasonable request. No doubt, the use of 'demand' by Street in the headline is to make it seem that the request of an apology is unreasonable. The use of the word 'demand' is repeated three times within the article total, rather than 'request' or 'asks' which could have been substituted without losing correct grammar and syntax.
Within his article Daniel Street 'exclusively reveals' that one 'demand' by the Stolen Generations Alliance, is that the "history must not only be acknowledged in the apology, it must also be incorporated in primary and secondary school curricula" and those who "work with Indigenous children, families and communities and as pre-service training for all undergraduates and trainees in relevant professions." And also 'demands' (note the use of demand again) funding for the "Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islands Studies." Likewise the Stolen Generation Alliance also suggests that assistance should be given to help people who want to buy their own houses.
While the history of the Stolen Generations might not be taught at a secondary or primary school level within all curricula, it is already taught as part of some first year sociology courses that all social workers, youth workers, planners, psychologists, and dispute resolution students must take. Giving greater funding to HREOC also seems not unreasonable to me. Or what are people worried about HREOC finding out? (Besides Australia's human rights violations of asylum seekers!) Lastly assistance to members of the Stolen Generation to buy a house if they desire also seems not unreasonable, considering the assistance given to first home buyers and the middle class welfare of tax breaks and family tax benefits accessed by white middle class members of Australian society. Lastly it disappoints me to see that the Rudd government has made a miserly offer to pay for the airfares of 70 members of the Stolen Generation so they can hear the apology.
The other point I would make is that at no point do the 54 conditions suggest direct lump sum compensation. But compensation is deserved. If a corporation committed an act that resulted in psychological damage from a failure of its duty of care while a person, an employee or customer, was in their care then there would be compensation claims and people would view these claims as fair. Take for instance cancer sufferer Burnie Bantam's battle to get damages paid to victims of asbestos. Or Jewish people who were in forced labour camps during World War II who receive compensation. Surely for their hurt and suffering the Stolen Generation should be able to access the courts and gain some form of compensation?
I am sorry. And I am sorry that the media is still trying to play Howard style wedge politics.
In Australia great numbers of Indigenous children were taken away from their families in a state sponsored eugenics program that lasted until 1970. This is detailed in the Bringing them Home report commissioned in 1997, over ten years ago now. The eugenics program was enacted in parliament and carried out by police officers and social workers who were rational 'well meaning' Christians. They were not insane, nor was enjoyment necessarily gained from doing this, although arguable there was certainly benefits to the white population in terms of the use of unpaid indigenous labour, and further disenfranchisement of Indigenous people from a connection with the land. But nevertheless these 'rational' and 'enlightened' people committed an evil act.
The effects of the forced removal of children are still being felt today upon Indigenous communities today (see here, here and here). I find it difficult to imagine the pain that separation from one's family and not knowing one's family origins must have caused. But there seems more than enough speculation by others, let alone me to speculating about the pain and suffering caused to the Stolen Generations. I am more concerned about the apology that must be given by the Australian Federal government, and this being derailed by a misguided debate over what apologizing entails.
I write this as I was concerned to see on Ninemsn a news article by Daniel Street about the character of the apology to Indigenous people in Australia. The headline itself is 'Huge list of demands made for Aboriginal apology'. Three words in the headline operate as discursive tricks - 'huge', 'list' and 'demands' - and all of which precede the word 'apology'. Daniel Street, like many journalists do, is trying to frame the debate in a particular way.
The impression that the word 'huge' gives is that there are an inordinate amount of conditions within such an apology, and that the condition of being 'huge' affects somehow makes such an apology unfair on those doing the apologizing. All up there are a mere 54 conditions as per the Bringing them Home report, hardly hundreds or thousands of conditions that the word 'huge' summons up.
The word 'list' is one that the public can associate with the demands of kidnappers and terrorists who have taken hostages and are issuing a 'list of demands', or perhaps 'lists' being viewed as procedural, boring, or unnecessarily bureaucratic. There is no doubt there are 54 key conditions to apologizing, but these are well founded and part of the necessary listening to those hurt and wronged.
The last word preceding 'apology' is 'demand'. We do not like those who 'demand' things of us, us 'whiteys' like to be 'asked', as us whiteys like to think of ourselves as 'good' people who are more than willing to consider a reasonable request. No doubt, the use of 'demand' by Street in the headline is to make it seem that the request of an apology is unreasonable. The use of the word 'demand' is repeated three times within the article total, rather than 'request' or 'asks' which could have been substituted without losing correct grammar and syntax.
Within his article Daniel Street 'exclusively reveals' that one 'demand' by the Stolen Generations Alliance, is that the "history must not only be acknowledged in the apology, it must also be incorporated in primary and secondary school curricula" and those who "work with Indigenous children, families and communities and as pre-service training for all undergraduates and trainees in relevant professions." And also 'demands' (note the use of demand again) funding for the "Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islands Studies." Likewise the Stolen Generation Alliance also suggests that assistance should be given to help people who want to buy their own houses.
While the history of the Stolen Generations might not be taught at a secondary or primary school level within all curricula, it is already taught as part of some first year sociology courses that all social workers, youth workers, planners, psychologists, and dispute resolution students must take. Giving greater funding to HREOC also seems not unreasonable to me. Or what are people worried about HREOC finding out? (Besides Australia's human rights violations of asylum seekers!) Lastly assistance to members of the Stolen Generation to buy a house if they desire also seems not unreasonable, considering the assistance given to first home buyers and the middle class welfare of tax breaks and family tax benefits accessed by white middle class members of Australian society. Lastly it disappoints me to see that the Rudd government has made a miserly offer to pay for the airfares of 70 members of the Stolen Generation so they can hear the apology.
The other point I would make is that at no point do the 54 conditions suggest direct lump sum compensation. But compensation is deserved. If a corporation committed an act that resulted in psychological damage from a failure of its duty of care while a person, an employee or customer, was in their care then there would be compensation claims and people would view these claims as fair. Take for instance cancer sufferer Burnie Bantam's battle to get damages paid to victims of asbestos. Or Jewish people who were in forced labour camps during World War II who receive compensation. Surely for their hurt and suffering the Stolen Generation should be able to access the courts and gain some form of compensation?
I am sorry. And I am sorry that the media is still trying to play Howard style wedge politics.
4 comments:
First time here at your blog (And it's a good read too. Congrats)after I cacked myself over your gym comment at Eleanor Bloom's.
Check out the excellent post at The Orstrayhun on overseas coverage of our apology. These reports accurately describe the history of Aboriginal Australia since the British colonization and really make the way Australian press coverage and endless tedious prdantic debate (caused by our home-grown neo-cons) look like a hick town council meeting.
What do you think of the recent trend in public apologies by arseholes who usually start with "If I've offended...
Hi Ladlitter - first up thanks for the kind words.
I find it kind of funny that non-Australian media actually has more detailed and accurate reportage on saying sorry to the Stolen Generations than what has generally been appearing in the Australian media.
If you start an apology with 'If I've offended...' then it really diminishes the apology, and is also a dog whistle to a what the (arsehole) speaker thinks is a 'silent majority' who is actually in agreement with them against what they view as 'P.C. bullshit'.
Thanks for dropping by Ladlitter.
I'm now off to check out your blog!
Cheers,
Ed
Hi Ed.
Another first time visitor to your blog (from theaustralianindex.com) and I must say a very thoughtful and enjoyable read.
I also found the media coverage in the lead up to the apology incredibly mischievous and you perfectly encapsulate my thoughts about it here. I had massive concerns about how the apology was going to pan out. As a person working in alternative dispute resolution I felt Rudd hit the nail on the head. Nothing worse than an apology that isn't. As an Aboriginal person with many family members and friends who are part of the Stolen Generations he hit the spot with acknowledgment, understanding, compassion and seemingly genuine sorrow and this is what counts. Much more than I ever expected.
Hi there Artful Kisser. Thanks for taking the time to read and leave such a nice comment. It seemed that a number of people were a bit twitchy before the apology. I think it captured in a genuine sense the symbolic significance needed for an apology. My hope is that the Rudd government moves beyond symbolic acts and starts acting on a number of issues. While consultation is good on one hand, consultation can also spell inaction too on the other.
Cheers,
Ed
Post a Comment