An Apology Goes a Long Way

Australians have gotten away with blatant discrimination of the Aborigines for the longest time with its Stolen Generations policy. This racist policy was only rescinded officially in the 1967 referendum to change parts of the 1901 constitution. Australia had actually implemented a racist “genocide” policy that existed, some say, even until the 1970s.

Australian PM Kevin Rudd’s historic apology and attempt at reconciliation last week, however politicised, won him immense political approval according to polls at the expense of the opposition Liberal Party’s Brendan Nelson.

In the aftermath of The Online Citizen controversy recently, some of its editors have not been completely truthful at first about the remote dealings with a PAP MP, and their eventual explanations of events are short of a full apology and closure to readers. A political and public relations leap ahead in the game is squandered away as a result of the editors’ hesitation to be magnanimous.

United we stand, but divided we apologise

Angela Cummine
February 19, 2008

Still confused about how to feel about the national apology to the stolen generations? You are not a moral lightweight if you feel a degree of confusion. In fact, you are experiencing what has been shown to be a common attribute of Australian attitudes on questions of indigenous policy.

According to research published last year by two political scientists, Murray Goot and Tim Rowse, internal conflict over indigenous issues is commonplace among Australians. In their book Divided Nation? Indigenous Affairs And The Imagined Public, Goot and Rowse demonstrate that “collective philosophical ambivalence” has been a constant feature of Australian attitudes on questions of indigenous policy, ever since polling was first done on such issues, in 1941.

Closely examining four emblematic episodes in Australian history, including the 1967 referendum in which more than 90 per cent of Australians voted to delete parts of the Constitution that discriminated against indigenous Australians, the authors demonstrate that deep cracks existed beneath the apparent consensus of support for indigenous equality. The 90 per cent vote was not matched by support for social integration between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians.

On other key questions such as native title, land rights and reconciliation, polling data repeatedly indicated not just a divide between sections of the community, but an internal division within individual Australians on indigenous matters. In short, we have a history of adopting complex and often conflicting views on questions of indigenous equality, responsibility and difference.

Given our historical pattern of confusion over such questions, there is little reason to think this trend of internal division was not permeating attitudes to last Wednesday’s apology. A flood of calls to talk-back radio across the country following the apology indicated a continuing degree of ambivalence, even defiance, about whether or not to feel guilt over past mistreatment of indigenous people.

If the apology was truly to represent a new beginning, to serve as the foundation for the successful acceleration of the reconciliation movement, it was incumbent on the leaders of the two main parties to help the public navigate what we can safely assume to be some very conflicted and confused views. Unfortunately, both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition failed in this task. Kevin Rudd’s speech was one of principle. It was primarily a speech to and for the victims of the stolen generations and the wider indigenous community. The message was one of rectification. To end the national silence and distortion of indigenous history, through an unqualified apology and the airing of uncomfortable truths.

For the purpose of righting wrongs to indigenous people and arguably for rectifying what Rudd saw as a damaging decade of ideological battle over the “truth” of these issues, the speech was highly appropriate. For speaking to the broader, possibly conflicted Australian community, this was not the speech.

Given the complexity of policy motives operating and the very crude awareness of Aboriginal history of many Australians, an appeal to the awfulness of certain actual removals and an unqualified apology was never going to be enough to guilt-trip Australians into clarity over this issue.

The Opposition Leader certainly did not shy away from referring to other dimensions underpinning indigenous policy in the 20th century.

“In some cases, government policies evolved from the belief that the Aboriginal race would not survive and should be assimilated. In others, the conviction was that half-caste children in particular should, for their own protection, be removed to government and church-run institutions where conditions reflected the standards of the day. Others were placed with white families whose kindness motivated them to the belief that rescued children deserved a better life.”

Tragically, that is where the list ended. As if nothing but good, yet mistaken, intentions were at work. For this explanation to follow Rudd’s direct quoting of past state and territory bureaucrats detailing their respective government’s policy goal to “eradicate” and “eliminate” indigenous people was nothing short of fraudulent.

Some will retort that the apology should never have been about educating ill-informed citizens or persistent denialists. They will worry that for too long the national agenda catered destructively to these community members. Yet, that is to miss the very point of reconciliation, a process of coming together between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians in a spirit of true understanding. Through each failing to deliver a speech that could resonate with a wider Australia, both missed an opportunity to lay an even firmer foundation for reconciliation.

Instead, each leader committed a folly typical of the Howard era they wished to leave behind: the perpetuation of a one-sided national conversation for the sake of a particular ideological agenda. That is how nations are divided, not reconciled.

Angela Cummine is studying a Masters in Political Theory at Oxford University on an Australian Rhodes Scholarship.


8 responses

  1. Pingback: Daily SG: 22 Feb 2008 « The Singapore Daily

  2. AC

    I really, really don’t understand the fuss generated about the issue.

    First and foremost – TOC is a blog. Its not a political party, its not a religious body. Since when do we set yardsticks of disclosure that we are applying to the TOC on any other blog?

    Second, TOC is self funded. It is not drawing charity money, it is not drawing taxpayer dollars. Why the hell should they be bound to answer with full disclosure on any tom dick harry’s queries?

    Third, the entities and blogs attacking the TOC have almost no history to speak of. There’s no reputation, there’s no background. Why are people not demanding disclosure from these attackers?

    On what basis does these attackers demand TOC to reveal the full personal history of the writers and editors, when they themselves are anonymous and lacking even a online history to start with?

    Are we asking the right questions at the right people to begin with?

    February 22, 2008 at 1:28 pm

  3. AC

    In other words – why should the TOC apologise in the first place? Did they owe full disclosure to any one to begin with?

    February 22, 2008 at 1:30 pm

  4. onlooker

    You just explained it the funded part ? who.
    It a bit like NKF where It appear to be a charity. And you know what happens.
    Because of the non partisan part. When you try to soften blows through creative writing for your liege you lost credibility.
    But I would agree they do not need to apologize because it is their living Meaning they make money doing that so explained why they don’t need adsense or other ad serving scripts.
    likewise when the Wee story broke there are suddenly a lot of support for her that Is puzzling. FYI a lot of foreign people including American , Malaysian and even British people think that she is wrong.
    But that is only conspiracy theory so no proof but the recent coverage on budget without coverage on Burma is quite strange though hint search for the other old man who was killed in northern malaysia or thailand whatever?

    February 22, 2008 at 3:33 pm

  5. Jerome Yao

    Hi there,

    I don’t think TOC owes anybody an apology….for what ?

    However, Remy Choo should make an apology for telling a blatant lie to mislead bloggers.

    There is nothing inherently wrong in being paid to write for a PAP MP and being the Chief Editor of TOC at the same time.

    However, I harbor serious doubts about his honesty when he deny point-blank the allegations only to retract his defense later.

    For this, I strongly feel Choo should apologize and bring to closure the entire saga.

    February 22, 2008 at 9:09 pm

  6. Pingback: Embattled TOC unleashing its ferocious “internet brigade” on critics « The Wayang Party Club of Singapore

  7. Daniel Lim

    I don’t see why TOC should apologise. Come on, even you don’t disclose a damn thing about yourself. Why is TOC different? As for Choo Zheng Xu admitting and then retracting his statement, I think you need to follow more closely the events.

    If you follow closely, CZX said he was not paid to write FOR TOC.

    The allegation is that he IS PAID TO WRITE FOR TOC.

    Notice the difference. This is where the attackers are lying through their own teeth. If you read that pathetic blog (which has nothing but vitriol against the WP and TOC), you will notice that THEY THEMSELVES thought Jasper was saying that CZX WAS PAID BY THE PAP TO WRITE FOR TOC.

    I thought you were one of the more intelligent bloggers. Sigh. But even you can be fooled by a blog which calls itself WAYANG.

    And why is the wayang party blog members not disclosing who they are????

    February 24, 2008 at 9:53 pm

  8. Jerome Yao

    Mr Daniel Lim,

    Can you please behave yourself ? What’s the big deal about TOC ? You think you are very smart to come here to criticize the host ? He is entitled to his own opinion.

    Please go and read the exchange between Jasper and Remy Choo carefully.

    Jasper DID NOT claim that Remy Choo was paid by a PAP MP to WRITE FOR TOC.

    In his own words: “Remy Choo was paid by a PAP MP in the west to write, and pay very well it is said.”

    And Remy Choo denies it vehemently that this was completely untrue.

    Now, we all know who the real LIAR is.

    So stop your cyber-bullying tactics.

    TOC is a SHAM !

    February 26, 2008 at 9:06 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s