Sorry Day (by Jim Wallis)
When Kevin Rudd was elected prime minister of Australia, I wrote that he was a committed Catholic who was thinking about how to apply Catholic social teaching to public policy. This week, on the day after his swearing in as prime minister, in the first act of his new government, Rudd delivered a speech of apology to the aboriginal people as "Government business, motion number one." [Watch A historic speech]
He began,
I move, That today we honor the indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing cultures in human history. We reflect on their past mistreatment. We reflect in particular on the mistreatment of those who were stolen generations - this blemished chapter in our nation's history. The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia's history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future.
Then, to "cheers and tears," he continued
We apologize especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities, and their country. For the pain, suffering and hurt of these stolen generations, their descendants, and for their families left behind, we say sorry. To the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry.
For Australia's aboriginal people, news reports called it a day for healing:
Aboriginal leaders who gathered in Canberra to hear today's apology have reacted with joy and relief at the long-overdue event. The co-chairwoman of the Stolen Generation Alliance, Christine King, said, "This has been a journey of all our people, so all voices have to be heard, all pain has to be acknowledged, all grief has to be shared and this is the way forward."
And, not being content only with words, the government and the opposition party agreed to form a joint "war cabinet" to develop policies that make the apology real. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, Rudd "proposed the following tasks: to provide every indigenous four-year-old in a remote community with early childhood education within five years; to halve the gap between white and black Australia in literacy, numeracy, and literacy within a decade; to halve the infant mortality rates within a generation; and close the life expectancy gap."
I expected Kevin Rudd to be a new kind of political leader who seeks to practice moral politics. His initial act of apology for past wrongs begins to fulfill that hope and is a great start to his new government.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
It's about time, actually it's way overdo. But at least they finally did it. Now if they could repay them for everything they stole then that would be justice.
p
Posted by: Payshun | February 15, 2008 2:48 PM
I don't know much about the history of oppression in Australian, but it is good that the head of government has apologized for actions that the government sanctioned, approved, or condoned in the past. Hopefully this can heal old wounds. I'm hoping this apology will be followed up by forgiveness on the part of the aggrieved party.
Posted by: Eric | February 15, 2008 3:01 PM
oops...that should have been "Australia".
Posted by: Eric | February 15, 2008 3:02 PM
Now if they could repay them for everything they stole then that would be justice.
That's unlikely, but at least the government is acting in good faith to make up for what it's done. Repentance in action.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 15, 2008 3:50 PM
Recognizing the wrongs of the past is the appropriate action to take, absolutely. They cannot be glossed over and made to seem like they never happened.
Payshun's post raises an interesting question, however. How much is enough? To some, the programs that Rudd institutes aren't enough. Some will want monetary compensation. And if they're compensated, it will be through tax-payer money, some of which (I assume) is from tax-payers that not only disagree with Rudd, but weren't alive when the initial actions took place.
So, what is justice in this instance? A gov't program using taxpayer money to apologize for past wrongs? When some of the taxpayers most likely aren't apologetic?
Do two wrongs make a right? Or is that redistribution justified? It seems that the gov't using other people's money to say "sorry" isn't the best solution. But is there a better one?
Please don't flame me for this. It's tough because Wallis seems to think that the apology and programs are enough, but Payshun (and many others, I'm sure) thinks it needs to extend further. And then folks like myself don't think it's the government's right to use it's citizens money to apologize.
Posted by: Blake | February 15, 2008 4:06 PM
I don’t know how they could ever put a legitimate figure to monetary reparations for such a lengthy and complete de-humanization of these peoples. Yet, there are many ways to take steps in the right direction. Providing proper housing, utilities, and other necessities for all those that have the need would be a good start. Freeing those that were stopped from fighting through legal or illegal means for decency and fairness, and against oppression by having them locked within prison walls for way too long is another.
And giving them more voice in their government and not just a minimal and cosmetic role is yet another.
The more one looks at the progress that is being made on the other side of the globe it becomes clear that there are those within our own borders that should be encouraged more than others, yet this may only create more frustration for them. For there are many in the U. S. that have never been told “We are sorry!” by our own government, such as Native and African Americans alike. We too have a process of closure that still needs to take place. Doug
Posted by: Doug | February 15, 2008 4:17 PM
I seem to have got something in my eye... God bless the Aussies, ALL of them...
Posted by: Ted Voth Jr | February 15, 2008 4:30 PM
I'm pretty sure that Kevin Rudd is Anglican (Episcopalian), not Catholic, though he was raised in the Catholic tradition.
Blake's questions are interesting. There is a sense in which all current Australian taxpayers share the benefits of colonial dispossession of the Aboriginal peoples; and a democratically elected government does have the right to act on behalf of the citizens as a whole.
As individuals, we may not always agree with precisely how our governments distribute tax revenues (what proportion goes to military, educational, welfare or overseas aid programmes), but it really isn't feasible to say that they ought not spend any taxpayer funds on anything that not all taxpayers endorse.
The remedy for dissatisfaction with government budgets and policies is, ultimately, the ballot box; and the Rudd Labor government was quite decisively favoured in last year's election.
Posted by: cyberfysh | February 15, 2008 4:35 PM
And then folks like myself don't think it's the government's right to use it's citizens money to apologize.
It is ultimately the right thing to do, for the simple reason that people benefited from injustice perpetrated institutionally; that is, politically and culturally.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 15, 2008 6:01 PM
So, when are they going to apologize to the gay community for centuries of oppression and persecution? Those who persecuted the Aborigines thought what they were doing was justified by Scripture--but a new understanding of Scripture led them to an awareness that they were wrong and needed to apologize. Perhaps the same Holy Spirit which led to this more authentic understanding of what Scripture teaches about the treatment of native peoples can lead to a more authentic understanding of homosexuality--and then to an apology to those who were knit together by God with a homosexual orientation.
(Yes--I went there--I brought it up again as per the instructions Jesus gave to the widow concerning the unjust judge. Just taking the advice of Someone I trust.)
Posted by: Ashpenaz | February 15, 2008 6:42 PM
cyberfysh is correct. Our Prime Minister was raised a Catholic, but whilst a very publicly committed Christian (not very common in the Australian Labor Party) avoids denominational commitment. He does worship with his wife in a humble Anglican (=Episcopalian) church at home in Brisbane.
the apology was in response to a report commissioned in 1995 by the Keating Labor Government into children forcibly taken from indigenous parents. The "Bringing Them Home" report was delivered to the conservative Howard Government in 1997. It was co-chaired by a former Australian High Court Judge, Sir Ronald Wilson, also a strongly committed Christian (Uniting Church of Australia)who had been appointed in his legal career by conservative governments, state and federal.
The report recommended, amongst 54 specifics, apologies from all levels of governments and from churches. All the State governments apologised and the churches, but Prime Minister Howard (good friend of President Bush) steadfastly refused to apologise. A National Sorry Day was instituted and commemorated at grass roots and local and sstate government levels since 1998. Ironically Howard's repeated refusal turned last Wednesday's Federal Parliamentary (=Congress) apology into a huge national event. If Howard had apologised it would have been a very small event.
The report also recommended a system of reparations for the "Stolen Generations" - those children forcibly removed solely on the basis of race (as opposed to welfare reasons). I agree with the comments that all Australians have benefitted from such policies and it is right for the government to use the national purse to provide proper compensation. Generally down under conservative Christians probably don't share that view, but I have already told my local Member (=Congressman) who is a leading member of Rudd's cabinet that I will be nagging him about it.
The thinking behind such removals was based more on Science than on Scripture - the then scientific understanding that the Australian Aborigines were an inferior dying race and that "half-caste" children (i.e. mixed race) should be reoved to be saved from the extinction.
Shamefully such removals continued in some parts of Australia into the early 1970s.
Posted by: Wombat389 | February 15, 2008 8:08 PM
"So, when are they going to apologize to the gay community for centuries of oppression and persecution? "
Whenever they feel like trivializing the plight of aboriginals, I suppose.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 15, 2008 9:48 PM
"So, when are they going to apologize to the gay community for centuries of oppression and persecution? "
I suppose some of the aboriginals were homosexual . I thnk we need to stop considering us as victims in Christ , but victorious in Christ . Maybe hard , but its what the Bible teaches
My Irish cousins were treated quite unfairly here. Many to gain citizenship and a means to feed their family enlisted in the Union Army as soon as they got off the boat . The treatement here was better then starving in Ireland .
The Japanese Americans who were interned were apologized to and given a small sum for their treatment in this country . We have a historical museum here because many were taken from a near by Inland . Inspired a great book , Snow Falling on Cedars . iread it a few years ago , quite well written . Germany paid out millions in reparations . Somehow the Japanes government got out of responsibility by the way the treaty was signed from what I understand .
This is not justice for the mistreatment in Australia, no way can slavery be paid back or past injustices to the dead .. To the hundereds of thousands of slaves in this country , to the widows and children of those whites even that died in that war .
Go to most reservations in this country and you see how government handles justice ? The Grand Parents of the tribal members were stripped of their culture , their belief systems , forced to live apart from their natural parents in boarding schools , yet the government pays out out much money now in medial care , living expenses , housing , and special legal protections for fishing and property issues . You would never think they received any help from many views . The biggest concern from Tribal leaders here is the people of today see no spirtual connection to their tribe and marrying out Tribe and leaving the area when better opportunity happens is done quite often .In fact educational achievement often means the person leaves the tribe . Is this justice for the individual who received education and left the tribe , or is it an injustice to the tribe because the tribe has lost all its real strength from past injustices .
The spirtual lost can not be repaid by government .
But a government setting the story straight , admitting to wrong doing is a good thing . Addressing issues to improve opportunity for all , and not limited to anyone because of race or etnicity .
Posted by: Mick | February 16, 2008 1:43 PM
he Australian government (formed in 1901) acted on the direction, advice and example of the British Colonial Office, which endorsed the 'aboriginal wars', the genocide of Tasmania and exonerating murder, rape and land theft over the previous 120 years. So when will the British government (and the British Crown?) apologise to Australian indigenous peoples?
"The thinking behind such removals was based more on Science than on Scripture - the then scientific understanding that the Australian Aborigines were an inferior dying race and that "half-caste" children (i.e. mixed race) should be reoved to be saved from the extinction."
wombat 389.
So true. Scientific racism was entrenched in acadaemic circles for centuries; Hitler had the undying support of academics and institutions to pursue his insanity. so when will the universities apologise for their past actions? So many academics have poured opprobrium on the churches; is their collective house in order?
Posted by: Feargal | February 16, 2008 5:06 PM
Since nobody has brought this up yet, I guess I had better.
Remember when President Clinton went to Africa and apologized to the African people for America's taking of their countrymen as slaves?
Remember the reaction of many conservatives, including, sadly, many conservative Christians?
We're a long way culturally from our government being able to apologize in a formal way for slavery and Native American genocide without it turning into a verbal and political slugfest. Cheers to the Aussies; I hope our country can catch up with you.
Posted by: I and I | February 16, 2008 5:16 PM
A representative of the African Union recently apologized for the African role in the slave trade, which was one of the big sticking points for those who criticized Clinton's apology. Some states have also issued formal apologies for their participation in slavery. I think it does make a real difference and lays the foundation for a greater commitment to heal the many remaining wounds of slavery and racism. I hope the US will follow suit and and talk about turning our public investments away from the military and toward the earth and the people.
Posted by: jonabark | February 16, 2008 10:46 PM
I highly recommend the film RABBIT-PROOF FENCE. It will give you a vivid illustration of the lives of children stolen from their parents. There is one scene I'll never forget of the camp commander checking a child's skin for suggestions of whiteness, which determined what happened to her next.
Whenever reparations are given to a group--whether it's to the Chinese immigrants to Canada who were (the only ones) required to pay a Head Tax of $500 in the early 20th century, or to aboriginal people who were removed from their families and taken to residential schools--the money is in recognition of the harm done, rather than "sufficient". Sometimes, e.g., with the Chinese immigrants, the money came from just from the federal government. For those who suffered the residential schools, money came from the churches that ran the schools and from the federal government. Nothing, of course, can ever repay individuals for the way we destroyed their lives, but perhaps the knowledge that we admit our wrongdoing, and whatever money they get, will help individuals, families and communities, to rebuild their lives.
Posted by: bren | February 17, 2008 12:59 AM
"I highly recommend the film RABBIT-PROOF FENCE. "
Seconded.
"We're a long way culturally from our government being able to apologize in a formal way for slavery and Native American genocide without it turning into a verbal and political slugfest. Cheers to the Aussies; I hope our country can catch up with you."
Ummm... The apology in this case refers to the practice of making children wards of the state through (IIRC) the 1970s. In other words, the Aboriginal people did not even have custody of their own children until that time.
In the years since, the issue of a formal apology has been a political hot potato for some reason. And good on the Australians for joining the millenium But, suffice to say, I won't be repenting at the altar of Australian-style tolerance anytime soon.
Ashpenaz will also be displeased to know that the terms "f****t" and "poof stick" remain in common parlance, referring to the use of a bridge in billiard games. I learned that one the hard way.
All of which is forgivable. There is a learning process involved with adapting to different cultures, and (gasp!) America has actually set an example in many civil rights arenas.
Where's that Trent guy when you need him?
Posted by: kevin s. | February 17, 2008 2:23 AM
Remember the reaction of many conservatives, including, sadly, many conservative Christians?
We're a long way culturally from our government being able to apologize in a formal way for slavery and Native American genocide without it turning into a verbal and political slugfest
Posted by I and I
I you state the truth here , except your stereotype is your own . If you recall Clinton at the time was under the microscope for cheating on his wife , lying to the American public , and women were beinf portrayed as trailer trash who had publically came out and said he sexually abused them with his position of power .
Clinton "didn't quite apologize for the chieftains in Uganda that were selling blacks to the slave traders, did he? He didn't talk about Idi Amin, who killed 500,000 people in Uganda
The problem with many conservatives was not the issue of the sin of the slave trade , but the White House needed to be steam cleaned after his years in power , and his apoloy was basically self serving , His apology for his one affair seemed shallow to many people because of the women that were brow beaten in public because of his believed sexually abuse . The public brow beating of women continued after what appeared to be his politically forced apology .
You can have your own opinion if Clinton was innocent in all of this , but your mistaken that Conservative Christians did not see the slave trade as a disgusting aspect in American History .
An apology was seen as a political move that helped Clinton get a pat on the back from his base when he really needed one
Sometimes its not if liberals are right or wrong , its just how they frame the issue that is wrong . You are taking one prejudice and replacing it with another one my friend .
God Bless Mick
Posted by: Mick | February 17, 2008 1:41 PM
Mick, if I'm understanding correctly, you're saying the U.S. should not have apologized to Africa because of the marital transgressions of its leader.
Clinton was speaking as a head of state in that instance, not as a husband or father. It sounds like you're saying he basically should not have done any diplomacy with any country, or done really anything much as head of state, until the ever-important question of what-he-did-sexually-with-whom was cleared up. I'm sorry, I disagree with that. If there is criticism to be made of Clinton's apology, I'm ready to hear it and discuss it and perhaps even change my thinking, but the idea that he should not have done so because he had an affair is unconvincing.
Posted by: I and I | February 17, 2008 3:24 PM
If, 120 years ago, an old man named Bob Smith, shot and maimed a young man named John Jones...
How can someone unrelated to Bob Smith apologize to anyone unrelated to John Jones for the incident?
In fact, how can anyone who IS related to any of them?
The truth is, you can't.
This recent spate of "feelgoodism" accomplishes nothing real, and solves nothing. It discredits the idea of righting wrongs, and elevates "symbolism" pointlessly.
Posted by: The Watcher | February 17, 2008 10:33 PM
Watcher: "This recent spate of 'feelgoodism' accomplishes nothing real, and solves nothing. It discredits the idea of righting wrongs, and elevates 'symbolism' pointlessly." [why the quotation marks? 'Symbolism' is not a neologism.]
I'm trying to understand this comment. The vast majority of news reports indicate that many many Australian aborigines regard the apology as holding genuine value. Why should I accept your judgment that the apology was pointless, when many of the victims feel otherwise?
But perhaps you're an aborigine and disagree with your fellows?
Posted by: carl copas | February 17, 2008 11:39 PM
There is no harm in feelgoodism. Monuments are about feelgoodism of a certain sort. The point becomes more contentious when we are discussing financial reparations, but that really isn't on the table.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 18, 2008 2:24 PM
I also heavily endorse Rabbitproof Fence, its a very powerful film. One of our scholars here at Harvard Divinity, Michael Jackson has done a great deal of field work among the aboriginial communities of Australia, and we recently had an event around this issue.
Reconciliation, be it between two people, two nations or a nation and an oppressed population is never a simple matter. Where does one draw the line on the appropriate response of the government? I have to argue, however that this is more than "feelgoodism." The present government of Australia, while removed in time still represents the same state which enacted these terrible policies. Acknowledging that wrong is a deeply important part of any healing process, for all sides- and gives people the hope that their rights will not be similarly abused so easily in the future.
The Pope, similarly represents a degree of continuity with his predescessors, just as the President of a company emerging from a scandel can rightfully speak out to promote healing of his predecessors' wrongs. Doing so both promotes healing, but also sets future policy in a more postive direction.
Should reparations happen? There can obviously be no reversal of the suffering inflicted but, like in America the effects and "benefactors" of past oppressions are often more pervasive than we realize. I just witnessed a film (Traces of the Trade) researching the unspoken but historically verifiable system of slave trading which NEW ENGLAND's economy was built upon. If my home was built by slaves, what do I owe them? Who is entitled to that property? What about he Native Americans who had the land before any of us?
Some say the people involved were far removed, yet I don't see those arguing for this saying inheritances should not continue, even though we are removed from the people who earned them. The sufferings and benefits of a system of oppression continue to be passed down, in real economic and subtler emotional and cultural forms. I don't think radical reparations are always appropriate, but there is much that can, and should be done depending on the situation.
In this case, education seems an excellent place to start, given that children were the one's removed from their families. A top concern, imho would also be ensuring that education not only respects but supports the reclamation of Aboriginal cultural heritage, and that accomadations are made to allow Aborigine's economic hope while continuing their way of life as they see fit. That might mean some concessions and economic initiatives, if short of radical reparations.
Posted by: Kieran Conroy | February 18, 2008 3:46 PM
Good post - but can the blogmeister here please pass on to Jim that Rudd is now (and has been for many years) an Anglican?
I suspect the confusion is that Rudd was baptised Catholic, and identifies himself with the 'Christian Socialist Movement' for whom Catholic Social Teaching has some prominence.
But it's not a good look for Jim to be getting this wrong, and that's twice now.
That said, it was a proud day for me and all my friends when Rudd gave an outstanding speech of apology. He consulted widely, actually listened (!) to members of the Stolen Generations, and sounded like a human being with a sense of compassion.
Posted by: Justin | February 18, 2008 9:30 PM
As an Australian who has long campaigned for the Apology I was delighted to see it happen. Rudd is a breath of fresh air and, is an Anglican (Episcopalian to you guys in the USA-I hope the rest of your research is more thorough, Jim! Rudd is an Anglican, not a Catholic.)with a committment to social action he is very much a Sojourners type of person. We all await to see how his leadership plays out. One thing is for sure, he can't be any worse. Howard was appalling.
Posted by: Keith Binns | February 19, 2008 3:36 AM
When I was in Australia, I would often hear the criticism that Australians know far more about America than Americans know about Australia. One student made the point that I probably knew more about indigenous Australians than most Australians do. I thought that was a nice piece of honesty.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 19, 2008 10:48 AM
I agree with Kieran:
"I don't think radical reparations are always appropriate, but there is much that can, and should be done depending on the situation.
... A top concern, imho would also be ensuring that education not only respects but supports the reclamation of Aboriginal cultural heritage, and that accomadations are made to allow Aborigine's economic hope while continuing their way of life as they see fit. That might mean some concessions and economic initiatives, if short of radical reparations. "
Having spent time working with the Uniting Church in Australia, (which at that time was attempting to respond to the needs of the Aboriginal people with sensitivity), and having worked on a Native American reservation and seen how government programs and "reparations" have failed to address the loss of culture, dignity, etc.... I believe it is crucial to honor and support the reclamation of Aboriginal culture and heritage in whatever process takes place. I hope the Aussies will pay very close attention to not, once again, simply imposing Western culture & values upon its indiginous people even in the attempts to offer reparation. Simply assuming that offering western education & housing is appropriate or desired, may inadvertently perpetuate the problem in terms of loss of culture, identity, and way of life.
Having said that, I applaud Mr. Rudd for taking this step. Hopefully his administration will take further steps with great sensitivity and respect for the Aboriginal culture and the wisdom of its people.
Posted by: Deb | February 19, 2008 11:11 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?