Civil society tends to become a sort of artificial reservoir for an endangered species: the democratic intellectual, protected by the international institutions
Quote of the day
 Email & RSSSign up to oD's editorial summaries email:
 NavigationThe World
|
 |
The Aboriginal apology,Elsewhere on openDemocracy
When Australian band Midnight Oil took the stage of the Sydney Olympic Stadium in 2000 to perform their reconciliation anthem "Beds Are Burning," with the word SORRY printed in their black outfits, John Howard was present; perhaps the most distressed member of the enthusiastic audience as the whole world was in tune for the closing ceremony of the Sydney 2000 Summer Olympics. Eight years later, when in 13 February 2008 Kevin Rudd delivered the official apology in front of the Parliament to the “stolen generations” of indigenous Australians, the former PM was absent. Yet, the world was paying attention again, as the long-awaited apology terminated 11 years of waiting by Aborigines asking the country’s government to formally apologise for the plights of thousands of indigenous removed forcibly from their families. Nevertheless, John Howard’s powerful legacy can still be felt, as his long-lasting refusal to apologise is unavoidably casting a shadow over today’s developments. As Tim Rowse explains in his openDemocracy article, Australia’s apology: the shadow on the sun, the aspirations of the 13 February moment could be derailed by decisions and policies entrenched during Howard’s tenure that still continue to influence Australian politics. Rudd’s apology might have ended an 11-year waiting, but has also sparked a new debate regarding its symbolic meaning and the changes it can actually deliver. Noel Pearson, an indigenous leader and director at the Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership, examines the apology in cultural, political and historical terms and calls into question its intentions and effectiveness. He raises the issue of compensations, arguing that “Blackfellas will get the words, the whitefellas will keep the money.” Tara McCormack, a lecturer in European Union studies and International Relations at the University of Westminster, views Rudd’s step as “deeply paternalistic.” She reminds in her analysis at spiked the example of Australia’s Northern Territory apology in 2001 to highlight the “meaninglessness” of such moves. For McCormack, “Rudd is using the aboriginal apology to carve out a new moral identity for his administration.” That particular portray of a moral administration is an unequivocal goal of Australia’s new government, which could also be used us a tool to the country’s foreign policy realities; especially after its recent decision to increase its presence, and thus its influence, in oil-rich East Timor amid stability concerns. Daniel Flitton, diplomatic editor of The Age, looks at the challenges that follow this decision and spells out the need for a clearer plan. It's good to see that the writers on this site bother to defend their articles. If you're going to give the option of giving feedback, you can at least acknowledge the feedback given. 1. I agree that there are serious issues to be discussed when it comes to compensation problems, yet the reality today is that what the indigenous population needs in many cases is serious material help - welfare, job creation, decent housing and infrastructure, as McCormack has said. That reality cannot be ignored. 2. I think it is quite apparent that East Timor's stability is of great concern to Australia, for regional security and economical reasons. 3. I'm sorry for the belated reply. Definitely a late reply, but still very welcome. Do you mind my asking where you're writing this article from? The only place I can think of is overseas somewhere - possibly one of the many Aussie expats in Britain. I say this because only the most ignorant person from the inner city area of a major centre would say that the aboriginal people need more material help. I've lived in many regional areas throughout aus - except for Western Aus - and everywhere I've been I've seen government housing built especially for them, government wages for those who don't work, specialised aboriginal-only recruiting programs, aboriginal-only educators within regular classes at school and even Community Police in the more remote areas of each state. The reality out here is that some of these people just don't want to work, and aren't interested in education. Saying 'Sorry' hasn't changed a thing, except leaving the government and the australian population as a whole open to paying more money for an aboriginal-only dole scheme. Yes, there is a tiny minority who do work, who do look after their housing, and who do ensure their children get a good education. I work now with many of these people in the Northern Territory, and have worked with them in the past in South Australia. I commend them too, because it's hard getting away from the booze and grog that traps many of the aboriginal people, and who stereotype their existence in the eyes of many visitors to this country - not mentioning many of the locals too. The help is already there, it just has to be guided better. I'll be honest here and say that I don't know how to do this, as I haven't had any experience at that level of management, but I'm sure a work-for-the-dole situation would do well. This may sound harsh, but many people who have come here fresh from their city homes have found it to be a bleak reality (my girlfriend for one). I haven't written the above through the eyes of a racist or anything else so backward, I've written it through experience. Yes something does need to be done, but it's about adjusting what help is already there as opposed to just throwing more money at the problem thinking that's going to fix it, which seems to be a common theme with todays governments. ... after re-reading your article, I would like to make my dislike for the Australian Labor Party officially known. How can they use an entire people as a political springboard? Surely there are aboriginals out there who can see this. I'll hazard a guess and say that those people who could see this weren't the ones clamouring for an apology, either... Post new comment |
|
Elections Most discussed articles... |
Joe.Bloggs said:
Mon, 2008-02-25 16:19
1. Why should the blacks get the words and the whites keep the money? I'm white, third generation Australian, I can't see why I should be paying compensation for something my family had nothing to do with. What about the more recent various muslim families? Should they flee the atrocities in their own countries just to pay for something they had nothing to do with?
2. Increasing our presence in East Timor has nothing to do with oil or gas. If you were to look at our border with Timor, that issue has been taken care of, and there's nothing our military or diplomatic presence in Timor will do about that. And why should we care? Haven't we got enough Gold, Diamonds and Uranium? What about the Coal and Iron Ore? The Gas shelves off Western Australia? Do we really need to pursue the oil in East Timor? It's funny, I was under the impression that our presence was increased in Timor Leste because someone tried to assassinate their President and Prime Minister...