I have never subscribed to the view that nations or peoples should apologise for things that happened in the distant past.
In Australia’s case, white settlement and the so-called “stolen generation” are not reasons in my view to formally apologise to Aborigines today. What happened in the past happened in a certain context which was acceptable at the time.
It was interesting therefore to read that descendants of cannibals who killed and ate four Fijian missionaries in 1878 have apologised to Fiji for their forefathers’ actions.
Fiji’s high commissioner to Papua New Guinea accepted the apologies at a reconciliation ceremony near Rabaul in front of thousands of people.
Frankly, I don’t think the apology will mean much to the spirits of the deceased menu items or their descendants.
Where do you draw the line with these types of apologies? Should Denmark apologise for the Vikings raping and pillaging their way through Britain?
Twitter: mgorey
says:
Trevor, if someone does something wrong, which is proven to be wrong and which they acknowledge to be wrong, they should apologise.
The people responsible for the policy you refer to are not in power today. Their successors are not responsible.
I believe the policy to remove children from their families was done mostly for welfare reasons (read Andrew Bolt). In many cases this was wrong, but the authorities at the time believed it was right.
A lot of white children were taken from their families in Britain during the same period and sent to Empire countries. I don't think anyone should apologise for that either, although it had some shameful outcomes.
As you probably know, there is debate today about whether children born to Aboriginal parents who can't properly care for them should stay in that environment or be fostered out, as they would if their parents were white.
just happened across your page. was looking for info on Kallakoopah Creek. I thought I might just inform you of some "facts". Distant past? The stolen generation occurred in my lifetime. I am 43. The stolen generation was still occurring when our current Prime Minister first entered parliment. Many people who were dirrectly affected by the stolen generation are still alive today and the indirectly affected children of the stolen generation are great in number.
Injustices are not only in the "distant past". When I was born a non-indigenous bady was automatically given the protections and rights of Australian citizenship where as an Indigenous bady was denied by law the protection and rights of Australian citizenship. This again, was still occurring when our current Prime Minister first entered parliment.
What did these protections and rights mean? The Australian governments laws made it illegal for an Indigenous person to: freely choose who they would marry (an Indigenous person could only legally marry with the consent of a governmnet appointed public servant), freely choose where thay would live (an Indigenous person could only legally travel with the consent of a governmnet appointed public servant). Well I could go on and on, but I am even boring myself. You probably aren't even bothering to read this far. Last thing. all this was happening up to and including 1967, the beatles first toured Australia in 1964! Distant past? I don't think so.
In a democracy you have a right to your opinion and I agree with your right to express it, I would even defend your right to express it. With this right comes a responsiblity, the responsiblity of ensuring your opinion is fair and informed. Your opinion on the "distant past" is neither fair nor informed.
regards Trevor
ps. I look forward to recieving your reply.
I will give you the benifit of the doubt and assume that you are not wilfully missing my point. You fail to address your use of the term "distant past", it is the use of this term that I strongly object to. I attempted to demonstrate that many events and people that were contempary to the legislated discrimination against Indigenous people are not now considered to be in the distant past. The USA landed a probe on the moon in 1966! A year before Australia recognised Indigenous people as fully fledged human beings.
The issues you adress in your response may or may not be valid, it is a matter of opinion. As I stated before I respect your right to express your opinion. I don't think the "distant past" is matter of opinion. The use of this term is misleading and acts to perpetuate a belief commonly held by ill informed members of our community.
I feel your assertion that "The people responsible for the policy you refer to are not in power today. Their successors are not responsible." is at best over simplifying the issue and perhaps disingenous.
Firstly the 'people responsible' were Australia's voting public at the time. These policies were enacted by democratically elected governments. Many of these voters are still alive and voting and a sight more of them were around 11 years ago when the issue of an appology was first raised. Secondly, 'Their successors are not responsible' is accurate in that their successors are not responsible for the decision, but their successors are responsible for democratically representing Australians, all Australians. Just as we entrust our current Government to symbolically speak for Australia's past in areas such as Gallipolli, WWII, the American War in Vietnam and many other events of the past, so it is fair for them to speak on other events.
Regards Trevor
Twitter: mgorey
says:
There is nothing disingenuous about saying the people responsible for something wrong should apologise for it if they believe it’s wrong.
I say people today are not responsible for the policy because they didn’t create it or administer it. That’s my opinion.
Add to that the fact there is debate about the policy itself and it’s a non issue, in my opinion.
We obviously disagree about the extent to which governments today should accept responsibility for past policies. There are legal ramifications to this.
Under your theory, governments could be held responsible for allowing tobacco advertising, for example, and face litigation.
Yes, governments should speak symbolically for the people in the national interest where there is a clear majority view. The national interest is debatable in this case and there is not clear majority agreement (as our discussion reflects).
To answer your question about “distant”, perhaps I could have omitted that work and simply said “past”. I’ll define “distant” though as being before the term of current administrators.