Reparations for aboriginies in Australia

I saw Phil Fontain (Assembly of First Nations) Canada on TY the other night.

February 12, 2008

AFN National Chief Congratulates Australia's Indigenous Peoples on Government Apology to its Stolen Generations

Assembly of First Nations (AFN) National Chief Phil Fontaine today expressed overwhelming joy to the Indigenous peoples of Australia and congratulated Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd for issuing an apology for the "Stolen Generations" as the first order of business by the new government.

"This apology is monumental for our Indigenous brothers and sisters in Australia, and throughout the world on righting a great wrong," stated AFN National Chief Phil Fontaine. "First Nations in Canada applaud the Australian government for its demonstrated leadership on issuing this long awaited and profound apology. The forced removal of children from their parents was the most egregious of human rights violations imaginable, causing enormous harms."

Its worth reading the whole speach

I note that Fontain seems rather pleased with the 1.9 billion reparations fund. It would be worth looking at how this is administered and the practical results achieved.

(Thanks for posting. I was wanting to find this thread again to throw in my two bob's worth on repatriation & couldn't locate it again....)

My thinking on repatriation is rather confused, I'm afraid. I wish things were more clear, or straight forward, but ....
On one hand, I believe that all Australians should be treated in the same way under the law. So if the stolen generations had children removed against their will, if numbers of those children were abused & some had wages withheld from them, then they should have the right to appeal to the courts for redress, like any other Australians can & do. Of course.

But, on the other hand, there are pressing concerns which need to be addressed, urgently. Recognizing that available funds are finite, should the emphasis be on addressing the urgent health, education & housing issues that many Australian aborigines live with now? ... whether they are from the stolen generations or not? It is clearly unacceptable that, on average, the life expectancy of aborigines is 17 years less than whites in this country. How to address this basic health issue & other concerns like inadequate education opportunity, the level of dysfunction of many aboriginal communities, inadequate housing ... etc, etc, etc ?

The Rudd government's approach appears to be to try to address the health/education/housing concerns, rather than redressing the abuse of the stolen generations (through compensation). Opting for a better future, rather than compensating for the past, terrible though the past was. But it worries me how these "improvements" will actually be carried out . How much real consultation will there be with the communities involved? How much real cooperation will there be from aboriginal communities? How to tackle the problems of alcohol abuse & dysfunction? How to gain trust & active cooperation from the very people the government is trying to assist? The very last thing we need is a new form of Big Brother telling aboriginal people what they must do, for their own good. That hasn't worked in the past (obviously) & it won't work now. This is a huge challenge (say nothing of a very expensive one, which will take time) for all of us.

Why are some people so guilty about stuff they had nothing to do with that they feel the need to apologize and/or give money to people they do not know? This has got to be a sign of some kind of mass mental illness.

One can acknowledge terrible things that were done to generation after generation of aborigines (leading to our eventual gain now, if we're really honest!) without being mentally unbalanced.

msolga wrote:

One can acknowledge terrible things that were done to generation after generation of aborigines (leading to our eventual gain now, if we're really honest!) without being mentally unbalanced.

That's what history books are for. You say "yes, I agree that this is what happened" You don't issue apologies. How far back is the nonsense supposed to go? Do Americans now deserve an apology from England for instance? If not why not? Reparations as well?

What is your actual objection to apologising to peoples who have been mistreated by the state because they are of a particular race? Apart from thinking it's a rather silly or crazy thing to do? I don't really understand the nature of your objection.

Tell me, would you think it's reasonable that the state say "sorry" to you for what had been done to you? That your history be acknowledged, not denied, at the very least? This is the story of those stolen children, many who actually exist (as adults, obviously) in our society right now.

Frankly, I'd think there was something very wrong with a society which didn't acknowledge what had actually happened!

If the state had anything to do with it happening, or failed to protect me as others violated me, then the state owes me something. Not my kids, not my racial group, they are not the ones wronged.

The very least the state can do is acknowledge it's part in what happened to your life & your childrens' lives.

If the state had anything to do with it happening, or failed to protect me as others violated me, then the state owes me something. Not my kids, not my racial group, they are not the ones wronged.

If the state had nothing to do with my violation then it owes nothing to anyone, it is a matter for history.

After I die there is nobody to apologize to, no way to right the wrong. If the state wants to say nice words to my descendants, and wants to give them money, and they all feel better about themselves then bully for them. But really, that would have nothing to do with me.

The state has an obligation to make sure that history reflects the truth....that is all.

In a democracy the State is the people who are alive at the time. The Australia of 100 years ago was not you, it was your grand parents and great grandparents. I have no problem with you thinking that they did wrong, but why do you feel the need to feel guilty about what they did and apologize for what they did? This indicates to me that you misunderstand who you are as an individual and what you are responsible for, thus the mental illness crack.

There must be a full accounting for history. Once it is recognized that a wrong as been committed every remaining stone must be turned in the investigation into what happened. To the extent that anyone who participated in the wrong or who was wronged is still alive justice must prevail. Once this history is found out and documented it must be yelled out far and wide, so that all are aware of what took place, and hopefully will take care to see that it never happens again.

For Robert Gentel:

I am not a legal expert so I don't know if the law would support my view. However, my view is that justice delayed is justice denied. I don't think that they should be any compulsory payment of claims for compensation of loss that is not executed near the time of loss. The law might support compensation to my family or genetic group for my loss decades or centuries after the fact, but in my view this law would not be supported by the concept of justice.

I realize that some of the people who were at the age of majority while the abuse was taking place were still alive at the time of the apology, however this must have been a very small percentage of the population. Those people would have been born 1949 and earlier. In my view with those people being such a small minority of the composition of the state at the time the apology was made the state had no right to make an apology on the offenders behalf. Had the state dealt with this issue in a timely manor they would have retained this right, but almost all of the offenders (those who allowed the abuse practices)are dead.

re the accounting for history: I was outlining the principle that I think should be followed. I do not know exactly what has been done in this regards in this case.

re my personal stake: the concept of reparations and apologies for long ago acts started a few decades ago, and it has spread like a cancer. It is an affront to the concept of the individual, of individual responsibility, is a miscarriage of justice, it encourages grudges, it purports to right a wrong when it in fact that ability died with the one who was wronged, and when money transfers take place in these cases it tends to harm the best interests of the society because of economic destabilization. Great harm to important principles is being done with the sole purpose of discharging guilt, in many cases those who feel this guilt had no right to take it aboard...it is not rightfully their burden.

Leaving aside the notion of reparation....the current government apologised for the actions of successive previous governments. I would like to see your argument for saying that this is wrong.

Up until late last year, the then Prime Minister, as only one example, was a person who had sat in governments during the time being apologised for. He was far from the only one.

dlowan wrote:

Leaving aside the notion of reparation....the current government apologised for the actions of successive previous governments. I would like to see your argument for saying that this is wrong.

Up until late last year, the then Prime Minister, as only one example, was a person who had sat in governments during the time being apologised for. He was far from the only one.

I would go so far as to say that it would be just for the highest ranking person in government who was around during the abuse to make a statement. It would be fine for him/her to stand in Parliament representing the government/country/people and give a statement of fact of what happened....calling it a crime or abuse or whatever the facts demonstrate to be true. He/she should then give a personal statement of regret/remorse/ apology for what the government that he was a part of did. He can not do this speaking for the government, the people, or the country. The others who are still alive should also make similar statements if the opportunity presents itself in public life. All those who can be found who were personally harmed should be compensated.

I am American so I don't get the parliament system well, but to my mind succession in government is like the next generation in a family. I don't believe that sons are responsible for the sins of the father, so the current government is not responsible for the sins of previous governments. The current government can say the previous governments were wrong, acted badly what ever, but can not apologize for them. There should be a statement made into law that is a finding of fact that previous governments acted badly.

I know it looks like I am splitting hairs, but they are important distinctions. An apology would be very wrong, but the current government and citizens should have be able to do much to repair the damage with out going down that road.

Why would an apology be wrong?

dlowan wrote:

Why would an apology be wrong?

The living have no right to apologize for the behaviour of the dead. Individuals have no right to apologize for other individuals with the exception of their minor children. Current governments have no right to apologize for previous governments.

The current government has violated the sovereignty of the previous governments, as well as the dead. They should be condemned for doing so, their words should be seen as void because they had no right to speak them. The government has gone for the quick emotional fix and in the process has violated the core values of democracy. This apology in my opinion shows the current government to be unfit, the people should see to it that they are replaced, in my opinion.

Why do you say "the living have no right to apologize for the behaviour of the dead"?

dlowan wrote:

Why do you say "the living have no right to apologize for the behaviour of the dead"?

You can only apologize for yourself, nobody else, living or dead.