Apology

[lederhosen]

Not much to say about the apology that hasn't already been said; words are only a part of what needs to be done, but at least it's a start. I'm pleased that four of Australia's five living ex-prime-ministers saw fit to participate - and if the fifth would rather stay away, so be it. Let him fall into the dustbin of history all the sooner.

Speaking of yesterday's men, I am a little baffled by this article by Tony Abbott:

Apologising for past wrongs won't, of itself, address the substance abuse and family violence that mean some remote indigenous townships resemble Somalia without guns. It should mean, though, the people most determined to make a difference are no longer regarded as insensitive or even racist at heart.

Am I reading this wrong, or does Abbott's essay boil down to "we're apologising because it makes us look good, not because we actually believe there's anything to be sorry for"?

Comments

[cerebresque.livejournal.com]

FWIW, I read said essay in the vein of "well, it's all very nice, but what does it actually DO?"

[trixtah.livejournal.com]

It's a common line, that one. I think the notion of acknowledging wrongs in order to build up some trust and demonstrate good intentions, so that both sides are in a position to move forward seems to be lost on certain parties.

[cerebresque.livejournal.com]

I'm familiar with the notion; on the other hand, I've seen more than enough government (and private) 'gesture theatre' to be deeply cynical about anything not actually backed by substance.

And as such, I can hardly criticize like cynicism in others.

[saluqi.livejournal.com]

Abbott, as a Minister of the previous Government, is responsible for supporting a great deal of gesture theatre.

He's also responsible for inserting his roman catholic religious beliefs into his role as health minister, so he is well versed in not backing policy with substance.

For him to take the role of skeptic now is incredibly disingenuous.

[cerebresque.livejournal.com]

Probably.

But that's just the way the game's played. All politicians indulge in and/or support gesture theature when they think that's to their advantage, and decry that of the other side when they think that's to their advantage.

Politicians who don't tend to lose, because the public, bless their dear little hearts, do love getting their gesture theatre.

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

What apologies usually do? Nobody's suggesting that an apology alone will fix the sorry state of indigenous affairs, but policy is unlikely to work if the people it's meant to help don't trust the government's intentions.

When it's previously been government policy to separate children from parents on the strength of skin colour, in the hope of making the Aboriginal race disappear, it's pretty difficult to get that trust until such time as that policy is repudiated, which is what happened today. (Not that it's easy afterwards, but easier.)

[cerebresque.livejournal.com]

When it's previously been government policy to separate children from parents on the strength of skin colour, in the hope of making the Aboriginal race disappear, as you say, I'd imagine the people on the wrong end of that policy will want some very substantive actions before even beginning to trust the government again.

Words are cheap, and as I understand the history - and I admit, my understanding of it is limited - there have been lots and lots and lots and lots of pretty words before now which didn't turn out to be worth much in practice.

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

Actually, on the government front, even the words have been pretty limited hitherto. Occasionally a grudging 'mistakes were made in some cases', but never a general repudiation of the policy.

As for actions... well, a few months before the last election, the Howard government did belatedly notice that a lot of Aboriginal communities are very messed-up places, and decided to handle it by sending the army in. Considering that a lot of people in those communities still remembered government agents coming to take Aboriginal children away, and that at that time no apology had been made for that policy, you can see why it didn't do anything to improve trust.*

As per my comments below, there will be action of one sort or another, at this stage it's politically infeasible to do nothing. Whether it's successful is an entirely different question.

*I speak in generalisations here. There are some Aboriginals who supported Howard's record - the most notable being Noel Pearson - but AFAICT, they were in a decided minority.

[silverblue.livejournal.com]

In this case, words haven't been cheap. They've been battled for at great price. This has been an issue for decades, and the source of multiple campaigns (and some political downfalls and shifts). I know that it lacks context for those not in the country, but it's almost impossible to describe the profound nature of hearing this said by the elected leader in their place of power, before a collection of elders. It's something I would have said was in no way remotely possible for generations just last year. The impact of this has left me stunned.

[stephen-dedman.livejournal.com]

Words may be cheap, but the Howard government refused to even go to that expense. An apology may only be the first step, and is no guarantee that any further steps will be taken, but it's a first step the last government refused to make at all.

[trixtah.livejournal.com]

Ah, that was the article that made me see red yesterday.

The risk of reinforcing the victim mindset ... was one of the principal reasons why the former Howard government refused to make a formal apology.

What fucking crapola.

I also think what he was saying is "we can apologise now because we couldn't figure out a way of weaseling out of obligations if we admitted some responsibility in this respect (or keep our votes with the right-wing wankers who've kept us in power so long); now the current govt will wear the results (and we can't lose any more votes), some of us are currently prepared to pay lip service to make ourselves look slightly less disgusting about having so comprehensively lost any sense of morality."

Howard's a disgusting little shit, but at least he's not being a fucking hypocrite (although I think he could have attended out of respect and kept his mouth shut).

[hacked2death.livejournal.com]

What made me see red was Nelson's BS speech after the PM. The look on his face when he spoke of the "war cabinet" said it all. You can tell he was doing this not because he believed in it, but because he had to. The Liberals are bad enough as they are now, the reports from what I heard on 2 and 7 say that most people weren't that impressed anyways.

As for Howard, who cares. Now he's gone nobody misses him. Nelson's just showing the country Howard was the one holding that party together as long as he could. That's why he didn't leave.

Poor Gough. He's looking old now :P

[silverblue.livejournal.com]

As for Howard, who cares. Now he's gone nobody misses him.

I bet you dollars to donkeys their media officer does :D I'm sure I could hear a wail from the admin offices at that point:

"Oh SHIT, how do I spin THIS?!"

[stephen-dedman.livejournal.com]

I suspect that if Howard had shown up, a camera would have been fixed on him the whole time, and we'd have seen more of his face than we did of Nelson's. I suspect the Libs would have found his presence even more embarrassing than his notable absence.

OTOH, I don't remember seeing close-ups of Peter Costello tapping away on his laptop throughout the speech, or the other Lib who read a magazine and whispered jokes to his neighbour - though I did notice a few on that side not standing when everyone else did.

[insaint.livejournal.com]

The part you quoted certainly seems to read that way to me.

[publius1.livejournal.com]

...whereas, were it me that the apologizing would be done to, I'd have to say apologies are empty unless accompanied by reparations. They're even emptier if done by people who had nothing to do with the original wrong; that's one hell of an easy apology to make, you know? One where you weren't the cause and you don't feel any responsibility for repairing the damages that your predecessors caused.

People look at me funny when I say this, but... meh.

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

apologies are empty unless accompanied by reparations.

Indeed. But Rudd's made it very clear (in the speech I linked to, and before Abbott wrote that essay) that he doesn't intend to leave it at an apology alone. Certainly we can be sceptical about a politician's statements of intent - Abbott comes from the government that introduced Australia to the expression "non-core promises" - but rather than challenging Rudd's sincerity on that front, Abbott seems to be pretending that nothing beyond an apology had even been mooted.

And frankly, indigenous health and society is in a bad enough state, and has become enough of a media issue lately, that something will be done about it; Rudd can't afford not to. Whether it's a successful something is another question.

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

Also:

They're even emptier if done by people who had nothing to do with the original wrong

As Rudd also notes in his speech, the practice persisted until the early '70s; there are MPs still serving who were elected around then, though I couldn't tell you whether the dates actually overlap.

But the point is not to accept personal responsibility for someone else's wrongs; the point is to acknowledge that they were wrongs, and that they should not have happened. That might seem like something obvious enough that it shouldn't need saying - but in Australia, it really isn't. There are still prominent figures defending the policy, and quite a few more who are noticeably tight-lipped whenever the subject comes up.

[silverblue.livejournal.com]

But the point is not to accept personal responsibility for someone else's wrongs; the point is to acknowledge that they were wrongs, and that they should not have happened.

This is absolutely true. There are prominent public figures who are our equivalent of Holocaust deniers. There are not only people who say 'This happened and it was GOOD for them blackfellas' there are people who say 'This never happened'.

It's been like trying to swim against a stream of lies, or so it feels. It makes me think of someone who is drowning in a rip tide - no, we're still out at sea right now, but finally our head is above the surface and there's hope.