Sorry
Last week the Commonwealth of Australia made a formal apology for the actions of past governments in relation to the Stolen Generations of Indigenous Australians. It was the only political story of any significance that I have bothered paying any attention to lately.
I was busy last Wednesday morning, otherwise I might have gone into Federation Square to see the instant televising to an attentive crowd of the opening of Parliament and the apology speeches. As it was, I got home from some job-seeking errands that morning and switched on the Internet. I accessed an audio-visual recording on a news site, but rather than watch, I simply wandered around the house listening, like in the days of hearing important news over the radio. The speech was well-written and nicely delivered by the Prime Minister Mr Rudd. I even appreciated much of the speech of the Opposition Leader Mr Nelson, despite its equivocations. Overall I was cheered all day because this is something that I have been wanting for maybe a decade.
There has been some discussion then and since on the nature of the apology and its reception. I was involved in a few such discussions and want to comment. To start with – the nature of the word sorry and whether it was an apology. For every person who chose to say sorry that day (like on Facebook profiles) it may well simply signify that “I share in your sorrow”. If I tell a person that I have lost a loved-one in a car crash they are likely to say “I'm so sorry”. Why? They never killed my relative but they do feel for me and wish it were otherwise. So that may well be a satisfactory definition for me to say. But for the Government it is more than that.
The composition of the Federal Government may change but the Commonwealth of Australia is a legal and political entity with a continuous existence since 1901. With that in mind, the apology given by the PM was an apology in the sense of that entity acknowledging its past mistakes. The forced removal of children and separation of siblings from one another (whatever the circumstances or motivations at the time) is now recognized as a wrong thing to do and it was something done with the approval of the Federal Government. Someone objected to this on the grounds that such responsibility is non-transitive and dismissed the continuous existence of the Federal Government as one entity as a legal fiction. But the Federal Government and the nation-state of Australia are legal fictions so I figure they can do fictional things.
A lot of supporters of the apology have expressed concern at the existence of many Australians (a significant minority) objecting to the apology. I however am relaxed by the whole thing. Ever since the tabling of the Bringing Them Home Report there has been a growing number of us who were saddened by the reticence of the then Government to make the recommended apology. Others however were supportive of such reticence. Now however our roles are reversed – we are happy and they are sad. That is the nature of politics in a democracy. Nobody gets everything the way they want it. How many like me did things such as display bumper stickers saying that we never endorsed Australian involvement in recent wars? If we can be conscientious objectors then how can we deny that to others? I would only say to the objectors that the apology – like the forced removal in times past – is now an historic fact that cannot be changed – better then to move onto other issues of more concern and relevance to you.
So why is an apology so important? Some think that the most well-crafted of speeches will do nothing for living conditions in (say) remote Aboriginal settlements. They may be right. But in focusing on just practical reconciliation I think they are missing something. Feelings are an ever-present part of life. An insult of whatever vintage can linger and fester in the memory of a person or group of persons. Think of incidents in your own life and relationships. Society is a network of human relationships. Some experiences once internalized can have a big impact on behaviour and self-perceptions. And they also impact on those who made the insult too. An apology can start to change feelings - what is more practical than that?
I was busy last Wednesday morning, otherwise I might have gone into Federation Square to see the instant televising to an attentive crowd of the opening of Parliament and the apology speeches. As it was, I got home from some job-seeking errands that morning and switched on the Internet. I accessed an audio-visual recording on a news site, but rather than watch, I simply wandered around the house listening, like in the days of hearing important news over the radio. The speech was well-written and nicely delivered by the Prime Minister Mr Rudd. I even appreciated much of the speech of the Opposition Leader Mr Nelson, despite its equivocations. Overall I was cheered all day because this is something that I have been wanting for maybe a decade.
There has been some discussion then and since on the nature of the apology and its reception. I was involved in a few such discussions and want to comment. To start with – the nature of the word sorry and whether it was an apology. For every person who chose to say sorry that day (like on Facebook profiles) it may well simply signify that “I share in your sorrow”. If I tell a person that I have lost a loved-one in a car crash they are likely to say “I'm so sorry”. Why? They never killed my relative but they do feel for me and wish it were otherwise. So that may well be a satisfactory definition for me to say. But for the Government it is more than that.
The composition of the Federal Government may change but the Commonwealth of Australia is a legal and political entity with a continuous existence since 1901. With that in mind, the apology given by the PM was an apology in the sense of that entity acknowledging its past mistakes. The forced removal of children and separation of siblings from one another (whatever the circumstances or motivations at the time) is now recognized as a wrong thing to do and it was something done with the approval of the Federal Government. Someone objected to this on the grounds that such responsibility is non-transitive and dismissed the continuous existence of the Federal Government as one entity as a legal fiction. But the Federal Government and the nation-state of Australia are legal fictions so I figure they can do fictional things.
A lot of supporters of the apology have expressed concern at the existence of many Australians (a significant minority) objecting to the apology. I however am relaxed by the whole thing. Ever since the tabling of the Bringing Them Home Report there has been a growing number of us who were saddened by the reticence of the then Government to make the recommended apology. Others however were supportive of such reticence. Now however our roles are reversed – we are happy and they are sad. That is the nature of politics in a democracy. Nobody gets everything the way they want it. How many like me did things such as display bumper stickers saying that we never endorsed Australian involvement in recent wars? If we can be conscientious objectors then how can we deny that to others? I would only say to the objectors that the apology – like the forced removal in times past – is now an historic fact that cannot be changed – better then to move onto other issues of more concern and relevance to you.
So why is an apology so important? Some think that the most well-crafted of speeches will do nothing for living conditions in (say) remote Aboriginal settlements. They may be right. But in focusing on just practical reconciliation I think they are missing something. Feelings are an ever-present part of life. An insult of whatever vintage can linger and fester in the memory of a person or group of persons. Think of incidents in your own life and relationships. Society is a network of human relationships. Some experiences once internalized can have a big impact on behaviour and self-perceptions. And they also impact on those who made the insult too. An apology can start to change feelings - what is more practical than that?
Labels: Political
posted by Dan at
21.2.08
2 Comments:
I have made this comment to others, and I'll make it again. While watching the official apology, for the first time in years I felt proud to be Australian. I think that's the thing I resent most about Howard's government - that it could make me feel so ashamed of this country and the mean-minded direction I believed it was heading in.
I agree with you, Daniel, that the symbolic act of actually saying sorry is not empty - it's a bit like someone breaking something of yours, and fixing it but not apologising. They may have fixed the damage, but they have refused to recognise that you have any right to feel upset. How often do you hear someone say that all they really wanted was an apology for harm done - a recognition of their feelings? You need both validation of the victim's feelings and action to repair the harm for a genuine apology. Action is meaningless without recognition, and recognition is meaningless without the act to back it up.
By
Anonymous, At
23 February, 2008
Yep that is about the size of it.
By
Dan, At
01 March, 2008
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home