Today the nation says we're Sorry

Today we honour the Indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

The Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd made an official apology to the Indigenous people of Australia for the forced removal of children from their families, who were removed for no other reason than their genetics - they were half-castes. The policy was one of genocide, forced assimilation, and the destruction of an ancient culture.

We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians.

Kevin Rudd made the apology today on behalf of himself, the Australian Government and the Australian Parliament, unequivocally. His apology was warmly received by the stolen generation and their families and all those effected by the policies of the previous Government.

However, the opposition leader Dr. Brendan Nelson who gave his full and unrelenting support for this new chapter in history made comments which were poorly received, with people booing and turing their backs, perhaps more to do with the timing of the comments rather than the comments themselves.

Whether Australian by birth or immigration, each one of us has a duty to understand and respect what has been done in our name. In most cases, we do with great pride, but in others it is with shame.

Personally, I liked what Brendan Nelson had to say (the comment above is almost exactly the same as what I've said in previous posts) but it was also complementary in its contrast with what the Prime Minister had to say. Kevin Rudd's speech was directed toward the Aboriginal people, an apology - long overdue with no hesitation.

While Brendan Nelsons speech was directed at those Australians who haven’t quite jumped on board the reconciliation bandwagon. I thought it was appropriate for the audience. He was raw, real and gritty. He gave details not just of the injustices of white men to Indigenous people, but also of crimes unpunished by Indigenous against their own.

He described how mothers were thrown out of a police vehicle while their daughters screaming in the back were taken interstate to institutions never to see their families again. Dr Nelson also described how the policy of removing children from abuse was and still is a sound policy. I have to agree, and while as an Anarchist I don't support the Government intervention, I am in mixed minds about the remedy for children suffering physical and sexual abuse. These sorts of abuses are continuing in Aboriginal communities and need rectifying. It's not an easy or comfortable issue; it's gritty and it's real.

Perhaps these abuses continue in Aboriginal communities because of a lack of on our part of wanting to get involved - incase we repeat past mistakes. Perhaps. Perhaps the abuses originated by the Indigenous communities because of the Government interventions, because of a lack of identity and connectedness to who they are, their community and each other.

Ultimately, what Dr Nelson said was true, inappropriate for the situation, as tact and courtesy can certainly go a long way. Comments which would have been better received a few days from now, while celebrations of positive feelings of reconciliation flow from the broader Australian community.

When giving an apology (and in any relationship with friends, family or coworkers), we all know you give it without caveats, else it's not really an apology. But, today was more than an apology, it was about a way forward. In doing so, we need mutual responsibility, and that's what i'm taking from Brenden Nelsons' speech.

All in all I am happy for the Aboriginal and Torres Stait Islander community that finally, they have an aknowledgement of what has happened to them in the past. Ultimately, instead of a compensation fund for individual victims of the stolen generation, I would like to see the Australian Government make resistutions by giving back land to the Aboriginal people. Generally, the Aboriginal community does not understand money - it's not in their culture (except for those who have assimilated). No, the Aboriginal people want and understand land, and it's their land that should be restitution.

Separatism for Lakota Indians and Australian Aborigines

The Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with the United States. Long-time Indian rights activist Russell Means said....

"We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to join us.The new country would issue its own passports and driving licences, and living there would be tax-free -- provided residents renounce their US citizenship."

A delegation of Lakota leaders delivered a message to the State Department on Monday, announcing they were unilaterally withdrawing from treaties they signed with the federal government of the United States, some of them more than 150 years old.

The move is completely legal after the United Nations adopted a non-binding declaration for the rights of indigenous people, and the fact that the treaties have been repeatedly violated. The main reasons for this move are horrifying statistics; Lakota teen suicides are 150 percent above the norm for the United States; infant mortality is five times higher than the US average; and unemployment is rife.

"Our people want to live, not just survive or crawl and be mascots."

It seems to me that the Lakota Indians need separatism for their own "racial" survival. If the rates of infant mortality are so high, moving closer to U.S cities with proper health facilities would improve these statistics. Hence, I believe this move is to preserve their racial and cultural identity.

This reminds me of the Australian Aborigines, who through forced assimilation, as a population have also been decimated racially and culturally.

I really admire Glen Atkinson 's gusto, that he has the courage of his convictions to stand up and fight for his people, regardless of the ramifications to himself for his actions. (very Emma Goldman!). He believes that the Australian court system and police have no power over him or his people.

"I don't believe they [white man] have the jurisdiction to adjudicate Aboriginal people under law. "

I totally support the indigenous people of this country to maintain the land in the way that they see fit, without intervention from the Australian Government or its immigrant population. If you believe immigrant to be a pejorative term, it is, and I refer to the original (and current) immigrants to this land. Ideally, what Glen is expressing here is the right for his people to form autonomous Aboriginal communities. Communities built along racial and cultural separatism, no different from the Lakota Indians in the United States, who based on statistics shown, is necessary for their survival. Many of the Australian Aboriginal dialects are already extinct, and the people who call themselves Aboriginal are far from what their traditional ancestors looked like. I think it's terribly sad, that white man has caused such devastation to an indigenous people. Unfortunately, these are the effects of large scale immigration to any population, where the only solution is separatism (not forced, but voluntary); an anarchist community based along racial and cultural homogeneity.

I do not say these things lightly, as I believe they are highly controversial, however, for the preservation of the indigenous people of both Australia and the United States, this course of action is a necessity. To waste time over moralising arguments is to deny the right of a these people their chance at survival in a world seeking to form a uniform hegemony. For the preservation of biodiversity, the Australian Aborigines and the Lakota Indians must be allowed to form their own autonomous communities, free from state intervention in whatever manner they deem appropriate.

References:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVC1KMTOgwiSoMQyT2LwZc9HyAgA http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22951412-661,00.html

White Guilt Week

Or some such malarkey. I thought it might be time to tread the fine line between free speech and pissing people off on some racial issue. Hence the title, White Guilt Week.

Indigenous reconciliation hasn't quite become a mainstream issue yet, despite John Howard's superficial attempts at some vague symbolic gesture.

The indigenous issue aside, I feel it's important to note some observations, which I'll relate back to the Aboriginal story. Today I was speaking with a colleague who happens to be from Singapore, half Indian, half Chinese, with Australian citizenship (boy is that a mouthful!). Based on his racial heritage I think it's safe to say he has the ability to discuss race without the knee jerk response of being considered a racist.

We talked about martial arts, and he was discussing his sensei who had studied in Japan, to which i asked "is he Japanese?" to which he replied "no, Aussie".

"No, Aussie"? In colloquial terms, he was referring to the White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant.

I have also noticed that people are too often afraid to mention racial heritage when describing what a person looks like. This makes it incredibly difficult when trying to figure out who they're referring to. For heavens sake, if the person is Chinese, just say "the Chinese looking lady", or if you're not sure they are from China, Thailand, Malaysia, Japan, or if they are Australian Born Chinese (ABC) simply say "the asian lady". It's certainly not "racist" to make a judgement on what you think someones racial heritage is. I was honestly suprised when my colleague was uncomfortable to use the term "white" to describe someone of Anglo-Saxon heritige. Thus, it seems to me that describing a person's race is not something that just effects "white fellas" but rather an issue that effects everyone in this country.

I am the politically correct apostate.

I fail to see how the euphemism "Aussie" relates to an Anglo-Saxon, and I have the ability to say this as a 7th generation Australian, as my ancestors arrived on the first fleet to this country. I have a direct connection to the colonization disaster for the Indigenous people. For this i feel shame as well as pride. Shame for what it has done for their people, and pride for mine. The pride part is important, important because it allows the issue of reconciliation to become a national mainstream issue.

When you approach a typical "Aussie" on the street about reconciliation, the majority of the time they will not want to talk about the issue or accept the blame for past wrongs. I have two theories as to why.

1.) Blame Game - who wants to deal with shame? Who wants to take that on? I've got enough shame over my addiction, my consumerism, my blah blah blah. Shame is negative, it brings people down, and it's not the way to make friends (something about honey flies and vinegar).

2.) The immigration issue. Immigrants claim to be as Australian as myself, a 7th generation Ango-Saxon colonial. However, because a migrant has no direct connection (as I do) to the British history or a connection to Indigenous history, they don't take on their responsibility for Aboriginal Reconciliation. (I'm stereotyping here).

There are two things that need to change for real Aboriginal Reconciliation. Firstly, migrants who accept they are Australian, should accept their personal role in the Aboriginal story. By accepting the old euphemism "Aussie" to refer to the Anglo-Saxon, they are in an indirect way dismissing Aboriginal suffering as a white issue alone. You cannot become an Australian citizen without taking on the Aboriginal story. If as a new Australian citizen you refuse to accept your role in Aboriginal suffering and that it is an anglo only issue, as time marches on, with further immigration, the Indigenous people of this country will never see justice, acceptance and convalesce.

Secondly, many Anglos are proud of Australia (their role in WWII as one example), and focusing on all the negatives, only further alienates them from the history of Aboriginal suffering. There needs to be access to both the pride and shame in the history of this country, and for all of us, 7th generation Anglo and first generation migrant to accept not only our historical role, but also our individual roles. This will only take place when we remove the "Aussie" euphemism in our vernacular as the old Ango-Saxon stereotype.