Reconciliation In Australia
Reconciliation is about creating unity between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. According to Scott: Reconciliation is the process of recognizing and healing the wounds of the past, addressing the disadvantages that aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples continue to suffer today, and working together to establish a better future for all Australians (2001, p. 840).
One “wound of the past” (Scott, 2001, p. 840) was the forced removal of indigenous children from their families to be put into institutions or brought up in white foster families (also known as the stolen generations). Indigenous children were discouraged from family contact, taught to reject Aborigines and Aboriginality and adopt white culture, at risk of sexual …show more content…
After the Bringing Them Home (Wilson 1997) report was published, there was major backlash (attempts to discredit the report, to challenge its interpretations and recommendations, and to deny that there was a stolen generation (Carter 2006). The report recommended that all Australian parliaments, as well as churches and other agencies involved, officially acknowledge responsibility for indigenous injustices, make official apologies to indigenous individuals, families, and communities, and compensate people affected by forcible removal (Carter 2006). Although a majority of churches and state governments did officially apologies, Prime Minister John Howard refused to apologize on the behalf of the federal government on the basis that an apology would open the government to massive compensation demands (Carter 2006). Also, Prime Minister John Howard stated, “I don’t believe in apologizing for something for which I was not personally responsible” (Kelly 2001, p. 254). The Prime Ministers response was hypocritical in the fact that he was eager to claim collective pride in Australia’s sporting or Anzac traditions (an achievement in which he was not personally involved), while not taking collective responsibility in negative events (Carter 2006). Also, an apology from the Prime Minister would be his official, not personal, responsibility (Carter 2006). Furthermore, an apology from the Prime Minister would represent an acknowledgement of the past wrongs of previous governments and establish a better future for successive governments in terms of unifying indigenous and non-indigenous Australians (Carter
One “wound of the past” (Scott, 2001, p. 840) was the forced removal of indigenous children from their families to be put into institutions or brought up in white foster families (also known as the stolen generations). Indigenous children were discouraged from family contact, taught to reject Aborigines and Aboriginality and adopt white culture, at risk of sexual …show more content…
After the Bringing Them Home (Wilson 1997) report was published, there was major backlash (attempts to discredit the report, to challenge its interpretations and recommendations, and to deny that there was a stolen generation (Carter 2006). The report recommended that all Australian parliaments, as well as churches and other agencies involved, officially acknowledge responsibility for indigenous injustices, make official apologies to indigenous individuals, families, and communities, and compensate people affected by forcible removal (Carter 2006). Although a majority of churches and state governments did officially apologies, Prime Minister John Howard refused to apologize on the behalf of the federal government on the basis that an apology would open the government to massive compensation demands (Carter 2006). Also, Prime Minister John Howard stated, “I don’t believe in apologizing for something for which I was not personally responsible” (Kelly 2001, p. 254). The Prime Ministers response was hypocritical in the fact that he was eager to claim collective pride in Australia’s sporting or Anzac traditions (an achievement in which he was not personally involved), while not taking collective responsibility in negative events (Carter 2006). Also, an apology from the Prime Minister would be his official, not personal, responsibility (Carter 2006). Furthermore, an apology from the Prime Minister would represent an acknowledgement of the past wrongs of previous governments and establish a better future for successive governments in terms of unifying indigenous and non-indigenous Australians (Carter