Danger of politicizing reconciliation

By Dewi Anggraeni

MELBOURNE (JP): It is sad when an optimistic human issue like reconciliation becomes a political tool, for a government or for any other lobby group.

The recent demonstrations taking place in various Australian cities protesting the current government's stance have shown just that.

The issue of reconciliation between Aboriginal and non- Aboriginal Australia is no doubt weighted with politically historical baggage, but the recent development reveals that the current government has tried to politicize it even further.

Central to the reconciliation is the request of the Aboriginal people that the government apologize for the trauma caused by a policy, practiced between 1910 and 1969, of removing Aboriginal children from their families.

A recent report by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, titled, Bringing them home: The Stolen Children report, documented that the anguish of the separation did not end at the act of forced separation itself, but went on for a whole lifetime.

The people thus affected have since been referred to as the "stolen generation."

Early this month the Aboriginal Affairs Minister, Senator John Herron read out the Howard government submission to the Senate which says that the term "stolen generation" is a misnomer, because only 10 percent of Aboriginal children were taken away from their parents, and even among these, not all were taken away by force. And those taken away by force, was for their own good.

This statement was hit with reactions ranging from complete disbelief to expressions of anger, individually and collectively, followed by public demonstrations, prompting the prime minister to issue an apology.

He did not make the situation any better nonetheless, as he said, "I am sorry if we hurt people's feelings. It certainly was not intended," then added that he stood by the submission, calling it "an honest attempt to put some facts on the record."

Protests did not only come from the Aboriginal community, many callers to talkback radio programs have emphasized that they are non-Aboriginal, yet have felt deeply hurt and embarrassed by Howard's inability to empathize.

If some have called the Opposition Leader, Kim Beazley's expression of anger as political opportunism, how would they call the government's own backbenchers' protests? Attention seeking?

The only "redeeming" feature of the policy, if it could be seen as "redeeming", is that it was intended as well meaning.

But to see it as well-meaning one must first enter a white supremacist frame of mind: the Aboriginal race had to be "assisted" in its "assimilation" into the white race, which was no doubt what the Aboriginals themselves ultimately wanted.

At least, while the real objective appears to be elimination of a race, it was not implemented by mass-murder, though murder did occur, incidentally.

What is chilling is the thought that this shudderingly paternalistic policy lived on until 1969. The increasing realization that the majority of Australian population are unaware of this fact, is a saving grace for non-Aboriginal and a misfortune for the Aboriginal, all at once.

If they are unaware that their government's apparatus were still removing children from Aboriginal families, then the optimistic implication is, if they had been aware at the time, they might just have done something to stop the practice.

However, since they did not know, and many still do not, they do not realize that many of the stolen generation are still alive today, hence still waiting for the official apology from the government.

This may explain why recent polls show that over 60 percent of the population do not believe that Aboriginal people were disadvantaged.

It is curious that the government Senate submission followed so closely after publication of the poll results. If they were trying to take advantage of the popular sentiment on the issue they would be indulging in a cynical exercise.

The prime minister's firm refusal to apologize to the Aboriginal people does not mean that the stolen generation does not exist, it only means that the reconciliation process has hit a cul-de-sac.

Lang Deane, of Dimboola in Western Victoria, relates a very moving story. When he was six years old, in 1937, his late father, then a (white) police constable, had often come home dispirited, sometimes even weeping.

When young Lang finally asked what was troubling his father, he was only told, "Son, don't ever become a policeman. It's a dirty job!"

Only when he was 16 did his father tell him what had been distressing him. Lang Deane recalls, "My father told me he had had to accompany the welfare officers to Aboriginal homes to remove their children, ostensibly to protect those officers from angry Aboriginal parents.

"In reality it had been to scare those parents so they wouldn't stop the welfare officers from taking their children away. And my father stressed that these had been peaceful and loving families, and their children had not been in danger of being abused or mistreated in any way. It had broken his heart to see how upset and helpless those people had been."

Deane also says that since he went public he has received telephone calls from people in different places in Australia, who reinforced his story with their own, similar experiences.

If the Australian government is genuine about reconciliation, then it is necessary to review its current general attitude, which smacks of self-righteousness and even, the old paternalism. More importantly, it needs to take into account that politicization of the issue can bring an unwanted backlash.

After all, even if 60 percent of the population support the government's stance, the other 40 percent is still a powerful force when it comes to a general election.