| |
G4EBT > STOLEN 01.02.08 20:57l 155 Lines 6324 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 497783G4EBT
Read: GUEST
Subj: "Stolen Generations" FAQs 1/2
Path: DB0FHN<DB0FOR<DB0SIF<DB0CWS<DB0ZDF<DB0LJ<DB0RES<DK0WUE<CE8FGC<CX2SA<
ZS1RO<ZS0MEE<GB7CIP<GB7COV<GB7YFS<GB7FCR
Sent: 080201/1502Z @:GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU #:60220 [Blackpool] FBB-7.03a $:497783G4
From: G4EBT@GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU
To : STOLEN@WW
The first item of business when Kevin Rudd - Australia's recently elected
Prime Minister, opens parliament on 13 Feb 2008 will be to make a formal
apology to what has become known as the "stolen generations".
The topic is bound to feature widely in the press and it's worth outlining
what it's all about for anyone who may wish to know. Others needn't
bother.
The most common myth is "it was all done for their own good".
It wasn't.
Following the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families and the release of the
report "Bringing Them Home" in 1997, several questions have been
frequently asked and statements made about the Inquiry's findings and
recommendations.
Most have focussed on issues such as why Australians should acknowledge
and apologise for past removals of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children from their families?:
*why those children were removed?
*why it was genocide?;
*why do the "Stolen Generations" deserve compensation?, and;
*why do Indigenous people still talk about their
children being separated today?
Here are some Frequently Asked Questions, answered by the
Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission (HREOC):
Quote:
1. Why is so much of the report focused on the past? What we need
to do is look at the present and the future, not dwell on the past.
The National Inquiry's first term of reference as outlined by the
Attorney-General in May 1995, required the Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commission to:
"Trace the past laws, practices and policies which resulted in the
separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from
their families by compulsion, duress or undue influence, and the
effects of those laws, practices and policies".
Comprehensively tracing the past laws, practices and policies affecting
the lives of Indigenous peoples is crucial to Australia's understanding of
its history.
Society cannot simply block out a chapter of its history.
It cannot deny the facts of its past, however differently these may
be interpreted. Inevitably, the void would be filled with lies or
with conflicting, confusing versions of the past.
2. Is the report saying that Australians should
feel guilty about what happened in the past?
No.
The word 'guilt' is only used once in the report in a quote from Sir
William Deane, the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia:
Quote:
"It should, I think, be apparent to all well-meaning people that true
reconciliation between the Australian nation and its indigenous peoples
is not achievable in the absence of acknowledgment by the nation of the
wrongfulness of the past dispossession, oppression and degradation of the
Aboriginal peoples.
That is not to say that individual Australians who had no part in
what was done in the past should feel or acknowledge personal guilt.
^^^^^
"It is simply to assert our identity as a nation and the basic fact that
national shame, as well as national pride, can and should exist in
relation to past acts and omissions, at least when done in the name of the
community or with the authority of government".
No Indigenous Australian who gave evidence to the National Inquiry said
that they wanted non-Indigenous Australians to feel guilty.
Overwhelmingly, those who gave evidence simply wanted people to know the
truth. They wanted to be able to tell their stories and have the truth of
their experiences acknowledged.
3. What will saying sorry achieve?
An apology acknowledges that wrong has been done, and attempts to make
amends to those who have suffered. Saying sorry does not undo the past.
However, we expect our governments and the governments of other countries,
to take responsibility and make amends for harm suffered in the past. Many
Australians expect Japan to apologise today for acts committed against
Australians in the past.
Many institutions have acknowledged and apologised for their role in
removing Indigenous children. For example, the Anglican Church Social
Responsibilities Commission stated in its submission to the Inquiry:
[The Commission] simply states that no amount of explanation can detract
from the now observable consequences of those misguided policies and
practices. A great wrong has been done to the indigenous peoples of
Australia. It is for participation in that wrong that this apology
is offered.
[Bringing them Home, p. 290].
4. Weren't Indigenous children removed for their own good? Being taken
away from their Indigenous families gave them a good education and
opportunities they would not have had otherwise.
This assertion is based on the very stereotypes used to justify forcibly
removing children. It assumes that non-Indigenous people and institutions
know more about looking after Indigenous children than their own families
do.
Many people have said that Indigenous children were removed from appalling
living conditions. However, nothing was being done by government agencies
to improve these conditions for Indigenous families.
Children were allegedly removed from their families out of concern for
their well-being. But the fact that only some children in Indigenous
families were taken negates this assertion.
It was generally the children with lighter skin who were removed because
children with lighter skin were considered more appealing by prospective
non-Indigenous foster and adoptive parents. Children with lighter skins
were considered easier to assimilate into white Australia.
Far from being protected, Indigenous children were regularly victims of
abuse. Almost a quarter of witnesses to the Inquiry who were fostered or
adopted reported being physically abused.
One in five reported being sexually abused. One in six children sent to
institutions reported physical abuse and one in ten reported sexual abuse.
Although Indigenous children were supposedly receiving a good education
and opportunities for the future, most received just enough of an
education to prepare them for menial labour.
More in part 2.
Best wishes
David, G4EBT @ GB7FCR
Cottingham, East Yorkshire.
Message timed: 13:29 on 2008-Feb-01
Message sent using WinPack-Telnet V6.70
(Registered).
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
