Trisha Kirk Kirk is a fourth-year
political science student who can form an opinion about anything,
but always gives the other side a fighting chance. E-mail your
comments and opinions to
Click
Here for more articles by Trisha Kirk
She pierced Australia’s dark past like a white-hot bolt of
lightning. A mere 5-foot-4, Australian runner Cathy Freeman lit the
cauldron to open the Olympic Games in Sydney. In a skintight white
jumpsuit, the torch flaming in her outstretched fist, Freeman
became the symbol for Aboriginal freedom in Australia that night, a
living reminder of the continent’s violent racial history and
the secrets unknown to most Sydney visitors.
Freeman’s gold medal in the 400-meter event a few days
later secured her place as a hero. Her Aboriginal descent was
reflected in her winning uniform: she wore Team Australia’s
gold and green, but her shoes were red, yellow and black, the
colors of the Aboriginal flag.
Spectators at the Games saw a talented young runner win a
deserved gold medal. But Australians saw an involuntary activist to
reconcile the atrocities committed against the indigenous peoples
of Australia ““ the Aborigines on the continent and the Torres
Strait Islanders, living just north of the mainland. These people
are waiting for an apology that may never come.
Before 1788, when the British first settled Australia, these
native peoples “owned” and lived off of the vast
continent for close to 50,000 years. When the new settlers expelled
them from their tribal lands, they suffered enormously. Many were
forced to work for rations rather than wages. Children were taken
from their homes and given to white families to be assimilated into
white culture. A cruel policy of discrimination began that may
never be completely abolished.
Although two Australian states have issued official apologies
for such crimes, conservative Prime Minister John Howard has spoken
of “regret,” but has refused to issue an official
parliamentary apology on the grounds that doing so would be an
admission of personal guilt.
 Illustration by ZACH LOPEZ/Daily Bruin “I am not
willing to apologize for things my government and my generation of
Australians didn’t do,” he stated (Los Angeles Times,
Sept. 25, 2000).
But apologizing for a nation’s crimes in the past does not
admit personal guilt and does not condemn current generations of
Australians. It is saying that the Australian government and the
people of Australia are sorry for what has been done to you. They
recognize the abuse you have endured and they collectively
apologize for the sins of their forefathers.
Should Howard issue an official apology for the sins Australians
committed against Aborigines? Yes.
Even if the current government is not directly responsible for
the atrocities, there is evidence that such crimes continued until
recent years. The policy of removing Aboriginal children from their
families continued into the 1970s. A 1994 survey conducted by the
Australian Bureau of Statistics revealed that one in every 10
Aboriginal people 25 years or older had been removed from their
families in childhood. Aborigines were not counted in the national
census or allowed to vote until the ’60s, and it was not
until 1992 that Aborigines were officially recognized as the first
“owners” of Australia.
Although health, education, employment and boosting Aboriginal
status should be (and is) a concern of the government, it is not
enough. These people deserve an apology for their sufferings, as
well as the same benefits to which all Australians are entitled
under their government. Without placing blame on the current
populace, an apology would confirm reconciliation and put
Aborigines and their government on a path toward healing, peace and
cooperation.
The incomprehensible contradiction here is that while Howard and
his government are more than willing to spearhead development and
assistance programs for Aborigines and appear to be offering their
full support, Howard still will not get behind a podium and simply
say, “I’m sorry.” This argument over the words
and phrases that signify true apology has mushroomed into an ugly
battle between Howard and Aboriginal activists.
The debate over official apologies is not a new one. It has been
questioned whether the United States should formally apologize for
crimes against American Indians, African Americans, Japanese
Americans and other ethnic groups that have been wronged in our
country’s past, even if measures have since been taken to
help these groups enjoy the benefits available to all
Americans.
The Australian situation also finds an echo in incredibly
similar circumstances in Canada. In January 1998, the Canadian
government apologized to its indigenous population for the
disrespect and violence they have suffered in the past. The
Canadians also apologized for the country’s old policy of
kidnapping native children in an effort to have them conform to
white culture ““ much like Australia’s so-called
“Stolen Children.”
Apology pending, however, there is no question that Australia
has done much to assist the Aboriginal population. Today there are
360,000 Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders in the Land Down
Under, making up about 2 percent of the total population. This
year, the government will spend about $1.5 million on programs
aimed toward improving the lives of these people in areas such as
housing, health care, literacy, employment and job training. And
about 15 percent of the continent (although mostly remote
territory) was recently restored to the Aborigines (L.A. Times,
Sept. 25, 2000).
Enlisting Freeman and a host of other Aboriginal descendants to
appear at the formal Olympic ceremonies was a grand gesture on the
part of the Sydney Organizing Committee for the Games. The entire
opening ceremony focused on Aboriginal music and tradition, sending
a positive plea for harmony between Australia’s different
races and peoples.
Although quelling the almost certain demonstrations by protest
groups at the Games was no doubt one of the committee’s
objectives, bringing Aboriginal heroes and performances into the
festivities was a nod toward their important contributions to
Australian culture and identity.
Like Canada, Australia has made a broad effort to right its
wrongs and help its indigenous peoples lower unemployment, find
better health care and secure their voting rights. The distinction
between the two countries is the apology that Canada has made and
the psychological effects it can have on a country’s
population.
On the road to healing old wounds and starting anew, with
natives and non-natives working together for each other, the simple
gesture of reconciliation is a large part of the process.
Howard’s stubbornness in this respect is foolish and works
against the admirable goals of his government.
At the closing ceremonies of the Sydney Games, the Australian
band Midnight Oil performed for a screaming crowd. “How can
we sleep while our beds are burning?” they shouted. But there
was a subliminal message tied into their performance and the
familiar song.
Wearing baggy black shirts and pants imprinted with the word
“sorry” in white letters, the band marched their
message onto the stage without even mentioning it. And that was
enough. That was their apology for the past wrongs of Australians
and it was visible and potent.
If rock stars can apologize to the Aborigines, why can’t
John Howard?