Double~take | Just a word?

T

his year, the Australian Prime Minister officially said “Sorry” to that generation of Australian Aborigines of mixed heritage who were taken into the care of the state because of government policy at the time. People have been clamouring for this apology for years, and truly, if it at last gives them some closure - some peace through official recognition - I am very glad for them.

I am just laughing at the aftermath. In a ruefully ironic, “I could see that coming” kind of way. It’s really sad, because after all the focus on wanting the government to say sorry, now they have done so, and what has it accomplished? Not more than what people had already been working into their lives and communities before then, anyway. After all, it is just a word. Two things struck me:

On the radio, I heard a report of “anti-discrimination” when a Caucasian woman was mistreated based on the colour of her skin. Funny, sounds a lot like discrimination…

I read various comments, telling of white children (of the same generation as the “stolen” Aboriginal generation) being forcibly removed from their single mothers, and taken into state care. When the women protested, they were shunned by society as “fallen women”.

One said:
It seems to be politically incorrect to mention this was the policy of the time with all unwed mothers. The system was brutal for all unmarried mothers, no matter what the colour of their skin or social status.

Even with this being the case, aboriginal women could be taken advantage of by white men without repercussions, and then had nowhere to turn to, and no social standing. Which meant there was a whole people group that was predisposed to having its’ children taken away under that policy.

Anyway, I wonder what will become of this “sorry”. Will it have meant anything, like so many people hoped it would, or was it just hot air? Either way, we have a long way to go.

Double~take appears every Saturday on theRubicon. Find past Double~take posts and a bio of Stephanie Hung here.

6 Comments to Double~take | Just a word?

1. Stephanie,

   We are endlessly working through the same issues here in Canada with our aboriginal population.

   The Anglican Church of Canada used to run residential schools years ago which seem to have been the setting for a fair bit of abuse. The resulting court cases now against the Anglicans have threatened to bankrupt the entire denomination (like The Salvation Army, the Anglicans are a centralized legal entity, one church in reality, so if you sue one part of that particular body, you nail the whole shooting match).

   Anyway, there have been lots of apologies in past few years…I received an invitation just yesterday to a four-city tour that church leaders and aboriginal leaders are making across our country as part of a “Truth & Reconciliation Commission” to, basically, say “sorry”.

   It is a thorny issue. How far does saying “sorry” go? How many times does it have to be said to actually sink in? What actions need to accompany the words in order to actually mean anything (”…prove your repentance by your deeds”, John the Baptist used to say)? How far can one go in changing the past? For how many generations are people required to pay for the sins of their forefathers - particularly when they are culpable only (guilty by association) because of their skin colour and ethnic heritage? How fine a line is it between reconciliation and revenge? Are we truly called as Christians to forgive and forget?
Geoff Ryan on March 8th, 2008

2. “For how many generations are people required to pay for the sins of their forefathers - particularly when they are culpable only (guilty by association) because of their skin colour and ethnic heritage?”

   I take issue with this suggestion. Aboriginal peoples (or chinese canadians (head-tax), or japanese americans (ww2 internment)…) are not seeking apologies from “white people” — they are seeking apologies from governments and church councils, the leadership of institutions that perpetrated the historic abuse. there is a difference.
grace on March 8th, 2008

3. Point taken, Grace. However I have found myself in some situations and sitting at certain tables where it dawned on me that I was being viewed as one of the guilty party, for no other reason than my skin colour. I’ve never been sure how to act in those instances. I guess that is discrimination in a nutshell - one’s motives and actions being judged solely on the basis of one’s appearance.
Geoff Ryan on March 9th, 2008

4. yup, that is discrimination — not being able to see past the stereotypes to the individual. and i can definitely see how being discriminated against as a white male can bring with it unique frustrations. i’m sure you run up against a strong sentiment of “you don’t have a right to protest, it’s time you got a taste of it” etc (or even a denial that it happens). and certainly you must encounter a disheartening lack of sympathy. (or am i stereotyping here? uh…)

   Canadian content:
   http://www.rememberingthechildren.ca/

   (FYI, in Canada we are fond of having publicly-funded “public inquiries” to inquire into all types of scandals and tragedies deemed to be of national importance. this is our first “truth commission” — the idea is that it will serve a reconciliatory purpose, like the south african ‘truth and reconciliation commission’ post-apartheid.)
grace on March 11th, 2008

5. Thanks for your understanding, Grace (though I do want to point out that sarcasm is the lowest form of humour :))
Geoff Ryan on March 11th, 2008

6. Lowest form? Perhaps, but very funny nonetheless. The other piece, especially with aboriginal populations in Canada is the crimes weren’t committed by our forefathers so we probably have some time left on our clock as far as apologies go. Our sons may be off the hook.

   Geoff, you’re aware of it firsthand from Canyon City, and certainly moving on is helpful to the people, but who gets to make that call?

   cheers.
Rick on March 14th, 2008

Leave a comment