How wide does Australia open the lens when telling its story?

      The recent controversy regarding the 'stolen generations' has made many people consider this question seriously. Just how does Australia as a whole recognize Aboriginal history and its place in society today?

     Having only recently arrived in Australia and been only recently exposed to the bulk of Australian History, I was very surprised and disturbed to learn about the 'stolen generations' and the overall relationship between Aborigines, the Australian Government and the general population. The other thing that really amazes me is how current the issues are. I guess I expected there to be some state of peace, not necessarily a fair state, but at least something, especially at this day in age. Apparently people have not even agreed on what has actually happened in the last couple centuries. Robert Manne points out that for certain in the 70 or so years in question tens of thousands of babies and children were removed. He goes on to say that more extraordinarily until the late nineties most non-Aboriginal Australians either did not know or were at best dimly aware of this horrible practice. How is it possible to not be aware of the fact that the destruction of a human race took place on the same ground you walk on? To me this means two things, Aboriginal culture was successfully destroyed to a great extent and that this ignorance results in a definite roadblock in any progress toward a current harmony. If people are not aware of the truth about the past or are only recently learning, it is going to be difficult to resolve. This is where I see Australia now: people are learning about the past, learning about the suffering, learning about what could even be considered genocide. People are hearing this and naturally they are skeptical. If you grew up happy and completely naive to something like the 'stolen generations' and now people are telling you basically your great grandparents were involved in horrible mass destruction of an innocent people, you would not want to believe it. This is what I feel explains the denial of the existence of the stolen generations along with the self-centered view that since it happened before my time or that because I wasn't directly involved I do not need to do anything now. The government falls into this category, too.

      The Howard administration has openly admitted that it denies the existence of any generation of "stolen" Aboriginal children. They have skirted the issues and dirtied the truth by claiming irrelevant details such as Aboriginal children were not actually stolen, they were "removed," as if it makes any difference. I think that a little cartoon I saw in the Age sums it up best. It depicts a stereotypical white politician hollering at some Aborigines. He says "You weren't stolen! You were dumped, removed or borrowed, treated like servants, physically and mentally abused . . . but you weren't stolen." This comic puts into perspective how ridiculous it really is to dwell on the meaning of a word. Also, Howard's comment was directed toward Lowitja O'Donoghue, who in this one case amidst thousands, was not "stolen" in the most technical sense of the word. She made the incredible mistake of claiming to have been part of the stolen generation when in fact she was only "removed" from her mother at the age of two and because of this she gets attacked by the people in power. This doesn't mean that others were not "actually stolen" and it doesn't mean that Lowitja suffered any less. Regardless of how it is worded, generations of people were in fact separated and deprived of their family and their culture, and now it is as if nothing has changed. By refusing to apologize, the government is in effect saying that no wrong has been done and that things will continue as they are and have been.

      Change does need to happen and the past needs to be resolved. I think the idea of a formal apology from the commonwealth is a very valid one. Regardless of whether Aboriginal children were stolen or removed and no matter how many actually were, an apology is deserved. The commonwealth apparently feels that the number of recorded removed children does not support arguments that there was large-scale removal. So say for a minute that there was only a handful of Aboriginal children removed and that others were all willingly "let go" by their parents. They all still suffered the loss of family due to intervention and white influence and they at the very least deserve an apology. "The commonwealth has never denied there were children removed . . . ," Senator Herron told the Age. Well there you go! Is that alone not reason enough for an apology? John Howard insists there will be no apology and goes on to say "If Mr. Beazley wins the next election and wants to have a formal apology to the Australian people, well, that is his right." That statement makes me cringe. How can people be expected to have faith in a government like that? What would the apology mean now if it were to happen after the election? Hopefully Mr. Beazley will apologize to the stolen generations and apologize for John Howard's lunacy.

      I found the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commissions findings (Sir Ronald's: Bringing them home) sickening. Australia's Aboriginal peoples were not treated as human beings. The fact that there is one account after another involving every crime possible is appalling. I can't imagine that kind of suffering. Nothing in my life has come anywhere close. There are people again who ignore the content and question the credibility of this report. They pull out numbers and details and claim things like children were sent to hostels by their parents and that many were unaware that their parents placed them there willingly. (Most likely because the conditions were so bad that the child could not imagine parents wishing this for their child and the parents would have no idea of what was actually going on, but this is beside the point). They produce just enough evidence to make people question the entire validity of the report. Actually the report is probably not entirely true. It is impossible for all details of a verbal history to be completely correct. It does present an idea and images of situations which did occur in Australia. It does not deserve to be discarded just because each story was not researched to check for accuracy. Each individual case is not presented as court evidence; the compilation is presented as a whole to provide insight into the mistreatment, or rather the virtual destruction, of Aboriginal peoples which has and is occurring in Australia.

      Resolution will only be achieved if education improves. Everyone needs to know about Aboriginal history. Schoolchildren need to read the Bringing Them Home report. It's too controversial, you think? Well then teach both sides of the argument. Make children aware of the current state of affairs so that society will be enlightened. History books must not contain pages and pages about boomerangs and didgeridoos and only paragraphs, if that, about stolen children and mass murder. I think one problem is that books and media tend to end on too much of a positive note. People walk away with the idea that Aborigines and the conflict surrounding them were things of the past and that everything is now hunky-dory. For instance, I recently visited Tjapukai, which is an Aboriginal culture center in Northern Queensland. It is obviously designed to attract the large number of tourists the area receives and is hence probably the extent of what a lot of people will ever learn about Aboriginal people. I sat through four performances amongst busloads of predominantly white tourists. The performances included song, dance, legend, didgeridoo playing, medicine making, boomerang throwing, and a brief history video. It was so ironic to see people enjoying and respecting a culture which they have indirectly destroyed without so much as idea as to the extent of which Aboriginal peoples have suffered. The history video mentioned just a few things about white invasion like "snipe hunts" and how land was confiscated. It went on to say that some people were placed on missions and suffered under poor conditions there. It did show a few images, but then it said "but there were good times too . . . " and went on to finish on such a positive note regarding the success of several people in "modern civilization." The audience left the theater under the impression that Aborigines suffered in the past, and yes, that was really sad but at least now everything is okay. I'm guessing very few had even a clue about the stolen generations or the extent of the persecution . . . and that is sad. I hope that this ignorance can change. I hope that people will not only gawk over didgeridoo's but that they'll take the time to educate themselves about the truth of past and participate in the current issue debates.

      There is hope. More and more people every day are learning about Aboriginal peoples and their struggle. Hopefully it's happening fast enough because right now everything is going backwards. For instance, Aboriginal peoples have a much lower life expectancy than non-Aboriginal Australians. Crime is increasing in Aboriginal communities along with poverty and dependency on welfare. They cannot wait forever. The history is out there and it's terribly controversial because individuals make it that way. If more people will work together, peace is possible. Going back to the lens analogy, it's wide open but right now is still out of focus.

[ BACK ]