#racism My theory

My theory is that Australians have always struggled with multiculturalism.
This is hilarious if it were not so serious!.

Let me however trace (inadequately)  my 40+ year experience of living in Australia
We came to live in Australia in 1967. It was MUCH more ethnically diverse than rural NW England.
There had been lots of Italians, Spaniards and Yugoslavs (as they were wrongly termed  then....see flags attached of kingdom break up)
In my High School class there were Anglo-Australians, Maltese, French & Spaniards.
In later years I went out with an Italian, my sister with a Croatian, and we ended up marrying into an Italian family; a Polish, Welsh Family; an early Yorkshire and Australian family; we have not yet married into an indigenous family, nor an African family, or an Asian family.
My daughters mock me (surprise surprise) " "Dad wants us to to marry an indigenous or Asian person". I would be more than happy
I suspect that this is the experience of most 'Australian' families.
My dearest (Welsh) friend was married to a Latvian Gentleman.  I use the term 'gentle' deliberately. He was highly intelligent. He was gentle and respectful.
Anton, I salute you!   As his extraordinary wife died, her faith; his partnership  was outstanding.


I have gone on.

My point is.......all our lives were transformed...when we encountered people who were outside our comfort zone. But
I would suggest
truly enriched

Young and free...maybe a little indebted

Most people seem to be getting that to sing (as you do) our national anthem and rejoice that we are 'young and free' is yet another example of simply ignoring any idea that we have an indigenous culture. A culture which, depending on your reckoning, is 40 probably 60 and maybe even 100 thousand years old.
I am not entirely happy with the description that it is the longest continuing culture in the world, (though the case can be made and I am open to being convinced). That, I think, begs the question about whether Australian aboriginal culture has the consistency for such a period that would mean there is anything more than the tenuous link that we live on an island and so it must be 'continuing' in that sense.
But that there has been art, music, story, familial structure, aetiological mythology,is abundantly clear.
Mabo and Wik articulated from a legal point of view that as far as this country is concerned it was not an uninhabited wasteland just wasting for the young and free to some and rape it.

On this Australia Day remember we are both young and free, and also old and deep

So whose country is it any way?

I find myself bemused after last week's debacle of aborigines being moved out of the west parklands....(it's all gone quiet, I don't think the Council got away with this pre-race, pre-Festival 'tidying up'  as easily as it imagined it might) by the thought that being in the middle of the Great Disruption that  when the Great Noise begins (Brmmm! Brmmm!) at the end of the week.....any way back to the bemusement .....there could/should  be a recognition of the traditional owners. It won't happen of course. Too much money involved!

Good on us

Whilst some comment has been made on the various inadequacies of yesterday's events

• Mr Tuckey's facetious comments that it would not change a damn thing and his laughable rationalisations for not participating (here). He says he is 'horrified' that the Federal Parliament should be turned into a dance parlour. This from a man called "Iron Bar" because of his notorious (and deliberate) stance when it comes to subtlety!
• There is much angst about what Nelson should and should not have said
• There is a clear understanding that as wonderful as this event was, it is largely symbolical and we must move on to action
• I note that having received an apology from the Rudd staffers who should have known better than to betray the spirit of the day by turning their back on the leader of the Opposition, that Nelson is now whining because Rudd has not apologised to him for the behaviour of others. This is rich coming from the leader of a party who have for a decade said that they don't need to apologise for what other people have done. Alack, methinks we are back to game playing the political game

I'm glad nevertheless that there seems to be genuine energy and commitment to move on with vigour, innovation and dedication rather than nitpick.

Constitutional recognition

A great difficulty with the whole issue about apologising to the stolen generation is the minimalist approach. That is, we will do as little as we possibly can to avoid having to accept any unforeseen consequences.
I think strategically this is a mistake and a policy that will fail.
Whilst the fear of blank cheques and unforeseen consequences is rife in our community. Let us not attempt the impossible and think that there are no costs and no consequences.
Indeed the best startegy, it seems to me, is not to do as little as possible but rather to do what needs to be done.
One aboriginal group at least (here) suggests that another issue to be picked up concerning indigenous peoples is constitutional recognition.
It has been settled some years ago (Wik and Mabo) that Australia was not "no man's land" or 'terra nullius' to use the legal term (see here for example...but it is worth Googling terra nullius(here) to get a very good range of discussions about this important idea).
And this, it seems to me is what the Constitution should recognise. There were already people here when the British decided this should be their country, and the consequences of that need to be lived with.
I had converse with someone today about the palce of Maori people in New Zealand society, she was expressing surprsie at the amount of power and influence they have.
My response to that is that the place of Maori people was recognised by the colonists by the Treat of Waitangi. While that is no perfect document or understanding, and NZ indigenous society is far from problem free at least they were not just totally ignored, or treated as if they never existed.
The anniversary of the signing of the treaty of Waitangi is tomorrow, February 6th

Watershed

There is no doubt that an apology will be made, to whom remains to be seen, by whom and with whom (to use a liturgical formula) is also up in the air.

A lot of people still don't get this, that this is not a personal apology at all. It is a nation apologising for not holding itself properly to account, and presuming to treat people as though their lives and their opinions, their wishes and their values were of little or no worth.

So though there were people to blame, and some more than others...that is not the point; but rather that we allowed it to happen.

Given the fact that it is Government and not the Crown that is going to apologise it is probably important that both political parties are seen to be acting in concert. I am a bit disappointed that the Liberal Party has not opened themselves to this more wholeheartedly (here) If ever there was a case for bi-partisanship it is now. It is not unreasonable, I suggest, for Nelson to know the wording...the government should perhaps be deliberately inviting input ...but if they are too backward in coming forward it will be pretty poor.

Silly responses

I foolishly made the remark in a letter to the Advertiser yesterday that most Australians would be happy for a apology to be made to indigenous Australians.
Curiously there were six other letters making a number of alternative replies. One from the erstwhile mayor of Port Augusta assured the PM that he did not have her permission to include her in the apology, at least one other correspondent made a similar response.
Now that's as maybe but they rather miss the point. A Parliamentary response is notp one that is made on behalf of anyone as an individual it is made on behalf of the nation.
In a representative democracy one might ask who should make this apology, there are really only three persons who can actually represent the whole nation. The first is the Queen, the second the Governor General as her representative. They are both (in their roles) embodiments of the nation, but we are pretty confused about this. I think this is the purest option, but pragmatically many would be squeamish about drawing one or both of these two figureheads into this.

The third option, therefore, is the current Head of Government (as opposed to Head of State). Despite the protestations of Mayor Baluch et al, Prime Minister Rudd will not be offering her personal apology at all but the apology of the nation. There are many things an incumbent government will do which individual electors will not wish to be associated with. Too bad! That is the nature of elected government. We knew when we elected Labor that this was part of the agenda.

Personally, although this issue is littered with shades of grey and is not black and white(!); the gentle voice of Lowitja O'Donohue and of Fred Chaney (here) and other Aboriginal people welcoming this move (here for example) is enough to suggest we should do this and get it over and done with.