Reconciliation

First, a brief introduction to the issue. In Australia, a "reconciliation between black and white australians" has become a recurrent issue in the media. There are many different ideas about what reconciliation means, but in general, advocates of this reconciliation call for 1) better education of Australian history, 2) an apology for the atrocities committed against aboriginal Australians in the past, and 3) a kind of treaty between black and white australians.

The call for better education relates to the ommisions in the teaching of Australian history in the past, when atrocities against aboriginals where not taught, leaving many adults ignorant of human rights abuses in relatively recent history. The call for an apology takes a couple of different forms. There are those who beleive that the apology should be racially based, i.e. white Australians should apologies for their ancestors wrongs. And there are those who beleive it should be an apology that does not imply guilt, i.e. "i'm sorry these things happened to people". Then there is the call for a "treaty" of sorts between black and white Australians. Some see this treaty as a symbolic thing. Others beleive it should have legal ramifications, such as the recognition of aboriginal customs as legally binding in some areas, and there are even people who support the splitting of Australia under two racially defined governments. And there are those such as myself who see any treaty as an unnessecary racial division. I offer my opinions on some aspects of Reconciliation below. First the principles i support, and then my conclusions from those principles.

HISTORY

*Should always be taught accurately in schools, under everyone's right to an education.

*Should not, however, be legislated. Historians should be involved in deciding what is to be put on the curriculum, not politicians, and on another level, history should, as any science should, be left open for free discussion.

The large omissions made in the teaching of Australian history in the past should be rectified, to give students a more accurate view of Australia's past. In my experience (learning Australians history at years 9 and 10, in 1996 and 1997) this has largely been accomplished.

APOLOGY

*No person should be held responsible for the actions of those genetically related to them, of those who happen to be of their race. Noone is responsible for the actions of their ancestors, and noones deserves either credit or blame for the crimes or accomplishments of their race.

Thus, an apology should not be the kind of apology that some advocate, i.e. an apology based on race or nationality. It should be a 'sorry that they did this', not a 'sorry that "we" did this'.
This kind of apology bears certain features. For example, *everyone* would be called upon for this kind of apology. Not just white Australians. In fact, every nation would be called on for this kind of apology, not just Australians.
This kind of apology is also the kind of thing that often goes without saying. It goes without saying that i am sorry for the Jewish Holocaust. It goes without saying that i am sorry that Pol Pot existed. It goes without saying that i am sorry for the atrocities commited against aboriginal Australians, the death of Matthew Shephard, and indeed every murder committed. It is unreasonable to absolutely require that an apology be given by everyone for a particular crime. Which is my next point.

*Noone should be socially or legally required to give an apology.

Aside from the obvious free speech argument, why should someone be looked down upon for not, for example, signing the sorry book? Who is foolish enough to suggest that not giving an apology must means that someone is not sorry for any particular crime? It reminds me of that Seinfeld episode when Kramer was attacked for not wearing a ribbon during an AIDS walk.

Why would one even need to have a reason (Not that there aren't valid reasons to give - such as uncertainty in the unclear wording of some requests for apology, that seem to ask for a racially based apology)? In a situation in which the person giving the apology has actually commited the crime, i can see how an apology could be called for. But an apology cannot be called for if it is the kind of apology advocated above. Nor is it's ommission a sign that the individual is not sorry.

TREATY

*Nobody should be obligated to a treaty based on their racial group.

*No cultural laws should be recognised and upheld. Laws should be justified first by the protection of human rights, and then by the running of the country, but not by tradition.

No law that violates human rights should be upheld, wether it is a traditional cultural law or not. No treaty should promise to recognise aboriginal law simply because it is aboriginal law. However, with laws that do not concern human rights, such as some trade practises, perhaps local laws could be adjusted - where the traditional law being suggested is just as valid as any other, in the name of trying different ideas.

*Laws that violate human rights should naturally be eliminated.

Part of the ill-defined Reconciliation process appears to be the removal of laws that discriminate against aboriginal Australians. For example, under some legislation aboriginals have had to work for their welfare payments wheras non-aboriginals have not. Racist laws should naturally be eliminated.

CONCLUSION

The reconciliation issue is littered with people not understanding the others point of view. There are those who call for only European-descended Australians to officially say "sorry that this happened", yet claim to be against a race-based apology, and dont seem to understand why people such as myself think they are calling for a race-based apology. (If they are saying "sorry that this happened", not "sorry that "we" did this", then why are only white Australians expected to apologise?) There are those that assume a lack of apology means that a person is not sorry that some atrocity occured - how anyone could seriously assume that is beyond me. And the entire issue is incredibly poorly defined in the media, i could not even tell you what Reconciliation is despite having just written an essay about it.
Then there are the poorly defined "sorry"s. Consider this. Person A refuses to sign the sorry book because they are not sure if the sorry will be taken as an admission of racial guilt or not. Person B says that this is being ridiculously pedantic, no-one seriously thinks it would be an admission of racial guilt. But the fact is, there ARE those who would take it like that. There ARE people who think "we" as a *race* should say sorry for the things our *race* has done. Or there is Person C, who may accuse Person A of being pedantic, and say "what loss is it to you to just humour people and get it over with?", apparently not recognising the importance others put into their ethical beleifs. These are, after all, the same set of beleifs that condemn the atrocities in question in the first place. Hopefully i have made my views here clear enough to the casual reader.