Say sorry to the Aborigines, Gerard?... but for what?

by Sylvano Lucchetti - 2008-01-21 06:52:03

Gerard Henderson, Holocaust denier? Well not really... No one with a half a brain and a modicum of public profile could deny the Holocaust. But what about the policy of assimilation of the Australian Aborigine? Was that real? Does Mr. Henderson think that it's still a good idea?

Mr. Henderson warns us that "Historical hyperbole only encourages revisionism, even denialism. We should remember history as it was. And we should not attempt to score contemporary political points by distorting the plight of real victims of real mass murder in real totalitarian systems. Holocaust Memorial Day explains why." This was the concluding paragraph in his speech to the Holocaust Shoah Rememberence Day, 15th April 2007, when criticising an article by Robert Richter QC who compared the Guantanamo Bay military commission for David Hicks with Stalin's show trials.

Does his warning about historical hyperbole extend to historical understatement?

Exactly nine months after that speech Gerard delivered this article, The middle ground may be hard to find(Sydney Morning Herald, 15th January 2008), telling me that because he reckons that "the everyday meaning of genocide ... connotes a wilful attempt to murder a whole people," then the Bringing Them Home report had an "essential problem." You see, Mr. Henderson concludes that the report's finding that you could use the term genocidal to label "the policy of forcible removal of children from indigenous Australians to other groups for the purpose of raising them separately from and ignorant of their culture and their people" is contrary to this "everyday meaning" that he had just given to me. Astounding.

A quick reference to The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide , which entered into force on 12th January 1951, defines genocide in Article 2:

... genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

    (a) Killing members of the group;
    (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
    (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
    (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
    (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

I am sure you noticed item (e) at the very least... Stolen generation, Bring Them Home... ringing any bells?

Mr. Henderson says that there was no intention by people at the time to bring about genocide. Yet alas, when one looks into the matter it would seem that it wasn't quite as innocent as all that.

Don't believe me or Gerard. Do your own search of the internet on the topic of Australia's assimilation policies to determine for yourself whether or not the intent was to engage in genocide or not. But do not for a minute accept Mr. Henderson's claim that it was just a bunch of naive we're just trying to help types at the time; just a government and church effort to lift up the humble native to a proper standard of living.

Consider a quote from a less well known source that provides a slightly opposing view to that of Mr. Henderson. It is from 1966. Stanley Fraser Davey wrote about the Aboriginal assimilation policy in his "provocative pamphlet," Genesis or Genocide?, that at "no stage has the Australian Aborigine had the opportunity to voice his opinion as to the policy he would like to see. He has been told where his best interests lie and any claim to the right to maintain his identity, his culture, his possession of tribal lands or to participate in decisions as to his future relationships with other Australians have been completely denied." Davey was a Churches of Christ man, who had spent a number of years in various roles related to the welfare of the Australian Aborigine.

Gerard denies the reader of his article the information about the UN Convention around genocide that was framed in 1948, which Australia ratified. He likes to cosy up with us readers - come on... we all know what genocide means, don't we... It's long queues, gas ovens, rifles and people killed in the millions.

And he goes on to tell us that Australia has this indigenous issue, you know, and it's really difficult to work out whether we should say sorry, or apologise, how we should apologise, or whether to pay compensation or....

And he goes on to mention that some indigenous people today would be saying sorry to their indigenous predecessors for the actions of some of their European predecessors, because - well - some of the genes got mixed up somewhere! I kid you not.

Mr. Henderson's 'essential problem' is that he is dismissive of the aboriginal people of this country, denies their (and our) history and continues to advocate a policy of assimilation that was being junked over three decades ago. How else could he write what he wrote and conclude that, "It would make sense for the Rudd Government to get the apology out of the way as soon as possible and then concentrate on resolving the immediate needs of Aborigines^**."

So much for remembering history...

** emphasis added.