AAAAAAAAA

A blog post with every single category marked (I'm doing this for scribefire)

Sorry - more on the topic

As a history teacher I have, over the years, done a bit of teaching of aboriginal history. It's important stuff, but there are some rather interesting bits people don't realise.

The current debate on saying "sorry" to the "stolen generations" is based upon the fact that state and federal governments throughout the early-mid 20th century had the legal power to remove aboriginal children from their parents. This, of course, they did. Why? There is nothing to say that this was done because the people doing it were somehow evil scheming people. Certainly one of the core beliefs in Australian society was that the aboriginal people were dying out and the taking of children was a way to prevent this from happening because these kids were then placed in "proper" homes. In other words, the reason for the children being taken was because the people doing it were doing it in the best interests of the children involved.

Of course there are many instances of "good intentions" having unforeseen side effects. In hindsight, governments should not have been doing this. The emotional turmoil it caused families was immense. Moreover, it was a specific policy aimed at Indigenous Australians rather than the population in general. Comparing the work of, say, child protection officers today who take children from dangerous parents to what happened to aboriginal children throughout the 20th century is not sustainable.

Nevertheless, we need to remember that these children were taken out of best intentions - and that is important. After colonisation in the 18th century, diseases like smallpox and measles ran rampant through the aboriginal population for over a century without any effort on behalf of the white rulers to help. Although estimates obviously vary, the population of Indigenous Australians fell from a couple hundred thousand in 1788 to between 50 - 90 thousand by the 1920s.

It was, however, in the 1920s that things changed for indigenous Australians. Up until that point, the welfare of these people was ignored. While there were certainly events like massacres perpetrated by white colonists, the vast majority of indigenous Australians died as a result of malnutrition and disease. (Why malnutrition? Because aboriginal people were hunter-gatherers whose land had been appropriated by farmers and settlers, thus depriving them of their traditional source of food).

In the 1920s, governments around Australia decided to set up "reservations" for Indigenous Australians. Some of these were even farms that Aboriginal farmers ran at a profit (though white farmers were quick to close those ones down). Health care and education were provided to them as well. As a result of this - available food and health care - the aboriginal population began to increase again.

The policy of taking children away from their parents is part and parcel of the same policy that greatly reduced mortality rates and allowed Indigenous Australians to begin growing again. The current population of Indigenous Australians has, by some measure, surpassed that of those who were there in 1788.

Of course, this is not to say that an apology isn't required for the stolen generation - of course it is and I'm glad that it has finally happened. We need to remember, however, that some of the policies that our grandparents and great grandparents initiated - no matter how paternalistic or misguided - actually did work.

Sorry

I just watched Australian PM Kevin Rudd give his "sorry" speech. It was stirring stuff, even for a cynic like myself. Of course I will always believe that only actual, real, measurable change is needed in order to improve the lives of indigenous Australians, but at least we've gone one important step in that direction.

It was also great to see so many people in parliament wiping away tears, including the indigenous visitors.

Sorry Day coming up

From the department of it's-a-good-beginning:

The Federal Government has set the date for a formal apology to the members of the Stolen Generation.

The apology will be the first item of business for the new Federal Parliament.

It will be delivered by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd on February 13.

Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin says the apology is on behalf of the Australian Government and will not be attributing guilt to the current generation of Australians.

Ms Macklin says the content of the apology is still subject to widespread consultation, but she says it will form a necessary step to move forward.

A traditional Welcome to Country will be held as part of the Parliament's opening ceremony by members of the Ngunnawal people.

It will be interesting to hear what Rudd has to say. I'm hoping that his "formal apology" is neither trite nor overbearing, but simple, heartfelt and to the point. Obviously, though, I am hoping for actual, measurable changes rather than just mere words - but at least it's a start.

Indigenous Australians are this country's poorest people. How they fare under the Rudd government over the next few years will help define whether this new government is a success or a failure in the eyes of history. After 11 years of Coalition rule, history will not be kind to John Howard when it comes to his dealings with Aboriginal people.

John Howard - Political Opportunist

From the department of politics-at-its-very-base:

A contrite John Howard has reversed a decade of opposing symbolic gestures towards Aborigines by promising constitutional change to begin what he calls "new reconciliation".

In an important shift, he promised last night that if re-elected he would hold a referendum within 18 months to incorporate a "statement of reconciliation" into the preamble of the constitution.

It would recognise the history of indigenous people as the land's first inhabitants, their culture and heritage, and "their special, though not separate, place within a reconciled, indivisible nation".

At any other time in the history of the Howard government, this sort of announcement would be as unexpected as it would be welcomed. Spending on Aboriginal welfare dried up after 1996, partly as a response to corrupt activities by some Aboriginal groups, but mainly as a response to Pauline Hanson's rising popularity and desire to punish Indigenous Australians for not having the common courtesy to die out like the history books of yesteryear claimed they would.

But, at this point, the decision to hold some sort of referendum on the issue, along with admissions of care and concern for Indigenous Australians, smacks of simple political opportunism. Moreover it is a grasping of straws in the face of an oncoming election defeat. The sad thing is that most Aussies will see through this.

Turkey, Armenia and the US Congress

As much as I believe the notion that there was an Armenian Genocide, why was it so important for the US Congress to pass a bill condemning it?

These days, post "Mission Accomplished", any sort of action from US Politicians condemning things like Genocide is hollow and hypocritical.

For Turks, raising the issue of the Genocide is very touchy. No one likes it when another nation tells them off for doing something wrong, even if it is true.

Turks, like the Japanese, have to eventually come to terms with their nation's past. Acknowledging the Armenian Genocide is certainly part of this. However, it is not going to happen overnight, and it is certainly not going to be helped by the US Congress passing a bill condemning it.

Personally, I would love it if the Turkish Government issued statements condemning America's invasion of Iraq, as well as their invasion of Haiti, their meddling in Guatemala, Honduras and Chile and, of course, the shameful way Americans treated Native Americans during the 19th century. These stains on America's history are as Genocidal as anything Turkey could manage, and killed more people as well.

If Congress could also pass a bill condemning American actions in the 19th and 20th centuries I would probably take this current bill more seriously. As it stands, however, no government that heads a nation with a checkered past has the right to publicly condemn the checkered past of another nation - and that includes my own country, Australia, and their treatment of Indigenous Australians in the 19th century (a treatment that was essentially genocide by omission, rather than commission, but still, in effect, the same thing).

Certainly scholars and historians, as well as Armenians and informed Turks should come out and continue their criticism of early-20th century Turkey. Historical records and proof of the event needs to be disseminated amongst Turks to show them that their history is not as wonderful as they think. Turkey will eventually agree that the Genocide did take place, but that will not happen now, and nor will it happen in the next ten years. Moreover, having the US Congress condemn the Genocide will do nothing to convince Turks - in fact it will make them even less likely to believe it.

Man Awarded $525,000 for being taken away from parents

From the ABC:

Bruce Trevorrow has been awarded $525,000 in the South Australian Supreme Court for being taken from his family when he was just 13 months old.

The ordeal began when Mr Trevorrow, then a baby, was taken to hospital with stomach pains on Christmas Day, 1957.

Once he had recovered, he was sent into foster care without his parents' knowledge. He was returned to his mother 10 years later, but his father had already died.

The experiences left Mr Trevorrow was scarred for life.

"In and out of institutions, jail, depression, just couldn't get on my feet," he said.

"It's just made me happy that the judgement has come against the state."

Kava - the annoying bit

I now have personal reasons to dislike the Howard government's actions on "helping" Indigenous Australians - Kava will now no longer be shipped to Australia.

This is a pity... and quite stupid. Moreover it shows a complete lack of understanding of Kava.

How about this from the ABC:

Kava is an alcoholic beverage used in traditional ceremonies and for social occasions in many of the Pacific Islands.

The Federal Government has banned the importation of the intoxicating drink in commercial quantities, except for medical or scientific use.

What garbage. Kava is not alcoholic in any way. Alcohol cannot be distilled into a powder, which is what Kava is when you buy it.

Like anything, Kava can be abused (though I don't know why anyone would willingly consume bucketloads of the stuff unless they've completely lost their tastebuds). Other things that can be abused are alcohol, tobacco, fast food and powerful cars.

From my understanding, Kava does not have any of the societal problems associated with the consumption of alcohol. Kava does not make anyone aggressive... in fact it helps people become placid. I've seen people smashed out of their brains on alcohol and anyone in that position is capable of doing great damage. A person smashed out on Kava just lies down and falls asleep.

Kava has nothing to do with the problems in Northern Australia (violence, child abuse). In fact, it probably has helped these communities avoid some of these bad things.

I'm not saying that Kava is completely safe. If abused too much it can lead to liver damage and skin rashes. Too much Kava can make you too drowsy to wake up in the morning. In these doses it obviously affects people's lives badly.

Yet the way in which we white folk deal with our abuse of certain things is via education. We have TV ads warning us of the danger of alcohol if abused, or of the long term effects of smoking, or of speeding in our cars. It's through education that these things are being dealt with.

But, of course, when it's black people that are the problem, we come up with different solutions. Banning Kava will not make a scrap of difference in helping people in Northern Australia.

More indigenous ideas

'Wet canteens' could help control drinking.

Mr Brough is visiting Northern Territory communities for the first time since the announcement a fortnight ago of the measures to address Indigenous child sexual abuse.

At Santa Teresa, south of Alice Springs, he was shown the area where people gather to drink before entering the community where drinking is illegal.

He says controlled drinking areas may be a solution.

"If you actually have a place where people can drink safely and within limits, then you actually don't deny people, but you get the balance right," he said.

"That is why we've said all along they're the sort of things we want to work with communities."

This actually sounds like a good idea. Amazing. It comes from Mal Brough, the Federal Indigenous Affairs minister (amazing because he is a Liberal Party guy).

Misusing the Army

The Army is now being used to help the indigenous communities that are ravaged by abuse and alcoholism.

I'm sorry, but when did the army suddenly become a part of Australia's law enforcement agencies? When did they suddenly become social workers?

I'm all for restoring order in these remote communities (as part of a broad, long-term solution to the issues of course) but the use of the armed forces is, at worst, overkill and, at best, just plain silly.

To have Australian troops with their camo gear, assault rifles, night vision goggles and armoured personnel carriers travelling down the streets of outback Australia, trying to restore order is just plain wrong.

Our troops are trained for war. They are trained to fight and to use deadly force against the enemy. They are not trained as police officers or social workers.

If New Zealand should suddenly attack and take over Montague Island and claim it as their own, I would not expect the Australian government to send teachers and social workers to live and work in New Zealand in order to change the societal norms so that Montague Island could be returned to Australia after decades of New Zealand occupation. No. I would expect a few Frigates to surround the island and for the troops to parachute in and, if necessary, use deadly force to eject the Kiwi invaders.

In the same way, I don't expect Australian troops to perform the jobs of teachers, police officers and social workers.

And sometimes people in the past long for the return of conscription, arguing that what young people need these days is discipline and that time in the army should help straighten out these lazy, rude teenagers. But when has the army suddenly become a school or a prison or just another way of forcing societal change?

The army is there to defend the nation. Nothing more, nothing less. Let's respect their expertise and not expect them to magically make up for what the rest of society should be providing.

Craig Schwarze is angry

...about the situation that Indigenous Australians are currently in (here and here).

Even though Craig and I disagree with Howard's solution to this problem, Craig truly does care about these people and wants real, lasting change.

Indigenous Australians and child abuse

In my opinion, the latest action by the Federal Government smacks of panic. The election is within 12 months, the opposition party is polling well, and now a report comes out about Aboriginal health that is quite damning. I find it hard to believe that the government's action isn't related to damage control for the next election.

For one thing, the problem of child sexual abuse in remote Aboriginal communities hasn't suddenly popped up out of nowhere. I'm certain that reports of this problem surfaced last year and made headline news then... but the government seemed to do little at that time.

What really concerns me is that the solutions that have been offered - banning alcohol and pornography - seem quite ignorant of the facts behind child sexual abuse.

I'm going to assume here that indigenous Australians are essentially the same as other Australians and have the same physiology and psychological actions and reactions. In other words, I am going to assume that they're just as human as I am.

Pedophiles and child abusers suffer from a form of paraphilia (sexual arousal by an inappropriate person or object). This is a learned condition that is reinforced by basic behaviourism over a long period.

Sexual attraction to children does not occur because a person views pornography, or has had celibacy forced upon him, or who drinks too much alcohol, or who is in constant contact with children. It is actually the other way around - pedophiles are more likely to view pornography (but it doesn't cause pedophilia); pedophiles want to work with children (but working with children doesn't cause pedophilia).

I therefore doubt that some of the government's proposals will actually work. They are assuming that grog and porn cause child sexual abuse. If that's the case then they should ban grog and porn all over Australia to prevent all drunken masturbators from unwittingly becoming child molesters. That does not happen, of course, in the white community... so why are we assuming it happens in the indigenous community?

Indigenous Australians have suffered since 1788. Long term problems require long term solutions. Increasing police presence is a good idea, but it needs to be permanent... not just for the duration of the election campaign. Resources need to be directed towards "early intervention" - the teaching and training of young indigenous Australians so that they can avoid having negative cultural traits being passed along to them. Greater access to meaningful long term employment is also essential, which may require economic resources to be directed to creating business opportunities in remote Australia.

I don't want knee-jerk reactions, I want permanent solutions. While it is true that the Coalition have been sitting on this growing problem for over a decade, the ALP should also take the blame for not doing enough during the 13 years they were in power (1983-1996). Far too often, money the ALP channeled to Indigenous programs was squandered and wasted. I was therefore quite pleased to hear a joint press conference with Tony Abbott (Coalition) and Julia Gillard (ALP) in which Gillard stated that the ALP would not being using this to its political advantage. Very wise.

Child Sex abuse in indigenous communities

The big story the ABC has up at the moment.

I think it's wrong for them to target the "rivers of grog". Certainly some Aboriginal communities have a problem with alcohol but to say that it is responsible or even exacerbates child sex abuse is stupid.

You might as well label all drunks potential child abusers.