Thx Craig. Australian history also has an inspiring example of this kind. Between 1930-1960, The Woman's Christian Temperance Union challenged prevailing ideologies which assumed the inherent inferiority of Aboriginals and which allowed the government to pursue a policy of absorption of Indigenous culture in white Australian culture. In so doing they made a vital contribution to the fight for Aboriginal rights. Significantly, up until the 1930s they were pretty much as blind to the plight of Aboriginals as (most of) the rest of Australian society.

Craig, I'll risk being permanently identified with the "wrong" side of the debate by suggesting that "reconciliation" is a thoroughly secular quest for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. No matter how far you run, it will also recede into the distance.

The self-appointed spokesmen of indigenous people (who often turn out to be predominantly European in their genetic inheritance) will always push the goal-posts just a little further away. In the gospel, there is repentance and forgiveness. In "reconciliation" there is only perpetual penitence. Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa. It might make us Anglos feel better; but the newer generation of migrants - many of them who arrived here with nothing at all - are understandably indifferent.

I am struggling to think of what relevance the gospel has to an a passing fad for bridge-walks, apologies and such like; as for the the "stolen generation", is it not merely politeness which constrains us from discarding this polite fiction?

The real social and economic problems of Aboriginal people are better addressed without conferring on them the status of "first nations". I will vote "No" in any referendum to insert purely symbolic words in the Constitution.

In the long run, there will be no such thing as indigenous and non-indigenous people anyhow. To the despair of bigots on both sides, Anglo-Saxon and Aboriginal genes are mixing. In England, after all, who is still a Norman or a Saxon?

One other point: the fight against slavery was LED by Christians, AGAINST the secular forces of the day.

Not so with those 20th century religions: socialism, feminism, gay rights, and dare I say "reconciliation". There were always plenty of Christians prepared to sign up to these causes - as followers, rather than initiators. No doubt in his day, Hewlett Johnson the famous "Red Dean of Canterbury" thought himself a latter day Wilberforce, and many of his contemporaries would have considered him as being on the side of progress.

Who would defend him now?

Hi Alan, thanks for your comment, and good on you for having the courage to nail your colours to the mast. I suspect more people share your views than are willing to express them.

Regarding your second post, I wish it was as simple as "Christianity vs Slavery", but it was not. There were Christians on both sides of the debate, as well as non-Christians. Looking at American slavery, the most significant abolitionist (ultimately) was Abraham Lincoln, but he was a deist at best when he signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

Regarding your first point, I used to share these beliefs myself. I think it is plain wrong to say the quest is "thoroughly secular", as many people of faith have become involved in this issue. I have recently read some remarkable theological reflections on the subject, written by conservative evangelicals. This issue, and the way it is beginning to unfold in this diocese, is far from "thoroughly secular".

Now, regarding the idea that reconciliation is an ever receding "pot of gold", I've got some sympathy with the point you are making. The truth is that reconciliation language has been used for a long time now, and it seems to most people that very little has been accomplished.

I think this is due to a number of reasons. The term has undoubtedly been highly politicised, and exploited at times by the major and minor parties. This has not helped.

But it's also the case that people of good will have found it very difficult to make progress in this area. The problems are difficult ones, and the alienation and disenfranchisement felt by many in the aboriginal community is the product of generations of problems. Such matters are not quickly solved.

I am struggling to think of what relevance the gospel has to an a passing fad for bridge-walks, apologies and such like; as for the the "stolen generation", is it not merely politeness which constrains us from discarding this polite fiction?

This point has been better made by better theologians than myself, and I'll make reference to the appropriate arguments in future columns. But it comes down to the fact that when we are saved, God doesn't simply give us a ticket to heaven, He also begins the work of transforming us into the likeness of his Son. As He does that, we begin to take on the values and concerns of God Himself - which include mercy, charity, good-will to the poor and social justice.

Good works are the inevitable consequence of a genuine faith. As Martin Luther said, speaking of good works, "We are saved by faith alone, but not by a faith that *is* alone." That is how the gospel is linked to concerns of justice and righteousness here on earth.

The real social and economic problems of Aboriginal people are better addressed without conferring on them the status of "first nations". I will vote "No" in any referendum to insert purely symbolic words in the Constitution.

If only there were any real evidence that that were true! But I've become increasingly convinced that no real "practical" progress will be made until the symbolic, and historical, and cultural issues are addressed.

And as far as objecting to the term "first Australians", and not wanting to recognise prior occupation in the constitution - gosh, that verges on history denial.

@ Alan: Can I ask how long you've thought about this? And how much you've read into it?

And as far as objecting to the term "first Australians", and not wanting to recognise prior occupation in the constitution - gosh, that verges on history denial.

While I don't object to the term as such, I'd rather recognise that through the normal statutory process (which has been possible since 1967) than through crowding our Constitution.

Another way of putting it: a constitution is an agreement and specification for how a political entity is to be run. Inserting gratuitous backwards-looking references to the "cause of the day" is pointless feel-good padding, unless it's in the form of "Because ..., the following processes and procedures will apply ...".

If someone is proposing implementing concrete aboriginal-specific rules and procedures into the constitution (or even just law), then bring on the discussion! If it's primarily about adding fuzzy backwards-looking stuff, then tell them go away and come back when they've got something meaningful.

Generalisation: modern culture is big on "gestures", and small on just knuckling down and doing the hard, difficult work.

(Some people might argue that 'causes' and 'gestures' set the agenda. IMO, it's usually about getting the credit while someone else has to do the hard work, pay whatever costs are involved, and look bad for struggling with the hard decisions.)

And as far as objecting to the term "first Australians", and not wanting to recognise prior occupation in the constitution - gosh, that verges on history denial.

Where have I objected to the term "first Australians"? What I object to is dividing Australians into groups of special status. I do find the term "first nations" slightly ridiculous - it's a borrowing from North American politics, and not well suited to Aboriginal social organisation, either before colonisation or after.

As for "history denial", please be careful how you deploy the word "denier" - it is usually associated with nasty anti-Semites who don't believe in the holocaust. You can think that of me if you really wish, but bear in mind that others may be rather offended at being so described, when they - like me - may simply think that a Constitution should embody legal reality, and is not an appropriate vehicle for symbolic gestures.

@ Alan: Can I ask how long you've thought about this? And how much you've read into it?

I'm 39 years old; all my adult life, the relationship of Australians of Aboriginal descent to those whose descent is entirely non-Aboriginal, has been central to public discourse. I've lived most of my life in country Western Australia where those two groups live side by side. I've thought about it a lot; it often occurs to me that modern Australia, in which I have prospered, would not have been possible without the prior dispossession of its original inhabitants; but then I am sufficiently widely read to know that there is virtually no country in the world of whom that would not be similarly true.

I've read no specific conservative evangelical theological writing on the subject, apart from an essay Peter Adam wrote, which I didn't find (obviously, given what I am saying here) persuasive.

Hello Alan,

I understand where you are coming from, but we have such a generous God, a giving God, who is just, forgiving, and loving. He did not spare his own Son for us. How do those who don't know Christ see us when we take a stingy attitude towards others who have not been as fortunate as ourselves? Surely our task in this world is to be a blessing to others, to bring about help, hope and healing thru the power of the gospel. Maybe healing words in our constitution could be a start.

- it is usually associated with nasty anti-Semites who don't believe in the holocaust. You can think that of me if you really wish,

I certainly don't, and I don't think any reasonable person would draw that conclusion.

it often occurs to me that modern Australia, in which I have prospered, would not have been possible without the prior dispossession of its original inhabitants; but then I am sufficiently widely read to know that there is virtually no country in the world of whom that would not be similarly true.

That is true - and many nations, modern and ancient, have had debates similar to the one we are proposing here. You referred to the Saxons and Normans before - well, it took a long time for the Saxons to come to terms with the Norman invasion. There is a school of thought that even sees the Magna Carta (written two centuries after invasion) as an assertion of ancient Anglo-Saxon liberties, as against the power of the king.

Ireland is another anglo-centric example of a nation that is still coming to grips with the rights of the invader vs the invaded - and this many centuries after invasion.

There is plenty of precedent for this sort of debate - although the details, of course, are specific to our context.

Craig, well perhaps I am overly sensitive, but race relations is a most sensitive issue in which I think men and women of goodwill should avoid using words which shut down debate by their potentially pejorative connotations. You may perhaps not have been aware of it, but "denial" is one such word.

An accusation of “denial” is serious, suggesting either deliberate dishonesty or self-deception. The thing being denied is, by implication, so obviously true that the denier must be driven by perversity, malice or wilful blindness. Few issues warrant such confidence. The Holocaust is perhaps one, though even here there is room for debate over the manner of its execution and the number of its victims. A charge of denial short-circuits this debate by stigmatising as dishonest any deviation from a preordained conclusion. It is a form of the argument ad hominem: the aim is not so much to refute your opponent as to discredit his motives. The extension of the “denier” tag to group after group is a development that should alarm all liberal-minded people. One of the great achievements of the Enlightenment—the liberation of historical and scientific enquiry from dogma—is quietly being reversed.

Edward Skidelsky, Professor of Philosphy at Exeter University, UK Prospect Magazine January 2010: "Words that think for us"

@Alan, thanks for your comments. I don't want this thread to be derailed any more by discussion of the word "denial", so I retract my use of that word. I trust the matter can rest now.

I am interested in hearing your response to the points I raised regarding Saxons, Normans and the Irish.

Yes, Northern Ireland is a place where the passage of time has not healed any wounds: the Drogheda siege and the Battle of the Boyne are remembered as if they happened yesterday; the Nationalist and the Loyalists retain strong separate identities which show no sign of weakening.

A place with a similar history is the former Yugoslavia, where the Croats and the Serbs and the Muslims, despite being ethnically identical and speaking the same language have had had bitter conflicts in recent memory.

The factor these cases have in common is of course religion, which has formed and shaped each tribe's culture and kept them separate.

This factor is not at work in Australia; Aboriginal people don't have a separate religion (they are in fact more likely to identify as Christians than the population as a whole); there is no cultural restriction on inter-marriage between people of Aboriginal descent any anyone else - hence the increasing phenomenon of people identifying publicly as Aboriginal who do not bear any of the physical characteristics of Aboriginal ethnicity. Ultimately, inter-marriage will make the reconciliation debate irrelevant; would that anyone could safely predict the same result for Northern Ireland or the former states of Yugoslavia.

Missionary Max Collison asks the question, what are the great causes we have fought and won in this generation?

What about today's child slavery? The majority of the chocolates we buy to celebrate Easter and Christmas are grown and harvested by 10,000 child slaves and 200,000 child labourers.

Children are stolen from neighbouring African nations to work the cocoa fields. All so that, like Edmund, we can betray Aslan and these children 'for sweeties'.

But this one should be easy to defeat. With 70% of the world's cocoa supply coming from the one collective cocoa 'trade pool', enough protest could force change in this industry in one hit.

Has everyone signed Max's official petition yet?

[url=http://cocoapetition.org.au/index.action]
http://cocoapetition.org.au/index.action[/url]

but then I am sufficiently widely read to know that there is virtually no country in the world of whom that would not be similarly true.

I'm not sure this gives any weight to your position. It's like saying, everyone cheats on their tax return, so it's fine if I do too.

I've read no specific conservative evangelical theological writing on the subject, apart from an essay Peter Adam wrote, which I didn't find (obviously, given what I am saying here) persuasive.

His theology is widely respected as biblically sound. It's not enough to loudly assert that you don't agree with it. There are other things written on the topic such as http://www.chr.org.au/fpbooks/ONEBLOOD.pdf and http://www.amazon.com/Exclusion-Embrace-Theological-Exploration-Reconciliation/dp/0687002826

I'm not an expert and have both those books on my to read list.

However it's clear this isn't an issue we can be glib and simple about. That indigenous people were dispossessed of their land in recent history is no small thing. We need to pray about it, think deeply about the theology of recompense and restitution (i.e. Zacheus who gave back what he stole, and some) and talk to indigenous people about the issues.

What we mustn't do it throw dust in the air, talk without understanding, and presume that we are in the right.

@ Alan Dungey re: Stolen generation

is it not merely politeness which constrains us from discarding this polite fiction?

The Bringing them Home report states:

Nationally we can conclude with confidence that between one in three and one in ten Indigenous children were forcibly removed from their families and communities in the period from approximately 1910 until 1970. In certain regions and in certain periods the figure was undoubtedly much greater than one in ten. In that time not one family has escaped the effects of forcible removal (confirmed by representatives of the Queensland and WA Governments in evidence to the Inquiry). Most families have been affected, in one or more generations, by the forcible removal of one or more children

Some estimates have the stolen generations being around 20 to 25 thousand kids, others 100 thousand.

I'm sorry, but what 'polite fiction' is it you wish to discard?

Keep in mind: one of my former jobs was as a District Officer removing kids from situations of child abuse and neglect. The Department is still getting over the legacy of removing so many children from their parents 'because they were living as Aboriginals', and not because of any identifiable actual abuse. I'm really not sure what you mean by 'polite fiction'... it does smack awfully of denial. And I'm aware of the way you regard that as a loaded term, but I would ask you to explain your previous loaded terms quoted above!

I'm really not sure what you mean by 'polite fiction'... it does smack awfully of denial.

The Bringing them Home report did not hear any evidence from anyone responsible for supposedly administering the policies of removal. When courts have heard cases alleging wrongful removal of Aboriginal children (e.g. Cubillo & Gunner v. The Commonwealth (2000) 174 ALR 97) no evidence of the existence of any removal policy directed towards Aboriginal children has been found. 'Everyone' knows this, but it is impolite to say so. Hence, polite fiction.

The Department is still getting over the legacy of removing so many children from their parents 'because they were living as Aboriginals', and not because of any identifiable actual abuse.

I'm aware that this was what the Bringing them Home report concluded, but no Court has yet found any such allegation proved. Bruce Trevorrow successfully sued the South Australian government for his removal as a child - Trevorrow v. South Australia [2007] SASC 285, but that State has never been accused of having racist child removal policies, and his removal was found to have been carried out contrary to the law of the time.

I have some knowledge of the child protection practices in remote parts of Western Australia. I suspect the lasting legacy of "Bringing them Home" will be a generation of children who may one day sue the authorities for NOT removing them from their parents in spite of actual abuse.

His theology is widely respected as biblically sound. It's not enough to loudly assert that you don't agree with it.

Joshua, I was asked what I'd read; I mentioned Peter Adam's article; I merely said I didn't find it persuasive.

Peter Adam's writings are not inspired: I have as much right to disagree with them as you have to agree with them. I note that you give no explanation as to why you agree with them except to say that he is "biblically sound".

With respect, I don't consider that's a high position from which to assert:

What we mustn't do it throw dust in the air, talk without understanding, and presume that we are in the right.

@Alan - I'm less hopeful than you that inter-marriage will ultimately fix all our problems. The Saxons, Normans and Danes all took a long time to inter-mingle in England, and they were all essentially from the same Germanic stock. I imagine it would take hundreds of years for something like that to happen in this situation. I believe we can do a little better than that.

@Alan - regarding the theology of the matter, there are treatments that you might find more persuasive. Email me (via my profile page) if you are interested in looking into it further.

Why do you need the courts to prove this? You're being far too selective in your narrow choice of historical source documents. Talk about cherrypicking!

How about reading through wikipedia and 'disproving' all the source documents on this extremely exhaustive article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_generation

We are talking about an Australian problem, not just WA. Try to broaden your sources.

In 1911, the Chief Protector of Aborigines in South Australia, William Garnet South, reportedly "lobbied for the power to remove Aboriginal children without a court hearing because the courts sometimes refused to accept that the children were neglected or destitute". South argued that "all children of mixed descent should be treated as neglected".[41] His lobbying reportedly played a part in the enactment of the Aborigines Act 1911; this made him the legal guardian of every Aboriginal child in South Australia, including so-called "half-castes"

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/stolen14.html

@ Alan,

I suspect the lasting legacy of "Bringing them Home" will be a generation of children who may one day sue the authorities for NOT removing them from their parents in spite of actual abuse.

That's outrageous and racist. Imagine aliens land with a far better medicine, technology, and economy. They remove your children for your crime of raising them human. Are you guilty of actual abuse in this scenario, or just doing the best you could with what you have?

Surely you would want the aliens to leave your children in your care and educate your whole family, together and whole, on how to navigate the new world they had brought with them?

Sorry to discourage your attempt to write or rewrite history Craig but those of us who are a little older know that Australia as a nation RECONCILED with the Aboriginal people on 27th May 1967. ( I was a few months too young to vote then at age 21.) Australians voted almost unamimously in a Referendum on that day to give the Federal Government all powers necessary to override all State legislation so as to give the Aboriginal people full and equal human rights. We said SORRY by what we did. This is the most significant referendum in Ausralian history because the vote was one of the few referenda which was assented to but also because the vote was the highest ever recorded at 90.77 per cent voting YES. Were you ever taught that in high school? More than that as a staffer for a Federal MP in 1990-91, I recall that the Federal Budget was allocating over 900 million dollars per annum in Aboriginal Affairs for an identified populaton of about 260,000 people. Please provide information that this amount has ever diminished. So Craig, what next. Would you like to hand Bishop's Court over in reparation? Why not the Opera House too? And when will YOU ask the Aboriginal Community to say "WE FORGIVE YOU"?

Interesting reaction Ian. Nice history lesson on the referendum. But the attitude at the end there? Wow. Craig's obviously pushed some buttons.

I recall that the Federal Budget was allocating over 900 million dollars per annum in Aboriginal Affairs for an identified populaton of about 260,000 people. Please provide information that this amount has ever diminished.

How OLD is that info? Please provide information that the Aboriginal population stayed static at 260k? The wiki says 517,000.

Dave, I did say the amount (of money) not the number (of people) so my short hand may have confused you. It is a common feature of left wing politics to deny, minimise and or totally ignore this MOMENTOUS event (ie the 1967 Referendum. By the way I was aged 20 not 21 as my text mis-implied. I am aware that Fred Nile and Aboriginal Chistian leaders had their own reconcilation gathering years ago, when Fred said SORRY and they (I think Pastor Peter Walker included)) said WE FORGIVE YOU. I suspect there just may be some Biblical warrant for the FORGIVENESS element that Craig is avoiding!

It ought to shame us that it took as long as 1967 for that to occur! Anyway, your points about that referendum are important.

But what do we do about today's issues? What's their average education level, income, health, even life expectancy? How do they feel living in this land we have created? I think this is the emphasis of Craig's argument.

Do we want to know something of what it FEELS like to be an Aboriginal person? Someone touched by the removal of Aboriginal children from their families?

Don't miss listening to ABC Classic FM this Sunday, 28th, at 1.00 pm for the opera "Pecan Summer." Its story, which centres around events at Cumeragunga, is outlined on the Classic FM website www.abc.net.au/classic/australian music


On TV this Saturday morning, 27th, at 11.30 am ABC1 will repeat its Message Stick program which follows the development of this Aboriginal opera based on the real life experience of its creator, Deborah Cheetham.

May these programs help us all to walk together with our Aboriginal fellow Australians.