AUDIO
 |
Archbishop Peter Jensen's Christmas Message 2011 on the centrality of Jesus to human history
|
I live at Camperdown and attend church in Annandale. The original owners of the land beneath my home and my church were a tribe known as the Cadigal. They were not a large group - probably less than a hundred in number. They did not build permanent dwellings, but they lived within definite boundaries. Their land stretched from South Head, across to Petersham, and down to the Cooks River.
Their territory included a place called Warrane, where Arthur Phillip and his First Fleet established their colony in 1788, re-naming it Sydney Cove. Clashes with the new arrivals were inevitable, as the Cadigal were gradually displaced from their ancestral lands. The Europeans had not come to steal the land - not exactly. They had thought it was less heavily populated than it turned out to be, and Phillip was under instructions to form a treaty with any natives he encountered.
But circumstances made a treaty impossible to negotiate, and it was never attempted. After a brief period of dismal conflict, the problem “disappeared” when the Cadigal were destroyed by a smallpox epidemic. The Europeans took full possession of their land, without resistance, without permission and without any recompense offered or paid.
The churches gained from this injustice, and none more so than the Anglican church. Land was marked out for a church soon after the First Fleet arrived. It was to be called St Phillip’s (named after the governor rather than the evangelist), and the modern church of St Phillip’s York St stands near this original grant. Further grants of Cadigal land were made to the church, including 400 acres at Glebe. This practice was repeated all over Sydney and the rest of the country, as European power grew and spread.
Dr Peter Adam recently gave a talk entitled “Australia - Whose Land?”, where he called upon Australians to begin the difficult task of compensating the original inhabitants of our country. Such compensation would, he freely admits, be “costly and complicated”. Dr Adam urged churches to take the lead in this matter, and after much reflection, I feel obliged to echo his call. We cannot preach about justice and righteousness while ignoring the great injustice that has delivered our organisation such extraordinary assets. We have, in the words of Dr Adam, received stolen goods.
What should be done? I don’t have a full answer, and a full answer will not be obtained without much discussion, prayer and soul-searching. Here are two ideas to begin with. First, find out which tribe originally owned the land your church building is on, and put up a notice acknowledging that fact. Second, have your parish council move to allocate 1% of your offering to Indigenous churches and missions.
It’s not much, I know, but it’s a start.
It strikes me that this is a somewhat schizophrenic nation. We so readily embrace our history in some moments, most notably in remembering Gallipoli - but then seem to ignore it when it comes to those other more unsavoury aspects.
It's a glaring inconsistency and Christians should be at the forefront of doing something to level things up. What that should be, I don't know. But surely we can agree on the need to do something?
Imagine a murder was committed in your street, and the police said, "Well, there have been lots of murderers in the past that never saw justice, so why should you be worried about this one?" You would be outraged.
The fact that justice cannot be delivered in some hypothetical past does not mean that it should not be delivered today, especially when we know who was wronged, who did the wrong, and the damage that was done.
We don't know for certain. However, archaeological evidence suggests that the Cadigal area has been occupied only recently (relatively speaking) - less than a few thousand years. It's quite possible that the Eora/Cadigal people group have been the only occupants.
But there are plenty of other aboriginal groups that survive to this days.
Graham, do you accept that the land upon which our churches are built is "stolen goods", as Dr Adam said? Do you accept that our prosperity of our churches comes from "the proceeds of crime"?
No I don't. This view seems to me to be a relatively recent one. Nor has this been the position of Australia, including the Church over the last 200 years.
But there are plenty of other aboriginal groups that survive to this days.
So are you saying that if one tribal group was wronged we should now compensate another? That's not justice either.
The murder analogy doesn't hold water as the issue of murder is not a contentious issue as land ownership has been.
Assuming you own a house, I imagine you would object if I showed up and forced out you and your family. What is the difference?
No, that is not true. Even 200 years ago, many people realised it was wrong to dispossess the aboriginals. For example, this letter was published in the London Morning Herald in 1786 -
"A very fair question to the present administration; Pray, gentlemen, by what rule of justice do you dare to dispossess the natives of their property and authority in Botany Bay? Does the spirit or letter of the constitution of this country warrant such an outrage? Have you even the most distant claim to a right of sovereignty there; and is not such an attack on the harmless natives, a most wanton stretch of arbitrary power, and an exercise of cruelty and injustice that will stain the glory of England forever?"
Not at all - all aboriginal groups were forced from their land. Only a very small number have (recently) been repossessed via native title.
Murder is not contentious amongst murderers. Land theft is not contentious amongst land thieves.
If someone came and forced you out of your home, I don't think you'd shrug your shoulders and say, "Land ownership is contentious". No, you would call the police.
This land does not belong either to me or my Aboriginal brother. We are stewards of this land together, brought together by God for His purposes and glory. I believe because of current social inequalities I have a responsibility to actively care for my indigenous brothers and sisters and welcome them into fellowship. But this should occur because of Love not Guilt
Sounds great...but if you enjoy possession and usage of the land and your aboriginal brother does not, in what sense are you both "stewards"?
I can't agree. The evidence suggests indigenous tribes were strongly tied to a particular area, and were highly territorial. They certainly regarded themselves as custodians of the land and it's resources, and they did not want the Europeans there. It seems to me that their rights to the land were as great as those we claim today.
This is a really important issue, and I agree that it is very hard to work out what to actually <i>do</i> from here. All the things that seem the most just seem imposible to implement.
A very important starting point, though, is just talking about the issue. If more Christians in Sydney started actually realising the extent of the issue, it would be easier to start making pratical changes. Please keep this on the agenda!
As someone (possibly even Peter Adam) pointed out on the night of his lecture, it would be an absolute shame if Christians weren't driving the push for justice for indigneous people.
The resolution passed without dissent
I recall Neutral Bay gave a significant portion (100%?) of a sale. I think 3 parishes gave a small amount for a couple of years. Perhaps someone can give the correct information.
Standing Committee produced a report a couple of years later
In that case, are not most of the self-described indigenous people in Australia today the descendants both of the dispossessed and the dispossessors?
How therefore can the descendants of the dispossessed be compensated, without the descendants of the dispossessors being, to the same extent, rewarded?
But I reject the argument that this should primarily be about love. To say means that we are acting out of charity, rather than fulfilling justice. The two are quite different. Charity is about someone else's generosity - justice is about what one is entitled to.
You are right - why stop at 1788? How far forward does it go? 1888? 1998? 2008? What is the cut-off point for justice? In what year does guilt cease?
I think Peter Adam, in an admirable attempt to be charitable in the tangled modern racial situation, has made a hash of his arguments. Peter conflates righting past injustices with historical territorial occupation with the nature of restitution. Firstly, the history of the fractious relations between Europeans and Aboriginal peoples isn't clear, let alone the exact role of the Anglican church, let alone deciding by which measure we judge the church's activities. Secondly historical territorial occupation is as old as humanity and while often violent and unjustified it would ludicrous to declare every territorial occupation in history as beyond the pale and it would be impossible to make an exact determination of what actually occurred. Finally how on earth do you calculate an appropriate recompense for something already so disputed and complex: Who were the original owners, who are their descendants, isn't any gesture tokenism however sincerely meant, if departure back to your country of origin isn't an option why bother with tokenism, who decides by what amount should be the compensation?
Peter meant well but I think the modern problems aren't solved by this time of confusion.
But this is not a case where the land was taken from anyone alive in 2010. It was taken in 1788, and progressively from then on. Since then, there have been high rates of intermarriage by Aboriginal and non-Aboriginals, so how do we properly identify the victim group? There is no real restitution if the person is not the real victim.
This whole exercise just strikes me as WASPs wanting to feel good about themselves, rather how so many Christians I know also have Volvos with climate change bumper stickers, a sort of moralistic hedging.
As I said before, there is no good reason for stopping at 1788. In England, many historic Protestant churches and cathedrals were Catholic, built and paid for by Catholic Englishmen in pre-reformation times, when all the Western church was Catholic and in communion with the Pope. Same with the wealth of the Catholic monasteries that found its way into the royal treasury. Are these all to be returned to the Holy See as unjust enriching proceeds of Henry VIII's crimes? At least in this case the victim is identifiable, as the Papacy existed in the 1500s and exists now.
Historical reparation is a difficult business and best not engaged in. Everyone has a claim to being treated badly.
This not about WASPs feeling good about themselves. This is about the sort of justice that you and I expect in our day to day lives.
Anyway, at what point does a wrong become "historical" and therefore no longer requiring redress? I note that the German government made it's final payment under the treaty of Versailles a couple of weeks ago - despite the fact that all involved are long since dead. I commend the German people for their integrity in this matter.
The German state agreed to pay compensation as part of the War Guilt clause in the Versailles Treaty (an appalling treaty but that is another matter). This was set in place in 1919, as a result of the 1914-1918 war. This is wholly different from the Anglican Church in Sydney deciding in 2010 that it will, on its own, start to pay reparations for what happened in 1788.
I am all for good works (as a high church type this gets me into trouble!) but do it in a practical way, such as indigenous scholarships for St Andrews and the like. Simply trying to appease one's WASP guilt for what happened centuries ago is self-indulgent, will only weaken the church here and probably enrich someone else who may or may not have any connection to the historical victims.
I am a proud WASP, love being a WASP and have the usual WASP guilts when I survey all the apparently harmful things that we WASPs have done to indigenous people, Irish, Scots, gays, trees, koalas whatever. The list of WASP atrocities is (I admit) an endless one. (I have a Catholic friend who knows this litany in respect of the Roman Church as well). However Sydney Anglicans cannot reverse what was done in 1788. Good, practical works now would be better.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/aborted-babies-being-left-to-die-20101006-167u0.html
Well done to Dr Mark Durie and may some of his zeal find its way to Sydney.
But I don't think that we should stop talking about it just because it is too hard to work out what to do. I still think Peter Adam has done the right thing in saying what he said, and I still applaud Craig for echoing his argument here.
On the night that Peter Adam gave this lecture at Moorling College, his presentation was very interesting, but the thing that sold me on the importance of this issue was not so much the eloquence of Dr Adam, but the response of the Christian indigenous elders who were present. They were in tears at the thought that the white church might finally start to engage with them on the issue of land and reconcilation.
Can we get some indigenous writers writing on Sydney Anglicans about this? Maybe it would help to some indigenous voices here. As much as white people dominate the Anglican church in Sydney, there are indigenous Anglicans who probably have two cents to throw in too.
I understand the sentiment and don't want to argue against it nor want to deepen modern racial difficulty by arguing against Peter Adam's thesis. But it's Peter's thesis itself that is problematic. I fear Peter has reduced the issue to one of simply "all Aboriginal people were hurt horribly by the European invasion and the Anglican church benefited which means we have to dramatically recompense the modern Aboriginal community." I've outlined the problems in his argument earlier but what I didn't point out that across Australia the variables are different.
For example here in Tasmania, the identification of Aboriginality is fraught with politics, issues of social inequality and historiography. This complicates the issue of actually talking about what happened, who was wrong and what if any compensation should occur. Social justice is very important, but it's a justice of the present, dealing with current injustice. The historical argument (with all it's attendant problems) Peter mounts complicates current reconciliation.
I applaud Peter's heart for justice and cautiously welcome the discussion, but fear the church may be rushing into something, without considering all aspects of the argument carefully.
I understand what you mean. That's why I pointed out that it wasn't so much Peter's arugment that sold me, it was more the response of the indigengous Christians in the room who got up and testified afterwards. They were clear that they DID feel hurt, even though they were not present when the British first settled in 1788. There are ongoing rammifactions today of the way indigenous people were treated by the first settlers. Even if today's context is very different from back then, indigenous people today feel as though they are still suffering because of it. And from the Christians that spoke that day, it seems to be a real impediment for the gospel spreading amonng indigenous communities.
They struggle to be a part of the church when most of the church doesn't take their problems and opinions seriously.
Peter Adam very helpfully opened the issue up for white people who would listen, and I'm glad we are still talking about it. We just need more indigenous voices - especially local indigenous Christian voices - to help shape where this discussion goes, and how the church needs to change to rectify things.
Would the expenditure in any way meet the kind of proposition that Dr Adams, and many, many others, have been advancing about compensation for disadvantage?
Which then raises the question of whether or not payment to Aboriginal people is part of our general shared citizenship or whether it should ever be seen as compensation. And if not, how would we go about quantifying compensation for an entire continent?
I agree with Alison that "the thing that sold me on the importance of this issue was not so much the eloquence of Dr Adam, but the response of the Christian indigenous elders who were present."
I think a fundamental way forward on some of these issues is to support indigenous ministries. I was speaking with an Aboriginal person the other day who suggested we had taken the commission in Acts and reversed it, taking the gospel to the outermost parts of the world ahead of Jerusalem. Even though that's not the direct application of that text, you can see the point, right?
Many of us support missions all over the world without giving a second thought to the backyard.
The Synod resolution, to which I referred is 25/02
"Synod recommends to the Standing Committee that priority be given under the Mission Strategy to resourcing Indigenous peoples' ministry by directing that a percentage of the proceeds from all sales of church trust property per annum be added to the Indigenous Peoples' Trust Fund for indigenous ministry within the Diocese or by allocating continuing funding through the Synod Appropriations and Allocations Ordinance. Synod further urges each parish of the Diocese to generously support indigenous ministry any way it can, for example, by giving a percentage of any land sales to the Indigenous Peoples' Ministry Trust Fund or by giving 1% of their net income to the fund or supporting existing indigenous ministries at a local level in every possible way."
Any Synod wish to ask a question of give notice of motion?
Where is the call to compensate Scots-Irish Australians for the Highland Clearances and the Potato Famine that drove my ancestors to this country in the first place (both events also served to enrich the Anglican church)? To try and claim that only bad things that happened to dark skinned people in the last few hundred years should be worried about is ludicrous.
If we want to help indigenous Australian peoples we should be campaigning to remove the health and education gaps not engaging in mere tokenism to assuage white guilt.
Who has said that? No-one! Huge straw man.
I've pointed out 3 or 4 times already how absurd this is. It is like saying, "We can't punish every murderer in history, therefore we should punish none."
I can't agree with this statement. My special area of study recently has been the first 12 years of the colony, and this era was recorded in meticulous detail. I would argue that we have a good record of exactly what happened in European and Aboriginals during this period, as well as the role of the Anglican church.
If anything, the Church of Scotland and its daughter Presbyterian churches gained more from the Clearances than did Scottish Episcopalians (who by and large weren't in official favour since the Glorious Revolution.)
Peter's making a broad argument, clearly everyone wants reconciliation with the Aboriginal people, but the specifics are much more complex and morally ambiguous then the larger picture suggests. I support Alison's suggestion about engaging with the local Aboriginal community and working hard at supporting Aboriginal Christians. But this is better on a case by case basis rather than a wholesale argument.
This discussion isn't divorced from the wider discussion where the calls for compensation are largely driven by white guilt, assuaged by tokenism, and not real concern for indigenous Australians. For example all the people that marched in support of an apology while largely ignoring the day to day struggle of indigenous Australians. To put it plainly the demand for an apology was a big political issue, actually doing anything to fix the problems in indigenous communities isn't.
I also am speaking from an academic context where the settlement of Australia is talked about as the worstest thing ever!!!11 which leaves me shaking my head. Frankly the suffering of indigenous Australians at the hands of the British Empire is a minor footnote in history compared to the suffering of Scottish and Irish peoples at the hands of the English (backed by the established Anglican church).
My point is that we should be looking to the future and making sure indigenous Australians are full and equal citizens of this country (by removing the health and education gaps) and not to the past in mis-guided attempts to compensate for historical wrongs.
P.S. It is funny you mention the Treaty of Versailles as the economic effects of that unjust settlement were directly responsible for the rise of Hitler. You can therefore argue that the Anglican church (as the established church of England) is indirectly responsible for the Holocaust.
During those years it wasn't established in Scotland, though.
It was established in England. Or are you trying to argue for the fiction that Britain was an equal union of Scotland, Ireland, England, and Wales? The power and directives flowed from England where the Anglican church was the established church.
This is a huge red herring. I know I'm not speaking from any feelings of "white guilt", and reading Dr Adam's essay, I don't believe he is either.
A death is a death. A dispossession is a dispossession. How do you compare such things? I think to suggest that the suffering of Aborigines is a "minor footnote in history" is to display a fair bit of insensitivity.
I don't follow your reasoning at all. This seems to me a strange and bizarre comment.
You don't need a massacre for injustice to have taken place. To take Sydney Cove as one example, the Cadigal were dispossessed of their land simply by the presence of the Europeans - as the Europeans expanded and moved further and further outward, the Cadigal were forced to the fringes. *All* Anglican church land was originally the possession of an Aboriginal tribe. For example, the Paredarerme tribe were the original owners of the land around Hobart (including your church at Battery Point!)
There was often minor variants in the transliterating of aboriginal names into written English. They were called "Cadigal" or "Gadigal" - both words sound very similar.
You, nor Peter in his original argument prove that dispossession is intrinsically bad or deserving of restitution. Peter mentions mistreatment of Aboriginal peoples but that in itself doesn't prove the injustice of dispossession. In other-words why is dispossession bad and why must it be *fixed* with restitution?
But Craig this just highlights the problem with Peter's thesis and your argument, it's too general to be applied evenly across Australia. Even if we were to establish that dispossession is unjust, who are the Paredarerme today? Aboriginality is a controversial and complex topic in Tasmania today, made more difficult by other issues such as social inequality.
I am not talking about a sense of home here - I am talking about simple property rights.
I'm caught out by using a fancy word - dispossession is theft. I don't see how it is possible to think otherwise.
If I showed up at your parents home with 6 burly bikers and force them out, is that right or wrong?
I understand these difficulties - but let's not jump to end point. We need to start by agreeing whether what occurred was right or wrong. Only after that can we talk about whether restitution is necessary, or possible.
LOL, fair point I'd be upset.
However, while I guess dispossession is wrong (except the Israelite dispossession of Canaan) in the sense that it's theft but surely it's also scaled through time and place? One of Peter's arguments is that God ordains every people their rightful place but while technically true, God is indeed sovereign, he organized it so that the Russians dispossessed the Germans from Prussia etc etc etc. Of course as your Biker example shows as Christians we can't support the "might is right" dictum but after awhile we stop caring about the Roman invasion of Britain. Surely God won't hold us to account for every single dispossession in the history of man or are you arguing that all dispossessions are equal and if your not what makes the theft of Australia from the Aboriginals more or less worse than the theft of Northern India by the Mongols, for example? It's further complicated by the way that sometimes we prefer the dispossessor (Israel) and sometimes the dispossessed (East Timor). Surely we'd have to get to a point, to use a imaginary example in Tomorrow when the War Began series when the invader and the invaded have to live alongside each other accepting the way things are. (BTW I'm not condoning current injustices!)
Regarding what is an Australian - an Australian is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Australia.
As to some of the historical issues, other posters have also identified the problem with WASPs engaging in this reparations business, as the list of victims lining up would be endless.
I have answered this several times in this thread, and you've ignored my comments, so please forgive me if I put aside the gentle veil of courtesy and speak more plainly.
Fred, your comment is nonsense. It does not become more credible through repetition.
Let me answer it again. The fact that we can't address every injustice in history does not mean we should not attempt to address any. Following your logic, a policeman might say, "I can't prosecute every murder in history, therefore I will prosecute none of them."
What nonsense!
In mitigation do WASPs and others receive some lessening of the bill for fighting WW1, WW2 and the cold war, such that we still have a country which can then pay a compensation bill?
I do not belittle your sentiment. I just think it is far more complex than anyone has properly thought out. As my Catholic friend says, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Indeed.
If we were having this discussion in 1810 as opposed to 2010, you would be on my side of the fence?
I feel kind of uncomfortable that so many people here are happy to downplay the need to rectify any problems, without considering what indigenous people today think.
The argument most people seem to be making is something like:
"A lot of time has passed. It's hard to really understand history. Therefore we can't possibly justify any drastic, crazy acts of restitution".
The thing is that none of us are indigenous. No one has quoted any indigneous people. How do we know whether or not the indigenous community feel that there is still restitution to be made if nobody asks them?
Please? Before us white/other-migrant people make any more wild claims about appropriate justice and whether or not the events of 1788 still need to be rectified, can we all go and ask some indigenous people ourselves?
Can we get some indigenous people to write about this on SA.com?
Without a doubt, the Anglican Denomination across Australia has benefited greatly from the granting of so-called crown lands. I heard Peter Adam use this issue as an illustration/application in a CMS Summer School talk from a few years ago.
Personally I think, while the problem began in 1788, a quick visit to the Museum in Sydney reveals that the dispossession and 'special treatment' was alive and well in the 20th century. Further, the last unpunished massacre of Aboriginal Australians occurred in the late 1950s (in the Northern Territory).
Perhaps a way forward is for us Anglicans to pay recompense into a fund that addresses the indigenous health, social and psychological issues stemming from 'invasion day?'
1. Was the original dispossession wrong? If yes, then...
2. Are we obliged to try and address that wrong? If yes, then...
3. What can we do to address that wrong?
It seems a number of people on this thread say "yes" to question 1, but "no" to question 2. Still, it's encouraging to see a consensus around question 1 - it's a start...
Cameragyl People. But I chiefly know this, sadly, not out of a deep desire for justice, but because we involve ourselves in the Cameragyl Festival - one village many peoples...
From memory, they also owned all of North Sydney too.
To pick up Richard Lambeth's comments, I am just wanting to add a bit of recent corporate memory, in 2003, Synod was advised that contributing to the indigenous ministry fund via a percentage of land sales was an inequitable way of proceeding, since some parishes rarely buy and sell property and others do so more often, for various reasons. Instead it resolved to send 1% of its annual income towards the capital of the Indigenous Peoples Ministry Fund and has done so for the last half decade. I understand this 1% has been calculated and distributed before any other item. It was a good move - not strict justice or reparation - but a real and tangible way of strengthening indigenous ministry now.
Synod more recently in 2006 also made provision to ensure there was indigenous representation at Synod.
I am wary of extending this to whole peoples as anyone with a basic grasp of history knows that dispossession has occurred over the centuries. Dispossession occurred between Aboriginal tribes, as it did among Scottish and Irish clans (my ancestors) and, when the Protestant British Empire did it (and Catholic powers like Spain, Portugal, France etc also did it), these Christian powers were really just applying a colonising process that had been occurring in their own territories at the tribe and clan level for some thousands of years. It is unworldly to expect this not to happen.
The State of Israel, which I strongly support, is essentially a modern colonial state established in 1947-1948 on the Biblical lands of the Jews, but which were in part occupied by Palestinian Arabs. The Arabs did not want a 2-state solution, fought the Jews and lost. However no one likes to consider this war as it makes the Palestinians less the victims.
I think it is unrealistic to get too worked up about these past dispossessions, which are endless and in which every people has been a victim, as opposed to remedying current injustices.
Sorry to play the dour realist amid the believers but prudence is also a virtue.
I am glad to say that our parish has for a long time (before I was ever here) supported the regional indigenous ministries centred around Minto and Nowra, albeit in small ways. More broadly, as a region of the diocese, we love to hear what's going on with these ministries at clergy conferences and so on.
Michael and Jonathan, our aboriginal brothers in pastoral ministry down this way, seem to do a great job, with some MTS and Youthworks apprenticeships going as well.
They encourage us that National Sorry Day (26 May) which introduces National Reconciliation Week, and then also NAIDOC Week (the first full week of July) are two good times to pray for the welfare of indigenous Australians and more specifically for indigenous ministries.
However asking me whether 1788's British annexation of Australia was right or wrong is, really, no different to asking me whether the Roman invasion of Britain was right, or the English annexation of Wales, Scotland and Ireland was right. In each case, a militarily stronger power overwhelmed a militarily weaker power. The fate of our indigenous people, while tragic, was no different from the history of every other continent on this planet. The strong prevailed over the weak. What was true of the Melian dialogue in Thucydides and on was true in 1788 and is true now (cf Tibet).
Further, had the British not colonised Australia, it would have been done by the French or by others. There never was, realistically, any alternative to the Australian continent being colonised by one or a number of European powers.
As I said before in an earlier post, if Sydney Anglicans are looking for a righteous cause, try abortion. In this case, a weak and vulnerable person is being murdered. This crime is far more immediate and far more diabolical than anything that happened in 1788.
Anyway, those who are sitting on the fence can read through your comments and decide if it's really as difficult to decide the right and wrong of the situation as you are making out.
More historically, each dispossession is the result of a stronger power subjugating a weaker power. And each dispossession occurred many years ago. Since then many of the descendants of the victim and of the perpetrators have often intermarried, and just who is now who is difficult to determine.
By contrast, abortion is a clear and present evil occurring now. It is unquestionably abominably evil. The victims of abortion are here among us now, both in the dead child and the wounded mother, on a scale that we do not wish to know about. If unborn children were refugees the Greens would be up-in-arms. That is my point.
How does one really right a dispossession?
How do you, really, restore a dispossessed people without having the occupiers leave?
I am all for helping poor and downtrodden people. I just think the "pay the rent" (apologies to Midnight Oil) is much more complex.
As I said before, arguing about what happened in 1788 and afterwards is a 10th order issue compared to the daily monstrous crime of abortion.
Yes, those are big questions that require careful thought.
I tend to agree with Fred's reservations. I think it is very hard to remedy what the British Empire did in 1788, albeit the consequences live on to this day. I also think it is difficult for the Anglican Church to do in 2010. Where I live in country NSW, there is a largely WASP Anglican population in Anglican Churches who might benefit historically from the dispossession. However I have also lived in Chatswood where local parishes have a very migrant congregation. What duty does a Chinese Christian who arrived here recently have to remedy something that occurred long ago by people they are not related to in any way? How do migrant Anglicans respond to a remedy for something done by Anglo-Anglicans?
I do support making as much provision as we can for Aboriginal Christians.
This problem of what to do about indigenous issues is something that vexes us all. As Fred said above, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. I will support whatever works for indigenous people and can understand much of Noel Pearson's outrage.
Michael: thank you and please expand on this as I (for one) did not know of this history.
Also, the Highland clearances were carried out mainly by Scots landowners themselves, not primarily "the English" as you generalise.
All countries do indeed have their skelitons in their closets - Australia being one of the most obvious and intractible - a 'whispering in our hearts' as John Pilger calls it.
The Highland clearances were executed, at least inititially, by the Duke of Cumberland, aka Butcher Cumberland, who was a General of the English Hanoverian army. These were followed by the prohibitions on kilts and Highland dress.
Much of the history Scotland is in effect a history of two nations battling in one, of the lowland Scots and the highland Scots. So in some respects you can't call Scotland historically a unified unit.
If we want to go down this tack, perhaps we can discuss Western Australian independence - as it pondered in the 1930s (I believe) and Australian federation.
PS. Why don't Australia compete at the Commonwealth Games as separate states, that would make the Commonwealth games less of a "turn on the TV and watch yet another Aussie winning" - mix it up a bit!
In respect of indigenous "pay the rent", what would this mean? A compensation package? A payment (one off?) to indigenous Australians. What happens if they are half-caucasian and thereby half the beneficiary of white settlement? This is the problem I see.
This does not mean we do nothing. I just think we need to deal with need on the basis of individual need now, not remedying an historic injustice.
I should also say that I support Aboriginal struggles against white settlement being commemorated at the War Memorial. While I am reasonably conservative, many Aboriginal warriors fought bravely for their side and deserve the sort of commemoration that American Indians have in the USA.
[This said, Antonia Fraser's biography of Cromwell presents Cromwell in a more human light, all the more surprising as Fraser was/is a Catholic.]
Sorry to have gone off topic. It is just that, historically, as Fred pointed out, when one considers dispossession of people A, it is hard to not also think of other dispossessions of peoples B, C, and D etc.
I am not sure how this could be done in 2010 as all of the major perpetrators have long passed on. Instead, the Anglo-Australians who have benefited from the dispossession are passive inheritors. Godfrey's point about the North American Indians may be some example but I am not aware of what is done there.
But here's the issue: our current Australian culture and wealth have been built upon the past exploitation and dispossession and oppression and abuse and murder of Aboriginal peoples. That means there is a direct connection between what we experience now, and what has been done in the past to Aboriginal people. Further, that same exploitation and dispossession and oppression etc has continued in various forms of explicit and implicit racisms that have operated throughout C20th and continue to shape attitudes towards Aboriginal people in C21st - e.g., the lingering effects of the White Australia policy. Some of the comments on this thread (like Godfrey's above) advocate a barely modified version of integration/assimilation that were based in the White Australia policy. (Godfrey: the experience of Asian Australians has some parallels, but is still vastly different from Aboriginal peoples).
Since the whole Australian wealth and culture and education has been built and continues to be built on this edifice - and churches have benefited from this - then some form of reparation is quite possibly legitimate. What kind of reparation? Rent? In my opinion, no. Greater and more specific funding by the whole diocese to Indigenous programs that are consistent with Christian principles but includes Indigenous leaders, mandatory quotas of indigenous scholarships to Anglican schools - that's a start.
You've hit the nail right on the head. This is exactly the case. If Peter didn't say it, I will: All aboriginal people have been and continue to be hurt horribly by European 'invasion' and the Anglican church has benefited. The key thing, as my previous post mentions, is that there is a chain of abuse throughout the 200-odd years since European invasion that gives rise to the problems and challenges Aboriginal people experience today. Culture and history are organic - you can't draw firm lines in the sand. So while one Aboriginal person still exists and continues to be adversely affected by the historical treatment of Aboriginal people, then a case is to be made for churches to address that situation (particularly if they benefited from it).
Fred asked above why should a church in 2010 pay for an act of state by the British Empire in 1788? I do not mean to dodge the question but I think that is a reasonable question to ask, especially in the church's current state.
I am no expert in the area of why indigenous people are in such poor circumstances but simply made the point that racism cannot simply explain it. I certainly cannot.
I doubt anyone here wants other than the absolute best for indigenous people.
I agree on Jason's suggestion of indigenous programs but what does "mandatory quotas" mean?
Thanks for your thoughts, but I disagree with you: racism and its application through brutality and various government policies from 1788 right through to the early to mid 1980's with its neglect of Aboriginal issues, and even to the recent past with the failure to record accurately in school texts and other documents the history of treatment of Aboriginal people is entirely to blame for the poor circumstances of Indigenous people in this country.
In other words, my point is that Australia's Anglo-European population has inherited and followed the trajectory of 'the act of state by the British Empire in 1788' (not to mention that Australia was closely tied to the Empire even in C20th).
The fact that few people beyond school age (the school policies regarding Aboriginal education and history are getting better) have a clear and informed perspective on the treatment of Indigenous Australians is proof-positive that Australia hasn't moved much beyond prejudices and stereotypes of Aboriginal people that grew out of 'invasion'/settlement of Australia.
Your earlier statement that some Aboriginal people are 'half-caucasian' is also part of the problem, because it is reminiscent of the "White Australia" policy that sought to assimilate Indigenous Australians based on the levels of 'whiteness' in their blood - ie., are they half-caste, quarter-caste etc, because the more 'white' blood they have, the higher their intelligence and better life prospects.
The question (and it's a good question) is this - to what extent are we responsible for reparations? It happened a long time ago - does this in and of itself make reparation unnecessary?
I'm not meaning to sound rude or confrontational, but the lack of knowledge about aboriginality, about the past and present poor treatment of Aboriginal people in various parts of Australia and the general lack of interaction of your everyday person (most likely including people on this thread) with Aboriginal people is part of the issue.
I've only read bits of Peter Adam's views on the matter, and I think he's spot-on, even if I think there might be other ways to construct a way forward apart from 'paying the rent'. Acting to redress the significant disadvantages Aboriginal people face with health, education and life outcomes is one way (on the Galatians 6 principle of 'doing good to all people especially the household of faith'); as far as ministries go, subsidising Aboriginal leaders in their ministries to Aboriginal people, taking down flags in churches or at least flying an Aboriginal flag with the Union Jack and Australian flags if they are present (I'm not a fan of flags in churches as a permanent fixture, but it's confronting for an Indigenous person to walk into a church, see Union Jack & Aussie flag - it says, 'only Anglo-white people are welcome here'). There are probably other concrete measures, but that'll do for the moment.
WIth all due respect the continued emphasis on 1788 is a red herring. For not only have all Australians inherited that history with all its attendant problems of institutional racism built up over time, but Anglo-European Aussies have contributed their own absolute shockers even if we limit our scope to C20th - eg., stolen generations, massacres in WA and other places. We can't simply limit Christian responses to the Glebe land that was taken and work from there. It has been a whole-of-society problem - Christians included (though, Christians have done some great things in the past to mitigate or provide or lobby for better circumstances; but Christians have their fair share of blame to bear also for racist and paternalistic treatment of Aboriginal people).
Should've explained myself better. I agree start at 1788. But some people on this thread want to use 1788 as the stopping date too, as if nothing has happened since then.
I do not put myself forward as any kind of expert, so no offence taken at all! I literally have no real answer to this question but just question its prudence as an overall response.
I enjoy the discussions on these forums and have learned a great deal from them.
Kind regards,
Godfrey
I think you're being terribly uncharitable to Craig to claim he's worshiping the creatures rather than the Creator. That lack of charity also extends to the concern that he's idealising the "earlier inhabitants" (a tad patronising and offensive, don't you think?).
If you're going to use the analogy of the Romans, then it may be worthwhile understanding a bit more about the Roman empire. If I have it correct, the Romans brought in 'the pax romana' (spelling?) - that is, they brought in something of a peaceful existence in the lands they conquered, where people were allowed to go about their daily life, worship their idols or their ancient religions, provided they obeyed the benevolent Roman emperor, which most were happy to do. So is it comparable to the wholesale slaughter and oppression of the aboriginal race in Australia? I don't think so.
Shall we move on with the discussion then about reparations? Personally, I think concrete ways of addressing disadvantage of and a greater respect for Aboriginal people might be a more productive path than 'reparations' per se.
I'm not sure where you got the idea of "NO FORGIVENESS" from in my article. As it happens, I think forgiveness will be essential if we are to achieve lasting reconciliation with indigenous Australians.
I cannot see where I have idealized aborigines at all - let alone idolised them!
As it happens, I have. I have spent the last 18 months working on a biography of Richard Johnson, Australia's first chaplain, and I'm pretty familiar with the source materials relevant to the early colonial period. I've been across both of Tench's books, the Phillip/Stockdale book, the books by Collins and White, as well as the HRNSW and HRA document collections.
Its barbarian subjects might not have agreed with you: as one ancient British chieftain, quoted by Tacitus, said of the Pax Romana:
Solitudinem fecerunt, pacem appelunt
They made a desert, and called it peace.
I think you can make a reasonable case that the British Empire was at least as rapacious, and at least as beneficent, as the Roman Empire. It is antiquity which makes us excuse its crimes, and recall its benefits; likewise perhaps the passing of the British Empire is perhaps too recent for its former subjects to weigh up objectively what it delivered both positively and negatively.
Wise words...
Likewise, the colony of NSW is no more! So that's all right then?
Or, if you prefer, the European Union is the Roman Empire's successor and liable for reparations
Changes in legal personality, and statutes of limitations are mere legal conveniences.
As for the White Australia Policy, loathe as I am to dispel the common belief that Gough inaugurated the new millenium and the reign of the saints, dare I suggest it was a Liberal PM, Harold Holt, who ended it de facto in 1966, while Whitlam notwithstanding his formal support for non-racialism didn't exactly cover himself with glory in his treatment of the "...... ing Balt" Viet-Namese refugees?
You largely ignored my substantive point about the several hundred generations of separation between the defunct Roman Empire and Britain today vs a few generations of the British Empire (oh, didn't we just have the Commonwealth Games?) and Aboriginal Australians today. Why?
Who cares who instituted the end of the "White Australia Policy", whether it's '66 or '73, the point is still the same. It wasn't that long ago that Australian governments - as a semi-autonomous vehicle and a vehicle for the Crown - had a policy that directly and deliberately discriminated against Aboriginal people - it continued to reinforce the dispossession. So there is a very close proximity of time between of dispossession and oppression and our current day situation.
And as others have said in a different way, people (e.g. pastoralists) on lands allocated by the Crown have direct descendants that still own that dispossessed land. Now the Anglican church is one of those institutions that has a direct connection of past allocation of land to present ownership. So I don't think Dr Adam's points can so easily be dodged.
It comes across as a distinct lack of understanding and empathy towards Aboriginal people's situations. Can you imagine how that sounds to an Aboriginal person?