Differrent Views On Australian National Apology To The Stolen Generations

The period of reconciliation in Australia between 1997 and 2008 shed a light on many new differing perspectives on the stolen generation. Many newfound perspectives began to arise during this time of reconciliation where Australia had been torn among many sides of the nation. To this day, a variety of perspectives have been shown and spoken about through videos, documents, newsletters etc. Many people believe there is no need for apologies as it wasn’t their wrong doings, others believe one must speak on behalf of the nation, others believe one should just simply forgive and forget; this led to a large divide between the country where people were either pro-apology or anti-apology. As the stolen generation had been affected tremendously by the taking of children from their families, many believe that what was done in the past cannot be undone however others believe that there is still hope in the future.

Many of those during the period of Reconciliation between 1997 and 2008 attempted to persuade each other to believe in their opinions. Reports and letters were written in hopes of persuading others to believe what they thought were rights. Many letters were written against or in defense of Former Prime Minister (Hon) John Howard and his speech addressing Australia’s reconciliation period. Former Prime Minister John Howard believed that everything that happened to the Stolen Generations were “fair” and that “optimism, my friends, about the reconciliation process cannot be blind”; Howard thought that reconciliation could never happen unless one had a “realistic approach”. Many of those disagreed with what was said during the speech, and brought to light the flaws said. Many don’t wish harm upon non-indigenous people, “Despite my expertise, I, like many Indigeneous people, do not see Sorry Day as a chance to get a pound of flesh or beat non- Indigneous people up with guilt”; this suggests that they only want reconciliation to express “a commitment to empathy and harmony in the future”. Both Sources 2 and 4 portray a person wanting to move towards a better future where both can live in harmony, however Howard refused to show empathy towards the situation and acknowledge what had been done to the Stolen Generation.

Two primary perspectives arose during the time of Reconciliation, those who believed the Stolen Generation deserved better and those who believed the stolen generation weren’t significant and didn’t need to be reconciled with. Source 5 shined a light on two different perspectives during the time of Reconciliation, Prime Minister Howard and Senator John Herron refused to apologise for the content of the submission made to the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee’s inquiry into the stolen generations. According to Herron whilst defending his submission, “the practise of removing Aboriginal children from their families… affected “no more than 10%” of Aboriginal people.” He argued that they were carried out for “good” reasons. This outlook on Reconciliation presented, show that many believed that the stolen generations were kept ‘minimal’ and many Aboriginal people weren’t directly affected by the removing of Aboriginal children from their families. Rod Towney, NSW ALC chairperson rebutted and said “Each and every Aboriginal family has lived through their experiences and we all see and feel the effects to this day.” presenting his idea of Reconciliation and how he felt Senator John Herron’s opinions differed from the truth.

Reconciliation, for many was a time for Australia to heal and recover from the time of the stolen generation. During this period of time many wanted an apology for all the grief the loss of family have caused the stolen generation. Kevin Rudd spoke on behalf of the Australian government in a speech apologising to the stolen generations. In Kevin Rudd’s full speech where he delivers his “Sorry speech” he speaks on behalf of the Australian government he remained broad covering almost all of the events and problems the stolen generation went through. The speech was received in many ways. “I fully welcome the apology to the Stolen Generation as a lot of people will now know what took place” Alec Kruger, member of the Stolen Generations; his perspective was to spread awareness about the Stolen Generations he accepted the apology and wanted to reconcile. This sheds a light on those who were directly affected by the kidnapping of Aboriginal children from their families and allowed a closer step in the process of healing Australia.

During the early periods of Reconciliation, many believed that changing the laws and forwarding motions will discontinue the process of Aboriginal families being torn apart. Attempts of reconciling with the Stolen Generation were made through acknowledgments and motions; both had minimal outlines and did not fully consider what the Aboriginals had wanted, a proper apology. Many attempted to just “right the wrongs” and “move on”, however this wasn’t effective as many members of the Stolen Generation believed that they deserved an acknowledged apology and not one that wasn’t only to be given into the parliament. Both the motion and acknowledgment was brief and short in an attempt to move passed the period of reconciliation. The period of reconciliation between 1997 and 2008 allowed for different perspectives on how people viewed the stolen generations and what had occurred to them. Different people from different backgrounds spoke up about their opinions on this matter. Many people believed an apology was unnecessary where others did, this led to a large divide between the nation causing a long feud of differing perspectives on Reconciliation. The perspectives on apology differ from person to person however the perspectives were primarily sorted into those who were for apology and those who were against it.