See what happens when you apologise...

You get stupid theatrics in courts, not just in Parliament.

Keith Windshuttle makes many interesting points today about exaggeration by "stolen generation" historians. And Andrew Bolt is being driven nuts by the whole apology thing, but as with Windshuttle, he does present some information that you wouldn't hear elsewhere.

I heard Phillip Adams on Late Night Live this week express surprise that Canada had not issued a full apology for its treatment of its indigenous population, although they are having a Truth and Reconciliation Commission into the system of residential schools for Native Americans. (Actually, I did not hear all of this show, and I note that Canada did make some sort of apology in 1998.)

In fact, that last linked article has a list (how exhaustive it is, I don't know) of the handful of historically significant apologies. There don't seem to be many around.

Of course, the churches that had a lot to do with telling aborigines what was best for them in the past are now all for an apology. It seems to be something that it's too impolite to say that the departure of the church from their missions does not often seem to have resulted in healthier, more vibrant communities.

It certainly seems true that the value of the symbolism is often being exaggerated by people who are not always forthright about both personal and social history. These exaggerations (with, according to Gerard Henderson, Ronald Wilson himself coming up with the term "genocide" for the stolen generation report, against even Mick Dodson's doubts) actually made it harder for a national consensus to be reached that an official national apology was appropriate.

It all comes down to semantics between a statement of regret, and the use of the word "apology". Half the people of the country have probably forgotten that in 1999 Howard did respond to the Stolen Generation report by having Parliament resolve that it :

acknowledges that the mistreatment of many indigenous Australians over a
significant period represents the most blemished chapter in our national
history;
(f) expresses its deep and sincere regret that indigenous Australians suffered
injustices under the practices of past generations, and for the hurt and
trauma that many indigenous people continue to feel as a consequence of
those practices; and
(g) believes that we, having achieved so much as a nation, can now move
forward together for the benefit of all Australians.

Beazley tried to have it changed to incorporate a direct apology. If that had been done, there was nothing else to object to the in the resolution.

It seems to me that the new Labor government could simply have dealt with this by revisiting the resolution and amending it with the additional words Beazley wanted. It could be done without a great song and dance, and without all the dubious puffing up of the importance of the symbolism.

But that is often Labor's way: valuing symbolism or theory at the expense of results, and encouraging others to do likewise.