Hi Karen,
My feeling about your answer is that you're not
talking about reconciliation but about something less specific like living in
a fair country, judging by your comments below. Reconciliation is about
that too, but it refers to a particular relationship, namely, that between
settler Australians and Indigenous Australians. You might think that
that relationship is not important but you don't get to decide that and nor do
I and nor does John Howard - history decides that. That relationship
exists, you can't just wish it away. Awful things happened in the past -
I think you would admit that, wouldn't you? - and those things have
repercussions in the present. So reconciliation can't just be about the
things you mention, it also has to be about the specific relationship.
You can't define that relationship out of your definition of
reconciliation.
Karen: Reconciliation is many things to
me.
Well, it can have
many aspects, I agree, but it's only about one thing - the relationship
between Settler and First Australians. And that's the very thing you
don't seem to want it to be about. Why?
Karen: Reconciliation is about being proud to be
Australian.
Fine. We can
be proud to be Australian, but what are you proud of? Everything that
has ever happened here? Surely not - you're too smart to know that
nothing wrong has ever happened here, whether its about Indigenous Australians
or anything else. But like I said last time, if you can be proud about
some of the things done in Australia then can't you also be ashamed of some
things too? And if you can be ashamed of some things then, as proud
Australians who no doubt don't want their country to be badly thought of,
shouldn't we do something about those things that make us ashamed? And
if the victims of one of those shameful things say to us that one of the
things they want is an apology for how they have been treated, then is that
too much to ask? Even if we, as you've said, didn't actually do those
things, who else is going to make the gesture? The people in the past
can't apologise, can they? So who is? And how would it decrease
our pride in being Australian if we said sorry now? Surely being proud
of who we are means fessing up that we're not now and never have been
perfect. Don't you think that'd help us move on, which seems to be the
main thing you want?
I must admit I'm
always amazed when people say they are proud to be Australian but then also
say that they don't much about the country's history. Funny sort of
pride. So proud they can't be bothered reading a few
books.
Karen: Reconciliation is about being ready to look
after one another.
Well, we're not
looking after one another by denying one group's suffering, are we?
Karen: Reconciliation - what does it mean to
you!
It means saying sorry, having the apology accepted and
trying to move on together, not by ignoring the past but by acknowledging
it. It won't solve everything but it will go out of its way not to make
anything worse and it won't deny other people's suffering. Pretty simple
really.
Karen: As for mandatory sentencing, I have never
actually said that I was against mandatory sentencing. I just still don't see
how it is a race issue. Still, nobody has come up with anything
concrete.
It's a race issue
because of the way it's applied. If you put a law in place that is more
likely to affect one group of people than another then the law itself doesn't
have to actually specify that group, the bias will take care of itself.
For example, dealing crack cocaine in the US attracts harsher penalties than
does dealing powdered cocaine. Crack is cheaper and is therefore more
likely to be used by poor people than rich people. Poor people tend more
often to be black than white in the US. Thus the law doesn't have to say
'arrest only black people', this just happens because that's who use
crack. White people who use powedered cocaine are less likely to be
prosecuted (the figures show) and recieve much more lenient sentences, because
the laws are written that way. Racism often works in this way - it is
built into the structures of how laws and institutions work. If an
employer doesn't want women with children to get a certain job they
don't have to say men only - they just make the job description
unattractive to women, say by demanding long hours and weekend work.
This won't stop all women with children applying, but it will discourage
many.
Karen: Why does nobody jump up and call it racist
when a white person dies in custody?
Because racism is
about power. If the system that puts people in jail is largely written
and run by one group of people, and if those laws are more likely to affect a
certain group (like the crack example above) then racism only becomes an issue
when someone from the minority group is affected. Of course, this
doesn't diminish the tragedy of any person dying in custody, but it's a
different issue. Remember, we're not talking in absolutes here - people
other than those from a particular group may be affected by whatever system is
in place, but it tends to be those from a particular group. And
statisitics from around the world show that it is minority groups, and
particularly non-white people, who are mostly affected by laws like mandatory
sentencing etc in majority white societies. That's why it's racism when
an Indigenous person dies in custody and why it is something else and also
awful when a white person dies. And what do you mean no-one 'jumps up'
about it? Of course they do, as I'm sure those people on this list who
deal with it day in and day out will tell you.
All the
best
Tim
