Keating begins discussing the factor of the significance of the whole of reconciliation the year coming. Keating goes on to discuss the appropriate interpretation that reconciliation hasn’t always been fulfilled. Keating then quotes “It comes a time when we have committed ourselves to succeeding in the test which so far we have always failed”. The statement Keating is trying to make is that Australians glorify reconciliation, but never really go through with it. Reconciliation with the indigenous is talked about constantly and non-indigenous Australians are all about it, but no action is ever made; the injustice is still there. Additionally, Keating adds in the cold hard truth within the injustice, that the “opportunity, care, dignity and hope” …show more content…
The “how well” repetition adds the concept that non-indigenous Australians have been so secluded to themselves that they in reality don’t know anything. Keating goes on to include the repetition relating to the knowledge of the land, the history of the land and as much as we can change everything in relation to the land, it will never be seperate from Aboriginal Australia. These factors reinforce that there were thousands upon thousands of original and traditional places, people, food way before the English settled into the notorious …show more content…
For 50% of the text Keating, discusses the painful consequences that non-indigenous Australians have caused through their actions. That lives have been ruined and completely traumatic since early days, destroying innocent individuals especially the children that had to grow up in the remaining years, if they had any left. The pain felt by the traditional Australians is imaginable and goes untold to the non-indigenous because they would never have to through it, they are too first world to know what their ancestors actions could do to people. The sorrow continues on as a result of the indigenous still not getting any recognition at all. At the current time people are still not doing anything to help the injustice. Keating then goes on to encourage hope for the future, which is his main point when speaking at that date. His goal was to discuss how pure and easy recognition could be, that there will be nothing comprised; that the economy within Australia could be peaceful and
The first is Paul Keating’s Redfern speech of December 1992, during the Mabo case. Keating spoke about the injustices committed against Indigenous people since European settlement of Australia and the need to acknowledge and remedy these. The conflicting source is an interview of John Howard on the 7.30 report in 1997, 4 years after the Mabo decision. Howard deals with the perceived implications of the Mabo and subsequent land title decisions for land ownership across Australia. The two sources conflict as they are taken from opposing parts of the mainstream Australian political spectrum. They reflect the so-called History Wars, a debate regarding the unresolved cultural struggle over the nature of the Indigenous dispossession and the place it should assume in Australian self-understanding. The Redfern Speech sets out the views of the left wing, progressive spectrum of Australian political views. John Howard’s interview sets out the arguments against the political and economic effects of the Mabo decision and subsequent land title decisions and largely reflects right-wing political views. The sources differ not only in their political views but also the time that they were given. Keating sets out his moral perspective regarding the need to rectify the past wrongs and improve the future prospects for Australian indigenous people. It was delivered before the final Mabo high court decision, and so cannot deal with the social, economic and political implications of said decision. Contrastingly, John Howards interview was 4 years after the Mabo decision, during which several subsequent land title decisions had been made. Consequently, his interview focused on his views of the implications of those subsequent events for Australia’s political, social and economic
Summary of Text: ‘The Redfern Address’ is a speech that was given to a crowd made up of mainly indigenous Australians at the official opening of the United Nations International Year of the World’s Indigenous Peoples in Redfern Park, New South Wales. This text deals with many of the challenges that have been faced by Indigenous Australians over time, while prompting the audience to ask themselves, ‘How would I feel?’ Throughout the text, Keating challenges the views of history over time, outlines some of the outrageous crimes committed against the Indigenous community, and praises the indigenous people on their contribution to our nation, despite the way they have been treated.
In August 2008 a ‘Statement of Reconcilliation’ was released by the Hornsby Shire and Council in conjunction with the local traditional custodians. The statement discusses the policies in which the community alleges to follow including; education to all those within the Hornsby district on the topic of Aboriginal history, to respect the survival of the indigenous and protect all indigenous sites. The reconciliation statement concludes with a an apology to the Guringai people and acknowledges the lost and trauma in which they all went through. This in conjunction with the national apology by Kevin Rudd in 2008, displays a major change within society. The country and local communities were educated in the statement “this was their land and water and that they remain its spiritual custodians.” (NSW Reconciliation Council, 2008).
Reconciliation is when two or more once opposing sides come together in agreement, establishing a friendly relationship. The film shows how reconciliation is a process where there are many hurdles and challenges to encounter before achieving true understanding. One scene depicts this tension showing Joel and his parents facing the principle and her colleagues across her desk. A long shot pans the desk to establish the apprehension and division between the Indigenous Australians and the ‘white school staff.’ The directors strategically placed the sound of a clock ticking in the background to instigate a sense fear and the unknown as Joel and his parents take a seat. Mrs McCann (the principal) attempts to start the reconciliation process by saying “suspending a student is not something we do lightly” as a high angle shot is displayed on the family to portray powerlessness and vulnerability. A back and forth dialogue occurs as Joel’s father refers to the 1969 referendum which granted Aboriginals voting rights. He states “your father probably vote in the referendum” as a mid-shot shows the family from behind the school staff underlining his attempt at forming a relationship. Whilst the sentiment comes off as showing understanding, the underlying facetiousness starts to show as a double-standard is revealed. If you truly believe that
“We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians. We apologise especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country. For the pain, suffering and hurt of these Stolen Generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry. To the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry. And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry.”
...ndigenous recognition and the removal of racist remarks has been an on-going theme for a vast majority of time. The necessity of Constitutional reform to close the gap on cultural divide as well as support the on-going concept of reconciliation is essential in ensuring Australia continues to improve and nurture its relationship with Indigenous peoples. The process of amendment through referendum has proven to be problematic in the past, with the success rate exceptionally low. Though with key factors such as bi-partisan support, widespread public knowledge and correct management, the alteration to remove racial discrimination and provide recognition for Indigenous persons within the Constitution is highly achievable. If proposed and eventually passed, this will provide assistance in eliminating many of the cultural gaps Indigenous persons face throughout society.
Terra Nullius was once apparent in Australian society, but has now been nullified with the turn of the century and the changes of societal attitudes. With the political changes in our society, and the apology to Indigenous Australians, society is now witnessing an increase in aboriginals gaining a voice in today’s society. Kevin Rudd’s apology as described by Pat Dodson (2006) as a seminal moment in Australia’s history, expressed the true spirit of reconciliation opening a new chapter in the history of Australia. Although from this reconciliation, considerable debate has arisen within society as to whether Aboriginals have a right to land of cultural significance. Thus, causing concern for current land owners, as to whether they will be entitled to their land.
A political debate derived from 1990’s that held the British colonists culpable for the beginning of the ‘history wars’ that many protagonists became involved in. ‘History wars’ is divided into two views, one being a conservative view that considered the European settlement to be an achievement of taming hostile land. The progressive view on the other hand, perceives the history to be a reminder of the invasion of their land, frontier violence and dispossession of Indigenous owners. John Howard who represented the liberal party was one of the main protagonists within this controversy, representing the conservative view. Paul Keating, the labor party representative became a legacy, a Keating legacy that began reconciliation evolving in practical and symbolic ways (Ke...
The goals and visions behind my reconciliation action plan was to bring the two sides of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians together in equality and harmony. Since the colonisation of Australia there has been a vast divide between the two sides that has caused many serious outcomes for Aboriginal people. My way of contributing to this is to create a better understanding, restore trust and eradicate racism as a positive way to help close the gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australia’s.
In its broadest sense ‘Reconciliation’ is the Australian term that refers to the unity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. To support reconciliation means working to overcome the separation and inequality between all Australians (Australia, n.d.). In 1992, then Prime Minister Paul Keating, delivered the Redfern Park speech that publically acknowledged European soldiers were responsible for many crimes against Indigenous communities, "We committed the murders. We took the children from their mothers. We practiced discrimination and exclusion. It was our ignorance and our prejudice (Government, 1992)." Since 1993, Reconciliation Week is a national event that celebrates a positive and respectful relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. It enables all Australians to close the gaps, and to achieve a shared sense of fairness and justice. The ultimate goal of the week is to build a strong and trusting relationships between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and other Australians, as a foundation for success and to enhance national wellbeing (Australia, n.d.). However, this advocacy for Indigenous rights and recognition was advanced be civil right activists in the 1950’s and 1960’s. One significant activist from this period and until her death in 1993 was Oodgeroo Noonuccal. Oodgeroo Noonuccal has significantly contributed to the civil rights of the Indigenous people in Australia due to her tireless campaigning to educate non-Indigenous Australians and enact political change that would not only recognize Indigenous Australian and Torres Strait Islander people within the census but further understand their rich and diverse culture. Noonuccal’s contribution can be seen through her significa...
This day is to remember and commemorate the mistreatment of the Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. In Source A, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had apologised publicly on behalf of what happened in the Stolen Generations and the Voting Rights in his speech. In Source A, Kevin Rudd had said “We reflect on their past mistreatment.”, this meant that Kevin Rudd was apologizing for what past White Australians had done.Aboriginal People had accepted the apology Mr. Rudd had given the Aboriginals. The Aboriginals have lived out the 5th Beatitude of “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.” Aboriginals had lived out this Commandment because they showed mercy and accepted the apology of Kevin Rudd. This is how Aboriginal People and Torres Strait Islanders had lived out the Beatitudes throughout their
“Today we honour the Indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing cultures in human History. We reflect on their past mistreatment. We reflect in particular on the mistreatment of those who were Stolen Generations—this blemished chapter in our nation’s history. The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia’s history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future. We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians” (apology by Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, 16th November 2009, Parliament House, Canberra.)
The Stolen Generation has had a profound impact on every aspect of the lives of Indigenous communities. It has jeopardised their very survival. It has impoverished their capacity to control and direct their future development. The Stolen Generation has corrupted, devastated and destroyed the souls, hopes and beliefs of many Australian lives through damaging assimilation policies established in an attempt to make a ‘White Australia’ possible. Discrimination, racism and prejudice are some of the many permanent scars upon Indigenous life that will never be repaired. However, recently Rudd and the Australian public have sincerely apologised for the detrimental effects the Stolen Generation had caused. The Stolen Generation has dramatically shaped Australian history and culture.
When Captain Cook arrived in 1788 and the colonisation of Australia began, the Indigenous people of Australia struggled and fought to protect their country from infringement, theft and violation. The Indigenous people were faced with a dominant military force and an extremely different view of the world. Over one hundred years ago, the colonists understood this land to be open for the taking and the rightful first owners were treated as intruders on their own land. In 1901 the commonwealth of Australia was proclaimed and a supposedly new era was to occur for this “lucky country” and its inhabitants. http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2001/433/433pl6.htm However, for Indigenous Australians, this year marked a 113 years of resistance, removal, withdrawal and dispossession. Over one hundred years later, the Native Title act is passed and Indigenous Australian’s continue their political struggle for land rights
Russell, titled ‘End Australia Day’, which simply advocates that it’s ‘time to let it [Australia Day] go’. Contrasting with Roberts-Smith, who was calm and collected, Russell is abrupt and almost pleading at times. The day has ‘outlived its usefulness’ and it’s adamant to Russell that it is time for a change. Noting suitable day changes, such as ‘July 9’, is high on his to-do list. However, he also believes the Constitution is ‘outdated’ and that to be fair to all in Australia it would be wise to ‘scrap it and start again’. His factual statements on the past allow the reader to acknowledge that their ancestors did play a part in the oppression of the Indigenous, but the recommendation of changing the Constitution entirely could be viewed as ludicrous. As trying to cater for everyone in the “new Constitution” could still mean that groups are left out, and the cost of this idea could turn heads in the opposite