Tweet
THE DISHONOUR OF WHITE MAN'S DREAMING
Geoffrey Gibson
The Age
Dec 27 2007
Australia
THERE is a lot of confusion about whether we should say that we are
sorry for the wrongs of our past. In dealing with this, I would like
to refer to the observations of Hannah Arendt in her book Eichmann
in Jerusalem, which is a moving case of intellectual honesty on one
of the most difficult issues that the Western world has to face.
She wrote this:
"Many people today would agree that there is no such thing as
collective guilt or, for that matter, collective innocence, and that
if there were, no one person could ever be guilty or innocent. This,
of course, is not to deny that there is such a thing as political
responsibility which, however, exists quite apart from what the
individual member of the group has done and therefore can neither be
judged in moral terms nor be brought before a criminal court.
"Every government assumes political responsibility for the deeds
and misdeeds of its predecessor and every nation for the deeds and
misdeeds of the past ... Every generation, by virtue of being born
into a historical continuum, is burdened by the sins of the fathers
as it is blessed with the deeds of the ancestors."
There are three things to note. First, if you want to claim the wins,
you have to share the losses. The English cannot enjoy the Magna
Carta but forget Ireland. If you want to raise your glass to Stan
McCabe taking the paint off the fence at the MCG while punishing the
Bodyline bowlers, you have to hang your head over the Aborigines we
murdered and raped and robbed.
Second, we are talking about political entities - bodies politic or,
when the High Court is in one of its romantic moods, "polities". We
are not talking of Tom, Dick or Harry.
Third, we are talking of political responsibility, not moral
responsibility, much less guilt. To say that an entity is politically
responsible is not to say that Tom, Dick or Harry is morally
responsible, let alone morally or legally guilty.
A government cannot avoid a liability on an obligation by saying that
it was controlled by a different political party when the obligation
was assumed. A nation cannot escape an obligation by saying that all
of its citizens involved in the acts giving rise to the obligation
are dead.
We are talking of the responsibility - some now prefer the term
accountability - of the nation, not an obligation of any of its
citizens. Lawyers regard as elementary the proposition that a legal
entity, such as a company, is distinct from its members.
This is no abstract legal point. Try telling a Magpie that Collingwood
could not claim the benefit of its four flags in a row from 1927 to
1930 because none of the members then is still a member now.
When people, mistakenly, say, "I cannot apologise for something that
I did not do," they should simply ask themselves what "I" means. They
are being asked to apologise not for what "they" did, or even for what
"their" ancestors did, but for what their nation did.
If they do not accept this, they should then pop up to the RSL and
tell the members that the Japanese are off the hook for the Burma
railway and send a congratulatory letter to Ankara, saying that Turkey
is now off the hook for the Armenian genocide.
The point is not difficult or obscure. But some politicians, such as
Tony Abbott, are uncomfortable with it. Among other things, Mr Abbott
says that we are talking about semantics. He fears that an apology
may lead to claims for compensation.
This is awfully mean from a former minister of the Crown, especially
one in charge of public health. If Aborigines recover compensation
for what was done to them, it will be from a court of law that binds
the government, and which has found that we, represented by that
government, are as a matter of law liable to compensate these people,
these citizens of this nation, for a legal wrong that this nation
has done to them.
Who is he, or who are we, to play games if those games may lead to
our victims not recovering from us what our law says is due to them?
The same man, Mr Abbott, is used to giving absolute moral judgement
on other issues that might be said to be "political". He goes in like
a programmed centurion and says that they are life-and-death issues.
Well, if I may say so, the continued existence of the Aboriginal
peoples is a life-or-death issue.
Nor do I believe there is one hope in hell - a term I would not
otherwise use - that the position adopted by Mr Abbott would be looked
upon with anything other than horrified pity by the teacher who gave us
the Sermon on the Mount and in whose shadow Mr Abbott claims to tread.
It would be good if those blessed with moral absolutes from God could
find it in their hearts to bring the same level of moral conviction
that they have about the possible extinction of a life before birth
to the virtual extinction of a whole people.
Some balance, sense and compassion would help.
So, where are we? The German nation murdered more than 6 million
Jews. In recognition of that fact, Germany has recently completed a
monument that is inscribed to the memory of "the murdered Jews".
It is about the size of Federation Square and occupies a space as
significant in Berlin as Federation Square does in Melbourne.
This does, I think, show how far we are behind Germany - morally,
intellectually and politically.
In this country, it seems we will go on snuggling in and dreaming of
another white Christmas, all part of our white man's dreaming.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Geoffrey Gibson
The Age
Dec 27 2007
Australia
THERE is a lot of confusion about whether we should say that we are
sorry for the wrongs of our past. In dealing with this, I would like
to refer to the observations of Hannah Arendt in her book Eichmann
in Jerusalem, which is a moving case of intellectual honesty on one
of the most difficult issues that the Western world has to face.
She wrote this:
"Many people today would agree that there is no such thing as
collective guilt or, for that matter, collective innocence, and that
if there were, no one person could ever be guilty or innocent. This,
of course, is not to deny that there is such a thing as political
responsibility which, however, exists quite apart from what the
individual member of the group has done and therefore can neither be
judged in moral terms nor be brought before a criminal court.
"Every government assumes political responsibility for the deeds
and misdeeds of its predecessor and every nation for the deeds and
misdeeds of the past ... Every generation, by virtue of being born
into a historical continuum, is burdened by the sins of the fathers
as it is blessed with the deeds of the ancestors."
There are three things to note. First, if you want to claim the wins,
you have to share the losses. The English cannot enjoy the Magna
Carta but forget Ireland. If you want to raise your glass to Stan
McCabe taking the paint off the fence at the MCG while punishing the
Bodyline bowlers, you have to hang your head over the Aborigines we
murdered and raped and robbed.
Second, we are talking about political entities - bodies politic or,
when the High Court is in one of its romantic moods, "polities". We
are not talking of Tom, Dick or Harry.
Third, we are talking of political responsibility, not moral
responsibility, much less guilt. To say that an entity is politically
responsible is not to say that Tom, Dick or Harry is morally
responsible, let alone morally or legally guilty.
A government cannot avoid a liability on an obligation by saying that
it was controlled by a different political party when the obligation
was assumed. A nation cannot escape an obligation by saying that all
of its citizens involved in the acts giving rise to the obligation
are dead.
We are talking of the responsibility - some now prefer the term
accountability - of the nation, not an obligation of any of its
citizens. Lawyers regard as elementary the proposition that a legal
entity, such as a company, is distinct from its members.
This is no abstract legal point. Try telling a Magpie that Collingwood
could not claim the benefit of its four flags in a row from 1927 to
1930 because none of the members then is still a member now.
When people, mistakenly, say, "I cannot apologise for something that
I did not do," they should simply ask themselves what "I" means. They
are being asked to apologise not for what "they" did, or even for what
"their" ancestors did, but for what their nation did.
If they do not accept this, they should then pop up to the RSL and
tell the members that the Japanese are off the hook for the Burma
railway and send a congratulatory letter to Ankara, saying that Turkey
is now off the hook for the Armenian genocide.
The point is not difficult or obscure. But some politicians, such as
Tony Abbott, are uncomfortable with it. Among other things, Mr Abbott
says that we are talking about semantics. He fears that an apology
may lead to claims for compensation.
This is awfully mean from a former minister of the Crown, especially
one in charge of public health. If Aborigines recover compensation
for what was done to them, it will be from a court of law that binds
the government, and which has found that we, represented by that
government, are as a matter of law liable to compensate these people,
these citizens of this nation, for a legal wrong that this nation
has done to them.
Who is he, or who are we, to play games if those games may lead to
our victims not recovering from us what our law says is due to them?
The same man, Mr Abbott, is used to giving absolute moral judgement
on other issues that might be said to be "political". He goes in like
a programmed centurion and says that they are life-and-death issues.
Well, if I may say so, the continued existence of the Aboriginal
peoples is a life-or-death issue.
Nor do I believe there is one hope in hell - a term I would not
otherwise use - that the position adopted by Mr Abbott would be looked
upon with anything other than horrified pity by the teacher who gave us
the Sermon on the Mount and in whose shadow Mr Abbott claims to tread.
It would be good if those blessed with moral absolutes from God could
find it in their hearts to bring the same level of moral conviction
that they have about the possible extinction of a life before birth
to the virtual extinction of a whole people.
Some balance, sense and compassion would help.
So, where are we? The German nation murdered more than 6 million
Jews. In recognition of that fact, Germany has recently completed a
monument that is inscribed to the memory of "the murdered Jews".
It is about the size of Federation Square and occupies a space as
significant in Berlin as Federation Square does in Melbourne.
This does, I think, show how far we are behind Germany - morally,
intellectually and politically.
In this country, it seems we will go on snuggling in and dreaming of
another white Christmas, all part of our white man's dreaming.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress