Addressing Inequality (2)
When listeners of ABC Radio National were asked earlier this year to nominate their most , Jesus topped the list with his Sermon on the Mount, the Reverend Dr Martin Luther King Jr came runner-up with "I Have a Dream" and the former Australian prime minister Paul Keating came third with his reconciliation speech in Redfern.
The Daily Telegraph noted at the time that "Keating moves a nation, but can't beat Jesus". But he did outpoll every other Australian, granting the Redfern speech the recognition that many of you clearly think it merits.
The speech was delivered on 10 December 1992, on the eve of United Nations' International Year of the World's Indigenous People.
The setting was highly symbolic: Redfern, an inner city suburb of Sydney where in the early 1970s the Labor government of Gough Whitlam had helped a group of Aboriginal squatters purchase and renovate six terrace houses, a landmark project which became Australia's first urban land rights claim.
Even if you loathe Paul Keating, or fundamentally disagree with what he had to say that day, as political oratory the speech is undeniably impressive (when his chief speech-writer, Don Watson, presented him with the draft, Keating apparently did not alter a word).
Perhaps the most was the one in which Mr Keating appealed to his fellow non-indigenous Australians. It is worth quoting in full:
"The starting point might be to recognise that the problem starts with us non-Aboriginal Australians. It begins, I think, with the act of recognition. Recognition that it was we who did the dispossessing.
We took the traditional lands and smashed the traditional way of life. We brought the disasters, the alcohol. We committed the murders. We took the children from their mothers. We practised discrimination and exclusion."
He went on: "The message should be that there is nothing to fear or to lose in the recognition of historical truth, or the extension of social justice, or the deepening of Australian social democracy to include indigenous Australians. There is everything to gain."
When I suggested that Kevin Rudd might consider delivering a televised address on the subject of reconciliation, a number of you pointed to the Redfern speech and commented that Australia had been there and done that.
But is it worth a repeat performance? Or an updated sequel?
A few quick thoughts. Mr Keating delivered his speech almost 15 years ago to the day, which means that, although listeners of ABC Radio National can clearly remember it, there's a huge chunk of the Australian populace which probably does not.
Similarly, the problems which Keating addressed manifestly remain unresolved.
There's also a growing political consensus about the necessity for symbolic gestures deployed in combination with practical measures.
John Howard railed against the 'black armband view of history' which the Redfern speech gave voice to, but in the final months of his prime ministership acknowledged the need to recognise indigenous Australians in the preamble to the constitution, which marked a partial embrace of the kind of symbolism which he had rejected for so long.
In his address before the Sydney Institute, which Peter Hartcher of the Sydney Morning Herald memorably likened to a "deathbed conversion", Mr Howard noted: "I have always acknowledged the past mistreatment of Aboriginal people, and have frequently said that the treatment of indigenous Australians represents the most blemished chapter in the history of our country."
Still, though, he refused to apologise, claiming it would be reinforce a sense of victimhood.
Looking back at the video of the Redfern speech, I'm not sure whether the presentational trappings were quite right. Mr Keating delivered it at what looked and felt like a community festival in Redfern Park, on a stage festooned with balloons. His audience was made up predominantly of Aborigines.
The point of a televised nationwide address is to bring problems directly into the living or lounge rooms of the nation as a whole. The aim is to deliver sometimes uncomfortable truths into this most comfortable of settings. To eyeball the country.
When prime ministers or presidents speak from behind their desks or from their official residences, they bring the symbolic weight of their offices to bear on the problem at hand.
It does not look or feel like a photo-opportunity. It is not part of a fleeting or fly-by visit. It reinforces the impression that they truly mean business. The symbolism signifies engagement and intent.
True, Martin Luther King delivered his speech from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. But that was the most solemn pulpit which America has to offer, replete with the brooding statue of Abraham Lincoln, the Great Emancipator.
That remarkable speech, delivered in August 1963, started rather flatly, and didn't really ignite until someone standing behind Dr King urged him to tell the audience about "the dream", a rhetorical rift he had used before to enormous emotional effect.
A few minutes and a few memorable "I Have a Dreams" later, King believed he had "subpoenaed the conscience of the nation".
In his own way and in his own words, is there not a case for Mr Rudd trying, like his Labor predecessor, to do the same?
I'm 
°δ΄Η³Ύ³Ύ±π²Τ³Ω²υΜύΜύ Post your comment
Surely you Australians are getting carried away with self mutilation over the subject of how you have treated the indigenous people of Australia???
When we British landed in Botony Bay in 1777/8 we did as all colonials did in those times, we established a settlement and explored the new territory for riches that the empire may desire! In the process we fought some bitter battles with the local indigenous people (manly beach and cronulla). We accepted the responsibility of feeding many of the local aboriginal settlements even whilst they were stealing the settelement's food and killing its inhabitants.
Since settlement the issues of how Australians have treated indigenous people revolve around taking children away from their parents, poor health care and job opportunities and poor treatment of land issues.
It's all fixable!
Certainly Mr Rudd has to say something, but it won't mean anything unless there is a committed and sustained urge by all Australians to work for reconciliation. Mr Howard's reaction to the "Little Children are Sacred" report was two steps backward in terms of progress for the Indigenous Australian community.
John Howard didn't want to apologise because it would reinforce the fact that the victims are indeed victims. Go figure.
In reference to the main question of the article; Mr. Rudd can and should try to relplicate the sort of speech given by his predecessor. And, unlike Dr. King, he also has the power and mandate to actually bring about changes himself and improve the lives of these people.
But the best way to inspire the people themselves is with words. Strong words that will make people realise how seriously this issue needs to be addressed.
Kevin Rudd is a very intelligent man. After all, what other western leader can speak Chinese?
He is also a man who knows what is right and best for his country.
With nobody to speak up for them, Kevin Rudd has to raise this issue himself and thrust it down the Australian consciousness until the walk-on-by society stops and people make an actve effort to integrate.
I'm 27, Australian, and consider myself politically aware. I've never heard of this Redfern speech. Why wasn't I taught about this at school? I recall Australian history class was mainly explorers and how parliament works over and over again. Why do we continue to ignore what little history we have and why can't we acknwoledge that we screwed up so badly? Most of my generation are just fed the same rubbish from our parents but Native Title was only covered in Law class. Pretty shameful. I'm off to the library.
My ancestors came to Australia in the 1850's a free settlers. I'm not British I'm Australian and in my 57 years on this earth I've committed no crime against Australia's native population. I don't believe I have anything to say sorry for; I don't believe I've done anything to compensate them for. I voted for Kevin Rudd but I urge him to weigh his words carefully when addressing the actions of previous generations against the Aborigines. Already the principle of "individual responsibility" is foriegn to the first Australians. They should address the actions of their own people against their community before expecting a "free gravy train" from me.
A very clever ploy by the left to try and mask how clueless they are when it comes to running the country.
I've lived in Sydney for 10 years, I hold an Australian passport, and there is no way on earth krudd is going to send me on a guilt trip for something that happened 200 years ago.
Offensive though it may be to the socialist elite around the world, this just isn't an issue for the majority of people in Australia. Krudd got power because people thought he'd save them from losing their homes and jobs, and for no other reason.
There is a multitude of things to say sorry for. I am an Australian of 24 and I remember the Redfern Park Address, and I am still moved by it this day.
"Recognition that it was we who did the dispossessing. We took the traditional lands and smashed the traditional way of life."
I think the speech sums it up so well. Native Australians were not treated as equal human beings from the outset of settlement.
I think we should say sorry so that Australians understand what happened in our country in the past. Corporations are held accountable for the past, so should countries.
I am baffled by people who cannot see the benefits to all Australians from having a nation acknowledge wrongs of the past and seek to redress them.
Saying "sorry" doesn't make things better and it doesn't change what's past but acknowledging wrong-doing is the first civilised step to making a better future. There's no guilt in that. Kids in playgrounds learn that ... don't they?
In response to the article's question: I cannot see benefit in a speech from another Prime Minister such as that given by Keating in 1992 (full speech here:
An intent of the speech not quoted is where the action lies, "Down the years, there has been no shortage of guilt, but it has not produced the responses we need. Guilt is not a very constructive emotion. I think what we need to do is open our hearts a bit. All of us. Perhaps when we recognise what we have in common we will see the things which must be done – the practical things."
For Rudd, a practical thing today would be to redress the injustice of the eleventh hour roll out of the Howard government's intervention into indigenous lives in the NT.
The thing with acknowledging the crimes against humanity perpetrated upon the Aust Koories is that these crimes were not confined to just black Australians.
There were more than 500,000 children who were unfortunate enough to suffer the not-so-tender care in govt auspiced "Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔs". 7-10,000 ahipped to Aust under the child migration scheme, 30-50,000 indigenous children "the stolen generation", and those 450,000 plus Australian born non-indigenous children..."the Forgotten Generation".
With so many who suffered neglect, abuse & criminal assault...perpetrated on vulnerable kids; too many have endured lives tarnished by welfare dependency, substance abuse, mental & other health disorders, relationship & parenting problems & endless searches for identity.
They too deserve an apology. They ALL deserve national redress. see Senator Andrew Murray's media release 28 Nov 07.
So there are three groups of Aussies who need to hear "Sorry"...& for that "Sorry" to be real.
Unless the nation faces up to it's not-so-distant past, then it's Future will just be a repeat of the past.
Probs that emerge within the Koorie community tend to be reflected by the same, but much bigger problem in the rest of society.
The way I see it - some awful things happened in the past, and those responsible should have been brought to some sort of justice. But we're all here, now. We're all Australians, and we have to deal with a legacy of violence against the indigenous people.
I just don't believe in this "sins of the father" mentality. I am a non-indigenous native born Australian, I feel an intense connection with the geography of my country, I'm not European, I'm Australian to the exclusion of all else.
I've never harmed any of my fellow Australians, so if anyone is going to apologise for past injustices - it should be the federal government on behalf of those in power at the time.
A formal government apology on behalf of the Commonwealth and also the states (or then-colonial authorities) who condoned and sometimes encouraged violence against indigenous people should be made.
But to impart blame on those that never did anything wrong is immoral.
It was an institutional failure that allowed for the destruction of the indigenous way of life, and it is the institution that should apologise. To subscribe to a "sins of the father" mentality would alienate non-indigenous Australians who want nothing more than to ensure that Indigenous-Australians and indigenous culture are treasured.
I think what you are missing, Nick, is that Aboriginal people speak for themselves, and have done for many years. I doubt that Martin Luther King's speeches would have had such impact if he had not been African American
Appropriate as Keating's speech was, it's the commentary by Aboriginal people which is most useful
In reply to John who wrote:
"A very clever ploy by the left to try and mask how clueless they are when it comes to running the country.
I've lived in Sydney for 10 years, I hold an Australian passport, and there is no way on earth krudd is going to send me on a guilt trip for something that happened 200 years ago"
I am English living in Australia. I am utterly devastated by the treatment of the native people of this land.
I am so tired of hearing about the Diggers and how badly they were treated by the Japanese in WWII and how they should apologise. Why should they? Most of the Japanese who are living now wouldn't even have been born then. It's the same thing.
I have met a child of the genocide in Australia a kind and loving women who has fought every step of the way to be treated with any sort of dignity. She escaped from the homestead she was forced to live in by the government after being ripped away from her mother and family. She still lives with the nightmares. This women is middle aged. It is NOT a problem from 200 years ago, but something that indigenous Australians face every day. Just ask the families of the young aboriginal men who have died in custody in the last couple of years.
Face up to it. We should all be ashamed.