INDIGENOUS APOLOGIES and their consequences
INDIGENOUS APOLOGIES and their consequences
A republication of an archived article by legendary founder of the National Observer Ian Spry [4 Minute Read]
Some may not know, but the iteration of the National Observer you are reading today is actually a revival of a previous Australian conservative publication of the same name, originally founded in 1988.
Today, Australia’s own National Observer is proud to begin its republication of archived National Observer articles, beginning with an article that is as relevant today as 22 years ago when it was first published by the National Observer’s very first editor Ian Spry (1942–2018). All credit for this article and much gratitude for founding the original National Observer is owed to him. Without further ado, I hope you enjoy the article.
The Devastating Consequences of Canadian 'apologies'
From National Observer No. 46 - Spring 2000
Recent reports of Canadian "apologies" to "indigenous people" provide an instructive lesson on the dangers of vicarious contrition.1 The "apologies" have, predictably, been taken advantage of: some 10,000 individual lawsuits have been commenced already by the Canadian indigenous industry, with the prospect of even more to come.
The opportunity arose in connection with the establishment in the 19th century of "residential schools", in order to educate indigenous children and assimilate them into Canadian society. The Canadian Government contracted out the running of these schools to four of the largest churches - the Anglican, Catholic, Presbyterian and Methodist Churches. Only in the late 1960s did the Government begin to transfer control of the schools to the indigenous Indians.
The "indigenous people's" reaction has been predictably in accordance with Australian misgivings. (Indigenous peoples communicate with, and instruct each other, in regard to litigation and money-seeking activities in Canada, the United States, New Zealand and Australia. The Australian indigenous industry exchanges advice on tactics with similar industries abroad.) Although the Canadian education policy was carried out beneficially and in good faith in order to improve the standards of living and civilisation of the Indians - and indeed is something for which rational individuals would be deeply grateful - complaints and demands were orchestrated on the basis that the Indians had been denied the benefits of their own "culture". (Although almost any behaviour may be described as a "culture", that of the Indians was well documented as primitive and regrettably barbaric.)
The Canadian equivalent of the Australian "guilt industry" found receptive soil amongst weaker-minded liberals, and ultimately the Canadian Government issued an apology. It was preceded by the Anglican Archbishop, Michael Peers, who in 1993 made an ill-fated apology to the "indigenous people", conceding in a distasteful public spectacle, "We failed you. We failed ourselves. We failed God."
Billions of dollars claimed
As noted, consequentially upon these apologies some 10,000 individual lawsuits have already been commenced in Canada against those involved in the residential schools, and the number grows continually. It has been reported that some Anglican dioceses face damages suits totalling billions of dollars and consequent bankruptcy.
It is difficult to feel sympathy for those responsible for the apologies. And if the Anglican Church is bankrupted, as may well become the case, should it indeed expect sympathy? On the contrary, there is a certain justice in drastic and foreseeable penalties for those who engage in canting apologies and self-righteous avowals of guilt.
Yet even now it seems that the contrite have not learned due lessons or acquired wisdom. Anglican officials have referred to those who had the benefit of these Canadian schools as "residential school survivors". The use of this expression illustrates well the lack of appreciation of reality that apparently afflicts the complaisant targets of grief industries. For example, those apologising did not trouble to compare the very small numbers who may die under modern Western care with the very large numbers who died (often tortured and murdered) in primitive Indian cultures.
A further example of the contritionists' anomalous inversion of reality was provided in June 2000 by Archdeacon Jim Boyles, the General Secretary of the Anglican Church. Speaking for the Church he said,
"Our complaint is not about bankruptcy. It is about the litigation-based response which, in our view, will guarantee that many plaintiffs die before their suits are settled, that the compensation they ultimately receive will be dwarfed by the costs of litigation, and that the adversarial and exacting nature of the legal system . . . make it impossible to redress the wrongs of residential schools through litigation."
Aboriginal Litigation in Australia
The Canadian experience provides an invaluable lesson for Australia. It demonstrates how a primitive people, who have derived great benefit from Western culture and sufficient financial assistance to move from subsistence-levels to comfort, are able by the persistent repetition of propaganda to make their benefactors acknowledge non-existent fault and pay enormous amounts of money as "compensation".
How can this remarkable position arise? First, the "indigenous people" are, in Canada as in Australia, assisted by disproportionate amounts of government financial assistance. This enables them to hire publicists and lawyers. (In Australia a burgeoning Aboriginal legal industry is paid almost entirely from the public purse. It is referred to by some of its more honest members as "the gravy train".)
Secondly, the Aboriginal industry relies on social and political divisions in the community. For example, parties of the left seek victims of society in order to criticise more effectively those aspects of society with which they disagree. At an early stage far-left political groups in Australia (and subsequently, centre-left groups) commenced plans to promote Aboriginal causes, which like "the environment" were seen as a subject which, if skilfully used, could attract less rigorous liberals.
Thirdly, the Commonwealth Government has not shown adequate leadership and courage on these issues. It has gradually emerged, for example, that the "stolen generation" claim is fraudulent. There is no stolen generation; rather a number of half-blood children were taken, almost always with their mothers' or relatives' consent, to protect them from sexual and other mistreatment and even death from Aboriginal groups. But when does Mr. John Howard acknowledge these simple facts? An observer might well conclude that he finds it safer to adopt fashionable or popular causes and to permit Aboriginal claims to continue with a measure of credence that is not justifiable on any basis.