Aboriginal and Baptist Reconciliation

A Review of Robert Manne's "In Denial: The Stolen Generations and the Right," The Australian Quarterly Essay, Issue 1, 2001.

by David Hunter:    dmhunter@netspeed.com.au

March 2002

INTRODUCTION

Robert Manne's essay, "In Denial: The Stolen Generations and the Right" argues that there has been a campaign to undermine the Bringing Them Home Report. Last year, readers of Together in Ministry, the magazine of the Baptist Churches of NSW and ACT, encountered a piece quoting favourably from an article entitled "Rescued from the Rabbit Burrow". This article, typical of the campaign Manne identifies, was by a former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Peter Howson. It was published in Quadrant in June 1999, and defends the removal of 'part-Aboriginal' children from their families as a 'rescue' of those children. The Baptist magazine piece admits that "there have been injustices done [to Indigenous people]" but its background purpose appears to be to defend the memory of mission in Australian history. Does this purpose require a denial of the suffering of the 'stolen generations'?

In the following paragraphs, I summarise Manne's argument, consider  some of the responses to it, and then briefly try to draw out some of the relevant implications of Manne's work for mission and theology.

BACKGROUND

It may be helpful to briefly sketch some of the history behind Manne's essay. The term 'stolen generations' became prominent recently in the light of the 1997 Bringing Them Home Report  (hereafter BTHR) into the removal of Indigenous children from their families. The Report was based on the accounts of about 500 Indigenous people who told of their life stories. However, around 50 church bodies also made submissions, as did some Government agencies. The BTHR, commissioned by the Keating Labor Federal Government, was unsympathetically received by the Howard Government. The tension, particularly over the recommendations of an apology and a process of restitution, has created a context of dispute, which has seen a number of court cases test whether the Federal Government should be held liable for the suffering of Indigenous children under the policies and practices of removal. The courts have so far said that the Federal Government cannot be held liable, but the hearings have provided a body of detailed evidence to which Manne and others often refer. One of these cases involved a woman, Lorna Cubillo, who was removed by the Aborigines Inland Mission and raised in their Retta Dixon Home in Darwin . The Aborigines Inland Mission has strong ties to the Baptist denomination.

Peter Howson has been one of the most vocal critics of the BTHR, of the attempts to hold the Government liable, and of writers, such as Manne, who are arguing that Australia as a nation must come to terms with this history. Howson was Minister for Aboriginal Affairs from 1971-72, and appears to see his current comments as a defence of his own life's work, as a defence of assimilation policies of Sir Paul Hasluck (Minister for Territories under Prime Minister Robert Menzies), and ultimately a defence of our national conscience. I will refer to his essay "Rescued from the Rabbit Burrow" below in an attempt to understand some of his key arguments and differences with Manne.

For details of these and other writings and resources, see below in the "further reading" section.

SUMMARY OF MANNE'S ARGUMENT

Manne's essay, "In Denial", brings together several aspects of his work. Through his newspaper columns Manne has defended the BTHR, as well as presenting further research which fills out both the historical background and the human dimensions of the removal of Indigenous children from their families. Manne also brings to the debate a sensitivity typical of Australian commentators of Jewish background. Further, Manne's publishing and professional history in political studies gives his discussion of "the right" a particular intensity. Manne was previously the editor of the magazine, "Quadrant", which he believes has lead the campaign of "denial" since his departure.

"In Denial" is structured in two main parts. First, Manne sets out a brief background of the BTHR and the debate, exemplified by the uproar created in February 2001, when respected Aboriginal leader and life long reconciliation worker, Lowitja O'Donoghue, acknowledged that her white father may possibly have handed her and her siblings to missionaries. Herald-Sun reporter Andrew Bolt (a member of "the right" in Manne's opinion), wrote this up under the headline "I Wasn't Stolen". Prime Minister Howard, took the opportunity on the morning of the article's publication to draw attention to it with the implication that it in some way vindicated his Government's refusal to accept the BTHR.

Manne wants to put a human face on the term "stolen generations". His response to the Bolt article is to retell the account of O'Donoghue finding her mother again some 30 years after her removal. Manne raises the question of what the removal of all of her children and her abandonment by their father would have meant for that woman (let alone Lowitja and her siblings). He then presents four other individual stories of Indigenous children who were removed from four different states of the country.

The second, and major, part of Manne's essay documents the denial of the stolen generations. Manne sets out the evidence for a campaign from several different angles but co-ordinated by Padraic McGuinness' editorship of Quadrant, and covertly encouraged by the Federal Government. McGuinness himself has written directly on the issue. Fellow newspaper commentators such as Michael Duffy and Christopher Pearson have also often addressed the debate. However, the most substantial critiques of BTHR and the related court cases were published in the magazine Quadrant itself. It is here that we encounter Howson's article "Rescued From the Rabbit Burrow".

Manne's discussion of Howson's "Rescued from the Rabbit Burrow" typifies the approach of "In Denial". Manne spends a couple of pages setting Howson in the context of Australian political history (as mentioned above). Manne then critiques Howson's general argument that Indigenous children were "rescued" rather than "stolen". Howson's assertion is based on the reading of traditional Aboriginal cultures as bound by an inflexible kinship system which meant that there was no place for half-caste children. It is worth noting also that Manne sees Howson as a "conservative Christian" and that Howson writes with a respectful eye to church and mission history.

Manne then lists several objections to Howson's view that the likely fate of part-Aboriginal children was infanticide and therefore removals were a form of "rescue". Howson is dependent on an argument that derived from the strength of traditional culture. However, part-Aboriginal children were being removed from their families all over the country, not just in areas where traditional kinship structures were still strong. Further, as Howson himself notes, the evidence for infanticide is patchy at best. In Howson's arguments, the supposed rigidity of the tradition meant that a half-caste child "was a scandal which could not be explained and whilst it [the child] lived it posed a threat to the belief pattern and social structure of the clan". Traditional society was such that "genealogy was everything". Manne's question to Howson at this point is one of evidence. Manne lists his evidence of the incorporation of part-Aboriginal children into traditional societies. Further, Manne speaks of evidence where part-Aboriginal children were removed explicitly in order to prevent them participating in initiation ceremonies.

Manne also covers other aspects of the debate prompted by BTHR. He is interested in questions such as whether removals were official Government policy and the historical reasons given. He documents and engages the current discussions even to the extent of taking up the Windschuttle/ Reynolds debate over frontier deaths. Manne's question is finally, in the face of the stories of children removed, "Why has so much energy been expended in the attempt to deny that a really terrible injustice occurred?" His essay has documented such a campaign of denial. His speculation on why is less certain. In the context of the church, however, it seems that the resistance to a full admission of the suffering that occurred is held to be incompatible with respect for our mission heritage.

RESPONSES TO MANNE'S ARGUMENT

Manne's proposals have drawn angry words from those he criticises. Several responses to Manne's essay are published in issue two of Quarterly Essay on which Manne is then able to reply. A couple of elements are common in the discussion. Manne admits certain short comings in the BTHR which a number of respondents take as vindication of their dismissal of the whole Report. For example, Manne suspects the numbers of children removed is more likely around 25,000 than 100,000 as implied by the Report. Manne also agrees that it would have been better if more people had given evidence to the inquiry. He notes, however, that it was not a Royal Commission, and therefore not able to compel witnesses to appear. All relevant individuals and bodies were publicly invited to make submissions but not everyone took this opportunity.

Another theme of the responses is an emphasis on that fact that the recent court cases concerning the stolen generations have been lost. That is, judges in NSW and the NT have found that the Commonwealth Government was not responsible for the suffering of the applicants who were removed from their families as children. These results are held to prove that the BTHR should have tested the evidence it received. Howson particularly pushes this point. However, Howson was one of a number of commentators who wrote articles based on untested evidence submitted by the Commonwealth Government's lawyers in the Cubillo/Gunner case. The evidence for the particular event which gave rise to the title "Rescued from the Rabbit Burrow" was subsequently not accepted by the judge, Justice O'Loughlin. (Howson's article was published in June 1999, and the judgement handed down in August 2000. See paragraphs #799 on, especially #809.)

A different type of response comes from Australian historian and recent Boyer Lecturer, Inga Clendinnen, who has written on the Holocaust. Clendinnen is not a target of Manne's critique but her questions to his essay were quickly appropriated by those who were. This is particularly the case with the term "genocide" which she regards as disastrously linked to the removal of Indigenous children. Manne counters with some graciousness as one would expect with such a sensitive issue. The discussion is, in the main, one of definitions and contexts. Clendinnen sees genocide as a synonym for the Holocaust. Manne thinks that an intention to "breed out the colour" also qualifies for the description of genocide. This is, however, a difficult discussion.

Extremely pertinent from the churches' point of view is Clendinnen's discussion of the tension between intention and outcome, or the idea that good people can do terrible things. Former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Senator John Herron, constantly pointed to the churches' involvement in the removal of children as evidence that it could not have been a malicious act. Churches, such as the Baptists, have often struggled with the discussion because of the reluctance to critique members who often made great sacrifices to be missionaries to Aboriginal people. But Clendinnen is only urging caution, not indifference. Manne also notes the existence of saintly figures who ran children's homes. But he says that this is one of the most important lessons that needs to be learned, that "almost no-one was able to see through the kind of racism which could make it seem that tearing Aboriginal children from their mothers and communities was a natural, even noble act" (93). With this comment in mind we turn briefly to some implications for mission and theology.

SOME IMPLICATIONS FOR MISSION AND THEOLOGY

Is the church learning this lesson? Is the church engaged in the historical and theological analysis necessary, not to condemn our forebears but to resist repeating the mistakes of the past? Or are we engaged, actively or by default, in a campaign of denial?

I think it is important say that accepting Manne's argument does not mean disowning the basic missionary impulse of the church, that is, to share the good news about Jesus Christ. On the other hand, it also seems important to hold history and mission together, to say that Godly people, people of compassion and integrity, instituted in Australian mission history some practices which were damaging to Indigenous communities, families and individuals. One of these damaging practices was the removal of children.

Inquiries in two directions may be profitable. In one direction, it is necessary to separate the Christian witness and mission from other agendas such as "civilising" and "westernising". To a large extent this separation is happening in contemporary missiology with its emphasis on cultural appropriateness and on local expressions of faith. The challenge may be sharpened, however, by asking "Would our contemporary missiology have prevented the church implementing the policy of removing part-Aboriginal children from their families?".

In part the answer to this question comes from the second direction of inquiry, that is, the honest holding together of the good and bad in mission history. The opposite of this honesty is denial, either a denial that there were damaging effects of the removal policies, or a denial that the church and missionaries could have anything for which to make restitution. We have only to hear stories of the commitment and compassion of missionaries and hear the stories of suffering of children and families subject to the removal practices to realise the ambiguity of history. Many humane Christians were caught up in implementing a dehumanising policy and practice in the name of God, the Creator of every human. What makes the modern church any "better" that its forebears? Honest research and reflection in the concrete contexts of 20th century Australian mission history are foundational for any local missiology claiming to be relevant. If we seek to faithfully express the good news about Jesus Christ, we will not be served by any forms of denial.

FURTHER READING

Where documents are available on the web, the current sites are listed. (Please let me know if the links do not work for any reason.)

1. Key source documents include:

Bringing them home: Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families (Sydney: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 1997).

 Judgement of the Cubillo/Gunner case (August 2000). Search for "Cubillo" in the Federal Court judgements at: http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/judgmts.html

Peter Read, Stolen or Rescued? Historical Government Perspectives on the Removal of Indigenous Children from their Families, 1911-1964 (Canberra: Journey of Healing Network, 2000).  stolen.htm.; or download this report as a .pdf file.

Focus on relevant documentation from the Northern Territory.

2. Some responses to the "Bringing Them Home" Report

Bain Attwood, "'Learning about the truth': The Stolen Generations Narrative," in Telling Stories: Indigenous History and Memory in Australian and New Zealand (eds. Bain Attwood and Fiona Magowan; Crows Nest, NSW: Allen and Unwin, 2001) 183-212,241-260.

Ron Brunton, Institute of Public Affairs - Various writings available at http://ipa.org.au including Brunton's initial critique of the Report, "Betraying the Victims", and then a response to three of his own critics (including Manne).

 Robert Manne, "In Denial: The Stolen Generations and the Right" The Australian Quarterly Essay, Issue 1, 2001.

Correspondence to quarterlyessay@blackincbooks.com. Responses to Manne and Manne's reply in Issue 2.

3. Related Web sites and Selected Writings

Journey of Healing - a movement aimed a promoting the recommendations of the Report includes much material of interest at http://journeyofhealing.com including responses to Andrew Bolt's article on Lowitja O'Donoghue http://www.alphalink.net.au/~rez/Journey/bolt.htm. See also the article in the Australian newspaper "Lowitja: The Whole Story", by Stuart Rintoul, 21-22 April 2001.

Anna Haebich, Broken Circles: Fragmenting Indigenous Families, 1800-2000 Fremantle, WA: Fremantle Arts Centre Press, 2000). A national documentary history of the policies and practices of the forced removal of children. See http://wwwmcc.murdoch.edu.au/ReadingRoom/CRCC/fellows/haebich/stolen.html for a paper with South West Western Australia focus

John Harris, We wish we'd done more : Ninety Years of CMS and Aboriginal Issues in North Australia (Adelaide, S. Aust. : Openbook, 1998). Substantial sections of this book deal with the removal and care of Indigenous children by the Church Missionary Society, an Anglican linked mission. All denominations were involved in this process, but the CMS story is the best documented and analysed thanks to Harris' work.

 Peter Howson has founded the Bennelong Society, including many of the figures discussed by Manne, committed to his vision of Indigenous affairs. See http://www.bennelong.com.au

 Doris Pilkington/ Nugi Garimara, Rabbit Proof Fence (St Lucia, Queensland: University of Queensland Press, 1996).

 Peter Read, A Rape of the Soul So Profound: The Return of the Stolen Generations (St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin, 1999). A compilation and consummation of Read's pioneering research in this area.