Abstract
In this paper, I explore how theorists might navigate a course between the twin dangers of piety and excess cynicism when thinking critically about state apologies, by focusing on two government apologies to indigenous peoples: namely, those made by the Australian and Canadian Prime Ministers in 2008. Both apologies are notable for several reasons: they were both issued by heads of government, and spoken on record within the space of government: the national parliaments of both countries. Furthermore, in each case, the object of the apology – that which was apologized for – comes closer to disrupting the idea both countries have of themselves, and their image in the global political community, than any previous apologies made by either government. Perhaps as a result, both apologies were surrounded by celebration and controversy alike, and tracing their consequences – even in the short term – is a difficult business. We avoid excessive piety or cynicism, I argue, when we take several things into account. First, apologies have multiple functions: they narrate particular histories of wrongdoing, they express disavowal of that wrongdoing, and they commit to appropriate forms of repair or renewal. Second, the significance and the success of each function must be assessed contextually. Third, when turning to official political apologies, in particular, appropriate assessment of their capacity to disavow or to commit requires that consider apologies both as performance and as political action. While there remain significant questions regarding the practice of political apology – in particular, its relationship to practices of reparation, forgiveness and reconciliation – this approach can provide a framework with which to best consider them.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The Canadian apology was directed towards members of the tribes represented by the political body of the Assembly of First Nations, the Canadian Métis peoples and the Canadian Inuit people. The Australian apology identified the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples by name. The naming of indigenous peoples is itself a contested issue, with a history of colonization, misunderstanding and racism behind it. In this paper, I will use “aboriginal” “indigenous” and “native” interchangeably to describe the first peoples of the territories of present-day Canada and Australia, while recognizing that none of these is unproblematic. In doing so, I acknowledge the damage of not naming tribes and communities individually.
- 2.
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples; “Bringing them Home”. Both are available online: http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ap/pubs/rpt/rpt-eng.asp#chp6; http://www.humanrights.gov.au/Social_Justice/bth_report/report/index.html
- 3.
Information about the history of the residential schools is available on the Assembly of First Nations website http://www.afn.ca/residentialschools/history.html (last accessed March 24, 2010).
- 4.
Consider for example, the usually acerbic and critical Canadian columnist Rex Murphy, famous for his vigorous and spirited attacks on Canadian politicians. Murphy wrote of the Canadian apology: “the day of apology called from our sometimes all too predictable politicians a better version of themselves, gave them words and substance that may bring a hopeful new energy into play. For once, then, yes, they have the benefit of every doubt.” (Murphy 2008).
- 5.
This point is taken from personal correspondence with Cels. For more information on her work in progress on this topic, see http://cbuilding.org/about/bio/sanderijn-cels (last accessed March 23, 2010).
- 6.
Note also how, as a potential aim of apology, this narrative function is also a point of criticism: in apologizing for specific policies, both governments succeed in avoiding the broader question of apologizing for a much longer history of genocidal appropriation and displacement.
- 7.
There is political and philosophical significance to this remark. One standard objection to official apologies concerns the difficulty of shouldering responsibility for distant injustices – and indeed, of applying contemporary moral standards to past eras. In his response to Rudd’s motion, Australian Liberal Leader Brendan Nelson emphasized, “our generation does not own these actions, nor should it feel guilt for what was done in many, but not all cases, with the best of intentions” (Nelson 2008). Indeed, former PM John Howard refused to apologize for precisely these reasons: he argued that because the policies leading to the Stolen Generations did not violate domestic or international laws of their time, and did not constitute gross human rights violations, they should not be judged by contemporary standards (Nobles 2008, 96). To do so would be to inflict a kind of chronological colonialism of our own, he claimed, via the unfair imposition of alien moral standards. Rudd’s history reminds his audience that the era of the Stolen Generations is not alien. Australia’s signature on the UN Convention also undermines Howard’s position.
- 8.
Mr Poilievre subsequently apologized for his remarks in the House of Commons. See http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/12/poilievre-aboriginals.html (accessed March 25, 2010).
- 9.
This resembles a feature that, in his discussion of apologies, Louis Kort describes as a “gesture of respect” – additional words acknowledging the victim’s perspective, or some further indication of respect that counteracts the initial disrespect conveyed by the wrong itself (Kort 1975).
- 10.
In the edition of The Looking Glass annotated by logician Martin Gardner, Gardner somewhat officiously informs the reader in a footnote that in fact, Alice is puzzled because she faces the familiar dilemma of judging someone by their acts or their intentions. This footnote has always bothered me. Both the Walrus and Carpenter had fairly devious intentions and abhorrent actions (at least from an oyster-sympathizer’s perspective). Instead, Alice seems unsure about the end of the story: that is, their reactions in the aftermath of the crime – especially given Tweedledee and Tweedledums’ narrative additions and adjustments. What lies in question is not the intention or action of the wrongdoers, but their stance following the wrongdoing – and, more broadly, what we do or do not want to see in a story of wrongdoing.
- 11.
Busby references both individual and official apologies, by both political and other public figures, and almost all her examples are for contemporaneous not retrospective apologies. www.cathybusby.ca/sorry/ (accessed March 17, 2009). Interestingly, Busby has chosen to represent the two apologies I focus on today very differently: in her latest exhibits, Righting the Wrongs and We are Sorry, Busby has imposed the texts of the apologies by the Canadian and Australian Prime Ministers along the front or side of public buildings. The effect is very different from that of Sorry: the words of contrition literally cover the public face of a public building, suggesting that, in these cases, perhaps substance has trumped style [reproductions of Righting the Wrongs and We are Sorry received from private correspondence with the artist].
- 12.
The comment wrongly identifies the governing party of Stephen Harper as the (now defunct) Progressive Conservative party, rather than the present-day Conservative Party of Canada. Posted by commonsenseman, 2008/06/12 at 1.12 PM ET, http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/11/pm-statement.html#articlecomments (accessed March 12, 2009).
- 13.
The previous Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, consistently refused to issue an apology for the “Stolen Generations,” and instead advocated pursuing a policy of “Practical Reconciliation”: a vision of formal equality with no distinctions in citizenship, with involved no land claims, no self-governance and few special rights for Aboriginal Australians, and which took no responsibility for the policies of past governments.
- 14.
In terms of individual compensation, the settlement specifies $10,000 for each student who attended a Residential School, with $3000 for each subsequent year of school. Individual settlements with survivors of sexual and physical abuse will be negotiated beyond these lump sums. To my mind, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is one of the most exciting aspects of the settlement agreement and subsequent apology.
- 15.
For a discussion of “non-apologies” and “quasi-apologies” in the Canadian context, see the contribution by Matt James in Gibney et al. (2007).
- 16.
For an interesting and related discussion, see Bell (2008).
- 17.
- 18.
Several indigenous commentators on a comment thread on the CBC news website echoed this sentiment: the most moving aspect of the apology was that, for the first time, their non-indigenous friends and neighbors were curious about residential schools and their experiences. See comments posted at http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/11/pm-statement.html. When asked by journalist Rolfsen what white Canadians can do “to repair what’s broken?” Canadian Aboriginal Lyana Patrick answered, “Listening would be great. Listening would be great.” (Rolfsen 2008, 32).
- 19.
That it was a government and not an indigenous voice who successfully recounted the history raises entirely different questions of appropriation and silencing. But it is important to remember that when governments tell stories, they get heard.
- 20.
One woman recounted how she remembered being identified by number and not name in a state-run orphanage, how she was given an arbitrary collective birthday and a uniform token present. She notes the apology with its emphasis on survivor stories was “a final kind of recognition that I exist. My name is Veronica Ann McDonald.” http://www.qldstories.slq.qld.gov.au/home/digital_stories/apology_responses
- 21.
”In fact, that there has been a denial of any [sic] monetary or any compensation that has been talked about in our country, I think is a blight on our history. I think it is morally correct to offer some olive branch here in terms of compensation.” Jackie Huggins, deputy director of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies at the University of Queensland and a former co-chair of Reconciliation Australia, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/13/2161979.htm (accessed March 19, 2009).
- 22.
In fact, because the responsibility and recognition expressed in apologies is not necessary tied to material compensation, even those who reject the idea of historical reparations may still accept apologetic or symbolic gestures. Jeremy Waldron – who famously argued that commitments to present-day distributive justice supercede the claims of historic injustice – acknowledges that his point applies only to proportionate reparation payments understood as rectificatory justice. Smaller payments attached to apology or other symbolic gestures “symbolize a society’s undertaking not to forget or deny that a particular justice took place” (Waldron 1992, 6).
- 23.
Perhaps for this very reason, whether or not the native leaders would be allowed to speak from the floor was a hotly contested issue, almost until the last minute. It was largely because of the intervention of an opposition party – the left-leaning New Democratic Party – the government eventually relented.
- 24.
Columnist Salutin described how, leading up to the 2008 apology, “there was a smug sense on the part of some apologizers that it’s all about us. CTV’s Dan Matheson asked Mike Duffy, ‘Do you think we are ready as a people to say we are guilty?’ ‘Oh I think we are, Dan’ cogitated Duff” – much like sports commentators assessing our chances for making the playoffs this year (2008).
- 25.
Scott Stephens, “The Apology and the Moral Significance of Guilt,” http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/25/2171795.htm (accessed March 20, 2009).
References
Austin JL (1975) How to do things with words. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Bavelas J (2004) An analysis of formal apologies by Canadian Churches to first nations. Occasional Paper presented to the Centre for Studies in Religion and Society, University of Victoria. web.uvic.ca/psyc/bavelas/2004ChurchApol.pdf. Accessed 4 Nov 2011
Bell M (2008) Forgiving someone for who they are (and not just what they’ve done). Philos Phenomenol Res 77(3):625–658
Brudholm T (2008) Resentment’s Virtue: Jean Améry and the Refusal to Forgive Temple University Press, Philadelphia
Busby C (2009) Sorry. www.cathybusby.ca. Accessed 17 Mar 2009
Card C (2007) Genocide and social death. In: Card C, Marsoobian AT (eds) Genocide’s aftermath: responsibility and repair. Blackwell, New York
Carroll L (1960) The annotated Alice: Alice’s adventures in wonderland and through the looking glass. With an Introduction and Notes by Martin Gardner. New York: Bramhall House
Cunningham M (2004) Apologies in Irish politics: a commentary and critique. Contemp Br Hist 18(4):80–92
Dussault R, Erasmus G (1996) People to people, nation to nation: highlights from the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. The Commission, Ottawa, Canada
Fontaine P (2008) Justice, responsibility, and reconciliation: legacies of the Holocaust and the persecution of aboriginal Canadians. Talk given at Ryerson University as part of Holocaust Awareness Week, 3 Nov 2008
Fontaine P, Chief of the Assembly of First Nations (2008) Response to Canadian Government Apology, 11 June 2008. http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=18133d91-b8aa-4fbe-956e-20298d79c1d5. Accessed 18 Mar 2009
Gibney M, Roxstrom E (2001) The status of state apologies. Human Rights Quart 23(4):911–939
Gibney M, Howard-Hassmann RE, Coicaud J-M, Steiner N (2007) The age of apology: facing up to the past. University of Pennsylvania Press, October 24
Griswold C (2007) Forgiveness: a philosophical exploration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Harper S, Right Honourable, Prime Minister of Canada (2008) Statement of apology to former students of Indian Residential Schools. June 11. www.fns.bc.ca/pdf/TextofApology.pdf. Accessed 4 Nov 2011
Harvey J (1995) The emerging practice of institutional apologies. Int J Appl Philos 9(2):57–65
Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement. http://www.residentialschoolsettlement.ca/settlement.html. Accessed 4 Nov 2011
Kort LF (1975) What is an apology? Philos Res Arch 1:80–87
MacDuff A (2008) Do sorry statements make you liable? The Australian Legal Context. Forgiveness: probing the boundaries (First Global Conference), Salzburg, Austria
Murphy R (2008) The day the house stood still. Globe and Mail, Saturday June 14
Nelson B, Leader of the Australian Liberal Party (2008) Response to government apology. February 13. Reprinted online in The Australian http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23206522-5013172,00.html. Accessed 17 Mar 2009
Nobles M (2008) The politics of official apologies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Prager CAL, Govier T (2003) Dilemmas of reconciliation: cases and concepts. Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press, Waterloo
Rolfsen C (2008) After the apology. This Magazine. September/October
Rudd K, Right Honourable, Prime Minister of Australia (2008) Apology to Australia’s indigenous peoples. February 13. www.aph.gov.au/house/rudd_speech.pdf. Accessed 18 Mar 2009
Salutin R (2008) Issues of apology and power. Globe and Mail. Friday June 13
Smith A (2005) Conquest: sexual violence and the American Indian genocide. South End Press, Cambridge
Smith N (2008) I was wrong: the meaning of apologies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Spelman E (2002) Repair: the impulse to restore in a fragile world. Beacon, Boston
Stewart J, Honourable, Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs (1998) Statement of reconciliation on behalf of Canada’s Government to Canada’s Aboriginal Peoples. January 7. http://www.deal.org/content/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=889&Itemid=1082. Accessed 18 Mar 2009
Tavuchis N (1990) Mea culpa: a sociology of apology and reconciliation. Stanford University Press, Stanford
Thompson J (1992) Taking responsibility for the past: reparations and historical injustice. Polity Press, Cambridge
Thompson J (2008) Apology, justice and respect: a critical defense of the political apology. In: Gibney M et al (eds) The age of apology: facing up to the past. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia
Waldron J (1992) The supercession of historical injustice. Ethics 103(1):4–28
Weyeneth RR (2001) The power of apology and the process of historical reconciliation. Publ Historian 23(3):9–30
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
MacLachlan, A. (2013). Government Apologies to Indigenous Peoples. In: MacLachlan, A., Speight, A. (eds) Justice, Responsibility and Reconciliation in the Wake of Conflict. Boston Studies in Philosophy, Religion and Public Life, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5201-6_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5201-6_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5200-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-5201-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)