this whispering in our hearts
when henry reynolds wrote those words he was talking about that nagging feeling that he and many of his contemporaries felt during the great australian silence. how, before the concerted academic movement of the seventies and eighties, many still felt a deep suspicion about the truth of aboriginal dispossession - that it wasn't a riddle, that the incomprehensible may be comprehended after all.
some applauded him for being so candid in a memoir - the memoir of australia's preeminent scholar of aboriginal history. with the possible exception of stanner himself, nobody has done more to highlight not only the terrible cost of contact for indigenous communities but also the courage and reality of their resistance to european invasion.
still others pilloried reynolds for this characterisation. aboriginal australia wasn't whispering, they said, it was screaming for our help, our recognition. and i understand the position of these critics but i think reynolds has the stronger point.
i think it's reasonable to suggest that most australians still don't fully grasp the nature of dispossession. in fairness, the national reaction to the bringing them home report was appropriate and impressive, but the harbour bridge walk, the single biggest political demonstration in the country's history [bigger than the vietnam moratorium, though later outstripped by the protests against iraq], was soon forgotten. so the 'whispering in our hearts' was confirmed by the facts. aboriginal children had been stolen, and this resonated with parents and children in white australia. was it enough to keep the reconciliation movement going? in the end, no.
i thought of henry reynolds [and the whispering in his heart] this morning as i read about troops entering aboriginal communities. i realised that the question i most often ask as an historian is 'how did they let this happen?'. and when we consider earlier cycles of abuse, like the stolen generation, we have to acknowledge [at the very least] that most people didn't know.
this time, we know.
some applauded him for being so candid in a memoir - the memoir of australia's preeminent scholar of aboriginal history. with the possible exception of stanner himself, nobody has done more to highlight not only the terrible cost of contact for indigenous communities but also the courage and reality of their resistance to european invasion.
still others pilloried reynolds for this characterisation. aboriginal australia wasn't whispering, they said, it was screaming for our help, our recognition. and i understand the position of these critics but i think reynolds has the stronger point.
i think it's reasonable to suggest that most australians still don't fully grasp the nature of dispossession. in fairness, the national reaction to the bringing them home report was appropriate and impressive, but the harbour bridge walk, the single biggest political demonstration in the country's history [bigger than the vietnam moratorium, though later outstripped by the protests against iraq], was soon forgotten. so the 'whispering in our hearts' was confirmed by the facts. aboriginal children had been stolen, and this resonated with parents and children in white australia. was it enough to keep the reconciliation movement going? in the end, no.
i thought of henry reynolds [and the whispering in his heart] this morning as i read about troops entering aboriginal communities. i realised that the question i most often ask as an historian is 'how did they let this happen?'. and when we consider earlier cycles of abuse, like the stolen generation, we have to acknowledge [at the very least] that most people didn't know.
this time, we know.
posted by mskp at 9:47 AM
5 comments
