Aboriginal and non-aboriginal Australia : the dilemma of apologies, forgiveness, and reconciliation

This article presents a qualitative study of the indigenous Australian perspective on reconciliation with nonindigenous Australia, with a focus on the role of an apology for the oppression and violence perpetrated by nonindigenous Australians, and forgiveness on the part of indigenous Australians. A brief historical analysis of the relationship between Aborigines and waves of settlers is presented to demonstrate the extent of the wrong that was perpetrated against Aborigines and the need for social as well as practical reconciliation in the current context. It is argued that negotiated forgiveness is a concept that is pertinent to the discussion of reconciliation, because it requires a dialogue between the parties and ultimately for the wrongdoer to accept accountability and responsibility for offending actions, thereby opening the door for forgiveness and, ultimately, possible reconciliation. It is suggested that a first step in the required reconciliation dialogue is an apology, but the issue of who should give and receive an apology is a complex one. The issue of who should forgive and who should be forgiven is shown to be similarly complex. Qualitative analysis of interview data from 10 participants indicated that at this point in time, forgiveness might not be salient to the indigenous population, whose primary focus is more on the matter of an apology. This suggests that negotiated forgiveness and reconciliation will remain elusive goals until the matter of an apology is resolved.

Making meaning from collective apologies : Australia's apology to its indigenous peoples

This article considers the meaning of intergroup apologies for their recipients. Our research examined Indigenous people’s responses to the 2008 Australian apology to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples forcibly removed from their families under previous governments (the Stolen Generations). We interviewed Indigenous men (n=10) and women (n=22) about their attitudes toward the apology and forgiveness. To cover the breadth of Indigenous responses to the Australian apology, we sought out participants from diverse geographic, cultural, and occupational contexts across Australia. After pooling the transcripts and entering them into NVivo, we identified key concepts and themes. Participants expressed positive, negative, and mixed views toward the apology and forgiveness. A dominant theme emerged as participants indicated that for the apology to be truly meaningful, there needed to be action commensurate with the emotion of the apology. Though participants indicated that the apology promoted reconciliation, this was not true for forgiveness. We conclude by discussing implications of these findings for theoretical models of intergroup apology.

Disquiet on the research front : surveying the battle ground between researchers and human research ethics committees

In this paper, I play with the metaphors of war and peace (with apologies to Leo Tolstoy) as a strategy for describing the relations between (some) social science researchers and human research ethics committees. Even a cursory survey of recent literature reveals a raft of grievances and grumblings amongst researchers about the operation and decisions of research ethics committees. This paper presents a partial survey from both sides of some of the claims that have triggered this unofficial declaration of war, and discusses the implications for ethical research. My central argument is that the truly ethical moment lies in mutual and constructive conversations and critique between ethics committees and researchers.

Book review. Historical justice in international perspective

The notion that something can — and must — be done to address injustices of the past has gained signifieant political currency around the world in recent decades. As demands for apologies, reparation, restitution, and restorative justice have grown louder, the attempt to make amends has emerged as an important national marker in what Elazar Barkan has called a new era of intemational morality. For historians, this seemingly new way of engaging with the past is particularly intriguing, perhaps signalling a significant change in historical consciousness in the contemporary world. Historical Justice in International Perspective offers a window onto these events, surveying the political, judicial, and historical landscapes of what has become known as historical justice. In doing so, this collection demonstrates the widespread and increasing significance of historieal redress in contemporary political life.