An Indelible Stain
By Henry Reynolds
Viking Press, 2001
209 pages, $27
BY RUTH RATCLIFFE
In the introduction to An Indelible Stain?, historian Henry Reynolds predicts that after reading that book, "many people will seek more definite answers, firmer conclusions, more clear cut judgements than I have been able to offer". I am one of those people.
In 1998, members of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy attempted to charge Prime Minister John Howard, National Party leader Tim Fischer, Tasmanian senator Brian Harradine and One Nation's Pauline Hanson with genocide. The Federal Court dismissed the case, claiming that, although Australia signed the UN genocide convention, the absence of domestic legislation meant that genocide is not recognised as a crime under Australian law.
In the after-glow of the Sydney Olympic Games, Howard asserted that it was time "we stopped using outrageous words like genocide" to describe Australian history.
Never afraid of controversy, Reynolds stepped into the fray. Only this time, as a self-declared objective and dispassionate researcher, not necessarily the proud advocate of the Australia's indigenous people's cause which readers may expect. He introduces the book as "a careful and reasonably dispassionate investigation of the topic [genocide]". He avoids drawing conclusions but simply presents the facts. And damning facts they are.
An Indelible Stain? is meticulously researched and full of valuable historical information on the atrocities that have been committed against Indigenous Australians. Various events, such as the introduction of smallpox, the infamous "Black Line" genocide in Tasmania and the systematic removal of Indigenous children from their families, are examined and measured against the genocide convention.
However, in his effort to be even-handed and dispassionate, Reynolds' investigation becomes hamstrung by legal definitions and loopholes.
Reynolds is aware of the limitations of the genocide convention. For example, the convention does not include cultural genocide. Reynolds' colleague, Colin Tatz, states "there are flaws, perhaps grievous ones, in the convention".
Despite this, Reynolds proceeds in his examination of Australian history with the yardstick set by the decision of the United Nations in 1948, which reads: "Genocide means any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group: a) killing members of the group; b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c) deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
The argument one is forced to draw from the book (Reynolds puts forward remarkably few arguments) is that while acts which constitute genocide undoubtedly occurred throughout Australian history, it is not possible to prove that they were committed with an intent to destroy the Aboriginal people. This is largely based on the absence of government directives to exterminate the Aborigines.
However, there were many such calls from newspapers and even government figures (in their "personal capacity"). Reynolds details numerous and chilling public calls for the extermination of Indigenous people. He also details the slaughter of Aboriginal people which occurred as white settlement expanded. Finally, the attempt to dispose of the Indigenous people through assimilation into white society is outlined.
The advocacy of, and the actual attempt at, the destruction of a racially defined group of people fits most people's understanding of genocide. Reynolds makes his strongest argument that genocide occurred in relation to the systematic removal of Aboriginal children, the "stolen generations". He writes that it would "have to be seriously considered as genocidal in effect, if not necessarily in intention".
The British colonists were determined to appropriate the land on which the Aboriginal people absolutely depended. When the Aboriginal people resisted, the response of the settlers and the colonial authorities was brutal.
The irreconcilability between the government's professed policy of benevolence towards the Australia's Indigenous inhabitants and its determination to gain control of the land demonstrates the intellectual poverty of analysing Australian history in a rigid legalistic way.
With his previous works, Reynolds used his enormous talent as a researcher and writer to provide historical affirmation, and ideological ammunition, to the struggle for Indigenous people's rights. He has spoken out repeatedly for the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and has contributed enormously to uncovering the true history of this country.
To weigh into the genocide debate with abstract legalism and intellectual pedantry is a huge retreat for Reynolds and a disappointment for those who have gained so much from his previous work.
Even if events in Australia don't fit the genocide convention to the letter, is that the point? Even if events do not strictly fit the definition of the convention, they come incredibly close. Continuing policies towards Indigenous people continue to result in such serious discrimination and disadvantage that genocide is the only appropriate term to use.
In 1830, the British secretary of state for the colonies wrote: "The adoption of any line of conduct, having for its avowed or secret object, the extinction of the Native race, could not fail to leave an indelible stain upon the character of the British government".
Whether or not events in Australian history coincide precisely with the genocide convention, there is certainly an "indelible stain" on the British government and subsequent Australian governments.
My criticisms of An Indelible Stain? may place me among what Reynolds refers to as "genocide promoters" — those who "feel that no other term is powerful enough to capture their anger" and who believe that the "colonists' behaviour warrants condemnation, not explanation".
I'd dispute this characterisation. The debate should be considered in its political context. I don't think that abstractly measuring history against the singular and rigid yard-stick of the genocide convention is the most useful contribution to the debate.
Who are the "genocide promoters"? The representatives of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy charged the federal government with genocide in response to Howard's 10-point plan, which in effect abolished any remnants of land rights in Australia. The genocide charge was part of a struggle for recognition of past atrocities and, more importantly, to force changes to current government policy which, they argued, is a policy of continuing genocide.
Some academics throw their hands up at the "imprecision" of the terms used, but if they stepped down from their ivory towers they might realise that the struggle to have the crimes of the past recognised is an integral part of the struggle for justice today.
Reynolds has become removed from the struggle. Just how far removed is evident in the conclusion of An Indelible Stain? He concedes that most Australians today would favour the survival of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as distinct peoples. But he is uncertain whether there is support for the necessary measures that would ensure that survival, such as recognition of customary law, Aboriginal self-government and a constitutional definition of Indigenous rights.
Reynolds makes no mention of the recent massive demonstrations of support for Indigenous people's rights and opposition to government racism, so graphically demonstrated by the reconciliation walks. He makes no mention of the role that Indigenous campaigners are playing in the struggle for survival.
Reynolds demonstrates his lack of understanding of the role of popular struggle in winning broad support for Indigenous Australian's rights and in deepening the Australian people's political consciousness to win support for the demands which the Aboriginal people and the Torres Strait Islanders judge necessary for their survival.
From Green Left Weekly, February 20, 2002.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.