Ruth Ratcliffe is an Adelaide member of the Democratic Socialist Perspective (see: http://www.resistance.org.au/conference_agenda ).
Ruth Ratcliffe on Aboriginal Genocide and “The Indelible Stain” by distinguished Indigenous Australian historian Professor Henry Reynolds (2002): “In the introduction to “An Indelible Stain?” 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…
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.” [1].
Ruth Ratcliffe, “Has Henry Reynolds retreated?“, Green Left Weekly, 20 February 2002: http://www.greenleft.org.au/2002/481/28797 .