(I) recognition: on saying “sorry”

The Australian government plans to make a public apology to the “stolen generation.” After years of debate, there is to be official recognition for the wrongs done to indigenous peoples.

Undealt injustices committed by a public body – no matter at what scale – have a negative impact on the human rights culture and therewith on the social fabric of a country. Many countries struggle to come to terms with such wrongs.

Obviously, there is no “right” way of getting the wrong “right.” Actually, I don’t think that there is a “right” after wrong but rather accommodation of the “wrong” through recognition. What I find interesting in the Australian debate is that – a bit like the Austrian, which, however, is not comparable – under political considerations, only part of the recognition takes place. How so? If one were to try and do this as completely as possible, as holistically as feasible, it should go like this: come up with a common history between the two sides (there is usually two distinct sides although there are obviously many shades of grey at play). That common history needs to be based on mutually agreeable facts. Truth, in essence, cannot be agreed upon; so it is publicly discussed and settled facts. That is a long, painful but very meaningful process.

Based on facts, one should try and come up with a meaningful apology. Then one may want to commence the parallel process of sustainably including the common-history into public discourse as well as addressing the marginalization of those who suffered the injustices as well as their descendants.

The need for a holistic approach to this is underestimated in most post-injustice situations, no matter what the scale. Ultimately the recognition of past wrongs is another variant of acknowledging that for everyone to enjoy and show mutual respect, their dignity has to be ensured. If there is a shadow of injustice, there is no dignity. If there is no dignity there is a violation of the sum of human rights.