By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Yoorrook Justice Commission, Australia’s first formal “truth-telling” inquiry, concluded that the British committed genocide against Indigenous Australians, leading to a drastic population decline in the early 1830s. The commission’s comprehensive report, which stemmed from years of testimony, detailed systemic injustices including mass killings, disease, and cultural erasure, resulting in 100 recommendations for “redress.” While the report’s findings were strongly supported by some, three of the five commissioners disagreed with key findings. Victoria’s Labor government responded by stating they would carefully consider the report, while community leaders continue to seek reconciliation through acknowledging the past.
Read the original article here
Inquiry finds British committed genocide on Indigenous Australians, and honestly, it’s hard to be surprised. The general sentiment seems to be a collective “well, duh” echoing across the digital landscape. Many people seem to feel like this is something they’ve known, or at least suspected, for a long time. The idea that a country taking over another would involve violence and displacement, even potentially genocide, is sadly not a new concept.
It’s not that the specific details of the violence and disease that decimated the Indigenous population of Australia are unknown, but rather that it took an official inquiry to confirm what has long been a part of historical record. The report seems to highlight that the Indigenous population was drastically reduced in the years after colonization, a stark reality that’s been an open secret. This aligns with the broader global history of colonization, where similar patterns of conquest and devastating consequences for the native populations have been recorded time and again.
The inquiry, despite the likely costs involved, is seen by some as a necessary step. Recognizing the truth of what happened, as one person put it, is the responsibility of those living today, even though they weren’t personally responsible for the actions of their ancestors. The focus is on recognizing the events and starting the process of acknowledging them, despite the fact that many feel this information has been known for a very long time.
However, some are more critical of the inquiry and the implications. There’s a sense of frustration surrounding the idea of blaming current Australians, particularly those with no direct connection to the events of the 1800s, for the actions of the past. The concern is that this approach might be counterproductive, potentially creating division and making reconciliation more difficult. There’s a strong argument that focusing on the contemporary issues faced by Indigenous Australians, rather than assigning blame to people who are long gone, is a more effective path.
The discussion veers towards broader historical comparisons and even comparisons with other modern day issues. References to events like the colonization of the Americas are brought up to show that the circumstances that played out in Australia were not unique to it. Similarly, the idea of looking at other examples of colonization and the impact of the British Empire globally are offered, from Ireland during the famine to Palestine. Many argue the same patterns of exploitation and displacement were repeated throughout their historical actions.
The conversation also touches upon the symbolism of national identity, raising the question of whether the continued presence of the Union Jack on the Australian flag is appropriate in the context of these findings. The debate about the flag underscores the ongoing struggle for reconciliation and the complexity of grappling with the past. It points to the deeper conversation about the role of symbols and how they can affect national identity and the relationships between people.
The overall sentiment seems to be a blend of recognition and skepticism. There’s an understanding that the inquiry’s findings are not exactly breaking news, but the act of acknowledging it is still seen as important for the healing process. The potential for the inquiry to become yet another source of conflict, by focusing on the assignment of blame to the wrong people, seems to be a common concern. The inquiry’s value is also questioned as it’s seen as an expensive exercise when what’s been found is something already widely documented. It reflects a complex and multifaceted attitude toward the history of Australia and its ongoing process of reconciliation.