The Guilt of Nations: Restitution and Negotiating Historical Injustices [Paperback]

 

 

Create your own review

I hesitate to write a review of this book because I am reluctant to critique a very noble and dilligent effort by Barkan to document reparations movements and issues from throughout the world; I can only imagine the time and effort it took to write this. It's very well documented, and I cited it in my research. I just didn't find it very engaging personally, but that doesn't mean that others won't find it meaningful.

"Those who love to feel guilty will applaud the book." How cynical! I'd have let it pass if it weren't for the "17 of 20 people (who) found the following review (by Derek Parker) helpful." Parker, like most white Australians, is totally into denial that the genocide started by invaders 213 years ago is the one and only cause for the abject state of the indigenous peoples who have not ceded sovereignty. Nine out of 10 were wiped out by slaughter, starvation, disease and dispersal from their lands. Massacres were still happening within the life spans of present-day parents and grandparents. Indigenous Australians live 20 years less on average than other people in the country. I could bore you with endless statistics testifying to the continuing devastation of Australia's First Peoples through the ongoing white war on them: deprival of education, health care, jobs, 20 times the normal imprisonment rate, etc., etc. What Parker obviously doesn't like is that the tyranny of distance no longer works and White Australia's crimes are more and more in the world spotlight, including in this book. Australia is getting plenty of stick in international bodies for not living up to human rights agreements it has signed up to. The issue is if not the biggest, then one of the biggest on the national agenda. Parker and his camp would be yelling loudest if present-day Germans were to shirk their responsibility for restitution to the Jews. Yet to him Australian perpetrators are sacrosanct. Parker alleges that "Barkan acts as if there are no difficult questions at all" in regard to the Aborigines, and "Largely, he accepts the claims put forward by the wronged group, dismissing contrary arguments." I would like Parker to back his claims that Barkan's "selection of evidence seems so one-sided as to almost be misleading" and that he's made a "number of straightforward errors." In my view, Barkan, as a non-Australian, has a remarkably accurate take on our country. "He seems to assume that the fact that someone has been wronged makes anything they say automatically correct." - Barkan does not. To speak of a "victim/victimiser methodology" is callous disregard of the pain our indigenous people still suffer and a vicious panning of those who empathize with them. "There are important issues of human dignity here." - You bet! Yet the Australian government is refusing to allow various United Nations human rights sub-bodies into the country to investigate. "How much responsibility can be placed on the shoulders of people who might well have been ignorant, or even born after, the wrongdoing?" - So we don't attone or restitute in any way once our parents and grandparents are no more? Tough luck for those suffering among us if our ancestors wronged theirs? If we're living off the fat of an invasion, and those invaded still suffer the after-effects? "The case he discusses where, in Australia in the 1960s, half-caste Aboriginal children were removed from their families and placed in (white) foster homes is a case in point. It now seems wrong, but at the time was done with benevolent intent." - The stealing of children went on for more than a hundred years. The plan was to "breed the colour out" of the indigenous people, not some benevolent intent. How can removing children from extended families by force ever be benevolent? Merely on the pretext that a traditional lifestyle did not fit in with the growing white settler population's idea of how one had to live? "Historical injustice deserves a great book." - and a better review than Mr. Parker's. "The Guilt of Nations" is good stuff. Hopefully it will reach many readers and put Australia's deniers on notice that more and more of the world is watching.

Barkan has to be commended, at least, for taking on a huge subject: the attempts of groups, seen increasingly over the past quarter-century, who have been the victims of government policies and wrongdoing to seek recognition and redress. The Guilt of Nations has introductory and concluding sections that thoughtfully discuss the issues involved, trying to establish a general framework. Philosophically and practically, it's a tough subject. There is, in liberal societies, an ongoing tension between individual and group rights, and limits on government resources. The particular circumstances of the wrongdoing also have to be examined. Barkan, as a means of illustrating the problems, looks at the post-war restitution by Germany to Jews; and, in a concluding section, examines the difficulty of compensating Black Americans for slavery. These parts of the book are well-considered and well-argued. The problem of The Guilt of Nations lies with the case studies that make up the middle section of the book, especially in the chapters dealing with indigenous groups. Here, Barkan acts as if there are no difficult questions at all. Largely, he accepts the claims put forward by the wronged group, dismissing contrary arguments. Indeed, in the chapter on Aboriginal issues in Australia ( a subject this reviewer happens to know something about ) his selection of evidence seems so one-sided as to almost be misleading. There is (in this same chapter) a number of straightforward errors that make one wonder whether his agenda is not more important to Barkan (who is an academic historian) than the facts. He seems to assume that the fact that someone has been wronged makes anything they say automatically correct. This is not to say that victims should be blamed for what might have happened to them: it is to say that human events can be much more complicated than a victim/victimiser methodology. This is a great pity, because there are important issues of human dignity here. The cases of the "comfort women" used by the Japanese army in World War II and the internment of Japanese-Americans by the US government in 1942 are undeniably affecting, especially insofar as a recognition of the wrong done to them was more important to those involved than monetary compensation. Yet Barkan, in what seems to be a rush to condemn the perpetrators (as he refers to those he doesn't like) seems to miss a crucial dilemma: how much responsibility can be placed on the shoulders of people who might well have been ignorant, or even born after, the wrongdoing? (Actually, Barkan does mention this question. But he doesn't answer it in a meaningful form; he sort of assumes it away.) There is another question he skips around: to what extent can the morality of 2000 being applied to quite different social circumstances? True, there are cases where evil is so obvious as to have no defence in circumstances; equally, there are cases where what now seems wrong seemed right, even necessary, at the time. The case he discusses where, in Australia in the 1960s, half-caste Aboriginal children were removed from their families and placed in (white) foster homes is a case in point. It now seems wrong, but at the time was done with benevolent intent. It might have been wrong, but it cannot be called evil if evil requires intent. But Barkan fails to makes such a distinction, and does not even seem interested in trying. Historical injustice deserves a great book. The Guilt of Nations isn't it. Parts of it have interesting things to say, but it veers between seriousness and silliness. Those who love to feel guilty will applaud the book. The rest of us will, and should, treat it with caution.

Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review

› See all 3 customer reviews on Amazon.ca

 

Search Customer Reviews
Only search this product's reviews

Search Listmania!