A Cross-Cultural Comparison On Apologies To The Aboriginals

In the "age of apology," the cases of Australia,Canada,and Taiwan constitute an interesting cross-cultural comparison:they are all consolidated peaceful democracies with analogous colonial experiences,and have made official apologies to their aboriginal people,who only account for a relatively small percentage of the total population.This thesis seeks a more universal understanding of apology,and its cultural uniqueness.Three major research questions of the thesis are:how do apologies to the aboriginals in Australia,Canada and Taiwan converge and diverge in terms of scope,extent,wording,and reactions received?What are the culturally contextual aspects of apology?What further reparative policies does apology render and require?Research illustrates that apology occurs in the shadow of historical experiences and political environment,and is accompanied by reparation to different degrees.Australia's apology to the Stolen Generation was a quasi one,with neither cultural injustice mentioned nor accountability attached.The homogeneous,humble demographic composition of early settlers and continuous governance under the same flag make Australia more white-centric and liberal individualistic,thus,a limited apology with only symbolic reparative gestures is safe.Aside from a limited budget for counsellors,research,clinical support and parenting programs,substantial reparation gave away to symbolic gestures such as a National Sorry Day,signing of sorry books,and a Reconciliation Square.Canada's apology to the former students of Indian Residential Schools won bipartisan support,but the Catholic Church's responsibility remains unsettled.Dualistic in its genes,Canada steps further to embrace multiculturalism and apology as national agreement.In addition to a national compensation fund and a Truth and Reconciliation Commission,there is an emphasis on cultural reparation,with the acknowledgment of aboriginal cultural rights,and sufficient budget for their language revitalization and preservation.Their Taiwanese counterpart is the broadest in coverage and timeframe that aspires to transitional justice,yet it does not escape the blue vs.green antagonism,and Tsai Ing-wen's undiscriminating representation of preceding regimes is controversial.Regime incoherence leaves a fragmented nationhood and inability to draw the internal vs.external boundary.For future policy recommendations,"transitional justice"aims high,but Taiwan needs to redefine the term in its distinctive context—it could be a pioneer in constructing transitional justice as decolonization and applying it to the aboriginal population.In truth-telling,it should engage both transgressors and victims to forge a meaningful dialogue on equal terms.Also,Taiwanese aborigines should be encouraged to play a creative role in their own cultural reparation,through the promotion of aboriginal art and influence in the mainstream popular culture.Drawing on this cross-cultural comparison,the apology in each case is at least composed of recognition of wrong and accountability,expression of regret,and commitment for non-repetition.It is supported for its symbolic significance as historic landmark and practical contribution to relationship rebuilding,while opposed for being mere words,self-interested,and socially dividing.Given Taiwan's case,one possible cultural difference could be concerned with the appropriate etiquette.In the East Asia,the content of apology is important,but the form also matters.Hence the production of apology should be indigenized according to certain codes of conduct within a specific cultural context.The study implies that apology may still fits into a wider project of state-building,and that the postmodern demise of the state is exaggerated.We have noticed that states intended to close the book on historical blemishes and turn a new page of stability and unity with a reconciliatory,future-oriented apologetic discourse.An official recognition of transgression and accountability by apology actually re-legitimizes state authority and preserve the status quo of state-and-citizen relation,especially when reparative policies are expected or promised.Such strategic concession is a more benevolent and insidious extension of that same integrating process.No matter how the struggle between state and individuals unfolds,apology also indicates a near unanimous consensus that a state will not be able to pass into the future successfully until it somehow deals with the horrors of its past.