# Why are we saying 'sorry' to the aboriginals?!



## agro (29 January 2008)

doesn't anyone realize the amount of legal claims going to be filed..

this is going to be all tax funded too..

there are other priorities they should take precedence:

hospitals, education, training etc

this will never end


----------



## roland (29 January 2008)

I think that some of the "Stolen Generation" would probably be wanting to say thank you. I look at the way some of the aboriginal communities are treating their children and wonder how many ended up with a better life.

There were a lot of half casts that were taken away as well, I understand that half casts were generally treated very badly or even killed....


----------



## nowork (29 January 2008)

I think just do it. Get it over with and finish it.

Will be interesting to see how much it costs.......


----------



## Nyden (29 January 2008)

Too true Roland,

This generation have nothing to be sorry about, personally? I'd even be OK if we started "stealing" some more, as Roland said; they'd probably have better lives. At least they wouldn't be abused as children, & end up as dole bludging petrol sniffers.

Sorry, unfair generalization I know. This whole topic gets me a little emotive!


----------



## roland (29 January 2008)

Nyden said:


> Too true Roland,
> 
> This generation have nothing to be sorry about, personally? I'd even be OK if we started "stealing" some more, as Roland said; they'd probably have better lives. At least they wouldn't be abused as children, & end up as dole bludging petrol sniffers.
> 
> Sorry, unfair generalization I know. This whole topic gets me a little emotive!




Hey Nyden, I suppose with the oil crisis nearing, then the petrol sniffing would become a thing of the past.


----------



## Nyden (29 January 2008)

roland said:


> Hey Nyden, I suppose with the oil crisis nearing, then the petrol sniffing would become a thing of the past.




Yes, they're better off in sniffing Coke with the current price of gasoline ....


----------



## trinity (29 January 2008)

Being a migrant, I do not totally understand this "stolen" generation issue.  Could someone provide an unbiased summary of this?


Thanks.


----------



## Nyden (29 January 2008)

trinity said:


> Being a migrant, I do not totally understand this "stolen" generation issue.  Could someone provide an unbiased summary of this?
> 
> 
> Thanks.




Good ol' wikipedia



> The Stolen Generation (or Stolen Generations) is a term used to describe the Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, usually of mixed descent who were removed from their families by Australian government agencies and church missions, under various state acts of parliament, denying the rights of parents and making all Aboriginal children wards of the state, between approximately 1869 and (officially) 1969. The policy typically involved the removal of children into internment camps, orphanages and other institutions.[1] The Stolen Generation has received significant public attention in Australia following the publication in 1997 of Bringing Them Home - Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families.[2] Questions regarding whether the Stolen Generation actually occurred or to what scale it occurred, remain controversial topics within Australian political discourse.[3][4]


----------



## trinity (29 January 2008)

Thanks Nyden.

wow ... one whole century



> 1869 and (officially) 1969...





IMHO,  what's past is past... leave it there.  Things had to be done I suppose.  Say sorry then.  But, if we start giving compensation to 1, then, no amount of tax money would be enough ...


----------



## roland (29 January 2008)

Were they stolen or rescued? Were they not removed from squallor, fed, clothed, educated, housed, given access to modern medicine.

I guess you hear stories regarding some of the abuse at orphanages etc.

I suppose as a parent, you wouldn't want your children taken away for any reason. Isn't the government doing the same thing now with the Rescue in the Northern Territory - funny how the aboriginal leaders are in favour this time...


----------



## Nyden (29 January 2008)

trinity said:


> Thanks Nyden.
> 
> wow ... one whole century
> 
> ...




But, that's the thing - it would be *our* generation financially paying for the mistakes of another. I refuse to do that.


----------



## Nyden (29 January 2008)

roland said:


> Were they stolen or rescued? Were they not removed from squallor, fed, clothed, educated, housed, given access to modern medicine.
> 
> I guess you hear stories regarding some of the abuse at orphanages etc.
> 
> I suppose as a parent, you wouldn't want your children taken away for any reason. Isn't the government doing the same thing now with the Rescue in the Northern Territory - funny how the aboriginal leaders are in favour this time...




The government doesn't just do this with Aborigines though. Any unfit parent has their children taken away, & when you look at the health statistics out there... & the % incidence of drug abuse, I think it's a fair call IMO.

I know it's *wrong* of me to expect this, but I just wish they would intergrate into society. The Native Americans have done this somewhat, as far as I know they don't still live in huts & tribes over there? They live in Casinos


----------



## Stan 101 (29 January 2008)

Nyden said:


> I refuse to do that.




I doubt very much that you have a say in it.

cheers,


----------



## trinity (29 January 2008)

> I know it's wrong of me to expect this, but I just wish they would intergrate into society. The Native Americans have done this somewhat, as far as I know they don't still live in huts & tribes over there? They live in Casinos




I am kinda with you on this.  I pay heaps in taxes, which I expect/want to go into better schools and hospitals, public transport etc.  Things which would benefit ALL Australians basically ...


----------



## Sir Burr (29 January 2008)

> Why are *we* saying 'sorry' to the aboriginals?!




"We" are not saying sorry, the Government is. 

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national.../2008/01/29/1201369084589.html?s_cid=rss_news



> He also said individual Australians have the right to oppose the move, saying the apology was not coming from the non-indigenous citizens.
> 
> "We'll be making it clear that we'll be speaking in the government's name," he said.


----------



## Nyden (29 January 2008)

Stan 101 said:


> I doubt very much that you have a say in it.
> 
> cheers,




Heh. Bloody Rudd is already losing me money.


----------



## trinity (29 January 2008)

> "We" are not saying sorry, the Government is.




But who is taking the tab for this "sorry"?  The Government?


----------



## roland (29 January 2008)

I wonder if the aboriginal community wants the "sorry" or the compensation. If we were to seperate the 2 and say you can either have a "sorry" or the $$$'s - which one would they choose?


----------



## Nyden (29 January 2008)

roland said:


> I wonder if the aboriginal community wants the "sorry" or the compensation. If we were to seperate the 2 and say you can either have a "sorry" or the $$$'s - which one would they choose?




Obviously the cash, as mentioned ... petrol prices are sky high


----------



## moXJO (29 January 2008)

Yes more legal claims  I don't think this will narrow the gap for respect towards aboriginals.Whats worse is the money probably wont get near the ones that need it.All this will be doing is bringing up even more of a divide.

Will have to see how Rudd is going to dodge these legal claims


----------



## --B-- (29 January 2008)

Saying sorry to the aboriginal people will do nothing but reinforce their victim mentality which has been the primary issue holding them back from being equal members of society. 

Saint Kev seems to think saying sorry is going to solve all their problems, or at least make solving all these problems all that much easier. Ridiculous.



			
				Kevvy said:
			
		

> "(Then) we can get on with the business of closing the gap in terms of life expectancy, education levels and health levels between indigenous and non-indigenous communities."




Wow,.. 

While Kev remains steadfast that no compensation fund will be set up this doesnt mean claims wont still be made against the government for the 'wrongdoings' of the past.

I eagerly await the outcome of this and sincerely hope our generation arent forced to pay for this because Kevin likes to be the good guy to everyone. Kev is a smart guy and the delay in saying 'sorry' is telling me a very carefully worded statement is being prepared....


----------



## MS+Tradesim (29 January 2008)

Sir Burr said:


> "We" are not saying sorry, the Government is.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/national.../2008/01/29/1201369084589.html?s_cid=rss_news




Then that would be Rudd talking through his .... The Govt is democratically elected to act and speak on behalf of the people. An apology by the Govt is a _de facto_ apology by the people. If Rudd is *not* speaking on behalf of the people he will lose any authority to establish a compensation fund (assuming such a thing happened) which would be composed of the people's money, held and administrated in trust by the Govt. He has painted himself into a corner. His only "out" is to establish a privately funded coffer to which those who agree can pay into. Will this happen? Nope. The taxpayers will foot the cost and Rudd will have made mistake number one since gaining office. Will be interesting to see what happens.


----------



## Happy (29 January 2008)

> From ABC, 28 Jan. 08
> 
> 'SORRY' MORE IMPORTANT THAN COMPENSATION: STOLEN GENERATIONS ALLIANCE
> 
> ...




They want both, and it is very clear:




> official apology is more important than compensation at this stage, but compensation could still be sought.


----------



## Prospector (29 January 2008)

roland said:


> Were they stolen or rescued? Were they not removed from squallor, fed, clothed, educated, housed, given access to modern medicine.




Unfortunately that wasn't the case.  The children were often taken away from homes where they had been cared for properly, simply because people thought they would be 'better off'.  But often that meant they were put in foster homes where they became servants, or into orphanages.


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 January 2008)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Rudd will have made mistake number one since gaining office. Will be interesting to see what happens.




well at least you admit he hasn't made any mistakes yet 

MS - He'll do what he does, and face the public at the next election I guess. 

Would it be fair to say he's not gonna get many votes next time by posters on this thread  even if he parts the waters of the Pacific to give us a highway to travel to US?.

PS I agree it will be interesting to see what happens.


----------



## cuttlefish (29 January 2008)

So what.  Say sorry, pay compensation if the court deems it, acknowlege that there have been past wrongs and these have contributed heavily to the current situation, acknowledge the unfair treatment that these people have suffered. 

I don't have a problem with it.   The government can apologise on my behalf.  If there's a cost involved, so be it.

Personally reading some of the stuff on this thread about 'doing them a favour by removing them' it seems that the same mistake could easily be repeated today and the same suffering inflicted.  I think the story should be told and acknowledged so that it can be put behind them and us.  Its a part of Australian history that we shouldn't feel proud of and I don't see why subsequent generations shouldn't feel a desire to address the wrongs of past generations.  

Although I acknowledge serious and entrenched problems exist in aboriginal communities I also find the current intervention approach disconcerting and worry that there are implications to this approach that haven't been fully considered.  

There's no doubt that the dependency and welfare mentality situation is one of the biggest problems with aboriginal communities.  Aboriginals need to create and maintain their own social structure to come out of this situation.  

In some ways I see intervention just a repeat of the mistakes of the past - whites attempting to 'look after' the aboriginals because they can't 'look after' themselves. 

Instead I believe we should be looking for an approach that forces the aboriginal community to take responsibility for their situation and thus forces them to act to address it.  Funding needs to be directed to encourage the development of a social structure.  To me policing is one big area where there are inconsistencies that don't serve the aboriginal community well.  

A general lack of structure and purpose created by the welfare trap is also definitely one of the biggest problems and so entrenched in their community psyche that it is difficult to see how to create change in that regard.

The problem has been ignored for a very long time under the Howard government which hasn't helped the situation. 

Urgent action has been needed for a long time.  Maybe hindsight will show that the intervention into the communities is the best way to go but I would be looking for other approaches.  Clearly the current situation isn't working though.


----------



## SilverDollar (29 January 2008)

Can't quite believe you lot.

Oh course the aboriginal people should get an apology and a helping hand to get them back on track. Greedy rich people worried over a few dollars of tax. The past ill treatment of the aborigine people is not in the past.. so we can not leave it there.. the effects of these ill treatments pass from generation to the next therefore Australians should be feel obliged and want to help where possible. Money and effort must be expended  to break current cycles of poverty, dependance etc.. and yes you should contribute through tax. Its about building a better Australia. How can a young aboriginal child born into some of the communities we see expect to break out and succeed with out external support. Everyone deserves a chance in life.

I am done with this thread and am not entering debate, no more posts.


----------



## moXJO (29 January 2008)

cuttlefish said:


> So what.  Say sorry, pay compensation if the court deems it, acknowlege that there have been past wrongs and these have contributed heavily to the current situation, acknowledge the unfair treatment that these people have suffered.




I think it was the late 80's and early 90's that showed handouts just don’t work. I have no problem with millions being used on a sensible plan to address the problems and help the communities. But there comes a point where they actually have to exert some effort themselves to move ahead. Compensation will just bring back resentment from taxpayers (no doubt the media will fan the flames)


----------



## Happy (29 January 2008)

SilverDollar said:


> How can a young aboriginal child born into some of the communities we see expect to break out and succeed with out external support. Everyone deserves a chance in life.




It almost begs to say that maybe, maybe child should be removed from that environment?

Maybe wealthy, well educated members of their own race could take care of them, so other races’ people do not have to worry about how $orry to be in another 100 years.

I think I am done too.


----------



## Nyden (29 January 2008)

First off, their current problems of abuse, drug abuse, & unemployment are not tied to this stolen generation situation.

How I would rectify this? By doing nothing. Suspend all racial advantages, suspend all welfare payments, & let them do whatever they like. Nature will run its course, & one way or another their problems will be solved.

They would obviously be forced at that point to either fully return to their tribal ways of living off the land; or get jobs, clothes, cars, homes, mortgages, & enter western society with the rest of us.

There is only *so much* money to go round, & we can't be constructing cities out there in the middle of the desert for these people.

What will compensation achieve? What will an apology achieve?! What, we say sorry, cut them a cheque, & all their problems / victimization suddenly comes to an end? Rubbish. They'll find something else.


What about quality, & equality for *all* Australians? They have their own flag for goodness sake, & as far as I'm concerned they should receive nothing from us. How is it fair that they get discounted school education? Discounted home loans? All of this based on *race*!

I pay tax, I'm not a greedy millionaire "fat cat" looking to save a couple of dollars, I just expect that the money to be used on community benefit. I expect to be able to go in for surgery without a 6 month waiting period, I expect my future children to be able to be educated in a school where the teachers actually know the subject they're teaching.


*All* of the solutions to their problems lie right here, in civilization. They can come to the city, buy themselves a house with their discounted interest rate, seek free therapy (I'm sure), go into rehabilitation programs, & they can live their damn lives!


Help those who help themselves, isn't that the motto? Until they do this, as cold as it sounds, let them sort themselves out.


----------



## Edwood (29 January 2008)

Nyden said:


> But, that's the thing - it would be *our* generation financially paying for the mistakes of another. I refuse to do that.




there's a bit more to it than money though isn't there - respect for one thing. acknowledging that what was done was wrong.  your ancestors have taken their land & destroyed their culture.  will you be aggrieved when another culture takes over Australia?  it may happen sooner than you think


----------



## agro (29 January 2008)

Nyden said:


> Heh. Bloody Rudd is already losing me money.




Rudd is like Santa Clause, spending all the money in the bank and run us into debt..

i wonder how many promises he keeps - he is trying to cut hospital waiting lists yet *does not understand there is NOT enough nurses and doctors!!*

also, i know someone (anglo) who was stolen from their parents - whats the chances of them getting compo claims etc

*as roland said, which would they rather have 'compo pay outs' or 'a genuine sorry'??*


----------



## robert toms (29 January 2008)

Even the richest man in Babylon should not be deprived of his mother.
I wonder why people are unable to see the victims' side of this sad,reprehensible saga.
Some of the most spurious,irrelevant and racist comments have appeared in opposition to common decency.(on these forums)
If it takes saying sorry and compensation being paid ,so be it!


----------



## cuttlefish (29 January 2008)

moXJO said:


> I think it was the late 80's and early 90's that showed handouts just don’t work. I have no problem with millions being used on a sensible plan to address the problems and help the communities. But there comes a point where they actually have to exert some effort themselves to move ahead. Compensation will just bring back resentment from taxpayers (no doubt the media will fan the flames)




And if you read further in my post I acknowledge the problems of the welfare mentality - there's no doubt this is the biggest problem in this community. 

But I think that compensation for the stolen generation is a separate issue, and an inevitable part of acknowledging the wrongs of the past will be that compensation will come up - its tokenism to apologise but not be willing to bare financial compensation along side it in our litigous modern age.

That being said its unfortunate that the aboriginal community seems so focused on the financial/compensation aspect rather than symbolic aspect of it and reflects again the entrenched welfare/"govt owes us a living" mentality that is part of their community psyche.  I think they would be better served asking for other gestures such as education on the stolen generation being made part of the school curriculum, acknowledgement of it in other symbolic forms that will help with the awareness and healing process.


----------



## Nyden (29 January 2008)

Edwood said:


> there's a bit more to it than money though isn't there - respect for one thing. acknowledging that what was done was wrong.  your ancestors have taken their land & destroyed their culture.  will you be aggrieved when another culture takes over Australia?  it may happen sooner than you think




Heh, Australia doesn't have a culture to destroy  : We live in a Global world now, if you don't like a country it's as simple as packing up & leaving ... at least for Western society.

We've already acknowledged that something has been done wrong, everyone already knows this. They specifically want an apology though; why? For financial gain. The liability of the government admitting they made a mistake.

If they want an apology under the agreement of *no* financial restitution, then fine. I'll even apologize to them 

I'm just tired of the attempt to always place a guilt on certain races; I'm German, does this mean I should forever feel guilt for certain atrocities as well? Heck, I should just live my life in misery because of what all of my people have done throughout history.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (29 January 2008)

SilverDollar said:


> Can't quite believe you lot.
> 
> Greedy rich people worried over a few dollars of tax.




Emotive response based on uninformed assumptions noted.

They do not need compensation. They need the same things everyone needs...access to healthcare, education, decent housing, etc


----------



## agro (29 January 2008)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Emotive response based on uninformed assumptions noted.
> 
> They do not need compensation. They need the same things everyone needs...access to healthcare, education, decent housing, etc




in that case.. how about we put the compensation towards them getting the education?? start training them up???


makes more sense than a hand out - here u go spend it on booze


----------



## Nyden (29 January 2008)

agro said:


> in that case.. how about we put the compensation towards them getting the education?? start training them up???
> 
> 
> makes more sense than a hand out - here u go spend it on booze




Petrol, not booze. _Premium_ (vintage) "wine" :

Couldn't agree more though, I'm all for them training / getting an education if they want it.
Give a man a fish ... teach a man to fish ...


----------



## cuttlefish (29 January 2008)

Nyden said:


> How I would rectify this? By doing nothing. Suspend all racial advantages, suspend all welfare payments, & let them do whatever they like. Nature will run its course, & one way or another their problems will be solved.




I agree there is strong resentment about the differential welfare treatment that the aboriginal community receives. I think they should change it as well.  Similarly there needs to be more consistency in  other aspects of aboriginal vs non-aboriginal treatment - including health, education and policing/judiciary.

The welfare situation creates a welfare trap, a dependency mentality and also breeds strong resentment amongst non-aboriginals that share the same socio-economic basis but don't get the same welfare treatment.

It should be addressed as a social problem not a race problem. So funding towards it should be directed at communities that need it, regardless of race, and in a consistent manner. The same goes for the way policing, health and education resources are directed - it shouldn't be directed on race but towards area's where there are social problems that require it - whether that be a remote aboriginal community or a western sydney predominately white community, the resources should be consistently directed to areas that have violence, crime, unemployment and/or health problems. And the application of these resources should be done in a consistent manner - policing should be consistent across communities, the judiciary should be consistent in punishment for different types of crimes etc.  Now there are all sorts of inconsistencies in this area, arrest rates for certain crimes are higher, imprisonment rates for other types of crime, or repeat offences are lower etc.

I still see the compensation issue for the stolen generation as separate to the general issue of welfare and funding.


----------



## trinity (29 January 2008)

> in that case.. how about we put the compensation towards them getting the education?? start training them up???
> makes more sense than a hand out - here u go spend it on booze




While we are at it, I think the whole welfare system should be revamped!



> I still see the compensation issue for the stolen generation as separate to the general issue of welfare and funding.




How do you reckon they will spend the compensation on?  I think Nyden put it rightly by saying, he has moved on, so have the victims of WWII and all other races.  Why can't we help the aboriginals move on?


----------



## Julia (29 January 2008)

Thanks to Cuttlefish for insightful and reasonable remarks.  These comments pretty much reflect the repeated entreaties of Noel Pearson who emphasises the destructive effects of bleeding hearts promoting in the Aboriginals a victim mentality where there is no expectation of them actually having to take any responsibity for their situation.


----------



## numbercruncher (29 January 2008)

Maybe we should swap apologies ?

Non aboriginals can apologise for past offences and Aboriginals can apolgise for current offences and public insults?



> Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre worker Adam Thompson lit the Australian flag in Launceston's City Park to the cheers of about 100 people, rallying against what they call "Invasion Day".




http://au.news.yahoo.com/080129/21/15o1h.html


----------



## Nyden (29 January 2008)

Oh, & I just want to say that I'm not racially biased in any sense.

I feel this sort of emotive resentment towards *all* people unjustly on welfare. You can find posts of mine months back with very similar angry responses of mine with regards to "the dole" ... :


----------



## rederob (29 January 2008)

Nyden said:


> First off, their current problems of abuse, drug abuse, & unemployment are not tied to this stolen generation situation.



How true.
It was our (white fella) gift to them after we stole their land.

Sorry!


----------



## Nyden (29 January 2008)

rederob said:


> How true.
> It was our (white fella) gift to them after we stole their land.
> 
> Sorry!




Yes, but *that* isn't the issue here!! 

We already have compensation in place of that ... look at all their perks.


----------



## rederob (29 January 2008)

Nyden said:


> Yes, but *that* isn't the issue here!!
> 
> We already have compensation in place of that ... look at all their perks.




You have very little idea of what you are talking about.

The issue is that we - through Rudd - are saying sorry.

But you want to turn this into a racial issue, dont you?

I think "stealing children", irrespective of motives, is a pretty low act.
That's very different to removing them from harm, which society has an obligation to enforce.


----------



## Nyden (29 January 2008)

rederob said:


> You have very little idea of what you are talking about.
> 
> The issue is that we - through Rudd - are saying sorry.
> 
> ...




Oh, I actually thought your last post was done in sarcasm! I apologize.

First of all, no. Rudd is apologizing *purely* for the stolen generation, not for the land / other wrong doings.

I was merely making the point that their current plight has nothing to do with what we are apparently apologizing for.

I believe the end always justifies the means. If we can give children a *better*, & improved upbringing irregardless of the emotions of the parents / other parties involved, I feel this to be something we must do. The most important thing is the children, *not* the parents.


Secondly, I think the fact that this issue is so _controversial_ is tied to the fact that many other people, including myself do not *wish* to apologize for this, & therefore without first putting it to vote Rudd has no bleeding right to apologize on *my* or anybody else's behalf. 

I tend to look at this from more of a cold, & statistical view point I guess. Statically speaking; their children are in greater danger when compared with the average child. This isn't a *race* issue, but a locational issue ... & it just so happens the regions of community with these dangerous incidence levels of child abuse, happen to contain mostly people of aboriginal descent, which by logic proves to be nothing more than coincidence 


Edit;
Furthermore, no, not a race issue - a cultural issue, perhaps.
I dislike their culture, yes. I believe they should integrate into what is currently our society. They can maintain their heritage, their beliefs, but I expect them to abide by our laws, our morals, & our ethics. 

If this means them packing up, & moving to the city to look for work; then so be it.


----------



## Kauri (29 January 2008)

Nyden said:


> Edit;
> Furthermore, no, not a race issue - a cultural issue, perhaps.
> I dislike their culture, yes. I believe they should integrate into what is currently our society. They can maintain their heritage, their beliefs, but I expect them to abide by our laws, our morals, & our ethics.
> 
> If this means them packing up, & moving to the city to look for work; then so be it.




  Which part of thier culture do you know enough about to dislike??


----------



## Stormin_Norman (29 January 2008)

agro said:


> doesn't anyone realize the amount of legal claims going to be filed..




being sorry for the general state of the aboriginal population is not hard. and if it is - there will never be a solution.

will there be legal claims as a result of a government statement of sorrow for the plight of our indigenous australians? i am not a lawyer, so i would not speculate, but was the intent at the time to do harm?


----------



## Nyden (29 January 2008)

Kauri said:


> Which part of thier culture do you know enough about to dislike??




Not their culture in essence of their belief system, but rather the attitudes of a lot of their youths. No jobs, drug abuse, relying on welfare ... & so forth.

I dislike our youth culture as well though : So that isn't saying much!

That part of their "culture" I do know a lot about, statistically at least. Studied it for 2 years


----------



## Mofra (29 January 2008)

Regardless of whether people agree or not, Rudd (whom I did not vote BTW)included an apology as an election issue, as such he has a mandate that allows him to apologise on behalf of the government of Australia.

Incidently if you want to know just how difficult an issue Indigenous Affairs is, try reading the local reaction to Howards "incursion" in the top end. Many tribal elders can't agree on the issue, so how can we expect Joe & Jill Average of Middle Suburb, Urbansville to agree on the merits of Indigineous Affairs?


----------



## agro (29 January 2008)

Mofra said:


> Regardless of whether people agree or not, Rudd (whom I did not vote BTW)included an apology as an election issue, as such he has a mandate that allows him to apologise on behalf of the government of Australia.
> 
> Incidently if you want to know just how difficult an issue Indigenous Affairs is, try reading the local reaction to Howards "incursion" in the top end. Many tribal elders can't agree on the issue, so how can we expect Joe & Jill Average of Middle Suburb, Urbansville to agree on the merits of Indigineous Affairs?




don't get me wrong...i am all for saying sorry 

but the fact of the matter is these compensation claims that are going to come through... tax funded which should be spent elsewhere 

rudd = santa claus


----------



## Nyden (29 January 2008)

Mofra said:


> Regardless of whether people agree or not, Rudd (whom I did not vote BTW)included an apology as an election issue, as such he has a mandate that allows him to apologise on behalf of the government of Australia.
> 
> Incidently if you want to know just how difficult an issue Indigenous Affairs is, try reading the local reaction to Howards "incursion" in the top end. Many tribal elders can't agree on the issue, so how can we expect Joe & Jill Average of Middle Suburb, Urbansville to agree on the merits of Indigineous Affairs?






Yes, but *are we* as a nation sorry? Many people voted for Rudd on other merits ... ie work choices, not on this apology. If we take a poll on this forum, will we see a mass of support for this? Hard to say.


----------



## Stormin_Norman (29 January 2008)

Nyden said:


> Not their culture in essence of their belief system, but rather the attitudes of a lot of their youths. No jobs, drug abuse, relying on welfare ... & so forth.
> 
> I dislike our youth culture as well though : So that isn't saying much!




yes. i think the culture you see is our culture displayed in the indigenous community; without the backing of a few hundred years of the protestant work ethic.


----------



## Nyden (29 January 2008)

Stormin_Norman said:


> yes. i think the culture you see is our culture displayed in the indigenous community; without the backing of a few hundred years of the protestant work ethic.




And I absolutely believe we need to help them to adjust to integrate into our society, but they seem to not want to.

But, once again - that isn't what this apology is for. That's an entirely different issue.


----------



## Mofra (29 January 2008)

Nyden said:


> Yes, but *are we* as a nation sorry? Many people voted for Rudd on other merits ... ie work choices, not on this apology. If we take a poll on this forum, will we see a mass of support for this? Hard to say.



Nyden, quite possibly not; however given this is a forum for investment & trading you would expect some form of right-leaning bias. I'm sure if a poll was conducted on a social justice website the results would be similarly scewed.


----------



## Kauri (29 January 2008)

Nyden said:


> Not their culture in essence of their belief system, but rather the attitudes of a lot of their youths. No jobs, drug abuse, relying on welfare ... & so forth.
> 
> I dislike our youth culture as well though : So that isn't saying much!
> 
> That part of their "culture" I do know a lot about, statistically at least. Studied it for 2 years




 Just as well you weren't around in the days of flower power.. you would have disliked a whole generation of "australians"       :mexico: 
Cheers
............Kauri


----------



## Nyden (29 January 2008)

Kauri said:


> Just as well you weren't around in the days of flower power.. you would have disliked a whole generation of "australians"       :mexico:
> Cheers
> ............Kauri




Damn dirty hippies, living in their communes. Now of course, those same people are all driving around in their BMW's, & sipping their lattes in town


----------



## moXJO (29 January 2008)

Kauri said:


> Just as well you weren't around in the days of flower power.. you would have disliked a whole generation of "australians"       :mexico:
> Cheers
> ............Kauri




Yes the same hippies that would spit on our vietnam vets(yay for love), and who mostly ended up being the most selfish generation of all


----------



## Stormin_Norman (29 January 2008)

Nyden said:


> And I absolutely believe we need to help them to adjust to integrate into our society, but they seem to not want to.




i will agree with you on 'have difficulty' rather then 'not want to' integrate into our society. wish i had the problem's solution; but i don't.


----------



## trinity (29 January 2008)

> i will agree with you on 'have difficulty' rather then 'not want to' integrate into our society. wish i had the problem's solution; but i don't.




Agree too.  But I think the issue we have is, Money/Compensation/Hand-out is not the solution.  That's the easy way... dole has not done them any good, so what would this compensation do for them?


----------



## disarray (29 January 2008)

rederob said:


> It was our (white fella) gift to them after we stole their land.




thats the whole problem with this attitude, where does it end? the aborigines didn't just mystically appear in australia, they were just another wave of stone age migrants who arrived here. then they in turn had their land "stolen" by people who were sent here without any choice, maybe we should direct this whole compensation thing back to england.

this continual harping on about the past is from every minority group with an axe to grind is tedious and annoying. australia NOW is currently a liberal, free society in which almost half of the popoulation were born overseas or are first generation. the taxpayer provides generous welfare to its citizens (especially in comparison with 90% of the world) and extremely generous benefits to aboriginal communities which is taken without thanks as though it is a right, not a privilege.

EVERY SINGLE RACE in human history has been screwed by another, i'm sick of people still blathering on about slavery or conquest or the crusades or whatever in an attempt to maintain the status quo, which conveniently provides select people with a nice little industry to maintain and exploit.

an interesting experiment would be to call their bluff and offer an apology, loads of compensation and stacks of land then cut them loose, then they can be free to do whatever they want to do. no one to answer to, no one to blame from then on in, and the rest of us won't have to listen to this **** anymore.


----------



## agro (29 January 2008)

even if we do give them a whole bundle of cash to solve their issues in 10 years time under a new government i bet my bottom dollar the issue will raise again


----------



## jman2007 (29 January 2008)

Yeah money isn't the answer,

Education and integration is the key imo, although I am speaking purely from my experiences of working in a remote area of WA, where they have a disproportionately large representation.

Try as we might, attempts at providing work for them fail 80% of the time, due to no-shows etc. This isn't to say that other companies in different parts of Oz have not had very good local workers.  The situation is reasonably bad in the nearest town of Laverton where all aerosol cans etc have been banned from the town.  Funerals are always bad news, each indigenous person is entitled to $150 to attend one, and it seems they come whether they give two sh1ts about the deceased person or not.  Obviously this money is meant for accomodation and expenses incurred actually getting to the funeral, but of course most of it ends up disappearing down thirsty throats.

However, the local communities do very well from the mining boom as it is thank you very much.  My company is entitled to pay royalties of 0.24% of gold produced to the traditional owners which going by our production schedule which works out to about 175-200K per year.  I have no idea what becomes of this money.  

Saying "sorry" isn't right imo, I am not an Australian by birth, but surely in this great county, everyone has an equal opportunity to mark out his/her own destiny?

jman


----------



## Flying Fish (29 January 2008)

trinity said:


> Being a migrant, I do not totally understand this "stolen" generation issue.  Could someone provide an unbiased summary of this?
> 
> 
> Thanks.




Truth is the mortality rate among indegenious australian was appaling back then. They were rescued, and i have spoken with many seniour leaders.

Those kicking up a fuss have no idea.


----------



## roland (29 January 2008)

Why the hell don't the Aboriginals want to assimilate? Last time I went to Wilcania, it didn't look like a place I would like to bring up children.

Every Aboriginal have the same rights and opportunities to advance themselves and fit into an ever changing world.

Irrespective of their perception regarding ownership, land rights, sacred sites etc, etc we (the Aboriginals included) are all parts of the bigger picture of Natural Selection, and Survival of the Fittest (Darwinisms - sorry).

If it were not for the British Empire "invasion", then who would have followed? What would have been their plight under a different rule?

Not much unlike being born within a repressive religion, Aboriginal children around the world are being indocrinated and environmentally conditioned by their parents, and thus the perpetuation of the seperatism and rebellion against the democratic law makers.

Is it sentimentalism that makes the world as a whole want to hold and keep sacred and islolated our indiginous cultures and peoples? It's very romantic to think we can go somewhere and see how people lived off the land way back in the past.

As each and every one of us strives to improve our short lives, do what we can to fit in and compete, to increase our wealth and belongings to benefit our offspring - I wonder what benefit of lot of the indinginous elders/parents are passing on to their offspring.


----------



## Judd (29 January 2008)

I have one question.  What is of value in the outback aboriginal communities that would warrant large amounts of money for investment purposes?  Cannot see British Airways establishing an aircraft engine maintenance facility 100 km to the south west of Ayers Rock (or whatever it is called in PC terms) just to provide work for indigenous people.  If there is not the return - and stuff the lively warm inner glow feeling - no funds will be going that way to kick around in red dust apart from those that are already there - in mining.

So get used to it.  Kick up the dust in an unproductive area, keep on sprouting we love this land and spiral into oblivion or recognise that upward progress requires that a lot of things must be left behind.  Not forgotten but just left behind.

Now, if I can find that lot of Anglo's who kicked my Pic ancestors out of our valleys, I'll sue I tell you.  Damn, that's right - we lost that war.


----------



## Stormin_Norman (29 January 2008)

disarray said:


> thats the whole problem with this attitude, where does it end? the aborigines didn't just mystically appear in australia, they were just another wave of stone age migrants who arrived here. then they in turn had their land "stolen" by people who were sent here without any choice, maybe we should direct this whole compensation thing back to england.




cook was sent out with express instructions to gain a treaty with the local people if they wanted to with the british.

cook wrote that the aboriginals did not care for his goods, and discarded them and had no need for european contact.

no treaty with the aboriginals was ever signed.

it is the english crown military law which underpins australia's legal system still.

the underlying law in the land would be aboriginal, and until a surrender treaty is signed, the english crown is still really only an occupying force.


----------



## Julia (29 January 2008)

This might seem somewhat off topic, but reading through this thread obviously what we're discussing is whether a past action by a government has turned out to be wrong, and if so, whether the present government should (a) apologise, and (b) pay monetary compensation.

What about the huge numbers of mentally ill people who - throughout the world, not just in Australia - because of a belief at the time by that generation of clever psychiatrists that the mentally ill should not be hospitalised, were turfed out of the only secure environment they knew and left to fend for themselves.  

Sure, governments promised they would "care for people in the community"
but it just didn't happen.  

So isn't this yet another group of disadvantaged people who, on the basis of this discussion, would be similarly entitled to an apology and compensation?

What's the difference?

Ah, the mentally ill don't really have a Voice.  In contrast to the Aboriginal lobby.


----------



## Judd (29 January 2008)

Julia said:


> What about the huge numbers of mentally ill people who - throughout the world, not just in Australia - because of a belief at the time by that generation of clever psychiatrists that the mentally ill should not be hospitalised, were turfed out of the only secure environment they knew and left to fend for themselves.




In Australia this was a very bad consequence of the "Richmond report."  No Government, State or Federal, actually implemented all of that report's recommendations and simply closed the psychiatric institutions as a cost saving measure.


----------



## roland (29 January 2008)

Julia said:


> This might seem somewhat off topic, but reading through this thread obviously what we're discussing is whether a past action by a government has turned out to be wrong, and if so, whether the present government should (a) apologise, and (b) pay monetary compensation.
> 
> What about the huge numbers of mentally ill people who - throughout the world, not just in Australia - because of a belief at the time by that generation of clever psychiatrists that the mentally ill should not be hospitalised, were turfed out of the only secure environment they knew and left to fend for themselves.
> 
> ...




wow, I am getting confused with all the crossroads that can happen with a thread like this

we all have our own agenda

mentally ill people??? well, that's pretty sad - what shall we do?

how about my mother, who in German occupied Holland had her family torn apart by the Germans with my grandfather taken to a concentration camp - she is Australian now, so am I - who should pay - how much?

how about my Great Great Grandfather, forced out of Prussia by the Polish because they were German, family members murdered on the escape to Australia, the descendants are all Australian now - who should pay - how much?

how about my other Great Great Grandfather, convicted as a criminal for stealing a coat to try and keep a child from freazing to death and then being transported to Australia, torn apart from his family and children - who should pay - how much?

Nearly every family have a stolen generation tale, why should the Australian Aboriginals have so much priority in the while debate?

Try looking at some of our Jewish Australians and tell me the Aboriginals are more entitled to special treatment.


----------



## wayneL (30 January 2008)

I want reparations from the Romans, Saxons, Angles, Jutes, Vikings, Normans etc that have kicked our Briton @rses too. I was eyeing off a nice detached in Wimbledon and believe I should have it as compensation.

The list of sorrys goes a long way dunnit.

That said, we should feel some empathy for them (and others). The more I learn, the less I think I know an answer. One thing is certain, we can point fingers at them, us, or somebody else, but between us us all the whole situation is FUBAR.


----------



## Judd (30 January 2008)

wayneL said:


> .....The more I learn, the less I think I know an answer..........




Not too sure that there is one.  I was born in 1958.  Family talked about my Uncle who in WWII was last seen on a ridge somewhere in Borneo fending off "the enemy."

One of my best friends who is about my age is Japanese.  Should I blame him or his three children - all born in Australia - for the death of my Uncle and the distress it caused to the family and ask for compensation from him and the Japanese Government?  

Like, get real.  Sh*t both good and bad happens.  Live with it, recognise it and just move on.

I could talk about another close friend who follows the Muslim faith but that is another issue.


----------



## Stormin_Norman (30 January 2008)

Judd said:


> Not too sure that there is one.  I was born in 1958.  Family talked about my Uncle who in WWII was last seen on a ridge somewhere in Borneo fending off "the enemy."
> 
> One of my best friends who is about my age is Japanese.  Should I blame him or his three children - all born in Australia - for the death of my Uncle and the distress it caused to the family and ask for compensation from him and the Japanese Government?




yes. but youre hardly going to be happy if the japanese claimed they were invading to help us and that you should get over it.


----------



## cuttlefish (30 January 2008)

Judd said:
			
		

> like, get real. Sh*t both good and bad happens. Live with it, recognise it and just move on.




If you use that same logic then the asbestos victims of james hardie shouldn't get compensation.  Car accident victims shouldn't get compensation.  War veterans shouldn't get pensions etc. etc. and anything a past government did, even if its just one term ago, isn't the responsibility of future governments or the people.  Corneilia Rau shouldn't be compensated etc.  

There might be nothing wrong with that either, but if its going to be the approach then it should be applied consistently.


----------



## agro (30 January 2008)

cuttlefish said:


> If you use that same logic then the asbestos victims of james hardie shouldn't get compensation.  Car accident victims shouldn't get compensation.  War veterans shouldn't get pensions etc. etc. and anything a past government did, even if its just one term ago, isn't the responsibility of future governments or the people.  Corneilia Rau shouldn't be compensated etc.
> 
> There might be nothing wrong with that either, but if its going to be the approach then it should be applied consistently.




i'd like to gather people with similar attitudes as you, put them all together and ask them to pay for any compensation claims - same deal with the illegal immigrants and refugees, too many do gooder polticial correctness 

because , for me, i would much simply prefer to give my hard earned towards hospitals and education than welfare handouts that will be spent on the pokies


----------



## cuttlefish (30 January 2008)

roland said:


> how about my mother, who in German occupied Holland had her family torn apart by the Germans with my grandfather taken to a concentration camp - she is Australian now, so am I - who should pay - how much?




The government that was responsible for perpetrating those atrocities had most of it senior members sentenced to death after the war and ended up with a huge war crimes debt, so I don't see how this is comparable to the aboriginal situation where the government hasn't officially apologised for stealing children from their families or paid any kind of compensation or carried out any sort of punishment against the perpetrators.

From wikipedia

_Reparations to the western victors consisted mainly of free coal deliveries as well as of machinery and dismantled factories, of which the majority went to France, with some going to Britain. Germany and Italy also paid in the form of POW-provided forced labor; 100,000 in Britain and 700,000 in France. The U.S settled for appropriating German patents as well as all German company assets in the U.S. The "intellectual reparations", such as patents and blueprints, taken by the U.S. and the UK *amounted to close to $10 billion, equivalent of around $100 billion in 2006 terms*.[1] The program of also acquiring German scientists and technicians for the U.S. was also used to deny the expertise of German scientists to the Soviet Union.[2]_


----------



## cuttlefish (30 January 2008)

agro said:


> i'd like to gather people with similar attitudes as you, put them all together and ask them to pay for any compensation claims - same deal with the illegal immigrants and refugees, too many do gooder polticial correctness
> 
> because , for me, i would much simply prefer to give my hard earned towards hospitals and education than welfare handouts that will be spent on the pokies




The fact is that children were stolen from their parents, the government did it, and an apology is owed for this. If compensation results so be it.  Do you dictate how asbestos victims spend their money?  Would you understand if a vietnam veteran turned into an alcoholic?  Should their pension be stopped because of it?  

There's also plenty of wealthy people living of investment incomes p*ssing money up against the wall and not doing much for society as well.

The government hands out baby bonuses - a lot of that probably goes up against the wall as well.

Take a look at hollywood - lot of fine examples of culture for the aboriginal community to take a lead from there.  I don't see anyone asking Britney to give her money back.  Pretty sure she wasn't stolen from her mother as a child.

To me its hypocrisy to single this particular issue out and treat it differently to any other issue of government responsibility/compensation.


----------



## Rogue Trading (30 January 2008)

How and where do I get $150 for going to a funeral?
We are all Australians aren't we? 
Regards.
Rogue Trading


----------



## cuttlefish (30 January 2008)

Rogue Trading said:
			
		

> How and where do I get $150 for going to a funeral?
> We are all Australians aren't we?
> Regards.
> Rogue Trading




These sorts of welfare perks I completely agree are ridiculous. I don't see why there should be differential welfare treatment for aboriginals just because of race.  If the above is true it's quite bizzarre.  Its the small things like aboriginals getting a govt funded taxi from the pub to their govt funded housing that creates resentment in the community, and maintains the welfare trap.  (doesn't change my view that compensation if it occurs for the stolen generation should be treated/viewed differently, and consistently with any other govt compensation issue, in the same way I also think that welfare should be dished out consistently - one set of rules for all - either way - same for policing and judicial treatment).


----------



## agro (30 January 2008)

cuttlefish said:


> These sorts of welfare perks I completely agree are ridiculous. I don't see why there should be differential welfare treatment for aboriginals just because of race.  If the above is true it's quite bizzarre.  Its the small things like aboriginals getting a govt funded taxi from the pub to their govt funded housing that creates resentment in the community, and maintains the welfare trap.  (doesn't change my view that compensation if it occurs for the stolen generation should be treated/viewed differently, and consistently with any other govt compensation issue, in the same way I also think that *welfare should be dished out consistently* - one set of rules for all - either way - same for policing and judicial treatment).




i think people should work for welfare - even community service is good enough

it shouldn't be handed out freely and it also should be audited where the money is being spent ..

i know the some new mums who get the $5000 baby bonus spend it on tvs etc... hardly on the baby 

makes u wonder


----------



## SevenFX (30 January 2008)

roland said:


> Why the hell don't the Aboriginals want to assimilate? .




Reminds me of a Not so Wise Man's Quote:

"I just can't understand my Daughter, She just won't Listen to Me"

SevenFX


----------



## disarray (30 January 2008)

cuttlefish said:


> If you use that same logic then the asbestos victims of james hardie shouldn't get compensation.  Car accident victims shouldn't get compensation.  War veterans shouldn't get pensions etc. etc. and anything a past government did, even if its just one term ago, isn't the responsibility of future governments or the people.  Corneilia Rau shouldn't be compensated etc.
> 
> There might be nothing wrong with that either, but if its going to be the approach then it should be applied consistently.




lines need to be drawn, and the actions of individuals, corporations or governments need to be defined. the james hardy compensation situation is totally different to someone getting drunk and smashing into your car which in turn is totally different to a foreign government shipping convicts off to a mostly empty land on the far side of the world. the whole point of the logic is to look at the situation, examine what has gone into it then determine what  the possible outcomes should be.


----------



## Mofra (30 January 2008)

disarray,

Once we start absolving governments form the wrong of previous governments, we are wandering into dangerous "moral hazard" territory, and we know how well that has worked out for financial markets in recent times 

If there is a possibility of an individual, government or company to right a wrong, this should be explored.


----------



## disarray (30 January 2008)

i agree, and i don't think we should just pretend like nothing ever happened, however all sides need to be considered, not just "oh the evil whitefella took our land and kids so we must have apologies and compensation". this totally ignores massive failures on the aborigines part which need to be addressed as part of this issue.

as for absolving previous governments, where do we draw the line? 1950? 1888? 1054? no consideration is being made for changes in society, government or policy nor is any consideration being made for current policies which have sent billions of dollars to the aborigines already.

i'm happy to call the government to account on its failures, but then we must also call the aborigines to account on theirs, otherwise this is just going to be bs apologism with no real impetus for change behind it.


----------



## jman2007 (30 January 2008)

Yeah trust me it is true about the funeral grant,

I also know of a group that got a grant to buy a $200,000 digger to construct some roads into/out of their community, what happened was so insane it is almost funny, they parked it in a dried-up river bed/pond with the bucket up in the air, and when the rains came and submerged the digger, they could fish from the bucket without getting wet.

jman


----------



## wipz (30 January 2008)

I guess once sorry has been said, we cut can all this aboriginal funding and they can be treated like the rest of us for once.


----------



## sandlion (30 January 2008)

...And therein lies the crux of the issue...say sorry, cut the discriminatory and preferential funding and welfare programs and let them adapt or die.

I read some rot earlier about surrender treaties not being signed by the indigenous people and ceding to the BRITISH CROWN, therefore Australia is still under indigenous law. People should know when they are beaten. Every other culture that has been confronted by a more dominant one has learned that lesson.

And what about the recent immigrants? Why the hell should their tax money go to support a corrupt and insidiously backward culture with no future except what is handed to them. It's called self determination, pull yourself out of the gutter, the world doesn't owe you a living and I for one will be applying for a tax rebate for any illegal compensation money handed over. The policy was government approved at the time and you cannot change that, nor should anyone have to pay for it.

The only thing that should be paid is lip service. Bring on the bleeding hearts...you can dry your tears with my laughter.


----------



## Agentm (30 January 2008)

i have to say, i am no going head to head with anyone here, once a bigot always a bigot. you cant change that by argueing with them..

its really the saddest thread and by far the most disturbing i have ever read.. 

its a real shame.. 

2. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of
religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or
opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable
or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is
intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in
politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to
his own church, party, belief, or opinion.

To doubt, where bigots had been content to wonder
and believe. --Macaulay.


----------



## sarahmeehan3 (30 January 2008)

Since I love the stock market and I am aboriginal I have decided to include the following in a hope that it will answer some of your questions.

regards

sarah


----------



## theasxgorilla (30 January 2008)

sandlion said:


> The policy was government approved at the time and you cannot change that, nor should anyone have to pay for it.




You make it sound like you condone governments absolving themselves of responsbility for their decisions and that people should not have responsibility for their goverments.


----------



## agro (30 January 2008)

theasxgorilla said:


> You make it sound like you condone governments absolving themselves of responsbility for their decisions and that people should not have responsibility for their goverments.




fact of the matter is that it the whole situation is *history!*

you don't hear the romans and greeks asking for compo years after they had their issues


----------



## bunyip (31 January 2008)

rederob said:


> How true.
> It was our (white fella) gift to them after we stole their land.
> 
> Sorry!




Tell you what, rederob, how about you and I tell this forum why we stole their land.
You go first. Why did you steal their land?


----------



## theasxgorilla (31 January 2008)

agro said:


> fact of the matter is that it the whole situation is *history!*
> 
> you don't hear the romans and greeks asking for compo years after they had their issues




I suspect you will find that there are far more disputes of this kind going on in the world than you could possibly conceive of.  You've heard of (the former) Yugoslavia I take it?  And NATO got involved there.  Not suggesting anything of the sort for this situation, but all the same, don't be surprised if it gets too high of a profile that there will be pressure from the international community.  I'm surprised already how many people overseas that I meet have a fair idea that we have not treated our indigenous people well in the past and continue not to do so.  

ASX.G


----------



## moneymajix (31 January 2008)

Sorry.


----------



## 2020hindsight (31 January 2008)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/30/2150281.htm


> Govt sets Stolen Generations apology date
> Posted Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:03pm AEDT
> Updated Wed Jan 30, 2008 7:43pm AEDT
> 
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/31/2150830.htm


> Dodson welcomes 'monumental' apology
> Posted 1 hour 17 minutes ago
> Updated 17 minutes ago
> 
> ...




I liked Malcolm Fraser on AM this morning. 
a) pointing out that both the previous and the current shadow treasurers (Peter Costello, and Malcolm Turnbull) support saying sorry., and

b) pointing out that unless Brendan Nelson and the rest the Coalition agree, i.e. if they stubbornly "paint themselves into a corner",  then history will just move over them and "they will become irrelevant".


----------



## --B-- (31 January 2008)

> The Federal Government has set February 13 as the day for a formal apology to the members of the Stolen Generation.




[sarcasm]
i eagerly await this day and look forward to seeing the fortunes of the aboriginal people turned around and the relations between aboriginals and white australians at an all time high...
[/sarcasm]


[reality]
i look forward to the continued presence of the victim mentality  which has plagued the aboriginal people due to this 'symbolic gesture'
[/reality]


----------



## noirua (31 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/30/2150281.htm
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/31/2150830.htm
> ...





2020 et al, Could some members of Government just be apologising because that appears the best political move? Or maybe they think that they must be seen to stand behind their leader.

As many say "it's easy to apologise" it only takes words. 
"Irelevant" does that mean it's definitely best to make this move.

It's more to do with seeing that every citizen of Australia has equal rights and none are more equal than others.


----------



## 2020hindsight (31 January 2008)

well -B- I look forward to all the negative conjecture - and your opinion - becoming irrelevant


----------



## --B-- (31 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> well -B- I look forward to all this conjecture - and your opinion - becoming irrelevant




so 2020, i take it youre of the belief that saying sorry will help the aboriginal people?? 

can you explain how and why?


----------



## 2020hindsight (31 January 2008)

--B-- said:


> so 2020, i take it youre of the belief that saying sorry will help the aboriginal people??
> 
> can you explain how and why?



For the same reason it's hugely important to them ( refer that article)
For the same reason that lady - stolen generation - cried on TV last night at the thought that it might finally happen.
For the same reason that Fraser, Keating etc al all think it is essential.
And for the same reason that I think it was probably one of the lowest moments in Aus politics when J Howard yelled at those Abs in Canberra that no way would he apologise - and they rightly turned their backs  on him.


----------



## BIG BWACULL (31 January 2008)

Heres a bit o somethin from the Koori Mail


> Government names the date for apology
> The Rudd Government will formally apologise to members of Australia's Stolen Generations on Wednesday 13 February.
> Federal Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin announced on 30 January that the apology would be the first item of business for the new parliament in Canberra.
> *"A national apology to the Stolen Generations and their families is a first necessary step to move forward from the past," Ms Macklin said.*
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (31 January 2008)

sarahmeehan3 said:


> Since I love the stock market and I am aboriginal I have decided to include the following in a hope that it will answer some of your questions. regards , sarah



thanks sarah 
post #90 refers if anyone wants to read the pdf attachment.


----------



## trading_rookie (31 January 2008)

From a pragmatic view, no way should an apology be offered...considering it might cost us billions. But from a humanitarian perspective, I guess a sorry doesn't seem that much for those Indigenous Australians (I prefer this term over the word Aborigine, since really it isn't uniquely Australian) who were abused physically and mentally....as long as compensation, if pursued is capped per genuine victim and (being pragmatic again) the final cost isn't in the billions but millions.


----------



## cordelia (31 January 2008)

Let the govt just do it and see the miraculous change that occurs in the indiginous communities overnight with the utterance of the word "sorry". No more fighting, drunkeness, gluesniffing or child abuse. Time will be the judge.....


----------



## trinity (31 January 2008)

IMHO, what we are really worried about is a few individuals profiting from this "compensation" or, the compensation going to waste through drinking/pokies etc. 

If Rudd can setup a fund properly that will benefit the WHOLE if not majority of the community, then please , go for it ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (31 January 2008)

cordelia said:


> Let the govt just do it and see the miraculous change that occurs in the indiginous communities overnight with the utterance of the word "sorry". No more fighting, drunkeness, gluesniffing or child abuse. Time will be the judge.....



well at least there won't be any more kids stolen and subsequently sexually abused within the supposedly better white system.  (30% of females fostered out for starters) . 

And the cat of nine tails in the WA museum used on some of em can be finally locked behind bars - but kept on display as a permanent reminder of that sad episode.


----------



## 2020hindsight (31 January 2008)

trinity said:


> Being a migrant, I do not totally understand this "stolen" generation issue.  Could someone provide an unbiased summary of this?  Thanks.



Trinity - 
 remind me how much you've researched this please


----------



## disarray (31 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> well at least there won't be any more kids stolen and subsequently sexually abused within the supposedly better white system.  (30% of females fostered out for starters) .




no, kids will be continue to be able to experience sexual abuse from within their own community. thats a positive step forward!



> And the cat of nine tails in the WA museum used on some of em can be finally locked behind bars - but kept on display as a permanent reminder of that sad episode.




less drama please. the cat of nine tails was used on everyone, not just aborigines.


----------



## agro (31 January 2008)

trinity said:


> IMHO, what we are really worried about is a few individuals profiting from this "compensation" or, *the compensation going to waste through drinking/pokies etc. *
> 
> If Rudd can setup a fund properly that will benefit the WHOLE if not majority of the community, then please , go for it ...




agree

simply put the compo towards education, health and training rather than hand outs

once thats exhausted they will come back for more and more


----------



## rederob (31 January 2008)

bunyip said:


> Tell you what, rederob, how about you and I tell this forum why we stole their land.
> You go first. Why did you steal their land?



I offered the original owners nothing for the land I occupy.
I suspect the people before me did the same, and the people before them.
Sorry.


----------



## cordelia (31 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> well at least there won't be any more kids stolen and subsequently sexually abused within the supposedly better white system.  (30% of females fostered out for starters) .
> 
> And the cat of nine tails in the WA museum used on some of em can be finally locked behind bars - but kept on display as a permanent reminder of that sad episode.




Aren't they already on display if they are in the museum?


----------



## tronic72 (31 January 2008)

I used to think saying sorry for something that our generation has had nothing to do with was stupid. My reasoning was; if Joe Blows great grand father raped my grandmother would I expect Joe Blow to apologise? Of course not.

But, I think it's more a token gesture to say that we "regret" what happened in the past. If it puts us on the path to reconciliation then I think it can only be a good thing. Unfortunately, I think many aboriginals would see it as a green light to sue the pants of the government in power at the time.

Sadly, I think there are many more difficult and challenging barrier Aboriginals need to overcome.


----------



## 2020hindsight (31 January 2008)

cordelia said:


> Aren't they already on display if they are in the museum?




hey - since you knew they were there cordelia , I guess I can delete that post as "common knowledge".

They again, since Disarray admits it was used , the post might as well stay as proof that things were not all "lace and laughter" for these stolen kids (as has been almost constantly inferred around here)


----------



## nioka (31 January 2008)

bunyip said:


> Tell you what, rederob, how about you and I tell this forum why we stole their land.
> You go first. Why did you steal their land?



Did they own it in the first place or were they just roaming around on it and living off it. Even with their occupation they fought over some of it and displaced one another from time to time. I paid sweat and toil to own my little bit as did all the early settlers. That is all in the past. Let's move on. Abo or whitey or those in between we have to live together. It is time to be one nation with equal rights.Everyone should do their bit and earn their place. Apologise for any past wrongs then move on.
If you think you stole their land you are free to give back anything you stole. Just don't speak for others.


----------



## roland (31 January 2008)

Did anyone watch the 7.30 report tonight?

We now have Broome suffering a housing crisis, unemployed Aboriginals on welfare drifting into a community with expectations of being housed - for free of course!

Our welfare system is keeping these people from progressing.

The lost generation claims are only going to add a continuation to the never ending keeping these people in welfare and bludging off the rest of us invaders that struggle to earn enough to try and get ahead

If I were able to claim Aboriginal status and had some brains in my head, then I would be sitting on a gold mine

I guess a good tan won't do it


----------



## 2020hindsight (31 January 2008)

How is it that saying "sorry" for stealing your kid(s) can end up a discussion about housing in Broome  

roland 
a) get a heart  
b) see a)


----------



## roland (31 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> How is it that saying "sorry" for stealing your kid(s) can end up a discussion about housing in Broome
> 
> roland
> a) get a heart
> b) see a)




Because it's all related, this sorry thing is not about sorry, it's about money, it's about compensation with beneficiaries who have an agenda that is politically sensitive

I have different experiences with "stolen children" to some, when I was young (40 years ago) I had a lot of friends in the Dalmar Children's home, Parramatta Home for Children and others. You want to know what, a lot of the "stolen generation" were not black Aboriginals

I have a heart for all, but to encompass this issue into an Aboriginal issue is really starting to grate


----------



## 2020hindsight (31 January 2008)

well just to keep it on thread
what's your opinion of Aussie of the Year.

These kids were stolen - they deserve an apology
Tomorrow we tackle the rest ok?


----------



## roland (31 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> well just to keep it on thread
> what's your opinion of Aussie of the Year.
> 
> mm, well he sings OK - as some have said, it's interesting the Aussie of the Year sings with an Amercian accent, singing American cowboy songs ....
> ...




sounds good to me


----------



## 2020hindsight (31 January 2008)

roland 
halfcast is an ugly word surely
mixed race maybe.

"he who believes in racial superiority is suffering from a pigment of the imagination".

In any case, if they were stolen from their mother, I would have thought it was a no-no yes?


----------



## Julia (31 January 2008)

nioka said:


> Did they own it in the first place or were they just roaming around on it and living off it. Even with their occupation they fought over some of it and displaced one another from time to time. I paid sweat and toil to own my little bit as did all the early settlers. That is all in the past. Let's move on. Abo or whitey or those in between we have to live together. It is time to be one nation with equal rights.Everyone should do their bit and earn their place. Apologise for any past wrongs then move on.
> If you think you stole their land you are free to give back anything you stole. Just don't speak for others.



Great post, Nioka.  Thank you.

Rederob, Nioka makes a very valid point, doesn't he?  Do you own land?
Have you offered it back to the Aboriginal people?


----------



## 2020hindsight (31 January 2008)

Had any kids stolen lately Julia ?

lets keep it on thread eh?


----------



## roland (31 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> roland
> halfcast is an ugly word surely
> mixed race maybe.
> 
> ...




hindsight, do you know any of the so called "Stolen Generation"? 

It's pretty easy being outside of the experiences and following media representations and creating opinions based on such.

I have friends and relatives that have first hand experiences, and truthfully the picture being painted now is a little distorted - don't believe every everything you see on the TV


----------



## 2020hindsight (31 January 2008)

roland said:


> hindsight, do you know any of the so called "Stolen Generation"?
> 
> It's pretty easy being outside of the experiences and following media representations and creating opinions based on such.
> 
> I have friends and relatives that have first hand experiences, and truthfully the picture being painted now is a little distorted - don't believe every everything you see on the TV




I closer to them that you might imagine.

But to be honest, I'm basing most of my research on what I read in the "Bringing them home report" 
read it?
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/


----------



## Julia (31 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Had any kids stolen lately Julia ?
> 
> lets keep it on thread eh?



It's all related.
I can't help being amused at the irony in you telling anyone to keep anything on thread!!!
If a moderator feels either Nioka's or my comments are inappropriate, I have no doubt the posts will be removed.


----------



## 2020hindsight (31 January 2008)

one word 
empathy
look it up


----------



## cordelia (1 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> hey - since you knew they were there cordelia , I guess I can delete that post as "common knowledge".
> 
> They again, since Disarray admits it was used , the post might as well stay as proof that things were not all "lace and laughter" for these stolen kids (as has been almost constantly inferred around here)




Actually I didn't know they were there but I assumed they were because you made reference to them. Maybe I should visit the museum..what do you think? Please advise..waiting for new instructions.


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 February 2008)

cordelia said:


> Actually I didn't know they were there but I assumed they were because you made reference to them. Maybe I should visit the museum..what do you think? Please advise..waiting for new instructions.



Cordelia
You've given me no indication of what you think of the topic of stolen kids and saying sorry.
Await with interest.

PS you'll find the cat of nine tails mentioned in that report about "Bringing them home"
I assume you know what that is. - it's what triggered this whole movement to say sorry and heal the wounds for these poor "kids" / now adults.
sorta like civilised people should do. 
Assuming we are civilised that is. 

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/


----------



## cordelia (1 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Cordelia
> You've given me no indication of what you think of the topic of stolen kids and saying sorry.
> Await with interest.



Actually I don't have to give you my opinion..whatever gave you that idea.


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 February 2008)

I love fence sitters 
 they are so 
irrelevant


----------



## cordelia (1 February 2008)

ok I have had enough of this nonsence. I have spent the last 12 years of my life living in west Africa and I love those people. Unfortunately I can't return in the short term but I plan to. My husband and I set up a school for the cost of a good night out here in aus. 

Aborignals just blow it away. More charity is not the answer. I am not a racist..far from it...no body goes hungry here...spend some time in Africa...

Saying sorry.... give me a break...its an excuse for more freeloading.


----------



## cordelia (1 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> I love fence sitters
> they are so
> irrelevant




you are a wand polisher


----------



## bunyip (1 February 2008)

rederob said:


> I offered the original owners nothing for the land I occupy.
> I suspect the people before me did the same, and the people before them.
> Sorry.




OK....my turn.
Why did I steal their land?
I DIDN'T!

And if you disagree with me then that's fine....you're entitled to your opinion and I have absolutely no intention of engaging in a never-ending debate to defend my viewpoint or to attempt to discredit your's. I see it as a pointless debate which does nothing to help aboriginal people. Far more productive is to focus on their needs and their problems, and discuss ways of helping them out of the hole they're in.

But I can see that you, rederob, have an entirely different viewpoint about the land-stealing issue. You sincerely believe that you stole their land, and in fact you've gone as far as to say sorry.

Now, this raises a couple of interesting points. 

First point.....
I think your 'sorry' message is wasted on a forum like this. I doubt if we have many aboriginal forum members who will see your apology and pass it on to their people.
If you truly want to get your message out to the people you're apologising to, then I'm sure you can think of better and more effective ways of doing so. 
Suggestions......
* Take your message of apology on to national television.
* Contact the various media outlets, newspapers etc.
* Address aboriginal organisations and tell them how sorry you are. 
* Contact someone like Noel Pearson and enlist his help in getting your apology out there to his people.

Second point...
Since you're so convinced that you stole their land, why don't you give back to them the part or parts you believe you stole? Your house - sell it for removal, or if the dwelling is not relocatable, pull it down and sell it bit by bit to one of those businesses that deal in second hand timber and other building materials. Keep the proceeds for yourself, afterall, you didn't steal the house, only the land it's built on. 
Now you can either hand over the title deeds to an aboriginal organisation, or you could sell the land and hand over the proceeds instead. 
But that mightn't be such a good idea - there's always the risk of the money being squandered and aboriginals getting little benefit from it. 
Perhaps a better plan would be to once again consult a responsible person like Noel Pearson, and get his views on the most effective ways your donation could be used to help his people. Maybe you could build a much-needed facility such as a health care centre. Or perhaps you could fund a job-training programme.

You own more than one piece of real estate? No problem.....sell your other holdings as well and use the proceeds for the betterment of aboriginal people.
Make sure your actions get maximum publicity - chances are you'll become quite famous here in Australia and possibly overseas as well. Best of all, other people may be inspired to follow your example. The whole thing could snowball and the spin off for aboriginal people could be enormous.

These are radical steps that would no doubt place you in considerable financial hardship. But that's OK - a small consideration only - the compensating factors will be that you've cleared your conscience by making recompense for the land you believe you stole, and at the same time you'll have the immense satisfaction of knowing you made a significant and very worthwhile contribution towards helping aboriginal people.

Please keep this forum updated on your progress towards liquidating your assets and injecting the bulk of the funds into aboriginal coffers.


----------



## theasxgorilla (1 February 2008)

I'll throw you a curve ball.  My family dates back the second fleet.  We were convicts from two lineages.  Somewhere along the way two of my ancestors were pardoned and given land, by an authority that may not have had the 'right' to give it.  Do we still have to stay sorry?


----------



## arminius (1 February 2008)

since this thread is about saying sorry to the stolen generations one might have thought the contributers may have read the bringing them home report or at least researched a little about the issues at hand. this obviously hasnt happened and ive just wasted 15 minutes of my life reading some of the most pathetic and ill informed garbage ever on a public forum. 

do us all a service and find out why the kids were taken, why only half caste, the effect on those families, and the heartache you might feel if someone waltzed into your home and took your son or daughter. 

and if anyone here cares to label me a bleedin heart we can always meet somewhere and discuss the practicalities of bleeding

we are a young nation still coming to grips with a chequered history. id like to think that in another hundred years we have resolved most of the issues and eradicated most of the problems facing ab society and, by extension, our society as well. 

saying sorry may not solve everything, but is not a bad starting point.


----------



## justjohn (1 February 2008)

I hope our fearless leader Mr.Rudd makes this joyious event a public holiday.  I can have a day off work so I can join my poor hard done aboriginal mates on there special day:


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 February 2008)

cordelia
ok - thanks for telling us where you stand on this.  - for coming down off the fence so to speak. Actually you weren't fence sitting - more like playing some strange game - but no matter - After which you spring some nasty comments lol.    

Anyway, the conversation/ discussion becomes a bit more meaningful now.

Try reading the "Bringing them home report" in your spare time, maybe. (I take it that you haven't, since you weren't aware of the cat of 9 tails).
I posted a few excerpts on another thread.

Why do I challenge Julia on this? - because she refused even to read those excerpts.?  

Why do I challenge people who argue against saying sorry because there might (repeat might) be a dollar sign attached?  - Because to do otherwise is to argue like the board of James Hardie.  

Is the Fed govt likely to be as vulnerable as some claim?  Highly unlikely, because the Feds only had juristiction over NT (as we just saw in the recent intervention) - and the States have already apologised.  But if the feds are still vulnerable,  and that is the cost of justice, ( a la James Hardie I guess) then so be it. (for mine).

Do I know Abs? - yes used to work with them in rural Qld. great people.
My grandfather was born breach birth out near Birdsville with only an Ab midwife.  And only had Ab friends to play with for a few years until his brother came along and joined them.

Do I know people from stolen generation? not really-  but the son of one. 
Is he entitled to compensation? no. 

I don't know if she does,  - suspect she does - but Does his mother have a legitimate cause for concern about her treatment? - or a chip on her shoulder as we whiteys like to call it?  I'm amazed she doesn't have a chip on both shoulders.  She's been carrying a world of pain around.   Bludy torture we put themthrough.  Forget waterboarding.  I'd take waterboarding for a month in preference to having my kids stolen.

:topic
You work in Africa. 
My daughter is really looking forward to working in Ghana with orphans.   Made her day the other day to meet someone who has already worked in an orphanage there.  Also a lady / nurse just back from Rwanda saying that it is a delightful place these days   - sure they have a museum (there's that word again) to the ethnic cleansing disaster.     

She made the observation that the first thing they do to tourists and/or health workers arriving there is to take away all the unneccesary plastic bags and environmentally unfriendly stuff - "way out here in the middle of Africa, and they are miles ahead of us on respecting the environment" - her comment, with enthusiasm for the place written all over her face .

PS . Why did I refer to "Aussie of the Year" to roland? - because it's jargon these days for "off thread"   it's a running joke that started over the long weekend here ( Australia Day etc) - spread like grounsel across 3 threads - ended up a confused entanglement of discussions about Lee Kernaghan, Steve Irwin, Germaine Greer, Michael Mori (by this stage a standing joke that it was synonymous with "a confused thread")   Maybe that bit of background helps understand those posts.


----------



## disarray (1 February 2008)

"The Aboriginal Oral History Archive will testify to the atrocities committed against our people through separation laws, policies and practices, and will ensure that the genocide against our people cannot be denied."

quite emotional, as well as being part of a broader swipe at colonisation. once again any minority group with an axe to grind can go an find a part of history they don't like, get submissions from a tiny minority of the population and make a report damning whatever it is you want.

this whole thing is rubbish because it is just an emotional one-sided whine fest. i am perfectly happy to accept whatever report the aborignes throw at our society as their _point of view_, and they have to be willing to accept reports thrown back at them, thats the way it works. 

one side damning another (which is effectively gagged by political correctness) is not a basis for progress, it is a basis for people digging in and objecting on principle. it gets all emotional then which is precisely what we need to avoid because emotions are unpredictable and illogical, and good policy generally doesn't come this way.



> and if anyone here cares to label me a bleedin heart we can always meet somewhere and discuss the practicalities of bleeding




gogo internet tough guy


----------



## Julia (1 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> cordelia
> 
> Try reading the "Bringing them home report" in your spare time, maybe. (I take it that you haven't, since you weren't aware of the cat of 9 tails).
> I posted a few excerpts on another thread.
> ...




Well, 2020, no I haven't read all 700 pages of the report.  I have however read a considerable amount and I have listened to countless hours of discussion on Radio National on the whole subject.

Do you know one of the reasons I haven't said I have read even one word of it, 2020?  Because I strongly object to your telling me what I should and should not read, plus what I should and should not think.  This whole thread is about you sitting in moral judgment on those of us whom you perceive do not wholeheartedly agree with your every loaded and emotive word.

I  suggested you might find the talk I heard on Radio National by Noel Pearson interesting.  I didn't insist you had to listen to it in order to form your views.  I have no idea whether you tried to seek it out (my efforts to that end are ongoing via the Cape York Institute) and it's not my business.
I simply thought it would offer you a different perspective on your views from a highly respected Aboriginal leader.

I'd suggest to you that we are all responsible adults here, we have all had various experiences in life which equip us to some extent to form opinions.
And we are entitled to do that.  We do not need your approval to express such opinions.

And I am very tired of you painting me as someone who disagrees with any apology etc etc. I've repeatedly said I'm more than happy for the government to say sorry.  I know that if I feel aggrieved by a hurt that has been done to me, that hurt is lessened by the issuing of a genuine "I'm sorry'.

I also want to say that when you make personal remarks implying personal judgments of individual members, whether it be myself or others, this is inviting disrespect.  Surely it's possible to present your views without feeling the need to make personal remarks.


----------



## noirua (1 February 2008)

trinity said:


> IMHO, what we are really worried about is a few individuals profiting from this "compensation" or, the compensation going to waste through drinking/pokies etc.
> 
> If Rudd can setup a fund properly that will benefit the WHOLE if not majority of the community, then please , go for it ...




trinity, you speak a lot more commonsense than most on this subject in just a few words.


----------



## --B-- (1 February 2008)

trinity said:
			
		

> If Rudd can setup a fund properly that will benefit the WHOLE if not majority of the community, then please , go for it ...




hang on.

the aboriginal community has banged on about saying 'sorry' as being a 'monumental step forward' and a symbolic gesture to bring us towards reconciliation.. 'reconciliation' has nothing to do with monetary compensation and is only about bringing us together so we we as a nation can move forward as one without this divide between us which has 'supposedly' been brought about by not saying sorry for past 'wrongs'.

this is not about setting up compensation funds to help the plight of the aboriginal people. if anything the buckets of money we throw at aboriginal people only further entrenches their victim mentality and this is the primary factor holding them back.

how on earth people can think setting up more 'funds' and throwing yet more money at these people will help is beyond me. i would sincerely like to hear someone explain the thinking behind this? assistance is one thing and im all for keeping such things in place however i truly belive its irresponsible to think more money will help this situation.

what is needed is for the aboriginal people to take responsibility for themselves, remove their victim mentality and stop blaming everyone but themselves and no amount of money or compensation funds will help in this regard.


----------



## rederob (1 February 2008)

bunyip said:


> OK....my turn.
> Why did I steal their land?
> I DIDN'T!
> ........
> Please keep this forum updated on your progress towards liquidating your assets and injecting the bulk of the funds into aboriginal coffers.



bunyip
This thread is about saying "sorry" for a stolen generation (or two, or more).
You can always open another thread about land rights.
The High Court has already made a ruling on that issue, and if I am ever in a position where a claim is made on my land, then I'm sure that established legal processes will be followed.
Each year I make reasonable contributions to the tax office that will inevitably, in some small part, flow on to assist people in need.  If the tax office wants more, then they can always do what they usually do in order to get more.
Equally off topic, I wonder why some of the very wealthy people that send their children to the school I send mine to seem so insistent that the government continue to prop it up with federal funds.  Most aboriginal children go to state schools, but the federal government allocates over twice as much money to private schools. Many private schools in a year receive more governement funding in total than is allocated an an aboriginal community of similar population.


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 February 2008)

Just an observation - more that they probably have a legitimate complaint than anything else. 

This bloke has an extra $250K making $775K total (and more than that for the legal expenses.)  That is what can happen if they go to court individually.

Tasmania's $9 mill (from memory) for all stolen generation in that state would seem to be a wise option you'd think. 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/01/2152429.htm


> More compo in Stolen Generations case
> Posted 2 hours 5 minutes ago
> Updated 11 minutes ago
> 
> ...


----------



## bunyip (2 February 2008)

rederob said:


> bunyip
> This thread is about saying "sorry" for a stolen generation (or two, or more).
> You can always open another thread about land rights.
> The High Court has already made a ruling on that issue, and if I am ever in a position where a claim is made on my land, then I'm sure that established legal processes will be followed.
> ...




Ironical isn’t it? 

In the eyes of the law, we didn’t steal the land we occupy. But you disagree with the law by publicly stating that you did steal the land. And you’ve apologised for doing so.

Yet when you’re challenged to do the decent thing and give back the land you stole, you run for cover and hide behind the law you disagree with.

Gross hypocrisy - your credibility is looking very shaky indeed.



As for your advice that I’m off topic and should start another thread about land rights, perhaps you’re right. But I remind you that it was you, not me, who first introduced the land rights issue into this thread by stating that ‘we stole their land’.
Apart from that, land-stealing is one of the crimes that white Australia is being accused of, and is expected to feel sorry for. And since you, a white Australian, believe and admit that you stole their land, and in fact have apologised for it, then I believe there's sufficient correlation between the land rights issue and the sorry issue to debate both in the same thread.

Perhaps you may wish to start a new thread to discuss your grievances regarding the anomolies betwen government funding for state and private schools.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 February 2008)

cordelia said:


> you are a wand polisher



er , mods 
up to you if you want to leave this post 
I mean I'm big enough for you to leave it there 
and my shoulders are broad enough, 
and my wand is long enough lol.

but 
a) I would have thought it contravenes some rule around here somewhere
and 
b) others might think that they can call people names. - and before long we'd all be talking like cordelia lol - hardly in the interests of the ASF's image. 

ps I could post a retort of course - but I won't.


----------



## Superfly (2 February 2008)

bunyip said:


> Ironical isn’t it?
> 
> In the eyes of the law, we didn’t steal the land we occupy. But you disagree with the law by publicly stating that you did steal the land. And you’ve apologised for doing so.
> 
> ...




 :iagree:  great reply / post


----------



## bunyip (2 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> er , mods
> up to you if you want to leave this post
> I mean I'm big enough for you to leave it there
> and my shoulders are broad enough,
> ...





I haven't called anyone any names. I've expressed the opinion that he's demonstrated a hypocritical attitude that has shaken his credibility. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 February 2008)

bunyip said:


> I haven't called anyone any names. I've expressed the opinion that he's demonstrated a hypocritical attitude that has shaken his credibility. Nothing more, nothing less.



guess i'd better explain ...
nothing to do with you bunyip- just a coincidence that it's juxtaposed with your post ..  - goes back to midweek.


----------



## noirua (2 February 2008)

The answer is to have a large fund for development and education purposes only.  Sorry means little without these. 

Sorry I broke your camera John.  Are you going to buy me a new camera then Steve?  Errrrrrrrr NO, I'm not that sorry.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Just an observation - more that they probably have a legitimate complaint than anything else.
> 
> ....Tasmania's $9 mill (*from memory*) for all stolen generation in that state would seem to be a wise option you'd think.




correction (after checking) ..
not $9 million but $5 mil, split 106 ways.= average of $50K each. 
http://www.abc.net.au/message/news/stories/ms_news_2143738.htm



> Stolen Generations claimants announced
> 
> The Tasmanian Premier Paul Lennon has announced 106 people will share in a $5 million scheme to compensate the state's Stolen Generations.
> 
> ...


----------



## bunyip (2 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> guess i'd better explain ...
> nothing to do with you bunyip- just a coincidence that it's juxtaposed with your post ..  - goes back to midweek.




Ahhhh.....My mistake, Hindsight.....If I'd read the quote at the top of your post I would have seen that you weren't referring to me.

Guess I'm just in a fighting mood today! lol
But not for long.....my wife and I are about to head off to town to meet our kids at our favourite restaurant. Over a nice lunch and a couple of beers, I'll relax and forget all about pointing out the double standards of those who apologise for stealing something, but refuse to give it back.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 February 2008)

bunyip said:


> Ahhhh.....My mistake, Hindsight.....If I'd read the quote at the top of your post I would have seen that you weren't referring to me.
> 
> Guess I'm just in a fighting mood today! lol
> But not for long.....my wife and I are about to head off to town to meet our kids at our favourite restaurant. Over a nice lunch and a couple of beers, I'll relax and forget all about pointing out the double standards of those who apologise for stealing something, but refuse to give it back.



"bon happy-t1ts" to you all
(as Benny Hill used to say )


----------



## rederob (2 February 2008)

bunyip said:


> Ironical isn’t it?
> 
> In the eyes of the law, we didn’t steal the land we occupy. But you disagree with the law by publicly stating that you did steal the land. And you’ve apologised for doing so.
> 
> ...



I'll treat your remarks with with the disrespect they deserve.
First, in the eyes of the law we *did *indeed steal their land. On the 3rd of June 1992 the High Court of Australia brought down its decision in Mabo & Others vs the State of Queensland. And this was followed up with the Native Title Act of 1993.

Secondly, I never said said I stole their land: I said I offered the original owners nothing, for which I am sorry.  Your subsequent ramblings are based on ignorance of the facts. If you can't comprehend simple statements, and have no knowledge of the law relating to native title, you might be better off not commenting.

Thirdly, this remains off topic.

Finally, my point about government funding of private schools was not about the anomalies that exist with the state system, but about the fact that people who decry handouts to aboriginals have no problem accepting similar levels of monies so they can send their children to the best schools in the country.  There is far more hypocrisy from the well heeled than the not so well off.


----------



## nioka (2 February 2008)

rederob said:


> Finally, my point about government funding of private schools was not about the anomalies that exist with the state system, but about the fact that people who decry handouts to aboriginals have no problem accepting similar levels of monies so they can send their children to the best schools in the country.  There is far more hypocrisy from the well heeled than the not so well off.



The funding of private schools could be considered as those schools receiving only their SHARE of PUBLIC money towards the schooling of their children. The main cost of the private education system is still carried by the parents. It is not a handout and does yield financial benefits to the nation. Because those schools receive very little state assistance in some cases the federal government, in it's wisdom, does make up some of the difference. If it were not for the private schools some rural students would not get secondary education at all. Remember those people sending their kids to a private school pay taxes too and often at a high rate. Aussies believe in a fair go.
 P.S. I never went to a private school myself. My parents couldn't afford one but I don't begrudge those that had the opportunity.
 What has this got to do with saying sorry?


----------



## bunyip (2 February 2008)

rederob said:


> I'll treat your remarks with with the disrespect they deserve.
> First, in the eyes of the law we *did *indeed steal their land. On the 3rd of June 1992 the High Court of Australia brought down its decision in Mabo & Others vs the State of Queensland. And this was followed up with the Native Title Act of 1993.
> 
> Secondly, I never said said I stole their land: I said I offered the original owners nothing, for which I am sorry.  Your subsequent ramblings are based on ignorance of the facts. If you can't comprehend simple statements, and have no knowledge of the law relating to native title, you might be better off not commenting.
> ...




And I, in turn, will treat _*your*_ remarks with the disrespect _*they *_deserve.

Regardless of what was decided by the High Court in the Mabo case, the fact remains that I have legal title to my land, I didn’t steal it, I bought it, I am the legal owner, I am NOT considered to be in possession of stolen property. And if you were to go to the land court, the police, or any other authority, and claim that I AM illegally in possession of stolen property, and you pressed for charges to be brought against me, you’d be laughed at. 

But don’t take my word for it – prove it or disprove it for yourself. Select a block of land that someone has legal title to. Go to the authorities and claim that the ‘owner/s’ is in possession of stolen property, and you insist that charges be brought against him/her/them. See how you go. 



Secondly, I’ll accept your point that you didn’t actually say ‘I’ stole their land. What you said was ‘we’ stole their land…..a statement which obviously included yourself.

When I asked you to explain why YOU stole their land, you took the trouble to reply and state the reasons for your view. If you don't believe you stole their land, you would have emphatically said “I DIDN’T’, same as I said.

So it really doesn’t matter whether you used the word ‘I’ or ‘we’. Your words and your apology are clearly an admission that you feel you stole their land.

And since you believe you stole their land, and you’re so vocal in telling everyone else that they stole the land as well, by your reasoning then you are in possession of stolen property, and the only decent thing you can do is return that property to whoever you consider to be the rightful owners. 
You claim to be sorry for offering the original owners nothing. Do something about it then. Don't hide behind laws that absolve you from all responsibility and obligation towards the original owners. Put your money where your mouth is. Show some sincerity. Rectify the situation immediately. Either give their land back to them, or reimburse them for the full value of the land. But don't continue your double standards by claiming to be sorry, while at the same time refusing to make recompense to the people you believe you've wronged.

As far as your other comments regarding funding for private and state schools, and the attitude of the well-heeled people who send their kids to private schools, etc etc......if you wish to continue voicing your views in this area then I suggest you start a new thread specific to that discussion.


----------



## rederob (2 February 2008)

bunyip said:


> And I, in turn, will treat _*your*_ remarks with the disrespect _*they *_deserve.
> 
> Regardless of what was decided by the High Court in the Mabo case, the fact remains that I have legal title to my land, I didn’t steal it, I bought it, I am the legal owner, I am NOT considered to be in possession of stolen property. And if you were to go to the land court, the police, or any other authority, and claim that I AM illegally in possession of stolen property, and you pressed for charges to be brought against me, you’d be laughed at.
> 
> ...



Bunyip
Contortions of fact, and assumptions, seem to be your stock in trade.
However, as this is the "sorry" thread, I won't add to your misrepresentations.

Nokia, you ask, "What has this got to do with saying sorry?"
Agro began the thread thus:


> doesn't anyone realize the amount of legal claims going to be filed..
> 
> this is going to be all tax funded too..
> 
> ...



Clearly Agro was concerned about the public purse, perhaps more so than the matter of an apology per se.
Agro has included "education" in the list of priorities over any legal claims for saying "sorry".
I suggest that few people know that government funding of private schools - which have very little aboriginal representation -  is greater on a per capita basis than for aboriginal communities.
We seem to have some very interesting priorities!


----------



## bunyip (2 February 2008)

rederob said:


> Bunyip
> Contortions of fact, and assumptions, seem to be your stock in trade.
> However, as this is the "sorry" thread, I won't add to your misrepresentations.




Is that a fact? lol
I notice that you've been struggling to come up with any solid argument to refute my so called 'assumptions' and 'contortions of fact'.

But anyway, as you're only backing yourself further into a corner, it may indeed be better if you don't add anything further to this discussion or debate or whatever you wish to call it.


----------



## bunyip (2 February 2008)

One more thing, rederob.....I forgot to say thanks for your input into our debate. I've thoroughly enjoyed crossing swords with you again!
Cheers and all the best.


----------



## BradK (2 February 2008)

agro said:


> doesn't anyone realize the amount of legal claims going to be filed..
> 
> this is going to be all tax funded too..
> 
> ...




We are personally not responsible for the actions of our forefathers. 

But we have benefitted from them. 

The legal argument? You are a populist ignorant fool that does not deserve a response. Did you get that from Pauline Hanson?


----------



## Julia (2 February 2008)

rederob said:


> I'll treat your remarks with with the disrespect they deserve.
> First, in the eyes of the law we *did *indeed steal their land. On the 3rd of June 1992 the High Court of Australia brought down its decision in Mabo & Others vs the State of Queensland. And this was followed up with the Native Title Act of 1993.
> 
> Secondly, I never said said I stole their land: I said I offered the original owners nothing, for which I am sorry.  Your subsequent ramblings are based on ignorance of the facts. If you can't comprehend simple statements, and have no knowledge of the law relating to native title, you might be better off not commenting.



Gee whiz, Rob.  I must be getting really silly.  Just can't seem to see how your comments here are other than a cop out in the face of Bunyip's rather logical discussion.  Descending into supercilious sarcasm instead of actually addressing the points offered doesn't really seem worthy of you.



> Thirdly, this remains off topic.



Perhaps.  But one of the joys of a forum like this is its capacity to allow genuine argument to go where it will.  Isn't it all part of the same big question?  Seems relevant to me.



> Finally, my point about government funding of private schools was not about the anomalies that exist with the state system, but about the fact that people who decry handouts to aboriginals have no problem accepting similar levels of monies so they can send their children to the best schools in the country.  There is far more hypocrisy from the well heeled than the not so well off.




I'm pretty sure that most of the people who, as you put it, 'decry handouts to aboriginals' in the form of cash, would be happy to see such funds instead subsidise their attendance at what you describe as the 'best schools'.
I know I would.  Again, your remarks above are a complete generalisation and I doubt you could offer any proof that your assertion is true, i.e. who says that those who dislike handouts to aboriginals necessarily send their children to private schools?  Perhaps you could quote statistics here since you seem so convinced about the veracity of such an assertion?


----------



## rederob (3 February 2008)

Julia
You know full well, as does Bunyip, that I have posted in other threads about aboriginal issues.
If you want to keep this thread off topic, you might like to explain why it's ok for governments to give more money to our best private schools than aboriginal communities when their needs are proven to be significantly greater.

By the way, if you are or have been a student of logic, then you will find in Bunyip's post some excellent examples of "fallacy".  Then we have your last paragraph which is a wonderful case of using generalisations to support your assertions, while seeking evidence from me to support mine.  So in a generous spirit I simply ask that you prove me wrong.


----------



## rederob (3 February 2008)

addendum to off topic post: federal funding to private schools is even greater than it is to public universities nowadays, so that's why hecs contributions are climbing


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 February 2008)

Top article by Irfan Yusuf , pointing out the completely hollow hypocritical crap that Howard - and in particular Nelson - push on this one.  Nelson is a complete chameleon opportunistic moral-turncoat on this subject



> Yusuf served as President of the Bankstown Young Liberals and the Bankstown Liberal State Electorate Conference. He was endorsed Liberal candidate for the seat of Reid in the 2001 Australian Federal Election. [1]




http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2151106.htm

Why conservatives should be the first to say sorry...



> *Australian conservatives love talking about the importance of family values and of strengthening families*. They also love talking about why migrants should be force-fed a good dose of cultural integration, even if it means having them memorise a dodgy citizenship booklet.
> 
> But for some reason, when it comes to the cultures and families of Indigenous Aussies, the rules applying to families and integration are turned on their head. Confused? Read on.
> ..........






> * Dr Nelson puts his heart in it*... One of my most memorable tasks *as a member of the NSW Liberal Party State Council was to sit on the pre-selection panel for Dr Brendan Nelson*. I've written about that experience here. After entering Parliament, Dr Nelson regularly bombarded us with all kinds of newsletters, reports and speeches.
> 
> Nelson had his own distinctive slogan and logo on all stationery - letterheads, envelopes etc. With the stars of the Southern Cross in the background, the words "Bradfield: Put your heart in it!" screamed out at you each time you received something from the good doctor.
> 
> ...






> *Dr Nelson takes his heart out of it*... *That was then. Nelson is now Opposition Leader, heavily reliant on the votes of more conservative Liberal MPs. His home state is dominated by a small cabal of far-Right apparatchiks. His back bench includes a young MP who, as president of the NSW Young Libs and staffer for Liberal MLC David Clarke, engaged in a war of attrition against anyone (including a former NSW Opposition Leader) deemed insufficiently right wing.*
> 
> Now Nelson has to beat his chest and prove his conservative credentials by standing up for good clean wholesome family values. *Even if it means showing gross insensitivity toward Indigenous Australians whose families were forcibly ripped apart.*
> 
> ...




Nelson, the leader of DeNial, still electively choosing his blind eye.


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 February 2008)

> Methinks being stolen from your family is worse than having troubles with your mortgage.  Brendan doesn't seem to understand this. Malcolm certainly does. *Which probably explains why most punters and pundits take for granted that the future belongs to Malcolm*



spot on Irfan. !

PS Disclaimer.  That picture I just posted of Brendan Nelson was put together PARTLY with the help of "Irfanview", a shareware software. I want to make it clear that the image of the telescope to Nelson's eye implying "I see no (hard)ships" is my view and not necessarily Irfan's.  However, having known Brendan Nelson through all his moral U-turns on this, - and by the tone of that article - Irfan Yusuf would probably agree I guess.


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 February 2008)

Prospector said:


> Unfortunately that wasn't the case.  The children were often taken away from homes where they had been cared for properly, simply because people thought they would be 'better off'.  But often that meant they were put in foster homes where they became servants, or into orphanages.




Prospector, Genuine thanks for your rather logical contribution - and for stating the case so succinctly 

PS - back to Brendan - here's a mascot for his new banner - to reflect his wonderful moral leadership.



> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chameleon
> Chameleons (family Chamaeleonidae) are squamates that belong to one of the best-known lizard families. The name "chameleon" means "Earth lion" and it's the latinized form of the Ancient Greek  (khamaileon), “crawling lion”, from <  (khamai) "on the earth, on the ground" + (leon) "lion




PS Not only is this chameleon capable of a COMPLETE change of colour - he's totally  as well 

PS Chameleons are squamates  - or , in Nelson's case - that should praps be squirmates?

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=254325&highlight=malcolm#post254325


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 February 2008)

I mean, if Barack Obama is being interregated on how he voted on Iraq 5 years ago - maybe Nelson can be asked why he was so supportive of the Stolen Generation and the Bringing Them Home Report then - and ... not now (other than that the winds have changed I guess). 

"Brendan's morals, my friend, are blowing in the wind..."


----------



## Julia (3 February 2008)

rederob said:


> Julia
> You know full well, as does Bunyip, that I have posted in other threads about aboriginal issues.
> If you want to keep this thread off topic, you might like to explain why it's ok for governments to give more money to our best private schools than aboriginal communities when their needs are proven to be significantly greater.



I don't see it as an 'either/or' situation.  In fact, really don't see the connection at all.



> Then we have your last paragraph which is a wonderful case of using generalisations to support your assertions, while seeking evidence from me to support mine.  So in a generous spirit I simply ask that you prove me wrong.



Of course it was a generalisation but I made it clear I was taking a guess in that I said "I'm pretty sure that.....".
In contrast you made what appeared to me to be a statement of fact which is why I thought you'd be pleased to back it up with some statistics.
No matter, Rob.  This is descending into petty bickering which serves neither you, me or the forum.


----------



## rederob (3 February 2008)

Julia said:


> I don't see it as an 'either/or' situation.  In fact, really don't see the connection at all.



In other words you don't see an inequity in giving more money to private schools than to aboriginals?

I haven't seen any "bickering".
I have seen you and Bunyip fail the most basic tests of logic, and then want me to prove something that you now can't see any connection to!

On topic, I hope the "sorry" statement heals those that feel the hurt.
I am personally not "hurt", but acknowledge past errors of judgement that in some case have profoundly affected people.
That Brendon Nelson wants not to hear "sorry", but the whole of the statement before agreeing that we (being represented by government) should actually say sorry, is a naive political ploy that will severely damage his status in the Liberal Party. My firm view is that Nelson will not be the Liberal leader come next election as his actions will ultimately be seen as a grave error of judgement, and give Labor greater credibility every time they sledge the coalition with taunts of "wedge politics".


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 February 2008)

Spot on Rob.
Here's another bit of wedge-political gooblegook from Nelson.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/03/2153048.htm?section=justin


> Nelson denies changing tactics on apology
> Posted 3 hours 5 minutes ago
> Federal Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson has rejected a suggestion that he changed his position on an apology to the Stolen Generations to secure the Liberal Party leadership.
> 
> ...




yep, he might be - but so are you is seems.


----------



## Julia (3 February 2008)

The following is an extract from a comment by Glenn Milne in today's "Sunday Mail".

"Consider the arguments:  Kevin Rudd won the election on a pledge to apologise to indigenous Australians.  He has an undeniable mandate to do so.  If it all goes horribly wrong, politically voters will blame Rudd because the apology was his initiative.

And the Prime Minister appears to be minimising the chances of it going wrong by saying "sorry" in the Parliament, which in the view of constitutional law experts means the statement will be covered by privilege.

Which means it cannot be the subject of court proceedings;  any move by the Stolen Generations to seek compensation off the back of the parliamentary motion would be null and void."


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 February 2008)

Next this article by Lowitja O'Donoghue Dr / Professor whatever, 
It is left to the Abs to make the statesmenlike comments .. 







> There is an important distinction between shame and guilt. As a nation we can feel collective shame and collective sorrow, and we can take collective responsibility for our nation’s past. We can collectively say Sorry




http://www.australiansall.com.au/the-new-liberal-leader-shames-us-all/


> The New Liberal Leader Shames Us All
> Lowitja O'Donoghue
> 
> I am saddened to hear that the new opposition leader, Brendan Nelson, will not say Sorry to Aboriginal people. But I am not surprised.
> ...






> *About Lowitja O'Donoghue*
> Lowitja O'Donoghue was born a member of the Yankuntjatjara people of South Australia. At the age of two she became one of the stolen generations when she was taken away from her mother. They did not meet again for 33 years. Lowitja has devoted her life to the welfare of Aboriginal people. She was Foundation Chairperson of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, is joint patron for the National Sorry Day Committee and a Visiting Professorial Fellow at Flinders University.* She was made a Member of the Order of Australia in 1977, a Commander of the Order of the British Empire in 1983, and was Australian of the year in 1984*.






> http://www.unimelb.edu.au/150/communityopenweekend/Honorary/O'donoghue.htm
> She holds *honorary doctorates from no fewer than five Australian universities*.
> 
> Lowitja O’Donoghue has nominated Martin Luther King Jnr, Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu as her heroes. Her own consistent and *longstanding involvement in Indigenous rights issues, combining absolute determination and avoidance of the politics of confrontation has made her a hero to Australians of all races and political persuasions*.


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 February 2008)

And this one by Noel Pearson on the same website.

Reading between the lines, he is worried (with so much at stake) that the Labor party will not be able to hold the line against desertion by traditional Labor supporters on a matter like this, and THAT is why is doesn't want to push this.  

I think Noel that you're mistaken if you think Aussies are proud of the standards that Howard set in this and many other matters. 



> *Sorry: A point of difference*
> *Noel Pearson, December 2007 *
> 
> The Liberal partyroom’s decision to opt for Brendan Nelson ahead of Malcolm Turnbull’s publicly canvassed candidature, *which included support for an apology, turned on this very issue*. It is clear the conservatives will use the apology as a point of difference between themselves and Rudd’s Labor. While Work Choices drove Howard’s battlers back to Labor, the working men who voted with silent resolve to throw the Coalition out of office are precisely the constituency who are susceptible to the following reaction to the apology: “Not in my name.” *They will cast an apology as a derogation from the national pride that Howard had so assiduously proclaimed during his ascendancy*.




incidentally, that website was started at the instigation of Malcolm Fraser. 



> About Australians All
> *In March 2006, Malcolm Fraser invited a group of community leaders to his office to talk about our increasingly and bitterly divided world; where policies of exclusion strike at the heart of a free and open society. You can read his background paper for the meeting, Thoughts on the Current Situation*.
> 
> They discussed the dangers that lie ahead and whether private citizens have a part to play in the pursuit of a just society. The consensus was that individuals acting alone or together could and should make a difference.
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 February 2008)

http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...rows-on-apology/2008/01/29/1201369135991.html


> Liberal division grows on apology
> Email Printer friendly version Normal font Large font Misha Schubert, Canberra
> January 30, 2008
> 
> ...




At least (in some old footage) he showed some real emotion - even got a bit excited - when someone accused him of being a Liberal .... 

 "I have NEVER voted Liberal in my LIFE" 



http://nit.com.au/blog/?p=87


> Within hours of being elevated to the leadership position, Nelson hit the media hustings to promote the ‘Liberal-Nelson’ brand.
> 
> Asked about an apology to the Stolen Generations, Nelson parroted that tired old line delivered by tired old John Howard: “Australians of today should not have to apologise for the mistakes of Australians past.”
> 
> Nelson may be a former member of the Labor Party; he may have once worn an ear-ring; and he may be a ‘leftie’ who has “cried” over the parlous state of Indigenous affairs (his claim, not mine). But Nelson also happens to be – above all else – very, very ambitious




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendon_Nelson


> When he was elected as the Federal President of the AMA it was widely known that he had joined the Australian Labor Party in 1988 and was ambitious to enter politics. His partner in his medical practice was Dr David Crean, brother of Simon Crean and later a Tasmanian state Labor minister. By 1994, however, Nelson was a member of the Liberal Party and in 1995 he gained Liberal endorsement for Bradfield, one of the safest Liberal electorates in Australia. *It is believed that he told the Labor Party he wanted to be endorsed for Denison, the strongest Labor seat in Tasmania (held by Duncan Kerr), and that when he was rejected he defected to the Liberal Party*.
> 
> Nelson was appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence in 2001 -




 Brendan Nelson: NOWHERE MAN. 
Laurie Oakes:-


> Ah, Brendan! Where to begin? His party room speech after his three-vote leadership ballot win is as good a place as any. Instead of delivering an inspirational pep talk to inject some fighting spirit into the defeated and demoralised Liberal army, Nelson went all teary. Small wonder Turnbull felt the need to deliver a pep talk in Nelson's office immediately afterwards in an attempt to inject some fighting spirit into the new leader. Then there is the character issue. *Nelson appears to believe in nothing. Or rather, when it suits him, he can believe in anything. He can be Liberal or Labor, moderate or conservative.* Former Treasury secretary John Stone recently described Nelson as "*like Andrew Peacock but without the substance*". Clever, but Stone actually got closer a few years ago when he dubbed Nelson "*a political hermaphrodite*" - Laurie Oakes


----------



## Spaghetti (3 February 2008)

Never understood this argument. We do not want to say sorry, say some, but who is asking? Who cares? They act like it is their government dealing with some foreigners. The government also represents aboriginals and have a duty of care toward them. 

If a parent treated one child well and mistreated the other would one child object to the parent apologising to the mistreated child? Don't think so. Or is the type of children that want to fight over the will we have objecting?


----------



## Julia (4 February 2008)

I've previously discussed the talk I heard by Noel Pearson on Radio National on 16 January.  After a long process of trying to track this down, we can now access it thanks to Radio National and "The Griffith Review"
This is the original essay on which the talk was based.  It is long, but I'm hoping everyone with a genuine interest in this topic will take the time to read it.

If the link fails for any reason, go to www.griffithreview.com,
/Past Editions/2007/Edition 16/Unintended Consequences/Noel Pearson

http://www3.griffith.edu.au/01/griffithreview/past_editions.php?id=382


----------



## Julia (4 February 2008)

PS: For those who are daunted at the length of Mr Pearson's comments, I'd suggest scrolling through all the American history (though it's pertinent to his overall theme) to where he discusses our situation here in Australia.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 February 2008)

thanks Julia - wilco - later.
Got a feeling that even Noel won't object to saying sorry to stolen generation IF it is bipartisan and not likely to set the cat amongst the Pauline Hansons.

wowo - Bill Heffernon even on board - "saying sorry? of course! it's a no-brainer"

and Shane Stone :" I have yet to meet a member of the Libs , either house, who doesnt agree (in principle of something)"

Gee Brendon - must be getting lonely out there   Still you'll have Genghis Khan's ghost to keep yuo company.

PS Of course Brendan will say " I just wanted to be sure that party wanted it etc " 
 BUT 
 He specifically said he wouldn't say sorry - 
then again that was 3 weeks ago 

TIP : - go short on Brendan


----------



## tigerboi (4 February 2008)

Has anyone here on this thread grown up in a childrens home???


----------



## Julia (4 February 2008)

Julia said:


> PS: For those who are daunted at the length of Mr Pearson's comments, I'd suggest scrolling through all the American history (though it's pertinent to his overall theme) to where he discusses our situation here in Australia.



The Griffith Review have now sent a link to the actual broadcast I heard which is much shorter than the essay.  The audio might seem more accessible to anyone who is reluctant to read too many pages.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 February 2008)

tigerboi said:


> Has anyone here on this thread grown up in a childrens home???




Tiger, careful, Chasers are looking for a new person to interview now that Heffernan has called his decision to apologise as a "no-brainer". 

Meanwhile the NT's Opposition Leader Terry Mills supports sorry - (and he's pretty close to the action you'd think) 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/04/2153661.htm?section=justin


> *NT Opposition leader supports 'sorry'*
> Posted 2 hours 42 minutes ago
> Updated 2 hours 21 minutes ago
> The Northern Territory Opposition leader says he supports a formal apology to the Stolen Generations.
> ...




Then again, knowledge of recent history seems to be becoming a problem for some...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/04/2153628.htm?section=justin


> Nearly quarter of Brits think Churchill a myth: poll
> Britons are losing their grip on reality, according to a poll which shows nearly a quarter think Winston Churchill was a myth, while the majority reckon Sherlock Holmes was real.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/29/2149206.htm
PS Terry Mills has only been CLP Lib leader for a week


----------



## Julia (4 February 2008)

Sorry to be  continuing to add to this reference, but I've just found that the link to the essay doesn't seem to work properly.  Better to use www.griffithreview:  then Past Editions/2007/Edition 16 Unintended Consequences.
The passage which particularly struck a chord with me was contained in pages 16 - 20, particularly Mr Pearson's use of the term "the morally vain".


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 February 2008)

Julia
well so far I've got as far as this quote - page 16 I think..

Are you saying he prefers Howard's to Keating's attitude?


----------



## tigerboi (4 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Tiger, careful, Chasers are looking for a new person to interview now that Heffernan has called his decision to apologise as a "no-brainer".
> 
> Meanwhile the NT's Opposition Leader Terry Mills supports sorry - (and he's pretty close to the action you'd think)
> 
> ...





i am a wasp 5th generation,uk origin as like many millions here....i dont agree

with all this sorry saga as it serves no purpose,the children were taken legally

as most were 1/2 castes rejected by their own community,however growing

up in orphanages & state childrens homes was no paradise that is a fact...

the biggest problem is this,the black fella is stuck between 2 cultures being

an aborigine first then trying to fit in to our white mans life,that is a tuff gig

lastly you have to look at the 2 types of aboriginal,you got your 1/2-1/4-1/8

that live in the city,are educated & live our type of lifestyle then you have

your regional/country koori...totally different type who live the more hunter-

gatherer type.....that is where all the problems lie,its a problem thats been

around since cook landed here & its not unique to australia...think about this

bit of history,the only person who survived the burke & wills expedition was

because he was friendly with the black fellas,he knew if trouble came his way

he could rely on them for help....as i said, sorry wont change a thing this is a

problem a long way from being solved...cheers tb


----------



## robert toms (4 February 2008)

I think that the people to ask if saying sorry will have any relevance is the aboriginals themselves .
That they have reasons to be apologised to ...is beyond argument...except perhaps to the real nasty bigots.
There seems to be reliance on Noel Pearson...he is a legitimate aboriginal and Torres strait  islander leaders,but I believe that his views do not take pre-eminence of those of other aboriginal leaders.
He blotted his copy book with a lot of people when he became the preferred aboriginal spokesman of Howard .
His views were acceptable to John Howard and the "Love is never having to say sorry mob"
I believe Howard has terrible record on race...whether it be Vietmanese,Chinese,black South Africans or aboriginals.
I repeat Noel Pearson has good views and has seen the problems in depth,but in a political sense I believe he has done himself damage with a lot of other aboriginals and their preferred spokespeople.


----------



## bunyip (4 February 2008)

rederob said:


> I have seen you and Bunyip fail the most basic tests of logic




An amusing statement if ever I saw one! 
You show all the symptoms of a bruised ego.
You remind me of Paul Keating, whose ego was so severely bruised by his election loss that he's been throwing stones at John Howard ever since.

I noticed that my logic was sufficient to put forward various arguments that _*you*_ were unable to refute. 
And my logic was _more_ than sufficient to back you into a corner that you couldn't fight your way out of!


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 February 2008)

Tiger and Julia

I'm getting confused and I think you'll agree that things have moved on ... reached "critical mass" around here - as the actress said to the slightly overweight bishop.  When Bill Heffernan is saying sorry, we can assume they'll all be saying sorry soon enough.  

One quote of Noel Pearson's that I did like was ... (more correctly a quote of a team of kids at the Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership, for which he is Director),

"In plain English, either lead .. (1)
or follow ...(2)
or get out of the way".

(1) = like Labor maybe?
(2) = like Libs maybe?

The idea of having to give the words in advance for vetting by the likes of Abbott! - sheesh! .... early draft?  .. why?.. so he can accuse 'em of not being "pure of heart" (ala Bernie Banton? ) 


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Banton
> Abbott, who had been in Victoria at the time, dismissed the petition as a "stunt" and implied that, despite his illness, Banton's motives were not "pure of heart". Abbott later apologised, but did not back away from his criticism.[1]




As it currently reads, ALL the Libs are apparently happy with the concept of an apology - except Nelson and Abbott (Tuckey seems to have retired to the pub )   So let em start some new parties !- call 'em 

"The Political Hermaphrodite's" Party - in Nelson's Case (quoting Laurie Oakes) (?)   
"The Abbott minus Costello Party" , and maybe
"The Wild West Party" in Tuckey's case 

Tiger, As for your comment about "being brought up in a home" ... yep - and you may or may not believe this, - but Malcolm Turnbull was in the next room


----------



## Julia (4 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Julia
> well so far I've got as far as this quote - page 16 I think..
> 
> Are you saying he prefers Howard's to Keating's attitude?



I'm not saying anything.  It's not for me to deduce or interpret Noel Pearson's preferences.  I have offered his essay for readers to draw their own conclusions.
The extract which you have provided in a screen shot is somewhat prior to the part to which I especially wanted to draw your attention, i.e. where he talks about  the "morally vain", Page 17 on.


----------



## Julia (4 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Tiger and Julia
> 
> I'm getting confused and I think you'll agree that things have moved on ... reached "critical mass" around here - as the actress said to the slightly overweight bishop.  When Bill Heffernan is saying sorry, we can assume they'll all be saying sorry soon enough.




Oh, for God's sake, 2020, not content with having lumped me in with Disarray and Bunyip (whose views I do not necessarily share), now you are doing the same with Tigerboi who as far as I know has just asked if anyone has spent time in a children's home!

I think this is about the tenth time I have said I am very happy for whoever wants to, governments and oppositions included, to say sorry.  OK???
Do I need to repeat it yet again?
What is with you that you manage to completely ignore what I am actually saying in favour of some compulsion to merge my views with those of others?

If you can't manage to comprehend my comments, please do me the favour of ignoring them.  Just don't attribute to me remarks which I have never made.


----------



## AngusM (4 February 2008)

This is one of those what religion are you, or which political party do you support kind of threads, but as someone who was born in the real outback of Australia when men where men I cant resist adding my own 2 cents if I could find one.

Personally I wonder if anyone *really* thinks that yet another in a long list of "handouts" to the aboriginals whether verbally or financially is going to solve anything. Get real people. It hasn't worked in the past - what makes anyone think it will work now ? I'm sick of the double standards. Political correctness is what is doing the Aboriginal race the most harm. Its simply a slower form of genocide. Give their Aboriginals their Billion dollar handout and in 5 years time they will have simply pumped it back into the economy with no benefit - then they will move onto the next whinge-a-thon and the next do-gooder will have a crack at solving the unsolvable.

Anyone born in Australia is an Australian and should be treated equally in all aspects based on their merits. Anyone who wasn't born here (regardless of how long their stay) is a guest and should be treated with respect and extended all courtesies, but if they misbehave they should be kindly asked to leave


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (4 February 2008)

bunyip said:


> You remind me of Paul Keating, whose ego was so severely bruised by his election loss that he's been throwing stones at John Howard ever since.




Keating was cool...........but I'd be the type to throw rocks at Howard so what would I know :.

Also be happy if some sort one of "Indigenous Owner" land tax was issued on individual properties held by landowners. Would create quite a slush fund to aid in some sort of proactive approach to aid the Aboriginals.

I've paid plenty of stamp duties/rates/capital gains etc on property to the Gov over the years,just because the Gov prints little bits of paper with "Land Title"........ 

Please explain what recompense and obligations have they observed to the Aboriginals who they ripped off since settlement.

I for one was a proud citizen in 93 when the Native Title Act was passed, bloody long overdue.............just like saying sorry is.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 February 2008)

AngusM said:


> ..
> 1. but as someone who was born in the real outback of Australia when men where men I cant resist adding my own 2 cents if I could find one.
> 
> 2. Personally I wonder if anyone *really* thinks that yet another in a long list of "handouts" to the aboriginals whether verbally or financially is going to solve anything. Get real people. .
> ...




1. where men were men and sheep were nervous 

2. no one arguing angus - the emphasis should be on "Hand-ups" rather than  handouts

3. ...  mmm not sure I want to go there . lol - 

Incidentally
On that criterion, does a 20th generation Aussie have seniority over a third ?


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 February 2008)

Julia said:


> 1. What is with you that you manage to completely ignore what I am actually saying in favour of some compulsion to merge my views with those of others?
> 
> 2. If you can't manage to comprehend my comments,
> 
> 3. please do me the favour of ignoring them.  Just don't attribute to me remarks which I have never made.




1. Well Julia, What are you saying 

2. lemme get this straight - I take 2 hours to make a post - complete with cut and paste - 
and you won't take 5 minutes to read it.

But you post (or try to post) a link to a speech, and others are expected , not only to read it , but to read "only the bits you want them to read" 

I mean either Noel Pearson said those remarks I posted - or he didn't !!

3. deal.

(as I said collectively to both you and Tiger - yes collectively !! on this point only - big deal , sheesh - 
we've moved on to the next stage)


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 February 2008)

PS Julia I think this link might help
http://www3.griffith.edu.au/01/griffithreview/past_editions.php?id=382
click on"White Guilt etc" by  Noel Pearson

Here are some comments Pearson wrote about "moral vanity".


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 February 2008)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/04/2154281.htm?section=justin


> Rudd pushes Opposition to support apology
> Posted 3 hours 47 minutes ago
> 
> Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is increasing the pressure on the Federal Opposition to support the apology to the Stolen Generations.
> ...


----------



## rederob (5 February 2008)

bunyip said:


> An amusing statement if ever I saw one!
> You show all the symptoms of a bruised ego.
> You remind me of Paul Keating, whose ego was so severely bruised by his election loss that he's been throwing stones at John Howard ever since.
> 
> ...



You could try to be on topic.
I have offered my thoughts on it.

On the topic of logic, try not to make an assumption, draw an argument from it, and then present a conclusion.


----------



## bunyip (5 February 2008)

rederob said:


> You could try to be on topic.
> I have offered my thoughts on it.
> 
> On the topic of logic, try not to make an assumption, draw an argument from it, and then present a conclusion.




Logic is in the eye of the beholder, my friend. What you think is logic or what I think is logic, someone else may have an entirely different opinion. I've seen you express viewpoints that I considered completely lacking in logic. Other times you've expressed views that I agree with.
Some people, for example, see no logic in the argument that we, the current generation, should feel guilt or responsibility for the actions of our forefathers hundreds of years ago. 
Others feel differently.
Some see logic in the argument that aboriginals are our fellow Australians, therefore we should try to help them out of their problems so they can lead more fulfilling lives, just like we help anyone in this country who needs help, regardless of race or skin colour. 
Others feel differently. They see no logic whatever in continuing to pour money into aboriginals who wreck facilities they're given, shun education and work programs designed to help them, and seem content to waste their lives away
They say fence off several million acres of wild country somewhere, hand it back to the aboriginals, and let them fend for themselves without help from the rest of the community.
In any event, no matter what we believe, no matter what we see as logical or illogical, a debate is about putting forward points of view and backing them with solid argument. A debate is won by the side that does the best job of backing his views with solid argument, while at the same time putting forward solid argument to refute the views of his opponent.
The side that fails to present solid argument to support their views and to refute the views of their opponent, gets backed into a corner and ends up losing the debate.


----------



## bunyip (5 February 2008)

Freeballinginawetsuit said:


> Keating was cool...........but I'd be the type to throw rocks at Howard so what would I know :.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'm not the government spokesman. Ask them yourself if you want answers.


----------



## rederob (5 February 2008)

bunyip said:


> Logic is in the eye of the beholder, my friend. What you think is logic or what I think is logic, someone else may have an entirely different opinion.



Logic is not "opinion".
Nor is "debate" about logic as much as it is about persuasion.
Logic:
Stealing (children) is socially unacceptable.
Apologising for wrongs is normative.
Debate:
I didn't steal any children.
Therefore I cannot be sorry.
Politics:
Somebody stole some kids.
Will we lose any votes for saying sorry?
Philosophy:
Was it right to take the children?
Will any harm come from apologising?


----------



## Julia (5 February 2008)

While we are saying sorry, should we also be saying sorry for the years of passive welfare?  

(Probably could equally ask this question with respect to white people, though recent governments have made some moves to limit payment of benefits before expecting efforts to be made to find work.)

Doing some form of productive work does more than just earn money.
Doesn't it also bring a sense of usefulness and even a sense of greater belonging to a society?  

I'm thinking about the aboriginal people I know who work within a CDEP programme.  By being involved in this, they have without exception said that they enjoy having something useful to do which is benefiting their community.

In many areas, aboriginal housing is overcrowded and rundown.  How would it be - instead of bands of government builders going in there and building new houses - to use supervising builders who would assist the people themselves to build the houses?  Isn't that going to provide some constructive activity and then a sense of pride of ownership?  Then maybe an ongoing interest in maintaining the property well and perhaps creating a garden to provide fresh vegetables?  Maybe a community garden to foster co-operation as a counter to the alcohol-fuelled aggression?

I don't know whether any of this would work.  I expect many here will suggest I'm naive to think it's worth trying.  Might be right.
I just know that for myself it's necessary to do some sort of work which I feel makes a contribution to my community and doubt very much that I'm unique in that need.  Just too easy when not constructively engaged to sit around and focus on the misery that all of us can find if we look hard enough.

Agree/disagree?


----------



## Go Nuke (5 February 2008)

well I do believe the Rudd government has stated that there would be NO financial restitution for the stolen generation and personaly...I hope not.
Like others I too dont see why I should pay with my hard worked for taxes to pay for something that happened well before I was even born. 

Stolen or rescued is a good way of putting it!


----------



## jaolsa (5 February 2008)

after a period of absence from this site, i returned on the weekend and was disappointed that this type of debate should be held on what i would consider to be on of the most best trading sites in australia.  

disappointed because most comments posted are blatant generalisations that contain so little "truth" that they can only be categorised as racist at best.  

freedom of speech does not give one the right to state an opinion that just perpetuates a lie or is done from a position of ignorance. 

debate by all means......but please.......do it from a basis of at least some knowledge and sense of humanity.  

as at starting point, here is some basic reading that is available on the web.

http://www.pilotguides.com/destination_guide/pacific/australia/history_of_aborigines.php

http://www.kimberleystolengeneration.com.au/history.htm

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/social_justice/bth_report/report/index.html

(just a couple of links - but there is tons of resources available for those that are interested).


----------



## Agentm (5 February 2008)

jaolsa said:


> after a period of absence from this site, i returned on the weekend and was disappointed that this type of debate should be held on what i would consider to be on of the most best trading sites in australia.
> 
> disappointed because most comments posted are blatant generalisations that contain so little "truth" that they can only be categorised as racist at best.
> 
> ...




respect.....


----------



## bunyip (5 February 2008)

rederob said:


> Logic is not "opinion".
> Nor is "debate" about logic as much as it is about persuasion.
> Logic:
> Stealing (children) is socially unacceptable.
> ...




See it any way you like. If that's your view and you're comfortable with it, then you just stick with it by all means.

Others may see it differently however.


----------



## bunyip (7 February 2008)

Since this thread is about saying sorry to aboriginal people, the following will provide food for thought. 
The 'sorry' message you're about to read was not compiled by me. Nor was it compiled by the friend who sent it to me, who, interestingly, is the owner/operator of a successful small business in a NSW aboriginal town.
My friend is not an aboriginal hater, far from it in fact. He gets on well with the aboriginal community and counts many of them among his friends. He describes the aboriginals he knows as 'basically decent people who are pretty much just like you and me really'.
But what he does hate is the 'poor bugger me' mentality displayed by a certain element among their ranks. He is, however, quick to point out that this attitude is not right across the board, that there are in fact many aboriginals who themselves also detest the victim mentality of some of their own race.
He showed this 'sorry' message to quite a few aboriginals in his town. He was quick to point out to them that he wasn't the author of the message and he neither endorsed nor condemned it....he was simply running it past them to get their thoughts.
He tells me that it was maybe a 50/50 split between those who agreed with it and those who didn't.
Anyway, have a read of it yourselves and see what you think. Like my mate, at this stage I neither condemn nor endorse it. I merely pass it on for the interest and discussion of this group. So don't any one of you waste your time attacking me over it, or challenging me over any part of its content. Read the message and comment on it if you see fit, but don't make the mistake of attacking or shooting the messenger. This is one messenger who will defend himself vigorously and very capably if necessary.


_*SORRY 

AUSTRALIAN APOLOGY TO THE ABORIGINAL POPULATION  

We apologise for giving you doctors and free medical care, 
which allows you to survive and multiply so that you can demand apologies.  

We apologise for helping you to read and teaching you the 
English language and thus we opened up to you the entire European 
civilisation, thought and enterprise. 

We feel that we must apologise for building hundreds of homes 
for you, which you have vandalised and destroyed.  

We apologise for giving you law and order which has helped 
prevent you from slaughtering one another and using the unfortunate for food 
purposes. 

We apologise for developing large farms and properties, which 
today feed you people, where before, you had the benefits of living off the 
land and starving during droughts.  

We apologise for providing you with warm clothing made of 
fabric to replace that animal skins you used before.  

We apologise for building roads and railway tracks between 
cities and building cars so that you no longer have to walk over harsh 
terrain.  

We apologise for paying off your vehicle when you fail to pay 
the installments. 

We apologise for giving you free travel anywhere, whenever.  

We apologise for giving each and every member of your family 
$100.00 and free travel to attend an aboriginal funeral.  

We apologise for not charging you rent on any lands when 
white people have to pay.  

We apologise for giving you interest free loans.  

We apologise for developing oil wells and minerals, including 
gold and diamonds which you never used and had no idea of their value.  

We apologise for developing Ayers rock and Kakadu, and 
handing them over to you so that you get all the money.  

We apologise for allowing taxpayers money paid towards 
daughters' wedding ($8,000.00 each daughter)  

We apologise for giving you $1.7 billion per year for your 
250,000 people, which is $48,000.00 per aboriginal man, woman and child. 

We apologise for working hard to pay taxes that finance your 
welfare, medical care, education, etc to the tune of $1.2 billion each year.  

We apologise for you having to approach the aboriginal 
affairs department to verify the above figures. For the trouble you will 
have identifying the "uncle toms" in your own community 
who are getting richer and leaving some of you living in squalor and poverty.  

We do apologise. We really do.  

We humbly beg your forgiveness for all the above sins. 

We are only too happy to take back all the above and return 
you to the paradise of the "outback", whenever you are ready.  
*_


----------



## BeterValue (8 February 2008)

In the end we are going to pay them for the air we breath in this land.  

The sooner they are made full and equal citizens like the rest of us and go under the same rule and law as us the better.

my


----------



## Buddy (8 February 2008)

There is another angle in the "sorry debate" that needs to be opened up.

There has been an enormous amount of debate about whether the governemnt/churches/the people/white people should "say sorry". However, lets assume that its a foregone conclusion that some sort of sorryness statement will be issued by the national government. 

What also needs to be debated is how the sorryness is going to be received. Is there going to be a statement of acceptance, or forgiveness, or whatever, by the receipients of the sorryness statement? 

It is generally expected in the european culture (which apparently has wrought to much pain and suffering on the indigineous people and their culture) that saying sorry to someone also results the the offended party accepting the sorryness and forgiving the offending party. If the offended party is not prepared to accept the offending party saying sorry, then one might well ask... so what's the point? Is it just to make the offending party feel better about themselves (bleeding heart mentality) or does it practically and genuinely lead to a way forward?

With such an important statement about to be issued by a national government, and guys lets face it this is a major major statement to be made by any democratic government that represents "the people and all the people", I think it is is also important to know how the statement is going to be received.  It is now time for the indigineous leaders to say something about this.  No good just to hang back, wait for the sorryness statement, sit back and say "well that was fine, now what do we do?"

And to those people that will reply to me saying something like "to be truly sorry it has to come from the heart without strings attached" (or something like that), I say No.  This is no schoolyard fight where the headmaster tells the kids to say sorry and then make up. It is a significant statement by a national government, with all the strings and implications that come with it. (Remember there is a whole legal industry sitting in the sidelines here just waiting for their share of the jam and icecream).

What I want to know is wadaya gunna do about about it after k07 says sorry. And if k07 and j08 are going to have a mob of indigineous people perform at the next opening of the national parliment, are they also going to say something? Or they just there for the dance?


----------



## Julia (8 February 2008)

That's a very reasonable point, Buddy.

Do you feel that a formal acceptance of the Apology by, say, a group of Aboriginal elders would then constitute an end to the matter?

How do you think a formal acceptance would influence the likelihood or otherwise of appeals for financial compensation?


----------



## Buddy (8 February 2008)

Those are two very difficult questions to answer Julia. I really dont know what the answer might be, I guess time will tell.  I guess what I am saying is that this end of the debate needs to be opened up. Greater minds than mine might be able to fathom these imponderables.


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 February 2008)

I think you'll find that the idea of an true apology is not to ask for a receipt.


----------



## Happy (8 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> I think you'll find that the idea of an true apology is not to ask for a receipt.




Leads to another thread and is $1 Billion going to be sorry enough?
    
(I could only include 5 images, so I run out of 1 cent pieces real quick)


----------



## Buddy (8 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> I think you'll find that the idea of an true apology is not to ask for a receipt.




Perhaps, but in this instance if there is no response then what is going to be achieved other than the whitefellas feeling good about themselves. I am not saying the sorryness thing is wrong, I just want to know where it leads to and does it lead to a meaningful way forward and stops the resentfulness on both sides.


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 February 2008)

A couple of youtubes out there on John Howard's apology ..

 John Howard apologises 


> The legendary scene from The Games, episode 2.3 in which John Howard apologises. First transmitted on 03/07/00.
> 
> The Games was an Australian satirical sitcom written by John Clarke and Ross Stevenson about the Sydney Olympic Games. Series 1 is currently on DVD. Series 2 is coming out soon according to http://www.mrjohnclarke.com




 John Howard says sorry-  John Howard gives the Redfern reconciliation speech


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 February 2008)

The stages of John Howard's treatment of the Abs:-

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/aug1999/reco-a30.shtml


> Australian parliament "regrets" injustice to Aboriginal people
> Behind the politics of "reconciliation"
> By Nick Beams  30 August 1999
> 
> ...






> The immediate origins of last Thursday's “historic vote” lie in the Reconciliation Conference held in May 1997. This gathering was no small affair. Staged at a cost of nearly $1 million by the government-backed *Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation*, and sponsored to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars by some of the biggest corporate names in the country, the conference was supposed to set up a mechanism for the resolution of conflicts between claimants for “native title” rights over land and the operations of mining companies.
> 
> *As the Australian Financial Review put it at the time: “As Australia's mining industry now recognises the task of reconciliation is not a bleeding heart obsession of the white chattering classes, but instead is a matter of practical business.”*
> 
> ...






> For two years the situation remained at an impasse, until the entry of Aboriginal Aden Ridgeway. Ridgeway was elected to the Senate, on the ticket of the Australian Democrats in New South Wales, at the October 1998 elections, and entered the federal parliament on July 1.
> 
> Earlier this year, Howard had successfully negotiated the passage of the government's Goods and Services Tax legislation with the Democrats. He was therefore eager to seek further collaboration with them””and Ridgeway in particular””to try and recover the opportunities he had lost at the Reconciliation Conference.
> 
> ...






> With the passage of the preamble through both houses of parliament, the stage was set for the expression of “regret”. In his carefully crafted maiden speech to the Senate, Ridgeway, eschewing any use of the terms “sorry” or “apology”, provided the form of words that was then incorporated in the government's declaration.
> 
> While the resolution easily passed through both houses of parliament, it did not win unanimous support. The Labor Party opposed it, after amendments incorporating an unreserved apology and compensation, moved by ALP leader Kim Beazley, were defeated. Beazley's actions were not motivated by concern to right the wrongs of the past any more than Howard's were. Rather, his anxiety was that the resolution, while winning support from the leaders of government-backed bodies, would be regarded as a betrayal in the wider Aboriginal community.
> 
> ...




http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2641366.ece


> John Howard U-turn on Aborigine policy,
> Bernard Lagan in Sydney, October 12, 2007
> 
> John Howard, the Australian Prime Minister, promised yesterday to hold a referendum to recognise Aborigines in the Constitution in a dramatic policy shift weeks before going to the polls.
> ...






> John Ah Kit, the Northern Territory indigenous leader and a former local government minister, said that if Mr Howard truly wanted to reconcile he must apologise.
> 
> “He’s got a problem with that five-letter word called ‘sorry’ and he really needs to come out and make a proper apology to indigenous people in this country,” he said.
> A raw deal
> ...


----------



## Julia (8 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> I think you'll find that the idea of an true apology is not to ask for a receipt.



I don't think Buddy suggested anyone was asking for a receipt.  I think he was suggesting some sort of response would be reasonable.
e.g. if you apologise to me for being rude and inflammatory, then I would consider it entirely appropriate to thank you for that apology and consider the matter closed.

Just normal behaviour in accepting an apology. Nothing more and nothing less.
Zilch to do with "receipts".


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 February 2008)

Julia said:


> I don't think Buddy suggested anyone was asking for a receipt.  I think he was suggesting some sort of response would be reasonable.
> e.g. if you apologise to me for being rude and inflammatory, then I would consider it entirely appropriate to thank you for that apology and consider the matter closed.
> 
> Just normal behaviour in accepting an apology. Nothing more and nothing less.
> Zilch to do with "receipts".




so what are we saying Julia
 we don't apologise until they agree to acknowledge it 

PS The classic would have to be Howard who "expressed regret" and then went on to yell at them in 100 dB tones... so that the assembled Abs turned their backs on him.  I mean - he'd probably claim that was an apology as well


----------



## Sean K (9 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> so what are we saying Julia
> we don't apologise until they agree to acknowledge it



I can't see how you've come to that conclusion from what's been said 2020. 

A response from the Aboriginal community will be required from white Australia as we will want to know the next step in the reconcilliation process. It obviously won't be over with the PM articulating an appology. Final resolution for all will be closing the loop off. It's just a natural part of the process.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 February 2008)

kennas said:


> I can't see how you've come to that conclusion from what's been said 2020.
> 
> A response from the Aboriginal community will be required from white Australia as we will want to know the next step in the reconcilliation process. It obviously won't be over with the PM articulating an appology. Final resolution for all will be closing the loop off. It's just a natural part of the process.




kennas, sure there will be informal responses from various leaders of the Ab community.   

but the more genuine our apology, the more graciously we acknowledge past wrongs, the more effective it will be in healing the scars that Abs have - and indeed the entire nation still bears on this issue. 

It should not be a conditional apology... as implied in Buddy's post...:-  



			
				buddy said:
			
		

> With such an important statement about to be issued by a national government, and guys lets face it this is a major major statement to be made by any democratic government that represents "the people and all the people", *I think it is is also important to know how the statement is going to be received.* *It is now time for the indigineous leaders to say something about this.* No good just to hang back, wait for the sorryness statement, sit back and say "well that was fine, now what do we do?"
> 
> And to those people that will reply to me saying something like "to be truly sorry it has to come from the heart without strings attached" (or something like that), I say No. This is no schoolyard fight where the headmaster tells the kids to say sorry and then make up. It is a significant statement by a national government, with all the strings and implications that come with it. (Remember there is a whole legal industry sitting in the sidelines here just waiting for their share of the jam and icecream).
> 
> What I want to know is wadaya gunna do about about it after k07 says sorry. And if k07 and j08 are going to have a mob of indigineous people perform at the next opening of the national parliment, are they also going to say something? Or they just there for the dance?




Buddy , Obviously there will be speeches by individual Ab leaders in response.  but AFTER (not before ) the apology (I think you are requesting before yes? - making it a condition yes?. 

We won't "know how it will be received" until the apology in made, and especially,  "how we apologise", and with "how much sincerity". (imo)


----------



## rederob (9 February 2008)

kennas said:


> I can't see how you've come to that conclusion from what's been said 2020.
> 
> A response from the Aboriginal community will be required from white Australia as we will want to know the next step in the reconcilliation process. It obviously won't be over with the PM articulating an appology. Final resolution for all will be closing the loop off. It's just a natural part of the process.




First, Julia said "some sort of response would be reasonable".
So it's a reasonable conclusion that 2020 drew.
It's also heavily implied in Buddy's missive: "What also needs to be debated is how the sorryness is going to be received. Is there going to be a statement of acceptance, or forgiveness, or whatever, by the receipients of the sorryness statement?"

Why will a "sorry" response be "required" by white Australia, as kenna's puts it.
I am white and I don't expect a response.
Actually, I can't see how a response can be given in parliament as they have no specifically elected Representative for the aboriginal community. 
The "acceptance" issue is just a pathetic diversion by people who find it hard to swallow that it is white Australia that stuffed up.

If I was seeking "forgiveness", then I would definitely want an acceptance from the aggrieved.
I can't construe "forgiveness" as an issue here. Rudd is accepting that wrongs have been done and that a collective "sorry", which time and again is sought by those affected, will be offered.
The legal avenues for compensation have already been pursued and, in one prominent case, won.
The precedents for compensation have nothing to do with saying sorry.  On the other hand, there are some humanists that argue saying sorry might mitigate the desire to pursue compensation amongst those who presently have that inclination.

I admit to being disgusted by the attitudes of many who seem to want to get something back from aborigines.  If you didn't do anything to be sorry for, then why begrudge an apology to people who have suffered deep hurt?


----------



## vida (9 February 2008)

Rudd is apologising for more than rude and inflammatory remarks towards the aboriginal people.  He is apologising for grave injustices that have caused devastating loss grief and damage in the past which suffering continued through the generations and is still being felt in their communities. There was a massive genocidal attitude towards the indigenous people in the past - and in this case I believe we are only focussing on the stolen generation (which did not just involve one generation but several). There is not yet a focus on the indiscriminate murders of aboriginal people during early settlement days, when they were treated as if they were pests, enslaved, abused and murdered in numerous instances which are recorded in history. They were shot down like people these days go out on kangaroo shooting sprees. I think they are due for massive compenation. If anyone thinks money should be spent on health, education etc, the indigenous communities need same 



Julia said:


> I don't think Buddy suggested anyone was asking for a receipt.  I think he was suggesting some sort of response would be reasonable.
> e.g. if you apologise to me for being rude and inflammatory, then I would consider it entirely appropriate to thank you for that apology and consider the matter closed.
> 
> Just normal behaviour in accepting an apology. Nothing more and nothing less.
> Zilch to do with "receipts".


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 February 2008)

rederob said:


> why begrudge an apology to people who have suffered deep hurt?




spot on for mine.
btw, this youtube is just a bit of soulful mellow music.- plus some thoughtful images.   

"come in out of the rain - to a better place"  

 John Howard's failed legacy on Aboriginal Reconciliation.


----------



## disarray (9 February 2008)

rederob said:


> I admit to being disgusted by the attitudes of many who seem to want to get something back from aborigines.  If you didn't do anything to be sorry for, then why begrudge an apology to people who have suffered deep hurt?




i don't have anything to be sorry for, but if we are going to say sorry to the aborigines then they should accept so we can all move on. and give the whole "deep hurt" bleeding heart a rest, every culture has suffered deep hurt, its not like this stone age tribal society is unique. maybe we should go around the world and apologise to everyone! 

the aborigines would do well to accept an apology and work towards a settlement because if we are still here going through this crap in 10 - 15 years there will be zero sympathy left for them and the only advice the rest of society will have for them is to shut the fk up.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 February 2008)

no point you apologising disarray - with that attitude


----------



## Prospector (9 February 2008)

tigerboi said:


> with all this sorry saga as it serves no purpose,the children were taken legally as most were 1/2 castes rejected by their own community,




Well, that is just the point of this whole thing.  It seems that you haven't read any of their stolen generations story, have you? 

Children were not taken legally - they were taken on the basis simply because they were aboriginal, and not because of any abuse issues. The decision to remove children was totally based on racial origins.

Do we say sorry?  I think as a community we can say that we are sorry that the colonisation of Australia has seen some grave injustices done.  But this does not mean that we accept responsibility for them.

When I was in primary school, there was an aboriginal boy in our class.  He was one of the stolen generation - he had been removed from his family and placed in a Children's home and came to our school every day.  At the time I thought, that was OK, he was getting an education and food and clothes etc.  But he kept running away. He longed to join his family and go back to the country. As an adult, I feel ashamed that we thought we were doing the right thing for him, we had taken away his free will.  How could we, as a society, have done that to a group of people.


----------



## Mofra (9 February 2008)

disarray said:


> i don't have anything to be sorry for, but if we are going to say sorry to the aborigines then they should accept so we can all move on. and give the whole "deep hurt" bleeding heart a rest, every culture has suffered deep hurt, its not like this stone age tribal society is unique. maybe we should go around the world and apologise to everyone!
> 
> the aborigines would do well to accept an apology and work towards a settlement because if we are still here going through this crap in 10 - 15 years there will be zero sympathy left for them and the only advice the rest of society will have for them is to shut the fk up.




Wait a minute... you are saying 







> *i* don't have anything to be sorry for



 yet are quite happy to generalise about an entire race? Oh dear.



disarray said:


> but if we are going to say sorry to the aborigines then they should accept so we can all move on.



Considering aboriginal leaders have been requesting an apology for decades, you think they will not not accept one? Have you even thought about the issue?



disarray said:


> its not like this stone age tribal society is unique.



Not unique. Ah, never mind. You obviously have little idea. Maybe less time "whittlin' and bango playin" and more time reading will give you some seblance of knowledge.



disarray said:


> maybe we should go around the world and apologise to everyone!



What are you talking about? This is a national, not an international issue. Where else did Australia forcibly remove children solely based on race? We are talking about people who weren't even granted the right to vote in their own country until 1967!




disarray said:


> the aborigines would do well to accept an apology and work towards a settlement



A number of aboriginal leaders have suggested that they want an apology, not a handout or compensation. An acknowledgement of the past wrongdoings so everyone can move on. Not sure why the word has you so upset.



disarray said:


> if we are still here going through this crap in 10 - 15 years there will be zero sympathy left for them and the only advice the rest of society will have for them is to shut the fk up.



Classy, real classy. Fortunately our modern political leaders aren't so prone to making racial generalisations on little knowledge to the issue.


----------



## Julia (9 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> kennas, sure there will be informal responses from various leaders of the Ab community.
> 
> but the more genuine our apology, the more graciously we acknowledge past wrongs, the more effective it will be in healing the scars that Abs have - and indeed the entire nation still bears on this issue.
> 
> ...



I don't know why you think Buddy's suggestion meant an apology would be 'conditional' on an acceptance.  I didn't read that into his post at all.
Of course an acceptance wouldn't be made before the apology!!!

Fred Chaney from (I think) Reconciliation Australia was the guest on an ABC talkback programme in the small hours of this morning and this very question of an acceptance was put to him, as was a further question about 'what exactly is reconciliation and is the apology going to assist in achieving it?'

Contrary to your reaction, 2020, Mr Chaney responded that both questions were indeed valid and that he expected various responses would be made by individuals though unfortunately there was no single 'figurehead' person who would speak on behalf of all indigenous people.


----------



## Julia (9 February 2008)

rederob said:


> First, Julia said "some sort of response would be reasonable".
> So it's a reasonable conclusion that 2020 drew.




Beats me how you can interpret "some sort of response would be reasonable" as saying "an apology being made would be *conditional* on a response being received for that apology".


----------



## Julia (9 February 2008)

vida said:


> Rudd is apologising for more than rude and inflammatory remarks towards the aboriginal people.



You have misunderstood my comment.  If you read my post you would see that I wasn't suggesting Mr Rudd was apologising for rude and inflammatory remarks.  I was trying to offer 2020 a simple example of what usually happens when one person (or group of persons) apologise to another.
So I used the example of 2020 apologising to me, in which case I would without hesitation accept and thank him. OK?



> He is apologising for grave injustices that have caused devastating loss grief and damage in the past which suffering continued through the generations and is still being felt in their communities.



Yes, we know that.  This is not in dispute as far as I know.


----------



## Julia (9 February 2008)

Prospector said:


> When I was in primary school, there was an aboriginal boy in our class.  He was one of the stolen generation - he had been removed from his family and placed in a Children's home and came to our school every day.  At the time I thought, that was OK, he was getting an education and food and clothes etc.  But he kept running away. He longed to join his family and go back to the country. As an adult, I feel ashamed that we thought we were doing the right thing for him, we had taken away his free will.  How could we, as a society, have done that to a group of people.



Prospector, this sad tale does something that all the syrupy words will never do.  It puts a human, personal face on what happened.  
It's a bit like all the statistics about road deaths, cancer or whatever.
They're just abstracts and numbers, until we actually come into personal contact with someone who has had that experience.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 February 2008)

Julia said:


> 1. I don't know why you think Buddy's suggestion meant an apology would be 'conditional' on an acceptance.  I didn't read that into his post at all.  Of course an acceptance wouldn't be made before the apology!!!
> 
> 2. Fred Chaney from (I think) Reconciliation Australia was the guest on an ABC talkback programme in the small hours of this morning and this very question of an acceptance was put to him, as was a further question about 'what exactly is reconciliation and is the apology going to assist in achieving it?'
> 
> 3. Contrary to your reaction, 2020, Mr Chaney responded that both questions were indeed valid and that he expected various responses would be made by individuals though unfortunately there was no single 'figurehead' person who would speak on behalf of all indigenous people.



Julia
Buddy wants to know now how they will react after the statement. 



			
				buddy said:
			
		

> I think it is is also important to know how the statement is going to be received. It is now time for the indigineous leaders to say something about this.   ...... No good just to hang back, wait for the sorryness statement, sit back and say "well that was fine, now what do we do?"



He wants to know now how they will react in advance - you agree?

Is it not an implied condition that "depends what they say" whether he would apologise (or support an apology by the govt or whatever)?

It could be argued that he wants to guess what they will say - and choose words that will maximise the positive outcome.   If he is heading in that direction, then great!    But you'd be crazy to read that into words like "the sorryness statement" 

2. As for Fred Chaney speculating on what it will achieve, we are all doing that surely.  

3. Contrary to your assumptions Julia
Fred Chaney's comments are exactly what I am saying as well.  It will be important to hear what they say -  in response.  
After the apology. 



			
				buddy said:
			
		

> And to those people that will reply to me saying something like "to be truly sorry it has to come from the heart without strings attached" (or something like that), I say No



Julia
you agree with Buddy I assume that apologies should come with strings attached?


----------



## Julia (9 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Julia
> Buddy wants to know now how they will react after the statement.
> 
> 
> ...



2020, I have asked you before not to twist what I say or attempt to put words into my mouth.  
I have been quite clear about how I feel about the apology.
I am simply not going to be drawn into further  pointless discussion with you.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 February 2008)

Julia said:


> 2020, I have asked you before not to twist what I say or attempt to put words into my mouth.
> I have been quite clear about how I feel about the apology.
> I am simply not going to be drawn into further  pointless discussion with you.



(groan)
and I was trying to break it up into little understandable steps as well sheesh


----------



## Prospector (9 February 2008)

Julia said:


> Prospector, this sad tale does something that all the syrupy words will never do.  It puts a human, personal face on what happened.




Thankyou Julia, the reality of the tragedy of the little boy (I still can only think of him as a 10 year old) only really came to me when the issue of the 'Apology' became a discussion point a few years ago.  I remember, as a child at the time many (ie the teachers and parents) were saying how ungrateful he was when he would run away and then be found and he would come back to school.  When he was happy, he was a lovely kid, but when he was down, he was very down.

They took us once on an excursion to the Children's home where he was living.  The kids slept in dormitories, maybe 20 to a ward.  It seemed like holiday camp to us, something exciting for a change, but that was the only life these kids would ever know.  We went home to our mums and dads and pets and complained about homework.  They couldn't complain to anyone, and if they did, they were seen as ungrateful.  So they ran away.  Often.  Oh, we would laugh and say "ABC has gone walkabout again'.  We just didn't get it and for that I am sorry.

I just cant get over the fact that as a child I thought it was OK for him to be treated like this, and only of late did I actually put it all together.  I did not make him part of the stolen generation, I was only a kid, but I am desperately sorry for what my parent's generation did to him 'in his best interests'.


----------



## skint (9 February 2008)

Two themes that I have often read on this thread and hear elsewhere are words to the effect of:

1) "Aborigines were still living in the Stone Age when Europeans arrived. They hadn't even invented the wheel." and

2) "Aborigines should just snap out of their problems, get a job and be like the rest of us."

The first statement implies that there is something inherently inferior about Aborigines, almost as if argueing that this race is less capable than other races.
The "hadn't left the Stone Age" statement neglects the historical context of why some countries developed agriculture, metallurgy and other technologies, became resistant to disease and set about invading other less developed countries rather than the other way around. The answer of course is Real Estate. Position, Position, Position. 
Many thousands of years ago, the majority of the world's domesticatable plants and animals occured in and around the Fertile Crescent (Syria etc.). Animals that could be domesticated to become the modern day sheep and cattle are essential to the development of agriculture (ploughing, protein, manure etc..). Domesticatable plants include the long grain grasses, that over time have become the staples of modern agriculture. The vast majority occured in the Fertile Crescent which was also conveniently..fertile. 
Once agriculture was possible, permanent non-nomadic communities could be established, populations could sustainably grow faster and human resources could be released for the development of metallurgy and other technologies. The greater population density further accelerated these advances as well as being a haven for diseases, which, over time, ensured greater resistance to disease. The combinations of these factors provide a population of (to quote Jarred Diamond) with a powerful arsenal of "guns, germs and steel". These advances soon spread throughout Europe.
Australia, on the other hand, is firstly an island, and so there was little movement in or out. It is the driest continent with the poorest soil, has no domesticatable animals suitable for agriculture, and has none of the previously decribed long grain grasses suitable for agriculture (which is the initial precursor of development). Whilst the landscape was used and transformed by Aborigines to their advantage, larger scale agriculture was simply untenable. In this situation, what the hell use would a wheel be to them? By necessity, and because of the hostile country they lived in, they survived in the only way possible, and that is largely a nomadic hunter/gatherer lifestyle. In short, Position, Position, Position. Nothing to do with the people themselves. If fate had placed the domesticatable plants and animals, and fertile soils in Australia, instead of elsewhere, in all likelihood, it would have been Aborigines invading Europe, rather than what did transpire. And yes, if they committed the same atrocities, an apology would also be warranted. Their ability to survive in such an environment is as much a testimony to human ingenuity as other more typically identified advances elsewhere. Essentially people are the same, and are differentiated historically only by circumstance and again, Real Estate.

The second "snap out of it, get a job and live like the rest of us" statement also reflects a complete ignorance of society and history. Prior to the arrival of Europeans, by necessity, Aboriginal society would have been at or near full-employment just to survive. 
Their food sources were then taken from them, there way of life and their culture, which forms the cornerstone of any functioning society, was demolished, many were murdered, many more died of introduced diseases, and of course many were stolen from their families. Survivors were placed in reserves and their means of survival was increasingly dissipated. Those that migrated to cities lived on the fringe of society and were not welcome elsewhere. For the vast majority of the past 200 years, Australia was an openly racist country (eg. The Bullteins subheading - Australia for the White Man, White Australia policy was government policy, no voting for Aborigines until the late sixties, the list is endless) that continually and increasingly marginalised its indigenous population into marginal lands and urban slums. Discrimination and exclusion were the norm. In short, they were considered to be, and treated like vermin. If you tell an individual or community that they're scum for long enough, inevitably problems will arise. A situation such as this inevitably breeds a grossly disfunctional society encompassing high levels of subtance dependence, domestic violence, crime and on and on. Many still argue that large somes of money has been spent to little avail, even though the problems have only just started to be addressed in relatively very recent times. The destruction of the Aboriginal culture to what we see today was created over 200 hundred years. It will not be fixed in a year or two and probably not within a generation. Australia, as a nation, has a responsibility to do whatever it takes for as long as it takes. Lets not guild the lilly or stick our heads in the sand, we created it, we fix it, with their help. Australia Statements such as "snap out of it and get a job and live like the rest of us" reflect a complete lack of understanding of the extent to which the foundation of Aboriginal society has been destroyed. 
Guilt is neither warranted, sought after or useful for Australians as individuals. However, we do, as a nation, owe an apology for not only the stolen generation, but also for the many other gross injustices suffered by Aboriginal peoples over nearly all of our brief post-European history.
Some may say this promotes a victim mentality. I disagree. Whilst it is important for individuals to avoid such a mentality, it is also necessary for history not to be denied and responsibility taken. To use an analogy, if a child is born with a serious illness, it is unhelpful to treat that child as "the sickly one". It is also not helpful to tell that child that their illness is all their fault.

For those that have taken the time to read my admittedly lengthy post, I thank you for taking the time.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 February 2008)

skint - thanks for that post. 

Herewith a couple more quotes on the subject, which make you realise how traumatic it was ... - who knows one of those mentioned in the first comment might have been prospector's schoolfriend (50-50 chance going on that article)  
http://apology.west.net.au/


> "*Almost half of the Aboriginal people who died in custody and were investigated by the Black Deaths Royal Commission, had been removed from their families as children*..." - Kirsten Garrett, Background Briefing, Sunday, 11 February 1996





> "They would not let us kiss our father goodbye, I will never forget the sad look on his face. He was unwell and he worked very hard all his life as a timber-cutter. That was the last time I saw my father, he died within two years after." - Jennifer , Bringing them Home Report




hey kennas, 
one thing you have to understand is that, over here, this apology next Wednesday is being billed as Bigger than Ben Hur.  Seems to be getting a real momentum going (imo).  Gough Whitlam, Malcolm Fraser and Paul Keating to be present etc.  John Howard has declined. 

Televised - large mobile screens being erected outside parliament ( because it will have overflowed) - and in the big cities - kids at school to watch etc.
Here's the currently-planned TV program for ABC next Wednesday. 

2:00pm Opening of Parliament  / Question Time. (think I'm right).

Then Bananas in Pyjamas  - and a re-run at that !  lol. 

Well, would you believe "almost as big as Ben Hur" 

http://sydney.citysearch.com.au/tvguide/4/12:00#tvGuideTable_1

PS that program could well change btw.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 February 2008)

Mick Dodson is bound to feature 

http://www.monash.edu.au/alumni/prominent-alumni/mick-dodson.html



> Professor Michael James "Mick" Dodson AM, (b. 10 April 1950 in Katherine, Northern Territory, Australia) is an Indigenous Australian leader, a member of the Yawuru peoples in the Broome area of the southern Kimberley region of Western Australia. His brother is Patrick Dodson, also a noted Aboriginal leader.
> 
> Following his parents death he boarded at Monivae College, Hamilton, Victoria. He graduated in law from Monash University in 1978.
> 
> ...




http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1042


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> (50-50 chance going on that article)
> "Almost half of the Aboriginal people who died in custody and were investigated by the Black Deaths Royal Commission, had been removed from their families as children..."



sorry - my maths was on walkabout when I said that.


----------



## porkpie324 (10 February 2008)

I also posted this comment at another link, but I think relevent here also.
  So you Aussies are to make an opology to your aboriganies next week, well I hope you have plenty of spare money, it cost us in NZ heaps and is still going on infact it will never stop. Is this what your tax suplasses are for or the "future" fund, your gonna need it. I bet there queing to make claims and the lawyers they'll have a field day too, goodluck


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 February 2008)

classic ! - as per Insiders this morning 

 Corey Delaney's Other Party


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 February 2008)

:topic heck - I might as well post this one here as well - by the same youtube poster (clever dude) 
this thread could do with a smile 

 Kevin 007 - The Man With The Golden Jaw


----------



## Scuba (10 February 2008)

There may be some who have done nothing wrong and therefore consider an apology inappropriate.

I for one, hope our government has the strength and fortitude to make an apology to the indigenous peoples of this land for the shameful treatment they recieved at the hands of 'so called' "modern" settlers and their descendants.

This is about bringing us together, let the objectionists stand aside so the olive branch can be given...


----------



## Stan 101 (10 February 2008)

Porkpie, the Australian government is throwing money at the aboriginal communities in obscene amounts already. That money is not being utilized effectively. The Australian government has failed the aboriginal people. Those governments were elected by us, the people.
This human rights issue will not go away anytime soon. There needs to be some fresh consultation on important issues like health, education and employment. Aboriginal communities need to regain a collective self respect.
Noel Pearson's view on building a macro community culture is certainly a step in the right direction. Individuals take ownership of their actions in the community and work toward it prospering.
Instilling a whole industry to the aboriginal people may be one way of promoting an introduction to capitalism. This concept seems to have been well received with eco tourism.
There needs to be a summit meeting with free thinking people from both white and black Australia to set the foundation blocks for the long road forward. There is no quick fix to this situation. To think there is a quick fix or believe this is just a burden on white Australia is only several degrees from the apartheid movement in South Africa. 
Australia can continue to waste good money on hand outs as stated in parts of the that "redneck" chain email or we can use that money to unify, encourage and truly help all of Australia to be a truly great nation and not one built on bigotry, resentment and hatred..


cheers,


----------



## Scuba (10 February 2008)

Great post Stan 101, it's time to move on.
For those not interested, step aside or go stand in the square on a soap box telling the world you're not sorry. Better still, don't whinge and complain about reconciliation, just let it happen...


----------



## porkpie324 (10 February 2008)

Yeh, bla bla, heard it all before, your just 15 to 20 years behind us thats all, you wait in ten years time you and billions later things with them "Aboes" will still be the same. The thing is Mr&Mrs Aboe won't see any of the benifits the top ones will get it all, thats what happened with the Maori here. Don't fool yourself on this issue.porkpie


----------



## disarray (10 February 2008)

that was a good post skint.

1. ""Aborigines were still living in the Stone Age when Europeans arrived. They hadn't even invented the wheel."

i've read guns, germs and steel as well and i know its terrible to say and will get the lefties all up in arms but yes, aboriginal society WAS INFERIOR to western society. if the situation was reversed and white people were hunting / gathering in australia and black people were surviving extremely harsh conditions in europe then it would probably be whites demanding the apology, but its not, it happened this way and the fact remains western civilisation was technologically, culturally, socially (although this could be argued) and economically superior to aboriginal society. not because they are black, not because they are aborigines, but because they were stone age and we were becoming industrial. the mass settlement of europeans to the new world was part of evolution, the same as globalisation is today.


2) "Aborigines should just snap out of their problems, get a job and be like the rest of us."

you raised some good points and i agree with you, it's not just a case of yelling at them to change because they got screwed over. however it is vital that the aborigines take a good long look at themselves, have some internal debate among their people and set themselves a framework for progress. substance abuse, crime, sexual abuse and welfare dependence don't really seem to be doing it for them but CHANGE MUST COME FROM WITHIN, and it seems it takes a maverick to tackle the issue head on (noel pearson for one). wider society is carrying the aboriginals and it's not fair to society any more than it is fair to the aborigines. so while i agree it's not just a simple case of "snap out of it", the aboriginal community needs a fierce internal debate about their direction and now is a good time to be having that.

as to your last point we'll probably differ here. australia was built on misery, pain, and hard work (the convicts as well as the aborigines) and it was defended with blood (white australians mostly) but NOW we have a stable, prosperous, first world, multicultural society. from this point every culture in australia could make a claim against another culture for historic wrongs, and as long as people go on about it then it will never get resolved.

race relations need open debate, people need to vent, vitriol needs to flow like pus from a wound and THEN we can all sit down and negotiate a settlement which lets us all move on. so this can also relate to mofras quotefest.

aboriginal leaders have been clamouring for an apology for ages apparently, thats great, so just to clarify, do these aboriginal leaders speak for all the aboriginal people? and the part-aboriginals? will they accept the apology? but more importantly, will the aboriginal people now begin to take control of their own destiny and build their society back up? if not, then the whole thing is a waste of time and we'll keep carrying a dysfunctional society forever.

if australia as a nation acknowleges the past against aborigines, and offers compensation and a proper apology, then that has to be the end of it. the aboriginal people have to accept the apology and from then on take responsibilty for themselves, the same as the rest of us do. anything less is just a half-assed political stunt that will achieve nothing and lay the seeds for future resentment to and from the aborigines.

this debate is all black and white though (mostly white), i'd also like to know what asian australians think because they certainly don't have any reason to apologise but they continue to pay for it.


----------



## vida (10 February 2008)

Well disarray I am certain they will never shut the fk up and why should they! That is what chauvinists always think towards the underclasses: they should keep quiet, as women were told to do in the most archaic patriarchal times. Did women stay silent? not for long and we won't keep quiet ever ever ever. 

And there are many apologies that should be made around the world and perhaps this will be the beginning of a global reconciliation.  The USA has many 'sorries' owing and Obama if he does get elected may be the man for it.

It takes a big man to admit to mistakes, a coward denies them.  

I am not of English/Irish descent, but from Lithuanian descent and none of my ancestors had anything to do with early settlement in Australia when the igenocide was suffered by indigenous people and their culture. Nevertheless I feel deep sorrow for what happened and I want my government to apologise on behalf of everyone, compensate them and provide more health and education services so they can live decently and harmoniously.

Its not an easy reconstruction but it can be achieved and must be done. There is a reconstruction debt owed to any country by its victor after a war - and this is no different. There must be a lot more viable assistance to indigenous communities.  

I saw an aboriginal family on Elizabeth Street in Melbourne a few days ago, and they were a very rare sight indeed.  They do not form part of our mainstream communities and culture and why is this so?  Why are they so isolated?  

I attended an indigenous art opening in Fitzroy yesterday and their art is on the walls for thousands of dollars but the artists attend in salvation army clothes and all the money they make from art is shares with their community.  They are a very socially minded community involved people unlike capitalist individuals and we could learn a lot from that.  



disarray said:


> i don't have anything to be sorry for, but if we are going to say sorry to the aborigines then they should accept so we can all move on. and give the whole "deep hurt" bleeding heart a rest, every culture has suffered deep hurt, its not like this stone age tribal society is unique. maybe we should go around the world and apologise to everyone!
> 
> the aborigines would do well to accept an apology and work towards a settlement because if we are still here going through this crap in 10 - 15 years there will be zero sympathy left for them and the only advice the rest of society will have for them is to shut the fk up.


----------



## disarray (10 February 2008)

as you say vida, the aborigines will never shut up, and why should they? so even after apologies, compensation, reams of white guilt, the aborigines will still be bringing up grievances against the country? not acceptable.

proper apology now, put the issue to bed, all move on. half-assed efforts will breed resentment and keep the issue going. now is a good opportunity, we should all (aborigines included) take advantage of it.


----------



## Scuba (10 February 2008)

porkpie324 said:


> Yeh, bla bla, heard it all before, your just 15 to 20 years behind us thats all,



It's all about you isn't it, out front, on the cutting edge, setting the trend?


porkpie324 said:


> you wait in ten years time you and billions later things with them "Aboes" will still be the same.



Is the correct spelling Pakehoah? Verstehen? Capisce? Comprende? Understand? Colour of skin/ choice of religion/ political belief, there's always something to make someone different...


porkpie324 said:


> The thing is Mr&Mrs Aboe won't see any of the benifits the top ones will get it all, thats what happened with the Maori here.



How does one divide and apportion an apology? When Cook landed or shortly thereafter he signed a treaty didn't he? 


porkpie324 said:


> Don't fool yourself on this issue.porkpie.



Well, after reading your divisive rant, you haven't won me over.


----------



## Scuba (10 February 2008)

disarray said:


> ***edited***
> proper apology now, put the issue to bed, all move on. half-assed efforts will breed resentment and keep the issue going. now is a good opportunity, we should all (aborigines included) take advantage of it.



I can't agree with all of what you say on this disarray, but I do agree with this last paragraph wholeheartedly...


----------



## porkpie324 (10 February 2008)

Dear Scuba, coming from a nation that bowl's underarm I find your comments a bit rich, all I'm trying to do is draw your  attention to an issue which once started is never to go away and will be extremely expensive. Believe me we've been there, porkpie


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 February 2008)

porkpie324 said:


> Dear Scuba, coming from a nation that bowl's underarm I find your comments a bit rich, all I'm trying to do is draw your  attention to an issue which once started is never to go away and will be extremely expensive. Believe me we've been there, porkpie




question porkpie...
were 50% of the "deaths in custody in NZ" - I assume you have a few, although I imagine a fraction of what we have -  were 50% of them taken from their parents early in life?

PS I think you'll find that the world has a lot of respect for Kiwis - not least because of your relative racial harmony.

lol - bowling underarm  - by a man who did so reluctantly - under instruction.  We apologise. lol.

PS I recall a taxidriver in CHCH telling me.. "we'll give em back the same land they gave us .... as long as they give us back the same beads and blankets we gave them" - good way to move forward (not)


----------



## Stan 101 (10 February 2008)

Porkpie, has there been any corporate reflection on why NZ is still in this situation you speak of after all these years?
Clearly there has not been correct implementation or the concept was flawed. To continue with a plan after it has been made abundantly clear it is fruitless is sheer lunacy. Says a bit about your government more than the Maori people to me.

As for two brothers not playing in good spirit during a sporting event, please don't be so naive as to think it was a national conspiracy.


cheers,


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> ... this apology next Wednesday is being billed as Bigger than Ben Hur.
> .....
> 2:00pm Opening of Parliament  / Question Time. (think I'm right).
> ....
> PS that program could well change btw.



sounds like that program is wrong 
I think I just heard that ABC TV program will start at 9:00am (I think). - If not TV that radio ?


----------



## porkpie324 (10 February 2008)

question porkpie...
were 50% of the "deaths in custody in NZ" - I assume you have a few, although I imagine a fraction of what we have - were 50% of them taken from their parents early in life?
 I don't understand your question, 50% of who?

 As for our government in question on the management of  a situation. This turned into such a big thing once started that a succesion of governments can not solve it.

 As for the "underarm" incident most Kiwi's have let it rest, which will not happen once this issue starts


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 February 2008)

porkpie324 said:


> I don't understand your question, 50% of who?




porkpie, I posted this back there, post #235  ...


> Herewith a couple more quotes on the subject, which make you realise how traumatic it was ... - who knows one of those mentioned in the first comment might have been prospector's schoolfriend
> http://apology.west.net.au/






> "Almost half of the Aboriginal people who died in custody and were investigated by the Black Deaths Royal Commission, had been removed from their families as children..." - Kirsten Garrett, Background Briefing, Sunday, 11 February 1996






> "They would not let us kiss our father goodbye, I will never forget the sad look on his face. He was unwell and he worked very hard all his life as a timber-cutter. That was the last time I saw my father, he died within two years after." - Jennifer , Bringing them Home Report


----------



## vida (10 February 2008)

Disarray

I think you should spend a minute and put yourself in their shoes. Obviously you don't know what it is like to suffer deep injustice and loss. The path to moving on begins by apologies and compensation but there is no totally getting over it. You underestimate the indigenous intelligence by saying they will forever be bringing up grievances against the country. Their grievances are not against 'the' country at all, you should be more careful how you choose your words. This is their country and was before we ever arrived and just because it has happened in other civilisations that is no reason to ignore it.  It should be fully confronted and everything possible done to repair the continuing damage and for generations in the future it will be history hopefully never to be repeated again. It will be never forgotten & should not.



disarray said:


> as you say vida, the aborigines will never shut up, and why should they? so even after apologies, compensation, reams of white guilt, the aborigines will still be bringing up grievances against the country? not acceptable.
> 
> proper apology now, put the issue to bed, all move on. half-assed efforts will breed resentment and keep the issue going. now is a good opportunity, we should all (aborigines included) take advantage of it.


----------



## vida (10 February 2008)

Further, its not about guilt its about taking responsibility. I don't feel any guilt but I feel the government's responsibility and my responsibility to ensure the government does what is right. In that regard I voted for someone who I thought would do the right thing on many issues including this one. The jewish issue has never been forgotten, keeps coming up and understandably. Where are your views coming from? I can't understand your intolerance.  



disarray said:


> as you say vida, the aborigines will never shut up, and why should they? so even after apologies, compensation, reams of white guilt, the aborigines will still be bringing up grievances against the country? not acceptable.
> 
> proper apology now, put the issue to bed, all move on. half-assed efforts will breed resentment and keep the issue going. now is a good opportunity, we should all (aborigines included) take advantage of it.


----------



## Scuba (10 February 2008)

porkpie324 said:


> Dear Scuba, coming from a nation that bowl's underarm I find your comments a bit rich, all I'm trying to do is draw your  attention to an issue which once started is never to go away and will be extremely expensive. Believe me we've been there, porkpie



ROFL @ "Bowling"....
One man does not a nation make, and can I apologise for his behaviour on behalf of this nation?
Regards,
Scuba


----------



## Mofra (10 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> lol - bowling underarm  - by a man who did so reluctantly - under instruction.  We apologise. lol.



Arrghhh an apology! 
The neo-cons are going to start another 20 threads about this apology because "they didn't bowl the ball!"


----------



## porkpie324 (10 February 2008)

My mate Rangi has just turned up we're going fishing, say's he's going over to Aus there's easy money to make out of gullible Aussies. Reading some of these posts he's right. porkpie


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 February 2008)

porkpie324 said:


> My mate Rangi has just turned up we're going fishing, say's he's going over to Aus there's easy money to make out of gullible Aussies. Reading some of these posts he's right. porkpie




what's that joke about the garbo asking Rangi ...

"where's you been"   "I's been in Australia"
"no where's you weely been"
"well ok, I's weely bin in jail, but I didn't want to tell anyone"

porkpie - suggest you look after NZ problems - and we'll look after ours. 
And we have plenty of your kinsmen already lol. - helps keeps things friendly


----------



## Scuba (10 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> ***edited for brevity***
> porkpie - suggest you look after NZ problems - and we'll look after ours.




Agreed, thank Joe for the _IGNORE_ button...


----------



## treefrog (10 February 2008)

interesting debate on "sorry" this morning ABC program
point made was:
1) 40yrs ago white-ees Intervened in apauling native living conditions of children and took them away from bad infulences
2) bi-partisan support today for another round of intervention because of apauling conditions (it IS happening now, including removing darkies from their parents at a rate significantly more than pro rata for whitie-ees
deja vue
how long before we will need to apologise again - this time for current intervention??
why not make sorry statement "in perpetuity"??


----------



## Scuba (10 February 2008)

Why not ask them what they want?


----------



## Julia (10 February 2008)

vida said:


> I saw an aboriginal family on Elizabeth Street in Melbourne a few days ago, and they were a very rare sight indeed.  They do not form part of our mainstream communities and culture and why is this so?  Why are they so isolated?




If they are not living in Melbourne, then that is their choice, isn't it?
No one tells anyone in this country where they may or may not live as far as I know.


----------



## robandcoll (10 February 2008)

Julia that is hafl the problem. Alot of mainstream Australians have not witnessed what the other half have to put up with. Spend sometime in WA or NT. 

Any this scares me:

The National Aboriginal Alliance says the Federal Government should go further than this week's apology to Indigenous Australians and award compensation.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has ruled out financial compensation for members of the Stolen Generations, despite a recommendation in the 1997 'Bringing Them Home' report.

Alliance spokesman Les Malezer says Wednesday's formal apology is welcome, but not enough.

"We are also concerned that the apology is not being accompanied by reparations, which is part of forgiveness, as part of admitting that the wrong thing was done," he said. 

"Once the apology has been issued, and providing the apology is not qualified, we will then go on to ask the Government to now consider how it will *pay compensation."*

Not another cent of my well earnt is going there.

I believe K07 has stuffed this one up real bad and could have masive implications for Australia.  Half my family are now expats because of what they can earn overseas. If this economy dives because of Labours focus on social issues instead of economic issues I think the expac percentange will increase, and social unrest could go anywhere.


----------



## Scuba (10 February 2008)

robandcoll said:


> ***edited***
> Half my family are now expats because of what they can earn overseas. If this economy dives because of Labours focus on social issues instead of economic issues I think the expac percentange will increase, and social unrest could go anywhere.



I suppose they all left since the coalition got ousted?
Take a good look at history and see which side of centre inherited the truly hard decisions in this country, WW1, Depression, WW2, 70's energy crisis... Go on, I dare you... 
BTW If the Coalition was so good, why are ports and rail and infrastructure lagged so badly?


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 February 2008)

robandcoll said:


> 1. Not another cent of my well earnt is going there.
> 
> 2. I believe K07 has stuffed this one up real bad and could have masive implications for Australia.
> 
> 3. Half my family are now expats because of what they can earn overseas. If this economy dives because of Labours focus on social issues instead of economic issues I think the expac percentange will increase, and social unrest could go anywhere.



rob (and/or coll)
1. not sure that's how it works - once the govt get their hands on it, it's not yours any more. (in any case the apology is being made under parliamentary privelege and apparently will avoid additional legal liability)

2. If he's "stuffed it up" he will face the public at the next election with a negative against him .  Then again if he does something that is well and truly overdue and reconciliation and the Ab situation generally starts to improve then maybe he will do even better next election.  Time will tell. 

I doubt he will lose any votes from you yes?  If he never had your vote in the first place that is?

3. I thought you were going to say " half overseas now,   if ..... then the other half as well!"    Not sure where you were going - either to which country, or with that argument.  Sounds like you prefer the Ab situation to fester than to do anything about it.


----------



## Happy (11 February 2008)

> From ABC, 11 Feb. 08
> 
> ABORIGINES HEAD TO CANBERRA CALLING FOR COMPENSATION
> 
> ...




Starts to look like possibly very expensive sorry soap opera.

Hope that  part aboriginals will only be paid part sorry money, as other race stolen-rescued generation does not qualify for compensation, if they do qualify we will have another compensation saga, when currently rescued-stolen kids grow up and happen to bump into solicitor.


----------



## --B-- (11 February 2008)

oh goody.

i eagerly await the word 'sorry' and millions in compensation sorting out all the problems in aboriginal communities and ending the rampant alcoholism and child sexual abuse that is so prevalent in aboriginal communities.

by saying 'sorry' and admitting to these horrific past wrongs im led to believe we will now be equal? does this mean we no longer pay the billions in grants and other special assistance given to aboriginal people??


----------



## Happy (11 February 2008)

> APOLOGY SHOULD BE 'SEPARATE FROM COMPENSATION'
> 
> Reconciliation Australia says Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's apology to the Stolen Generations should stand alone from any compensation claims.
> The organisation's board is meeting in Canberra today to discuss its agenda after the Government's formal apology is delivered on Wednesday.
> ...






> Mark Leibler, says the 17-year life expectancy gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians is his top priority.




To close 17-year life expectancy gap should be top priority for people who experience the gap not the Government.
If I think there is something wrong with my diet and that my lifestyle can affect my longevity, I do not go to Government to give me with increased life expectancy on a plate.

If I want to be closer to better health facility, I do not ask to build that facility in my area.
Remote area farmers don't seem to make such outrageous demands.

If I want cleaner and not smashed house, I do not smash it in a first place and I also clean it and maintain on tegular basis.

I still remember pictures of smashed houses shown all over the world and appalling sanitary conditions ab had to live in.
Took me hours to explain who smashed houses and who blocked toilets and who ripped up flyscreens during my trip to Europe.

I am slowly getting sorry fatigue syndrome.


----------



## rederob (11 February 2008)

Happy said:


> I am slowly getting sorry fatigue syndrome.



How odd!
If you were one of the stolen generation you would be counting the hours.


----------



## Happy (12 February 2008)

Suppose you are right, once unfinished sorry business is over, claim can be lodged for compensation and hours can be counted to payment.

Fatigue must have overwhelmed me, as not only I cannot take slice of that pie but also I’ll have to partially fund it.


----------



## bunyip (12 February 2008)

rederob said:


> How odd!
> If you were one of the stolen generation you would be counting the hours.




Maybe. But on the other hand, I daresay there are many among the stolen/rescued generation who are grateful for having an education and a job, a decent work ethic and decent living standard, instead of being uneducated and living among drunkenness, violence, squalor and poverty, which is quite likely how they would have ended up if they hadn't been rescued by people who considered them worthy of a better life.


----------



## Prospector (12 February 2008)

bunyip said:


> Maybe. But on the other hand, I daresay there are many among the stolen/rescued generation who are grateful for having an education and a job, a decent work ethic and decent living standard, instead of being uneducated and living among drunkenness, violence, squalor and poverty, which is quite likely how they would have ended up if they hadn't been rescued by people who considered them worthy of a better life.




But that is the crux of this whole issue - these children were not necessarily taken from abusive homes; they were taken  only because they were aboriginal, nothing more.

Poverty is a relative term.  What if a wealthy man took pity on you because your parents were obviously way, way poorer than he was.  However, your parents were still adequately providing for you, and you were loved by them. Would you be grateful if he decided to 'save' you and took you away without your parents consent?


----------



## ROE (12 February 2008)

"When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite."
    - Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965) 

Word cost nothing so why not say sorry and get it out of the way.
There maybe law suit and stuff but leave that to the court of law to determine.


----------



## Tinpusher (12 February 2008)

Same topic on an Aviation Professionals Forum...

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=313066


----------



## Happy (12 February 2008)

*Intervention – Sorry Mark II in the making*

Intervention – Sorry Mark II in the making



> From ABC, 12 Feb. 08
> 
> THOUSANDS PROTEST TO 'STOP THE INTERVENTION'
> By Penny McLintock
> ...







> "It's a racial act really. We want to be like white people, walk in [to shops] and pay for things with our own cash not half with Centrelink payment and the rest in vouchers," he said.




No discrimination, pay cash or at least make vouchers redeemable in all shops


----------



## robots (12 February 2008)

--B-- said:


> oh goody.
> 
> i eagerly await the word 'sorry' and millions in compensation sorting out all the problems in aboriginal communities and ending the rampant alcoholism and child sexual abuse that is so prevalent in aboriginal communities.
> 
> by saying 'sorry' and admitting to these horrific past wrongs im led to believe we will now be equal? does this mean we no longer pay the billions in grants and other special assistance given to aboriginal people??




hello,

yes great point B, 

thankyou

robots


----------



## Buddy (12 February 2008)

Another one joins the bandwagon (see link).  This wagon must be pretty big or it's starting to get overloaded by now.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23200332-601,00.html

Anyway, I thought some form of indigineous history is already being taught in schools.  Correct me if I am wrong here. Anyone here know how much...?  So how much more is "more" here. It's probably a reasonable statement for an informed person (teacher/educator) to make but the Gee Gee is proabably just grabbing a headline here to make it appear as though he is an important person. "Sorry" for my cynacism.

I guess it would only be "modern history", as they have no written records.  Of course there is the odd yarn (chinese wisper?) that has been passed down from generation to generation but how reliable are those. Hardly "history".  Any other history would have to come from whitey archeologists, etc.

And by the way, dont you guys go putting words in my mouth (that I didnt say), like you did on my last post.  That was just a  :grenade: to see what would happen. 

So here's another.....:grenade:
They called for the intervention to be overturned and an end to quarantining of welfare payments and compulsory land acquisitions. 
Members of the crowd threw leaves onto the sacred fire, chanting "Stop the intervention - human rights for all".
I can feel another "sorry" comming on here, down the track a bit.......

And another...........:grenade:
Mark Lord from near Bourke in north-west New South Wales was one of the Aboriginal dancers leading the march, which began just after midday. 
He says the intervention order is not the Australian way of doing things.
"It's a racial act really. We want to be like white people, walk in [to shops] and pay for things with our own cash not half with Centrelink payment and the rest in vouchers," he said.
"We human people, we are not animals.
No argument with the last sentence, at all.
So, is Mark's "own cash" just Centrelink payments without the vouchers, or is some sort of other "cash".  What sort? Where does it come from?


----------



## agro (12 February 2008)

robots said:


> hello,
> 
> yes great point B,
> 
> ...




x2

i just saw on the news that not only did we as the public pay for the bus tickets of aboriginals to canberra but they are asking for 1 minute silence from primary schools..

its going to be blown out of proportion - i am looking foward to the number of claims that go through


----------



## bunyip (12 February 2008)

_*But that is the crux of this whole issue - these children were not necessarily taken from abusive homes; they were taken only because they were aboriginal, nothing more.*_

Only because they were aboriginal??
If that was the case then _*all*_ of the kids from those communities would have been taken, since they were all aboriginal to varying degrees. They were selected on the basis of parentage......those who were half white were chosen. Whether it was fair or not, that's what happened...the half caste kids were selected while the full blooded kids were left.
The reason they were taken was NOT because they were aboriginal. They were taken because their environment was considered unsuitable for reasons of poverty, squalor, and lack of the type of education that would ever give them the means of breaking out of that environment and living better lives.
In some cases there would have been drunkenness and violence involved....it would be naive to believe otherwise. 
Most Australians have never been in an aboriginal community to see what they're like. I have, on more than one occasion, both recently and forty odd years ago. And believe me, even back then, aboriginal communities had the problems they have today, although to a lesser extent. 
I know. I was there.  I SAW IT. 
That's not to say that every one of those kids who were taken were from abusive homes and drunken parents. But even back then there was a degree of drunkenness and violence within those communities. And regardless of whether it was their own families or other people who were the perpetrators of this unfortunate behaviour, the kids would still be affected by it.  
That, in combination  with the poverty and squalor and lack of education, was the reasoning behind the decision to remove them to environments that were considered more suitable . 
As for the sexual abuse, I can't comment - I never saw it if it existed. 
I say to you again, Prospector, that I was personally in some of those communities 40 odd years ago, and I saw how things were. And believe me, even back then, it wasn't pretty. 


_*Poverty is a relative term. What if a wealthy man took pity on you because your parents were obviously way, way poorer than he was. However, your parents were still adequately providing for you, and you were loved by them. Would you be grateful if he decided to 'save' you and took you away without your parents consent?*_


Your question assumes that kids in aboriginal communities were being adequately provided for. Pity you weren't with me 40 or so years back when my Dad and I visited some of  those communities. If you had been, you would today have a more realistic viewpoint as to whether or not they were being adequately provided for. 
I could go into more detail about what I saw in those communities, but I won't. Suffice to say that the standards in the lives of  those kids, with regard to clothing, health, hygiene, diet and nutrition, respect for each other etc etc, fell far short of what you or I would consider adequate.
It really  was, and still is, an eye opener to go to an aboriginal community and see it how it was/is. Not many Australians have ever had that experience.

Regarding your question of 'would I be grateful if someone decided to save me and took me away without my parents consent'?
My answer is a very definite NO - gratitude would be the furtherest thing from my mind. I'd be upset, lonely, frightened, a bit like I was when as a 12 year old bush kid I was sent away to boarding school for the first time.
I'd miss home and family so badly that I'd probably try to run away from my new home and family or orphanage or wherever I'd been sent. ....just like some of the white kids at my boarding school who went AWOL and were picked up a day or so later, walking along a road and trying to hitch a ride back home.
So no, I wouldn't feel even slightly grateful if I was one of those half aboriginal kids who were removed from their homes. But later in life, as I grew up and came to realise the value of education and income and work ethic, and the positive effect these things could have on my lifestyle and living standard, I believe I would be grateful and see that something positive came from removing me and others, and giving us opportunities for a better life.

And that, Prospector, is why I take issue with this whole 'sorry' business........because very few commentators are willing to present a balanced viewpoint by stating both the bad and the good in the situation.
The bad is that considerable heartache and trauma was inflicted on the children and the families from which they were removed. 
The good is that in adult life, those children have become people who are, in most cases, responsible citizens with decent work ethics, incomes and jobs that have enabled them to live far better lives than they'd now be living if they'd stayed in their aboriginal communities.


----------



## Prospector (12 February 2008)

bunyip said:


> If that was the case then _*all*_ of the kids from those communities would have been taken, since they were all aboriginal to varying degrees. They were selected on the basis of parentage......those who were half white were chosen. Whether it was fair or not, that's what happened...the half caste kids were selected while the full blooded kids were left.
> The reason they were taken was NOT because they were aboriginal. .




Surely that is a contradiction - you just said that them being aboriginal played no part in whether they were taken, then you say that only the half caste kids were taken.  Doesnt their aboriginality make them half caste   And that makes this sorry tale even worse - only the ones looking most like us whities were taken, leaving the full blood aboriginal kids behind?  If we did it for their welfare, then why leave any child?



bunyip said:


> Pity you weren't with me 40 or so years back when my Dad and I visited some of  those communities. .




And it is a pity Bunyip, that you weren't in my class some 40 years ago watching this displaced aboriginal boy desperately missing his family, even if, by your standards, he was not well cared for!  And I am just betting that no-one would have checked whether or not he was well cared for, they would have taken him anyway! Guess he was a half caste too and therefore more worthy of "saving".



bunyip said:


> The good is that in adult life, those children have become people who are, in most cases, responsible citizens with decent work ethics, incomes and jobs that have enabled them to live far better lives than they'd now be living if they'd stayed in their aboriginal communities..




Well, how can you say that?  How many of these kids just didn't make it at all?


----------



## Prospector (12 February 2008)

I do need to reaffirm that if there is evidence that any child suffers abuse or neglect from their caregivers, then of course we must act immediately to protect the child.  But my premise in the case of the Stolen Generation, is that the children were taken, without consent, and without any evidence of abuse - they just happened to have aboriginal blood.


----------



## bunyip (12 February 2008)

Prospector said:


> Surely that is a contradiction - you just said that them being aboriginal played no part in whether they were taken, then you say that only the half caste kids were taken.  Doesnt their aboriginality make them half caste   And that makes this sorry tale even worse - only the ones looking most like us whities were taken, leaving the full blood aboriginal kids behind?  If we did it for their welfare, then why leave any child?




No contradiction at all. Your claim is that they were taken only because they were aboriginal. I say that if kids were removed only because they were aboriginal, then all of the kids, not just some of them, would have been removed, since they were all aboriginal, some more than others, but all aboriginal nevertheless.

As for the half caste kids being favoured by the government while the pure aboriginal kids were left behind in what the government considered to be an unsuitable environment.....that was definite discrimination.
It's clear that the kids with half white blood were looked upon as better and therefore more worthy of being rescued than the full blood kids.
But that does not alter the fact that the environment was considered unsuitable, which was I believe the primary purpose in moving them.
I do not, however, agree with the governments apparent view that the full aboriginal kids were in some way inferior to the half castes. 



Prospector said:


> And it is a pity Bunyip, that you weren't in my class some 40 years ago watching this displaced aboriginal boy desperately missing his family, even if, by your standards, he was not well cared for!  And I am just betting that no-one would have checked whether or not he was well cared for, they would have taken him anyway! Guess he was a half caste too and therefore more worthy of "saving".




That's right.....he was considered more worthy of saving because he was a half caste. And I've already stated that I don't agree with that sort of discrimination. But it happened.
As for the boy being desperately unhappy and missing his family - I don't doubt you for a moment.
But long term, as an adult, he may well have been pleased that he grew up in white society and got an education and a job and a decent living standard, rather than growing up in poverty and squalor in an aboriginal community. 
Then again, perhaps he never did get a job, and he never did see any benefit of his whitefella upbringing. 
Or maybe he ended up going back to his own people. Who knows what became of him. 



Prospector said:


> Well, how can you say that?  How many of these kids just didn't make it at all?




No doubt there were some who didn't make it.
I expressed the view that these children have become people who are, in most cases, responsible citizens with decent work ethics, incomes and jobs that have enabled them to live far better lives than they'd now be living if they'd stayed in their aboriginal communities.
Perhaps the last word should go to Noel Pearson who, as an aboriginal himself, almost certainly has more knowledge of his people than either you or me. Noel makes positive comments about the generally sound work ethic and responsible attitude of those who were removed as children and raised in white society.


----------



## Prospector (12 February 2008)

OK Bunyip, I can see your logic in all that.  

I still contend to remove a child from its family, without consent, on the basis of colour alone (in this case, half colour) without evidence of abuse is a crime against humanity, whatever the outcome. And for that I am sorry!


----------



## cuttlefish (12 February 2008)

I'd take life in a supportive family with a sense of belonging in my own culture whilst living in 'poverty and squalor' over a a good job and a decent living standard any day.

(travel to a third world country and there are entire populations much larger than Australia happily living in 'poverty and squalor' but with the support and love of family - which includes parents, sisters, brothers, cousins, grandparents etc. - and with a strong cultural background and sense of belonging that counters the 'squalor' that they live in - cave men lived in 'squalor' as well).   

I can't imagine what it would be like to grow up amongst people that are of a different race, religion and culture to me without  knowing who my family was.  We tend to define ourselves by family.  

I'm very glad that someone is saying sorry for this debarcle and feel angry that people are still trying to excuse it as a 'good thing' - its is patronising to judge the lifestyle of these people at that time so harshly as to remove their children from it imo.

The liberal party's approach to this is about as gutless as it gets - they either support it or they don't - but to say "we'll support it but we don't agree with it" is just pathetic.


----------



## Julia (12 February 2008)

I've logged on this evening to this thread expecting to see heaps of comments on the actual content of the "Sorry Statement" as detailed on the 7.30 Report this evening and also included in ABC Radio News.

Nothing from anyone!!

After all the anticipation and anxiety?

Why?

Hasn't anyone heard it?  Or is it just so great that it doesn't require comment?
Or so awful that those who don't want it can't bring themselves to contemplate it?

And did anyone see Kerry O'Brien's interview with Jackie Huggins, Lois O'Donaghue and Mr Chaney?  
Jackie Huggins, imo, was gracious and conciliatory, had much dignity.
Less impressed by Professor O'Donaghue who seemed determined to hold on to her resentment.


----------



## meganut (12 February 2008)

Cos we haven't said it enough, we'll probably say it another 20,000 times between now and when I die. Hopefully I will die way before that.


----------



## meganut (12 February 2008)

agro said:


> x2
> 
> i just saw on the news that not only did we as the public pay for the bus tickets of aboriginals to canberra but they are asking for 1 minute silence from primary schools..
> 
> its going to be blown out of proportion - i am looking foward to the number of claims that go through




Come to Alice Springs, they don't give a Rats **** about it, you guys from the big smoke should spend 1 weekend in Alice to see the waste of time, effort and money, it's all about piss, piss and more piss for them.


----------



## bunyip (12 February 2008)

Prospector said:


> OK Bunyip, I can see your logic in all that.
> 
> I still contend to remove a child from its family, without consent, on the basis of colour alone (in this case, half colour) without evidence of abuse is a crime against humanity, whatever the outcome. And for that I am sorry!




I believe that the primary reason for removing those kids was to get them out of an environment which the government, rightly or wrongly, considered unsuitable for the upbringing of children. And to get them into an environment that the government considered, again rightly or wrongly, was more suitable for giving those kids the sort of upbringing and education and life skills that would best equip them to lead fulfilling and worthwhile lives in Australian society.
Did the government achieve its objective, and has it proven to be a worthwhile objective? You be the judge. 

One thing for sure is that all this arguing about the right or wrong or the benefit or lack of benefit of the governments actions in regard to the stolen generation, isn't going to do a damn thing towards helping aboriginal people.
Another thing that will do nothing towards helping them is a sorry message from our Prime Minister. It might make some of them feel better, it might make some white people feel better, but it won't do anything towards addressing the problems of aboriginal people. 
And until those problems are addressed, nothing much will change in aboriginal communities.


Prospector, you said you're sorry. Could you elaborate? Are you sorry in as much as you regret what happened to aboriginals? Or are you actually apologising for what somebody else did before your time?

Another thing I'd like to ask you, if you care to answer, is what you thought of the sorry message that my friend sent to me, and which I passed on for the interest and discussion of this forum. I'm talking about the one which apologised for all the help we give aboriginals. 
I thought there'd be numerous rebuttals of that message, but not a single person has even commented on it.
I respect your opinions more than I respect most other views on this forum....even though I don't always agree with you. I'm genuinely interested to hear whether you think there was any truth in that sorry message. Or anything else you might want to say about it.


----------



## rederob (13 February 2008)

Julia said:


> Nothing from anyone!!



The pervading mentality is that because a very small number of aborigines have done ok, we really shouldn't be apologising.
And this thread has been more about $$$ that might flow from an apology, than the substance of an apology, or its need at all.

If you are white and are reading this, the 99% chance is that you just don't get it.
The 99% chance is that you haven't read the "Bringing Them Home" report.
The 99% chance is that you didn't know that there were over 700 pieces of government legislation legitimising forcible removal, and at least 67 definitions of "aboriginality" that made it work a treat.
The 99% chance is that you did not know the assumptions underlying forcible removal were predicated on "breeding out" all traces of aboriginality in Australia - within 100 years!

If you are white and reading this, your views will have been shaped by an education system as good as the German's or the Japanese, where the truth about past atrocities lies in waiting for those that venture to find it: It won't find you!


----------



## Miner (13 February 2008)

We are saying sorry to aborginals because there is a good lessons learnt from Johnny to divert people's attention to trivial matters. It is trivial in my opinion because there is more merit to educate the Ãb"original" people than dishing money out to them to buy grog; there is more meaningful tasks to get many of them back to workforce and to taste how it looks like to earn own respectful labour and livelihood, there is more meaningful tasks than to exploit emotions. If money could buy the remorseful tasks of stolen generation then God bless you. It wil be unending. 
The Rudd Government and media should pay focus on issues like Chinese taken over our country : MGX, Rio, FMG would be just tip of the iceberg. watch Sino Steel, CYU and like many others. Unfortunately many of us Australians have memories like fish and we tend to forget everything. 
THis is time to say sorry and then get back to business - creating growth for nation, uplift our children against high migrant growth from South Africa, UK, China, INdia, Singapore, Malaysia. There are more meaninful tasks than saying Sorry by stopping the refugees intake who do not need any qualification or health test to live in this country. No racism here but look at the loyality or contribution many people came on refugee visas and their involvement in crime.

It is just eye wash and not a 'white wash'by Mr Rudd and company to put name in history book and opening a can of worm.

My


----------



## bunyip (13 February 2008)

cuttlefish said:


> I'd take life in a supportive family with a sense of belonging in my own culture whilst living in 'poverty and squalor' over a a good job and a decent living standard any day.
> 
> (travel to a third world country and there are entire populations much larger than Australia happily living in 'poverty and squalor' but with the support and love of family - which includes parents, sisters, brothers, cousins, grandparents etc. - and with a strong cultural background and sense of belonging that counters the 'squalor' that they live in - cave men lived in 'squalor' as well).
> 
> ...




There are people in third world countries who are leaving there in droves and coming to Australia. Maybe they're not as happy as you think.

However, I do take your point that people can be happy even in poverty, if they have the love and support of family and a close knit community.

But.....do you really think there's much love and support and sense of close knit community in aboriginal towns?


----------



## cuttlefish (13 February 2008)

bunyip said:


> I believe that the primary reason for removing those kids was to get them out of an environment which the government, rightly or wrongly, considered unsuitable for the upbringing of children. And to get them into an environment that the government considered, again rightly or wrongly, was more suitable for giving those kids the sort of upbringing and education and life skills that would best equip them to lead fulfilling and worthwhile lives in Australian society.




As well motivated as everybody involved may have been, or that the decision makers that set this process into play may have been, the reality is that they had no right to make this arbitrary judgement, and the result of their intervention has been catastrophic for a large proportion of those affected.  To raise the example of the few that came through this system, vs those that didn't come out of it well, does not justify it.  No society has the right to completely remove children from their entire extended family and culture on an arbitrary basis.  When DOCS takes a child from harm their first step is to try to place the child with relatives that won't put the child in harm.  The child is also kept within the same cultural environment from which they were removed.  

For example, DOCS doesn't take children from christian background drug addict parents that are neglecting or harming them, ship them off into a hindu community and prevent them from ever knowing who their grandparents, cousins, aunts etc. were and educate them into the hindu religion (I use hindu purely as an example).  If it did there would be an outrage at this level of intervention - the primary goal is to place the children into an environment that is as close to where they came from but protects them from harm.

To portray the actions of the government with the stolen generation as some historical version of DOCS is a misrepresentation of the situation.

Knowing the bond I feel and how important family is in my own life I can only express deep sorrow for what occurred to these children that were removed from their family and their culture, and sorrow to the families that lost their children. The worst experience in the world for any parent, and particularly for a mother, is to lose their child, in particular in circumstance where they don't know what has become of them.  Family is one of the most significant things in any persons life, as are friends and community.  These children had it all taken away from them, and the parents and community had their children taken away from them without knowing what happened to them.


----------



## cuttlefish (13 February 2008)

bunyip said:


> But.....do you really think there's much love and support and sense of close knit community in aboriginal towns?




Bloody oath and I say that with utmost certainty from first hand experience. The sense of community is one of the biggest downfalls of those that try to buck the system because family is such a big thing in these communities - this is not an unusual thing though and applies in any culture. You appear to have a very negative view of these people as human beings.


----------



## Tinpusher (13 February 2008)

*Cuttlefish* 



> Family is one of the most significant things in any persons life, as are friends and community




I have lived in the Pilbara, NQ and Darwin (very close to one of the most destructive 'communities'). My wife, as an RN has worked with these communities.

You should maybe read this...

http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/papers/stanley4.pdf

How many times as a pre pubescent is Uncle Tom and his mates allowed have their way with you that maybe you need to be taken out? Once, six, a dozen?

What about this one? Tip of the iceberg or isolated? She'll be right look the other way?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22906526-601,00.html


----------



## bunyip (13 February 2008)

cuttlefish said:


> Bloody oath and I say that with utmost certainty from first hand experience. The sense of community is one of the biggest downfalls of those that try to buck the system because family is such a big thing in these communities - this is not an unusual thing though and applies in any culture. You appear to have a very negative view of these people as human beings.




I have a negative view of anyone, regardless of race or skin colour, who subjects their own families and communities to drunkenness, violence, sexual assault, and vandalism, who bludge on the system and shun the efforts of decent people to help them by providing them with housing, healthcare, education, job training opportunities....you name it.
I have a negative view of anyone who constantly whines and whinges about their problems, and blames everyone else except themselves. 
I have a negative view of anyone who complains about their lives, but shows only contempt, disdain or indifference when offered viable solutions to their problems.
I have a negative view of anyone who has nothing but criticism and lack of appreciation for those who care about them and try and help them.

As for the love and support and sense of close knit community that you seem to think is present in aboriginal towns....I can only say that I haven't seen any evidence of it. Quite the contrary in fact. When people are bashing each other and vandalising property, sexually assaulting little kids, getting drunk and having gang wars and assaulting womenfolk, I see that as evidence of a dysfunctional society, not a society of love and support and decent family values and close knit community.


----------



## cuttlefish (13 February 2008)

Tinpusher - The second link you posted is one I've read about and abhors me - what abhors me most is that some twit of a judge thinks that in an aboriginal community this sort of behaviour is somehow ok whilst in a white community the perpetrators would be lucky not to be strung up and would be facing hefty jail terms.  Clearly (to my mind at least) the perpetrators of this crime should have been punished and removed from the community and the victim protected.

I'm not naive enough to not acknowledge the serious problems that exist in aboriginal communities but that doesn't mean that a sense of community doesn't exist.  The problem is those communities are terriblly affected by alcoholism. On the other hand the police and judicial system fails to remove the violent and dysfunctional members of the community through stupid decisions like that described above.

I don't know what the path forward is but imo it doesn't change that the wrongs of the past should be acknowledged.

Bunyip - alcoholism, dysfunction, violence and abuse isn't restricted to the aboriginal community, however I completely agree that its disproportionately represented in that community. That does not mean that aboriginals do not have a sense of community and that underlying the dysfunctional elements there isn't a sense of community.  With policing/judicial decisions like that above its no wonder that violence and abuse are endemic in these communities. This is where 'political correctness' has caused more damage than good.  Consistent policing in these communities would be a good start.

I don't know the way forward but I do believe in acknowledging the wrongs of the past.


----------



## bunyip (13 February 2008)

cuttlefish said:


> Tinpusher - The second link you posted is one I've read about and abhors me - what abhors me most is that some twit of a judge thinks that in an aboriginal community this sort of behaviour is somehow ok whilst in a white community the perpetrators would be lucky not to be strung up and would be facing hefty jail terms.  Clearly (to my mind at least) the perpetrators of this crime should have been punished and removed from the community and the victim protected.
> 
> I'm not naive enough to not acknowledge the serious problems that exist in aboriginal communities but that doesn't mean that a sense of community doesn't exist.  The problem is those communities are terriblly affected by alcoholism. On the other hand the police and judicial system fails to remove the violent and dysfunctional members of the community through stupid decisions like that described above.
> 
> ...




You don't know the way forward? I thought you'd be full of ideas at least.


----------



## bunyip (13 February 2008)

cuttlefish said:


> I don't know what the path forward is but imo it doesn't change that the wrongs of the past should be acknowledged.




John Howard not only publicly acknowledged the wrongs of the past, he also expressed deep regret that they occurred.
However, he quite rightly believed that the present generation of white Australians are not responsible for those wrongs, and therefore should not say sorry for something in which they played no part.
Sounds pretty reasonable to me.


----------



## cuttlefish (13 February 2008)

If in 1955 the government had blasted private fred bloggins the third with nuclear radiation as part of experiments, and his offspring were now suffering the horror of living without eyeballs, I have no doubt that john howard wouldn't have hesitated to offer an apology for the governments actions and accept any compensation award that was handed down via the judicial system.

Or maybe he would have just expressed 'regret' that this occured and blamed his predecessors.


----------



## bunyip (13 February 2008)

cuttlefish said:


> If in 1955 the government had blasted private fred bloggins the third with nuclear radiation as part of experiments, and his offspring were now suffering the horror of living without eyeballs, I have no doubt that john howard wouldn't have hesitated to offer an apology for the governments actions and accept any compensation award that was handed down via the judicial system.
> 
> Or maybe he would have just expressed 'regret' that this occured and blamed his predecessors.




I won't waste my time in speculating about what he would have done in relation to the nuclear radiation issue. 

You said that the wrongs of the past should be acknowledged. I'm telling you that John Howard did just that. He acknowledged them and he expressed regret that they occurred.


----------



## Edwood (13 February 2008)

just read the text of Mr Rudd's apology for today - a small step but an important step.  Its great to see there are some decent Aussies around - top effort


----------



## Edwood (13 February 2008)

Julia said:


> I've logged on this evening to this thread expecting to see heaps of comments on the actual content of the "Sorry Statement" as detailed on the 7.30 Report this evening and also included in ABC Radio News.
> 
> Nothing from anyone!!
> 
> ...




well that tells us all something eh Julia?  perhaps the heat in Australia explains all the red necks


----------



## cuttlefish (13 February 2008)

bunyip said:


> I won't waste my time in speculating about what he would have done in relation to the nuclear radiation issue.
> 
> You said that the wrongs of the past should be acknowledged. I'm telling you that John Howard did just that. He acknowledged them and he expressed regret that they occurred.




Well regardless of his intent, which I can't speculate on, the practical reality is that by not saying sorry and adamantly refusing to do so, his expression of regret was perceived by the majority of the community including the aboriginal community as a  'claytons' expression of sorrow rather than a genuine one.

I suspect today's actions may also fall a little short due to the lack of unambiguous bi-partisan support which is a pity.


----------



## agro (13 February 2008)

We apologise for giving you doctors and free medical care, which allows you to survive and multiply so that you can demand apologies. We apologise for helping you to read and teaching you the English language and thus we opened up to you the entire European civilisation, thought and enterprise. We feel that we must apologise for building hundreds of homes for you, which you have vandalised and destroyed. We apologise for giving you law and order which has helped prevent you from slaughtering one another and using the unfortunate for food purposes. We apologise for developing large farms and properties, which today feed you people, where before, you had the benefits of living off the land and starving during droughts. We apologise for providing you with warm clothing made of fabric to replace that animal skins you used before. We apologise for building roads and railway tracks between cities and building cars so that you no longer have to walk over harsh terrain. We apologise for paying off your vehicle when you fail to pay the installments . We apologise for giving you free travel anywhere, whenever We apologise for giving each and every member of your family $100.00 and free travel to attend an aboriginal funeral. We apologise for not charging you rent on any lands when white people have to pay. We apologise for giving you interest free loans. We apologise for developing oil wells and minerals, including gold and diamonds which you never used and had no idea of their value. We apologise for developing Ayers rock and Kakadu, and handing them over to you so that you get all the money. We apologise for allowing taxpayers money paid towards daughters’ wedding ($8,000.00 each daughter) We apologise for giving you $1.7 billion per year for your 250,000 people, which is $48,000.00 per aboriginal man, woman and child. We apologise for working hard to pay taxes that finance your welfare, medical care, education, etc to the tune of $1.2 billion each year. We apologise for you having to approach the aboriginal affairs department to verify the above figures. For the trouble you will have identifying the “uncle toms” in your own community who are getting richer and leaving some of you living in squalor and poverty. We do apologise. We really do. We humbly beg your forgiveness for all the above sins. We are only too happy to take back all the above and return you to the paradise of the “outback”, whenever you are ready.


----------



## BradK (13 February 2008)

Agro, 

You are a morally bankrupt myopic. 

Brad


----------



## surfingman (13 February 2008)

agro said:


> We apologise for giving you doctors and free medical care, which allows you to survive and multiply so that you can demand apologies. We apologise for helping you to read and teaching you the English language and thus we opened up to you the entire European civilisation, thought and enterprise. We feel that we must apologise for building hundreds of homes for you, which you have vandalised and destroyed. We apologise for giving you law and order which has helped prevent you from slaughtering one another and using the unfortunate for food purposes. We apologise for developing large farms and properties, which today feed you people, where before, you had the benefits of living off the land and starving during droughts. We apologise for providing you with warm clothing made of fabric to replace that animal skins you used before. We apologise for building roads and railway tracks between cities and building cars so that you no longer have to walk over harsh terrain. We apologise for paying off your vehicle when you fail to pay the installments . We apologise for giving you free travel anywhere, whenever We apologise for giving each and every member of your family $100.00 and free travel to attend an aboriginal funeral. We apologise for not charging you rent on any lands when white people have to pay. We apologise for giving you interest free loans. We apologise for developing oil wells and minerals, including gold and diamonds which you never used and had no idea of their value. We apologise for developing Ayers rock and Kakadu, and handing them over to you so that you get all the money. We apologise for allowing taxpayers money paid towards daughters’ wedding ($8,000.00 each daughter) We apologise for giving you $1.7 billion per year for your 250,000 people, which is $48,000.00 per aboriginal man, woman and child. We apologise for working hard to pay taxes that finance your welfare, medical care, education, etc to the tune of $1.2 billion each year. We apologise for you having to approach the aboriginal affairs department to verify the above figures. For the trouble you will have identifying the “uncle toms” in your own community who are getting richer and leaving some of you living in squalor and poverty. We do apologise. We really do. We humbly beg your forgiveness for all the above sins. We are only too happy to take back all the above and return you to the paradise of the “outback”, whenever you are ready.




Please tell you wrote that, its a very good job 

You have to give it to the writer it's a well researched piece...


----------



## agro (13 February 2008)

surfingman said:


> Please tell you wrote that, its a very good job




got it in the email today surfingman

can't say its not true brad


----------



## Trembling Hand (13 February 2008)

And I apologise to anyone who reads the above post.


----------



## agro (13 February 2008)

Trembling Hand said:


> And I apologise to anyone who reads the above post.




its hard to face reality huh?


----------



## Prospector (13 February 2008)

bunyip said:


> I believe that the primary reason for removing those kids was to get them out of an environment which the government, rightly or wrongly, considered unsuitable for the upbringing of children. And to get them into an environment that the government considered, again rightly or wrongly, was more suitable for giving those kids the sort of upbringing and education and life skills that would best equip them to lead fulfilling and worthwhile lives in Australian society.




I think that maybe these principles did motivate them; unfortunately in doing so it was dismissive of the fundamental right of our species to parent their young.  Aboriginal children had been raised in this manner for thousands of years; tribal penalties were inflicted on men/women who abused their children, or the values of their tribe.  And this was working well until white settlement of Australia, and the introduction of alcohol.  We didnt try to help the aboriginal society as a whole to come to terms with what our arrival meant; rather we decided to remove the aboriginal from the children.




bunyip said:


> One thing for sure is that all this arguing about the right or wrong or the benefit or lack of benefit of the governments actions in regard to the stolen generation, isn't going to do a damn thing towards helping aboriginal people.




Agreed, but a Vision will do more to empower people to want to follow through on action.  By saying sorry, we at least have some kind of Vision.



bunyip said:


> Prospector, you said you're sorry. Could you elaborate? Are you sorry in as much as you regret what happened to aboriginals? Or are you actually apologising for what somebody else did before your time?




I really am saying sorry to both of those points.  I am sorry that children were taken from their families, and I cannot imagine the grief of their parents.  The thing is, this was happening in my time!  The boy I spoke of came from Pitjanjara in South Australia, he was in my class at school, and I am sorry that I thought it was OK and better for him to be at school with me, but be very very distressed about that, rather than be with his family.  There was a middle ground to be had, we chose not to take it.



bunyip said:


> Another thing I'd like to ask you, if you care to answer, is what you thought of the sorry message that my friend sent to me, and which I passed on for the interest and discussion of this forum. I'm talking about the one which apologised for all the help we give aboriginals.




OK, fair enough, I had ignored it because it simply harked back to those 'you should be greatful for all that I have done for you but look how you are repaying me ' kind of thing.  Helping people is not about giving them handouts.  It is about giving back their sense of self esteem, so that they can help themselves.  Dont give a man a bag of rice ready to cook - give him the knowledge to grow and harvest the rice himself.



bunyip said:


> I respect your opinions more than I respect most other views on this forum....even though I don't always agree with you..




We have had our barney's, haven't we!  How do we learn though?  By listening, taking on board, accepting others thoughts, discussing, maybe convincing : - I am sure we have both learnt a lot! 

I am typing this watching Canberra unfold; I didn't like Nelson's speech - too much rationalising, but thought the finale was very moving.


----------



## Edwood (13 February 2008)

agro said:


> We apologise for giving you doctors and free medical care, which allows you to survive and multiply so that you can demand apologies. We apologise for helping you to read and teaching you the English language and thus we opened up to you the entire European civilisation, thought and enterprise. We feel that we must apologise for building hundreds of homes for you, which you have vandalised and destroyed. We apologise for giving you law and order which has helped prevent you from slaughtering one another and using the unfortunate for food purposes. We apologise for developing large farms and properties, which today feed you people, where before, you had the benefits of living off the land and starving during droughts. We apologise for providing you with warm clothing made of fabric to replace that animal skins you used before. We apologise for building roads and railway tracks between cities and building cars so that you no longer have to walk over harsh terrain. We apologise for paying off your vehicle when you fail to pay the installments . We apologise for giving you free travel anywhere, whenever We apologise for giving each and every member of your family $100.00 and free travel to attend an aboriginal funeral. We apologise for not charging you rent on any lands when white people have to pay. We apologise for giving you interest free loans. We apologise for developing oil wells and minerals, including gold and diamonds which you never used and had no idea of their value. We apologise for developing Ayers rock and Kakadu, and handing them over to you so that you get all the money. We apologise for allowing taxpayers money paid towards daughters’ wedding ($8,000.00 each daughter) We apologise for giving you $1.7 billion per year for your 250,000 people, which is $48,000.00 per aboriginal man, woman and child. We apologise for working hard to pay taxes that finance your welfare, medical care, education, etc to the tune of $1.2 billion each year. We apologise for you having to approach the aboriginal affairs department to verify the above figures. For the trouble you will have identifying the “uncle toms” in your own community who are getting richer and leaving some of you living in squalor and poverty. We do apologise. We really do. We humbly beg your forgiveness for all the above sins. We are only too happy to take back all the above and return you to the paradise of the “outback”, whenever you are ready.




you missed the bit at the bottom agro that read "we apologise for treating you like a piece of **** on our shoes, then giving you handouts so that we could feel better about it & blame you for your current situation"


----------



## Prospector (13 February 2008)

agro said:


> We apologise for giving you doctors and free medical care, which allows you to survive and multiply so that you can demand apologies..



Do you even know the infant mortality rate of Aboriginals?


agro said:


> We apologise for helping you to read and teaching you the English language and thus we opened up to you the entire European civilisation, thought and enterprise...



Aboriginal society had its own language and society that had survived thousands of years longer than European culture.  Also, English was inflicted on most European cultures too; most of the Continent prefers to speak either French, German, Spanish or whatever!


agro said:


> We feel that we must apologise for building hundreds of homes for you, which you have vandalised and destroyed...



Prior to white arrival, aboriginals led a nomadic existence and didnt need houses.  They followed the law of the land rather than impose the law of man on the land.



agro said:


> We apologise for giving you law and order which has helped prevent you from slaughtering one another and using the unfortunate for food purposes. ...




Aboriginal culture had a very sophisticated system of law and order.  We just didn't understand it and destoyed it.

OK, I can refute each one of these benefits but I am getting too tired.......


----------



## Agentm (13 February 2008)

agro, well done, that was probably one of the most offensive posts i have seen on this forum. i wont quote it as it offends me so much i think it should never be repeated..

I am of the belief you that you would never have the courage to drive into an aboriginal comminity and read that statement to the people of that community.. imho your delivering a message that you yourself know to be offensive.


----------



## 2BAD4U (13 February 2008)

OK so the government has said sorry for the decisions of past governments.  Therefore it stands to reason that all the Vietnam conscripts will get their apology next week!!! Yeah right!

Nothing more than a political (vote winning) stunt. I agree that what *was * done was wrong, but there have been many groups of people who have suffered because of *past* governments.


----------



## cuttlefish (13 February 2008)

agro said:
			
		

> We apologise for giving you ... etc




agro maybe you could explain why you have so much resentment towards the aboriginal community that you can't accept that something wrong was done to them?   Or are you just so detached from the issue that its all just a bit of a laugh and you don't really care either way anyway? 

Instead of parroting every bit of rubbish that comes your way via email why don't you sit down and think about what it would be like to have had someone come into your house when you were 8 years old and whisked you off to live in China never to see or hear from your family again? Forced to ignore your own native language and learn Chinese, told all the time that you are a second class Australian citizen but they will do their best to help you fit into the Chinese culture.  (I use China purely as an example it could be any non-Australian culture).   How do you think your parents would feel in that situation?  Is it possible they would become despondent and lose their drive and will to continue on?


----------



## Whiskers (13 February 2008)

Edwood said:


> you missed the bit at the bottom agro that read "we apologise for treating you like a piece of **** on our shoes, then giving you handouts so that we could feel better about it & blame you for your current situation"




Quite the point.



Agentm said:


> agro, well done, that was probably one of the most offensive posts i have seen on this forum. i wont quote it as it offends me so much i think it should never be repeated..
> 
> I am of the belief you that you would never have the courage to drive into an aboriginal comminity and read that statement to the people of that community.. imho your delivering a message that you yourself know to be offensive.




Offensive is an understatement. 

This mentality isn't human(e).

Argo goes way below reasonable, rational arguement, probably below racism even to just plain idiotic suggesting the possibility of psycholigical or psychiatric disorder.


----------



## Prospector (13 February 2008)

2BAD4U said:


> Therefore it stands to reason that all the Vietnam conscripts will get their apology next week!!! Yeah right!



We can always hope, can't we!  

Conscription was very wrong, but it wasn't based on a person's ethnicity.  Just their birthdate.  And taking a child from a mother without consent is a basic denial of human rights.  If not THE most basic denial.


----------



## Trembling Hand (13 February 2008)

Whiskers said:


> This mentality isn't human(e).
> 
> Argo goes way below reasonable, rational arguement, probably below racism even to just plain idiotic suggesting the possibility of psycholigical or psychiatric disorder.




Sociopath is the word you are looking for I think.


----------



## IFocus (13 February 2008)

agro said:


> We apologise for giving you doctors and free medical care, which allows you to survive and multiply so that you can demand apologies. We apologise for helping you to read and teaching you the English language and thus we opened up to you the entire European civilisation, thought and enterprise. We feel that we must apologise for building hundreds of homes for you, which you have vandalised and destroyed. We apologise for giving you law and order which has helped prevent you from slaughtering one another and using the unfortunate for food purposes. We apologise for developing large farms and properties, which today feed you people, where before, you had the benefits of living off the land and starving during droughts. We apologise for providing you with warm clothing made of fabric to replace that animal skins you used before. We apologise for building roads and railway tracks between cities and building cars so that you no longer have to walk over harsh terrain. We apologise for paying off your vehicle when you fail to pay the installments . We apologise for giving you free travel anywhere, whenever We apologise for giving each and every member of your family $100.00 and free travel to attend an aboriginal funeral. We apologise for not charging you rent on any lands when white people have to pay. We apologise for giving you interest free loans. We apologise for developing oil wells and minerals, including gold and diamonds which you never used and had no idea of their value. We apologise for developing Ayers rock and Kakadu, and handing them over to you so that you get all the money. We apologise for allowing taxpayers money paid towards daughters’ wedding ($8,000.00 each daughter) We apologise for giving you $1.7 billion per year for your 250,000 people, which is $48,000.00 per aboriginal man, woman and child. We apologise for working hard to pay taxes that finance your welfare, medical care, education, etc to the tune of $1.2 billion each year. We apologise for you having to approach the aboriginal affairs department to verify the above figures. For the trouble you will have identifying the “uncle toms” in your own community who are getting richer and leaving some of you living in squalor and poverty. We do apologise. We really do. We humbly beg your forgiveness for all the above sins. We are only too happy to take back all the above and return you to the paradise of the “outback”, whenever you are ready.




Agro you forgot to add and we have done such a great job you should be very happy that the average life span is 57 years for an Aboriginal male and 62 years for an Aboriginal female. Life expectancy is not uniform across populations within Australia. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have a much lower life expectancy than the general Australian population. Indigenous Australians born in the period 1996-2001 are expected to live nearly 20 years less than the rest of the population.  (ABS 2005. Deaths Australia, 2004. ABS Cat. No. 3302.0. Canberra: ABS).

Focus


----------



## Sandman (13 February 2008)

Without doubt the stupidest thing any Australian Government has done.

And this is the first day of Rudd's government. Heaven help us.

I am a member of a "stolen generation". I can identify with what happened to the Abo kids, but wait I am white not black.


----------



## bunyip (13 February 2008)

IFocus said:


> Agro you forgot to add and we have done such a great job you should be very happy that the average life span is 57 years for an Aboriginal male and 62 years for an Aboriginal female. Life expectancy is not uniform across populations within Australia. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have a much lower life expectancy than the general Australian population. Indigenous Australians born in the period 1996-2001 are expected to live nearly 20 years less than the rest of the population.  (ABS 2005. Deaths Australia, 2004. ABS Cat. No. 3302.0. Canberra: ABS).
> 
> Focus




Should those of us who take responsibility for our health and wellbeing feel guilt or responsibility for the health problems and shorter lifespan of those who abuse themselves?
There are white people in our society who drink heavily and smoke heavily, eat junk food, don't exercise, and generally knock themselves around. Consequently their health is generally poorer and their life expectancy is significantly shorter than that of folks who take responsibility for their own health and wellbeing.

Black or white, it doesn't matter, if you abuse and neglect your health, you suffer abnormally poor health and abnormally short lifespan. That's how it works. 
It's not someone else's fault.


----------



## robert toms (13 February 2008)

Life is short...not enough time for hate,denigration and derision.
What about me,me,me !
Get over your own circumstances and grow up,you haters !
Nelson said sorry to the hateful whites for having to say sorry to the aboriginals....pathetic Nelson !
But thats politics, I suppose....you have to look after your core electoral supporters.


----------



## doctorj (13 February 2008)

robert toms said:


> Nelson said sorry to the hateful whites for having to say sorry to the aboriginals....pathetic Nelson !



I agree his speech was a disgrace. 

Clearly the Liberal party understands that a large number of Australians like to be seen to be saying the right kinds of of things but underneath resent what they see preferential treatment being given to Aboriginals. 

The Liberal party were happy to sacrifice Brendan Nelson's reputation in the hope of winning the votes of these people a little ways down the track.

This is all Howard politics at play. Divide and conquer. Just not quite as elegant as we are used to.


----------



## trinity (13 February 2008)

Let's wait and see what good/bad comes out of this apology down the line... years from now are we going to say that this was a turning point in Australia's history for the good of ALL Australians, or, just a political gimmick.


----------



## Happy (13 February 2008)

Nine MSN vote 13 Feb 2008 13:23:30

Do you agree with the text of Kevin Rudd's  Sorry apology?

Yes  27 171            No 45 753




Clear case that so far 27,171 voters know what is right and 45,753 voters havent got a clue what is right.


----------



## doctorj (13 February 2008)

Happy said:


> Clear case that so far 27,171 voters know what is right and 45,753 voters havent got a clue what is right.



Perhaps not.  I think there's a real danger that people wanting to be seen to be saying the right kind of things are likely to stiffle any intellectual debate on the issue.

Plus, who's to say the 45,753 think the apology didn't go far enough...


----------



## prawn_86 (13 February 2008)

Personally im glad that the apology was only on behalf of the government and not on behalf of all Australians.

I dont believe the gov is in a position to apologise for anyone but themselves and am glad they realised this fact.


----------



## Buddy (13 February 2008)

I posted this comment on another thread...
"............I suppose we are now in for an endless tiresome debate about what Nelson did say, what he didnt say, and what he should have said. Ho, Hum........".

Looks like I am correct. Yet again. Wish I could pick my shares as good as I pick people.


----------



## moxy (13 February 2008)

What Nelson did today will be a death sentence to the Liberal party....will be a very very long time til they get back in.


----------



## trinity (13 February 2008)

We seem to be getting responses on the sorry statement, I was just wondering  how the aboriginal community has received it and, what they think of it?


----------



## Koori (13 February 2008)

I honestly believe saying sorry will mean absolutely nothing. White man cannot apologise for his ancestors behaviour, as that was their thinking at the time.

Doe's a murderer's future generations apologise and compensate, no.

I am half Koori, orginating from a tribe from out west. I have worked in many missions and seen what my brothers do to one another.

It will not matter what "apology is made" it is our responsability to unite as a peoples, and the Aboriginal people never have been.

We come from many different tribes. Much of our culture has disappeared. Saying sorry will not change things for the future development of peoples.

Change must occur from within. Yet the majority of the people do not assist in the empowerment of the people, and that is the truth from my perception.

As my Koori brothers except a minority that I know are on drugs or drinking themselves into an early grave. My best-friend within the last two years has attended over 10 funnerals of men in the ages of 30-55. All dying of related lifestyle choices.

White man can not be blamed for another man choosing to make wrong choices. There are many opportunites for our people in this land. 

Saying Sorry will achieve Nothing as it is not this generations fault.

We have to stop blaming others for circumstance and unite.

We need strong leaders whom the people look towards. If compensation is given it will be wasted on elder-ship in my belief.

It is how the world operates unfortunate but true.

Should my ancestors apologise for wars between other tribes during their existance. I think not.... what does a sorry mean from someone that did not commit the offence.

It is like myself apologising for an act I never commited, what a joke.


----------



## Trembling Hand (13 February 2008)

Would luv a moderator to check this posters IP address against other posters in this forum.
Sorry for the scepticism but 1 post makes you wounder.


----------



## bunyip (13 February 2008)

A repeated theme among aboriginals interviewed over the last few days is that Rudd's sorry message will 'allow them to move forward'.
Well, will it or won't it? Can we expect to see positive changes among aboriginals from here on? 
Or a couple of years down the track, when the warm fuzzy feeling from the sorry message has worn off, and cold hard reality starts to bite, will we look at the situation and say "Geez.....it's a couple of years now since Rudd conveyed his sorry message that was going to allow aboriginal people to 'move forward', yet they don't seem to have moved at all. They've still got all the problems they had back then."

Nigel Mansell (who calls himself an aboriginal but has blue eyes and blond hair (now gone grey) and is damn near as white as I am) is already beating the drum for one billion dollars in compensation. Maybe that was what they meant by 'move forward'......the sorry message gives them their cue to move forward towards further handouts.


----------



## trinity (13 February 2008)

> one billion dollars in compensation




hi bunyip,

did you say that right?  one billion?  

thanks


----------



## trading_rookie (13 February 2008)

Nelson's speech can be criticised by all and sundry but at the end of the day it was a speech that appeased all the opposing view points held by Coalition MP's...those that want to say sorry and acknowledge it was wrong to take children away from their mothers and those in the party that believe that the rampant abuse, drunkeness, and violence experienced in places like NT justified the practise.

The fact that some people decided from the galleries not to stand and applaud and those that booed outside Parliment once Nelson concluded his speech clearly shows that some believe Indigenous ills are all due to European settlement. 

Interesting sidenote: Two of Rudd's staffers were involved in turning their backs during Nelsons speech. Apparently they've been 'counseled' by Rudd's chief-of-staff over the incident.


----------



## Prospector (13 February 2008)

bunyip said:


> Nigel Mansell (who calls himself an aboriginal but has blue eyes and blond hair (now gone grey) and is damn near as white as I am).




Well, on this one we both agree!  I wonder also, how more rationale indigneous people feel about him.


----------



## trading_rookie (13 February 2008)

> What Nelson did today will be a death sentence to the Liberal party....will be a very very long time til they get back in.




Not if sorry in the future is seen as an admission of guilt with legal ramifications that could cost the Australian taxpayer billions....then it will be concluded that Howard was right. Time will tell


----------



## Joe Blow (13 February 2008)

Trembling Hand said:


> Would luv a moderator to check this posters IP address against other posters in this forum.
> Sorry for the scepticism but 1 post makes you wounder.




I have checked IP's on several user names posting in this thread and have come up with no matches. There is no evidence of anyone using more than one user name in this thread.


----------



## bunyip (13 February 2008)

Prospector said:


> Well, on this one we both agree!  I wonder also, how more rationale indigneous people feel about him.




With Nigel Mansell enthusiastically beating the drum for a billion dollars in compensation, I reckon even the more rational indigenous people who may doubt his aboriginality, will nevertheless feel very kindly disposed towards him indeed!


----------



## moneymajix (13 February 2008)

*Sorry - how sweet those words can be!*

Koori



> I honestly believe saying sorry will mean absolutely nothing.




I am puzzled that anyone can say that.

Today's apology was symbolic in terms of race relations and Aboriginal growth in this country.

However, the focus of the apology was to the individuals that make up the stolen generation. The apology was accepted by this group with much grace and appreciation (if that is the correct word).

If you think today means nothing, then it seems you are discounting the feelings of a substantial part of your community.

Yes, lots of issues in the Aboriginal community need to be addressed. 

Is there a chance you an appreciate the moment, as a measure of peace was brought to some, today?

Tomorrow, is another day, the challenges will be there to be met.


----------



## disarray (13 February 2008)

Trembling Hand said:


> Would luv a moderator to check this posters IP address against other posters in this forum.
> Sorry for the scepticism but 1 post makes you wounder.




omg an aboriginal is holding conservative views on the subject, quick check his IP!!


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 February 2008)

doctorj said:


> I agree his speech was a disgrace.




Boy Am I in agreement with you there doc . 
I mean to raise the issue of a young Aboriginal boy raping a child and drowning her in the process - in the middle of a speech on reconciliation!?!  :bloated::topic:silly: :cwm10: 

... and I'm totally in agreement with Keating for that matter :-

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/13/2161456.htm 

Does Brendan Nelson have any idea what he's doing?!  Has he no tact!? - I mean, he's pretending sympathy, but pursuing judgement. 

IMO, He will be as idiotic a leader (and with the same chance of electoral success) as Mad Mark Latham was.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 February 2008)

........
Thanks ABC - and Canberra


----------



## mikat (13 February 2008)

i live in central australia, and see the worst conditions of how aboriginal people live. despite all the money, opportunities etc that aboriginal people here are given and squander, they still live in communities in abject poverty. that is in 2008. imagine how it was when the "stolen" generation was stolen

the government and agencies at the time did what they thought was best for the children. no different than today if a child is being neglected, black white or other. why are we saying sorry for helping the disadvantaged? some of these people who were "stolen" today live in society in well paying jobs in high power positions. where would they be today if they were left where they were? the answer is probably dead. even today children in communities are not fed or looked after and the government should step in and take them again.

as to compensation. what a load of ****. compensate them for giving them a future?


----------



## vida (13 February 2008)

The billions of dollars of taxpayers money has been squandered by past governments - e.g how much did Howard spend on advertising campaign for election and all his programs which was a big waste of money wasn't it Johnnie!! All that spending on ideological programs which Rudd is reversing - what a waste of money that was, and now I would like to see tax payers billiions spent well for a change and hopefully the Rudd govt will show us how



trading_rookie said:


> Not if sorry in the future is seen as an admission of guilt with legal ramifications that could cost the Australian taxpayer billions....then it will be concluded that Howard was right. Time will tell


----------



## Scuba (13 February 2008)

Why is it, that there seem to be so many posts bemoaning an apology? Why so many posts, whinging about medical benefits and additional help to a populace who have such a dramatically reduced lifespan?
Why do these posters feel and express their need to point the finger of blame? Were they unloved? Is it a feeling they have that if they had been stolen they may have been loved? Were they beaten and emotionally neglected during their childhoods? Did any of these posters' parents have friends from another culture or, god forbid, a skin coloured a different way to theirs? Do they feel lonely, or part of something shared?

Do any of them wonder about the mindset (at the time) of Tasmania 1 2 3, Darfur, Auschwitz, Rwanda, Srebrenica, Jonestown, Uganda, Cambodia, Armenia?

Genocides in History, Ethnic cleansing?

Did even one of them post any constructive or concilliatory comment? Live and let live FFS!


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 February 2008)

vida said:


> The billions of dollars of taxpayers money has been squandered by past governments - e.g how much did Howard spend on advertising campaign for election and all his programs which was a big waste of money wasn't it Johnnie!!



bludy good point vida

close on $150 mill  ($200 mill?)  on advertising 

Tasmania just spent $5 million to resolve all 100 Tasmanian stolen generation cases!

do the math - see who is the sick pathetic bs artist. 

Howard's 11 years are thankfully behind us.

I just hope that the bigotry takes less than 11 years to be exorcised from the youth who have only heard his "Gospel according to Little Johnnie"


----------



## Julia (13 February 2008)

doctorj said:


> I agree his speech was a disgrace.
> 
> Clearly the Liberal party understands that a large number of Australians like to be seen to be saying the right kinds of of things but underneath resent what they see preferential treatment being given to Aboriginals.
> 
> ...



Doc, could you say why you feel Dr Nelson's speech was "a disgrace".
I didn't hear all of it, but the part I did hear was a description of a child being taken away on a truck/ute.  He was relating this story in quite an emotional way and seemed to me to be quite affected by it.

He did go on to describe some of the recent abuses amongst the aboriginal communities which I felt was out of place and inappropriate given the spirit of the day, but I felt this had to be seen in the context of the difficult tightrope he had to walk in terms of representing his constituency, and his party members,  many of whom were against any apology being made at all.
From a purely pragmatic point of view, he did have to appease those people with his comments as he is their representative, as well as expressing his own personal point of view, so I don't envy him his challenge.

Overall, I felt he did reasonably well, but it would have been much more well received had he felt disposed to omit any references to abuses.

His efforts did not deserve the very discourteous response from the two Rudd staff members who I understand have subsequently been instructed by their Leader to write a letter of apology to Dr Nelson.

I don't much like Dr Nelson, but do feel insufficient recognition is being given to the difficulty of his task today.  Bear in mind, too, that he had only a few minutes' notice that he would have the opportunity to respond to an unscripted comment of bipartisanship from Mr Rudd.

For me, the picture which I will try to hold on to was that of Mr Rudd and Dr Nelson, smiling together in the Chamber.  Don't expect that will ever be repeated!


----------



## Seaking (13 February 2008)

bunyip said:


> Nigel Mansell (who calls himself an aboriginal but has blue eyes and blond hair (now gone grey) and is damn near as white as I am) is already beating the drum for one billion dollars in compensation. Maybe that was what they meant by 'move forward'......the sorry message gives them their cue to move forward towards further handouts.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Mansell

I think his name is Michael Mansell..


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 February 2008)

There's no way any racing car driver is going to get one cent of my hard earned!!


----------



## rederob (13 February 2008)

mikat said:


> i live in central australia, and see the worst conditions of how aboriginal people live. *despite all the money, opportunities etc that aboriginal people here are given and squander, they still live in communities in abject poverty*. that is in 2008. imagine how it was when the "stolen" generation was stolen



Although it's nothing to do with "sorry", would you care to elaborate on *"all the money, opportunities"*?
The data shows that aborigines have average incomes half that of non-indigenous people.
The data shows that in every field of information collectable, they have access to fewer opportunities and, accordingly, participate at lower levels.
The myths that ignoramuses perpetuate as givens or facts are stunning, and reflect their mindsets.

Some elementary facts:
The former Coalition government was aware of data that showed health, abuse and criminal justice issues were increasing in severity under their watch. Their eleventh hour response was an "intervention" strategy.
Their earlier response was a "mutual obligation" program.
Before that their response was to "mainstream" service delivery to aborigines, that is, treating them the same as everyone else.
And before that was a masterfully executed strategy that "criminalised" Geoff Clarke and gave cause to eliminate "elected" indigenous representatives and disband ATSIC.

The "black arm-band" tag line was Howard's code for anyone that disagreed with his ill-informed, neglectful, poorly executed and divisive strategies to help aborigines.

Although Howard expressed a "regret" over the stolen generation, his view was that this generation was not responsible.  Perhaps we should be clear here.  He only meant that the most recent generations (X and Y) were not responsible.  Howard's generation not only continued the legalised practices of forcible removal, they perfected it.

As for an earlier post by "Koori" on this thread, if he is fair dinkum he will know well and first hand some members of the stolen generation.  If he had a sense of brotherhood (or "mob") he would have known the hurt and suffering experienced by a majority of the stolen generation and regularly expressed by indigenous artists and musicians, such a Archie Roach.

The "sorry" might not be for Koori, or Bunyip, or superfly, but it was for those who have felt the hurt, or felt the need for a healing.

I listen to much of the parliamentary debate today and it is clear that many on the right of politics just don't get it when it comes to aboriginal affairs.  Not surprisingly, the data shows they never really wanted to in the first place.

Declare 13 February as the "new Australia Day" and let's move on....


----------



## doctorj (14 February 2008)

Julia said:


> Doc, could you say why you feel Dr Nelson's speech was "a disgrace".



His speech was more about politicing and winning votes for the libs and detracted from the day. 

Today wasn't about blame, it was about a fresh start.  His speech was full of excuses for what happened.  Here are some of my (least) favourite parts:


			
				Nelson said:
			
		

> We do know though that language, disease, ignorance, good intentions, basic human prejudices, and a cultural and technological chasm combined to deliver a harshness exceeded only by the land over which each sought to prevail.





			
				Nelson said:
			
		

> Though disputed in motive and detail and with varying recollections of events by others, the removal of Aboriginal children began.





			
				Nelson said:
			
		

> Our generation does not own these actions, nor should it feel guilt for what was done in many, but not all cases, with the best of intentions.





			
				Nelson said:
			
		

> Even when motivated by inherent humanity and decency to reach out to the dispossessed in extreme adversity, our actions can have unintended outcomes. As such, many decent Australians are hurt by accusations of theft in relation to their good intentions.





			
				Nelson said:
			
		

> Yet state governments responsible for delivering services and security resist the extension of a Northern Territory-style intervention.




Now, I'm not saying whether or not I believe any, or all, of the above is true.  All I'm saying is that today wasn't the day for it.  Today was a day for saying sorry.


----------



## bunyip (14 February 2008)

Seaking said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Mansell
> 
> I think his name is Michael Mansell..




OK - Michael Mansell. No matter, you know who I'm talking about. He had a real glint in his eye when he was on TV this morning talking about that 1 billion dollars.


----------



## chops_a_must (14 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> There's no way any racing car driver is going to get one cent of my hard earned!!




I remember his spins in the 89 Adelaide Grand Prix, and his last ditch attempted move in 90 on Nelson Piquet. Murray Walker used to call him el lione. Ahh... good times...


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 February 2008)

doctorj said:


> His speech was more about politicing and winning votes for the libs and detracted from the day.
> 
> Today wasn't about blame, it was about a fresh start.  His speech was full of excuses for what happened.  Here are some of my (least) favourite parts:
> 
> Now, I'm not saying whether or not I believe any, or all, of the above is true.  All I'm saying is that today wasn't the day for it.  Today was a day for saying sorry.



Absolutely today was not about recent sexual abuse - totally irrelevant. 

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...y-speech/2008/02/13/1202760366050.html?page=4

This was the one where I turned my back on the insenstive idiot ...



			
				Nelson said:
			
		

> The Alice Springs Crown Prosecutor Nanette Rogers with great courage revealed to the nation in 2006 the case of a four-year-old girl drowned while being raped by a teenager who had been sniffing petrol.




Also this (which I notice caused many Ab guests to "turn off" / lose interest in his speech) 
btw, there were 60K Aussies (total) died in WWI, and 27K in WWII etc - so obviously 100K is total of all fallen Aussies in all wars. 



			
				Nelson said:
			
		

> In offering this apology, let us not create one injustice in our attempt to address another.
> 
> Let no one forget that they sent their sons to war, shaping our identity and place in the world. One hundred thousand in two wars alone gave their lives in our name and our uniform, lying forever in distant lands; silent witnesses to the future they have given us. Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians lie alongside one another.
> 
> These generations considered their responsibilities to their country and one another more important than their rights.




ridiculous to draw parallels to war when trying (as he allegedly was) to say sorry to the stolen generation (imo) 

PS The only relevance here is the fact that whilst some fathers were serving overseas, their children were taken back home!


----------



## bunyip (14 February 2008)

trinity said:


> hi bunyip,
> 
> did you say that right?  one billion?
> 
> thanks




That's correct....one billion dollars, or one thousand million dollars, whichever you prefer. 
And don't be surprised if they get it. Won't be immediately, might take many years of pressuring the government, but I won't be in any way surprised if Rudd caves in sooner or later and gives them what they want.

That Kiwi bloke who earlier in this thread talked about 'you gullible Aussies'....he was right. We're gullible all right, if we thought the sorry message was leading anywhere other than a massive compensation claim.


----------



## Brujo (14 February 2008)

rederob said:
			
		

> The data shows that aborigines have average incomes half that of non-indigenous people.
> The data shows that in every field of information collectable, they have access to fewer opportunities and, accordingly, participate at lower levels.
> The myths that ignoramuses perpetuate as givens or facts are stunning, and reflect their mindsets.
> 
> ...




What a load of rubbish.

Half the average income?  What's your source? 

"Sorry"?  It's always going to be about monetary compensation.  Nothing else.

Lawyers are going to make millions out of this.  Courtesy of the taxpayers.  The indigenous plaintiffs certainly won't have to fund any legal action.

Why does Michael Mansell pay more attention to his 1/8th or so indigenous background than whatever the other 7/8th's is?  I'm darker than him without a tan!!!

Feb 13 the new Aust day?    What a load of bullsh*t.  Pandering to the minority again.


----------



## bunyip (14 February 2008)

rederob said:


> Declare 13 February as the "new Australia Day" and let's move on....




LOL!
As a point of interest, what do you do for a living? What's your official occupation?


----------



## bunyip (14 February 2008)

Prospector said:


> Agreed, but a Vision will do more to empower people to want to follow through on action.  By saying sorry, we at least have some kind of Vision.




Ah yes...a 'vision'. 
Now what sort of a vision would that be, I wonder?  Perhaps it's the vision of one thousand million dollars which is clearly at the forefront of many aboriginal minds. 
No doubt there are lawyers who are rubbing their hands together in glee. Some of them will be able to set themselves up for life from the legal fees they get out of this lot.
Guess who'll pay? You and me, and other Australians just like us who've done nothing wrong. 
What a bloody fiasco it's all turning out to be. And we've only seen the tip of the iceberg so far. 



Prospector said:


> Helping people is not about giving them handouts.  It is about giving back their sense of self esteem, so that they can help themselves.  Dont give a man a bag of rice ready to cook - give him the knowledge to grow and harvest the rice himself.




Now that's the talk I like to hear...perhaps we're on a more similar wave length than I thought!
I fully support the idea of not giving them handouts, but instead, teaching them how to be self sufficient so they can help themselves.
But there's a problem here straight away, isn't there?
Namely, that they mostly shun our efforts to teach them how to take charge of their own affairs. We provide them with education, job training, even jobs, all of which are prerequisites to rising above their present circumstances and taking charge of their lives. Yet the participation rate in these programs is disappointingly low.
We offer them a solution, one that's been proven to work well by the small minority of their race who have embraced it, and consequently have gone on to jobs and careers that have significantly improved their living standards and self esteem.
But the effectiveness of a solution is largely dependent on how enthusiastically it's embraced and implemented.
You can lead a thirsty horse to water, but he'll stay thirsty if he refuses to drink.
You can offer aboriginals viable solutions to their problems, but their problems will continue if they choose not to avail themselves of the solutions.
Therein, I believe, lies one of the main problems in helping aboriginals.....how in the name of creation do you ever get them to show some interest in helping themselves?
There are millions of Australians, myself included, who would like to see aboriginals in better circumstances. But geez...sometimes I feel that we white Australians are just beating our heads up against a brick wall by trying to do anything for these people.


----------



## vida (14 February 2008)

Compensation is not a hand out.  I notice people against the payouts are talking heaps about money, get over it. The money would change their world and give them the power they need to go forward.  Put yourself in their shoes.  The courts of full of people having massively less injurious things happening to them and wanting compensation. Its natural, normal and legal that they expect to get compensation for the wrongs & most terrible things done to them. Crimes compensation is available to anyone who can prove they were a victim of criminal violence and there is massive evidence here.

There will always be racist conservatives who will bleat against it, but it will do no good as there is a natural energy of the population demanding it. The organisation GET UP who set up the sensation candles in Canberra to commemorate sorry are seeing to it that no stone is left unturned towards achieving full reparation, at least as far as the future is concerned as the past cannot be changed, but the future must be.  If we can spend billiions on war we can spend some money on peace, reconciliation and development where it is desperately needed.

I am not trying to convince anyone as I can see people have their minds set in concrete here for what reasons only they know. Open your hearts and minds and let money help them. The billions won't make any single individual wealthy, it will do wonders for their community and self esteem.  The hand out idea is degrading, its justice not a handout.  Do you protest when politicians spens money on war, electioneering and refugee detention centres and other bad decisions. Let them spend money on a good decision for once.





Seaking said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Mansell
> 
> I think his name is Michael Mansell..


----------



## vida (14 February 2008)

Geoffrey Robertson writes:

THE British government has dismissed calls for it to apologise for its role in the removal of thousands of indigenous Australian children from their families.

Britain had been urged by prominent human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson to endorse an apology delivered by Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd because English intellectuals had inspired the policy of seizing the children.

But the British government is refusing to follow Rudd's lead in saying sorry to the stolen generations. 

"The apology offered in the Australian parliament is a matter for the Australian people and addresses laws and policies of successive Australian parliaments and governments," a British Foreign Office spokeswoman said.

Mr Robertson had argued Britain bore a "heavy historic responsibility" for the stolen generations and needed to apologise. 

He said the policy of removing indigenous children from their families was based on the theories of English eugenics intellectuals, who believed aboriginality to be a degenerate trait and should be bred out.


----------



## Julia (14 February 2008)

vida said:


> Compensation is not a hand out.  I notice people against the payouts are talking heaps about money, get over it. The money would change their world and give them the power they need to go forward.




Could you describe in what way exactly the money would change their world?
What would it be spent on?
How, specifically, is money going to address the problems which we all know so well, e.g. alcoholism, sexual abuse etc?

I'm not being for or against monetary compensation with these questions, but just seeking some sort of objective suggestions as to what can actually be effected with money, as opposed to emotional rhetoric.

Yes, it's good to see a sense of harmony as was evident yesterday, and the emotion was appropriate, but when we start talking about "moving forward"
it's an expression I'm hearing all the time but I really don't know what, specifically, is meant.

One point which puzzles me is that Jenny Macklin (and others) have said we need to get lots more doctors and specialists out to aboriginal remote communities to improve their health outlook.  Where are these medical personnel going to come from?  I live in a regional city of about 50,000, one of the fastest growing areas in Australia, and we can't get sufficient doctors here to staff our hospital.   Or enough GP's to service the population.   We can't get dentists either.  Even with an acute dental problem you can't see a dentist for at least a week.  Ordinary appointments require a six to twelve week wait , and that's when you are an established patient, not someone new seeking a dentist or doctor.  
This situation is common throughout Australia.  So where are all the specialists in diabetes, kidney disease, addictive disorders etc going to come from to set up clinics in remote parts of Australia?

I'm all for any measure which will restore some dignity and pride to our indigenous people, but think it's time for some actual practical suggestions as to how this is going to happen, and how they are going to be persuaded to participate in such activities.
I


----------



## Julia (14 February 2008)

rederob said:


> And before that was a masterfully executed strategy that "criminalised" Geoff Clarke and gave cause to eliminate "elected" indigenous representatives and disband ATSIC.



So all the women who were raped by this excuse for a human being were making it up, huh?  And the wasteful misuses of much of the ATSIC funds were just misunderstandings, I suppose?



> As for an earlier post by "Koori" on this thread, if he is fair dinkum he will know well and first hand some members of the stolen generation.  If he had a sense of brotherhood (or "mob") he would have known the hurt and suffering experienced by a majority of the stolen generation and regularly expressed by indigenous artists and musicians, such a Archie Roach.



Impossible to believe that an aboriginal person might have a different point of view, isn't it?  You can't even let Koori's statement simply stand without challenging his/her right to hold such a view!


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 February 2008)

vida said:


> Geoffrey Robertson writes:
> 
> THE British government has dismissed calls for it to apologise for its role in the removal of thousands of indigenous Australian children from their families.
> 
> ...



Vida
Interesting  thanks
PS I think he's doing a bit of "hypothetical" if he thinks that would lead to anything


----------



## Prospector (14 February 2008)

Seaking said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Mansell
> 
> I think his name is Michael Mansell..




Yeah, thought it sounded like a racing car driver but couldnt think of the alternative! :


----------



## Prospector (14 February 2008)

bunyip said:


> _*Ah yes...a 'vision'.
> Now what sort of a vision would that be, I wonder?  Perhaps it's the vision of one thousand million dollars which is clearly at the forefront of many aboriginal minds.
> *_





No Bunyip, just a vision that institutionally we recognise that some pretty inhumane things have been done to the aboriginals as a cultural group and that it will never happen again.



bunyip said:


> We offer them a solution




In the past we have offered them our solutions; have we ever really listened to them, and considered that they would like some input into what they really need?  We built them houses, they burnt them down (in some cases), or trashed them.  Of course that is frustrating and a total waste of money.  Our health practices don't work well for them; but there are some real turn around stories where the 'rewards' for doing something clearly appealed to them and so they have been taken up - I am thinking the swimming pool/washing faces in one remote location that reduced a childhood eye disease.  Washing faces would never have been needed in original society because water was scarce and they used other means of warding off eye disease - but such means were lost to them when they became 'urbanised'.  Basically we took away their traditional means of survival when they became, to varying degrees, settled, but didnt provide them with the knowledge/acceptable solutions to manage this transition.  

We expected aboriginals to make the leap from nomadic tribal existence, stories of dreamtime of thousands of years in the making, to our westernised and urbanised society within the space of say, 200 years.  But we Westerners had taken thousands of years to do the same thing. And we wonder why they falter? Or are not excited about our offer.  Would you have transitioned to their society at all if the shoe was on the other foot?

We arrived in our ships, bringing our disease and weapons, alcohol and drugs, and, convicts. We took over their land, killed them in many situations, made them live in houses, expected them to forget their culture, and now, we expect them to be grateful for it?  Who are we to say that we do it better than they did?


----------



## nikkothescorpio (14 February 2008)

Jesus....so much for thinking this forum - as opposed to many of the other on the net, might have some intelligent individuals within it.  I'm absolutely gobsmacked by the number of blatantly insensitive and borderline racist remarks made by members.

Alas all this really highlights is your total lack of empathy for these other people.....I mean how pathetic that you're like so many other people and stuck on this issue over the 'principle of saying sorry for something I never did' or the risk that someone might sue for compensation......like its coming out of your pocket directly!

If you were really worried about govt spending WHY aren't you out on the streets ever day protesting the collins class subs, f-16 hornets, M1 Abrams purchases and all the other countless ballsups govts make???  On top of the 3 tier system we have that is blatantly ineffecient?

Can people not empathise at all with the injustices these people had to live through?   Sure many times it was just 'goodwill gone wrong in hindsight' - but thats acknowledged and in itself doesn't excuse it.  And lets not forget that there was almost a policy of genocide a certain points of our history and it was only 40 or so years ago we saw aboriginals as equals enough to allow them to vote!!!

We are not talking about ancient history here.

I grew up in a rural area and alas have many people I know who are blatant racists - though of course they always deny it so strongly.   The constant bleeting that white Australians have about Aboringals always getting handouts and extra this and extra that blah blah blah - is really a joke.

I mean who really has the victim mentality here?

And who here would swap the colour of his skin and the relative security of all that comes with that just for some social welfare payments.

Alas many of the aboriginal people are stuck in a horrible vicious circle - and as there has never been a real commitment by any govt to end it it well be a very tough thing to do.

Parents that were bashed, abused and poorly educated perpetuate the same fate on their kids - and on the story goes.

Its fine to sit up in your ivory tower and cast judgements on this but speak to any expert in this field and see if he agrees with your views - I think not.

Australia is not alone in treating its indigenous people very poorly - just look at whats happened in the USA, Canada, Sth America, much of Africa and to a far lesser extent NZ.

Let be honest - 99% of the members of this forum are white, middle aged males - as I am myself - and so I'd think that one could expect some views to be a tad 'biased' and essentially racist.

I know people get their backs up when you roll the R-word out - but for such a supposably progressive society racism just comes out oh so easily for us - and I can't help thinking that if this was the perpetuated on lil white kids as the catholic church adoption of those Brit orphans was a few yrs ago - we'd have had very few voices of dissent when the top power in place over these policies formally said sorry.

I'd just say perhaps people could EMPATHISE - walk a mile or two in the other persons shoes - before getting all wound up and feeling soooooooooo personally hard done by.

I'm heading overseas myself - so can't reply - though I am sure I will be openly slated for saying these things - so don't take my silence as anything but that I'm not around.


----------



## Bill M (14 February 2008)

Yesterday my wife and I sat in front of the TV at 9 AM and watched the formal apology from Parliament House in Canberra. It was one of the proudest moments in my life. I had to hold back tears listening to some of the disgraceful stories of what happened to our Indigenous people. It was the best speech I have heard in a long time and well over due in my opinion. We must all acknowledge the wrongs of the past, that was the first step. Then we must apologise for them and then move on. I am now an even more proud Australian, this was so long overdue. Thank you to the majority of decent Australians that made this all possible, let's work together.:aus::aus:


----------



## Happy (14 February 2008)

> From ABC, 14 Feb. 08
> 
> ABBOTT DEFENDS NELSON'S 'SORRY' SPEECH
> 
> ...






> apology to the Stolen Generations has prompted calls for February 13 to be celebrated annually.




Kind of sorry forever
And looks that it was THE FIRST STEP in endless dance to please.

Strangely yesterday’s poll results were on MSN site today on 10:22 and if results are representative, appears that not on this issue K07 got the mandate to govern this country of all of us.
But poll is sill open



> Do you agree with the text of Kevin Rudd's Sorry apology
> 
> Yes  64,132
> 
> No   112,906




Hope my condition doesn’t go past Sorry Fatigue Syndrome to develop Severe Sorry Fatigue Syndrome.


----------



## wildmanchris (14 February 2008)

I was thinking, if you admit liability how can you not be liable for compensation, just by saying its not available?

Someone made a comment about NZ - over there land, compensation grants and fishing rights granted total ALOT of money that has been paid over the years.  In fact, they have a tribunal set up to manage claims and even have rights to the seabed.  (i think the sky claim was denied).

Do you think this will occur in Australia?


----------



## Buddy (14 February 2008)

13 February, another public holiday?
Yeah, sounds great to me, as long as its another holiday and not exchanging it for one we already have.
Yeah, I already work too hard.  I think I would like to only work 3 days a week and get paid for 5, so lets have lots more of them.

Also good to see that the debate is moving to the old Dart.   After all they were the ones that found the place.  Oops, not quite correct, there were others before wern't there?

I dont think I've said anything racist there have I?  I notice how anyone on this forum who happens to disagree with certain others on this forum, are immediately tagged as racists.  Easy to say isnt it? Just rolls off the lips without even thinking. How very convenient for you. The new McCarthyism!

And just to repeat myself, I was correct about the endless tiresome debate that would take place on what Nelson said, didnt say, should not have said, and should have said.

And by the way, did you notice that a significant number of those people who turned their backs, etc, on Nelson, did so before he had even finished his first sentence.  Really thorough consideration and analysis of his speech, or already made up your mind, eh? Yeah, I think its the latter.


----------



## robert toms (14 February 2008)

Borderline racist comments...full-on racist.
I suppose that we are on a shares site...where a lot are full of self-interest.
Ever heard of the sayings " don't worry it may never happen" and "take one step at a time".
What if the dog died, and the chooks left home ...what if ,what if,what if?
What if someone got compensation and I didn't?
What if I thought of someone other than myself and my experiences...What if?
What if I stopped denigrating others in the forlorn hope that it might elevate me personally?What if?
Were any of the haters brought up with some code of behaviour in their lives?
What if they could transcend themselves and reach a higher standard in their personal lives. What if?
What if there were any people  out there that claimed to live by christian principles and still denigrated others on a racial basis.What if?


----------



## disarray (14 February 2008)

the term "racist" is overused. anytime someone points out shortcomings in a particular culture or race or even religion the R word starts flying. news flash - the aborigines aren't perfect. they have serious issues in their community that are their fault and their problem and it's not racist to a) point that out or b) expect that the aboriginal people themselves acknowledge, take responsibility for and fix these problems.

its like people use "racist" as some magic trump card that quells all dissent in cultural discussions (see al-hilaly use it when accosted by the chasers) but its been overused so it doesn't mean anything anymore. yeah i'm a racist, and lefties are communists. good going.


----------



## Prospector (14 February 2008)

Buddy said:


> 13 February, another public holiday?
> Yeah, sounds great to me, as long as its another holiday and not exchanging it for one we already have..




I would far rather that date than the 26th January - which has little or no meaning for people in South Australia. South Australia was settled by free people from Germany and elsewhere, not British convicts!


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 February 2008)

Sorry to tell you this fellas, but sorry has now been said.
If you don't know why then you weren't listening to either Rudd or Nelson.
How about we move on and try to fix things.

As for making it a public holiday. Probably not. Who knows - it's not that silly. 
It is almost certainly going to go down as a momentous occasion.  And Rudd's speech one of the best ever.


----------



## robert toms (14 February 2008)

Maybe we should start a thread on the shortcomings of the white European culture in Australia.
However,as much as you do not like it,of course this thread is based on race...and it gives people a chance to really expose themselves.
Some posts are not racist...however others add nothing to the thread...only more racial denigration.Like it or not!


----------



## Happy (14 February 2008)

> From ABC 14 Feb. 08
> INTERVENTION IS STOLEN GENS 2: INDIGENOUS GROUP
> 
> A day after the Commonwealth's apology to the Stolen Generations, the National Aboriginal Alliance is warning that the atrocities of the past will be repeated if Northern Territory intervention continues.
> ...





Maybe we do not have all the information on why then, but we have ample information on why now, so in my humble opinion statement like 



> INTERVENTION IS STOLEN GENS 2: INDIGENOUS GROUP




is at least not correct.


But wait, that's not all



> From ABC 14 Feb. 08
> RUDD NEEDS TO 'RECOGNISE ABORIGINAL SOVEREIGNTY'
> 
> Representatives of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy in Canberra say yesterday's apology will mean little if the Government fails to recognise Aboriginal sovereignty.
> ...





Looks like spring after Frist Step.


----------



## Prospector (14 February 2008)

Actually, I was reminded last night that the Liberal State Premier (Mr Dean Brown) said 'sorry' many many years ago in State Parliament. And for those who are simply worried about the $$$$, there has only been 1 claim for compensation here.


----------



## trading_rookie (14 February 2008)

> The billions of dollars of taxpayers money has been squandered by past governments - e.g how much did Howard spend on advertising campaign for election and all his programs which was a big waste of money wasn't it Johnnie!! All that spending on ideological programs which Rudd is reversing - what a waste of money that was, and now I would like to see tax payers billiions spent well for a change and hopefully the Rudd govt will show us how



I'd say squandering billions on advertising is more acceptable and benefitting the community (ad agencies, printing companies, pulp milling, purchasing of advertising slots on radio and tv, and space in print media - jobs!) than giving out handouts to those socially inept (regardless of race) who 'squander' it on alcohol, illegal drugs, and pokies...

Let's face it there is not bi-partisan support within Australia for compensation...even Rudd is grey on this. If his hand is forced it will be interesting to see how it plays out. If it is agreed to a capped amount per geniune victim and those already compensated by state governments don't double dip then the issue will pass over quickly...

Re: your 'razor gang' comment...Rudd should consider himself lucky that the tight arses within the Coalition didn't cough up all the dough for them programs you refer to and that Tanner and co. were able to identify very early on some savings. Source: AFR



> the term "racist" is overused. anytime someone points out shortcomings in a particular culture or race or even religion the R word starts flying.



My favourite, the term reverse racism...this one is used when someone like former Olympian hopeful Kyle Vander-Kuyp and his sister are called 'coconuts' by some in the Indigenous community for being raised by a white woman. Coconut? Apparently black on the outside but white internally...it's termed reverse racism because the racist remark is from a non-white. This implies that racism is soley a caucasian ill and originates within that race. Mind boggling.


----------



## Prospector (14 February 2008)

trading_rookie said:


> My favourite, the term reverse racism...this one is used when someone like former Olympian hopeful Kyle Vander-Kuyp and his sister are called 'coconuts' by some in the Indigenous community for being raised by a white woman. Coconut? Apparently black on the outside but white internally...it's termed reverse racism because the racist remark is from a non-white. This implies that racism is soley a caucasian ill and originates within that race. Mind boggling.




Racism is not a term made up by caucasians as you suggest, it is just that Australia happens to be a predominantly Caucasian society.  If you went overseas to a country dominated by black people, say Mexicans, or the sub continent for instance, you would find comments made by black people or Asian people, towards white people described as just 'racism'. We were having exactly this discussion last week with a Mexican work colleague!

Also, you say the coconut comment is an example of reverse racism, but really it isnt a racist comment at all, but a cultural one. Racially they are still indigenous, culturally they have adopted western ways. That's all.


----------



## trading_rookie (14 February 2008)

> Racism is not a term made up by caucasians as you suggest, it is just that Australia happens to be a predominantly Caucasian society.




I didn't suggest that it was. From my perspective racism is 'colour blind' ;-) What I said was that it is generally accepted that racist commentary is reserved for whites and any derogatory comments made by non-whites towards whites for example is considered reverse racism. 



> Also, you say the coconut comment is an example of reverse racism, but really it isnt a racist comment at all, but a cultural one. Racially they are still indigenous, culturally they have adopted western ways. That's all.




Ask Kyle's sister if she thinks the comment is cultural or racial. She was the one who made mention of it on camera calling it reverse racism with tears streaming from her eyes over their treatment from some quarters of the Indigenous community. Would it be a cultural or racist comment if whites referred to some Pacific Islanders as coconuts due to their lack of educational prowess and passive nature?


----------



## Julia (14 February 2008)

nikkothescorpio said:


> Parents that were bashed, abused and poorly educated perpetuate the same fate on their kids - and on the story goes.



This is exactly right and is not confined to indigenous people.  Even the views that we express are at least to some extent echoes of what our parents inculcated in us as we grew up.



> Australia is not alone in treating its indigenous people very poorly - just look at whats happened in the USA, Canada, Sth America, much of Africa and to a far lesser extent NZ.



I sometimes wonder when I read statements like this just how much first hand experience the writers have had of living with the indigenous people of those countries.  At least you said 'to a far lesser extent, NZ'.  I spent all my life in New Zealand until 14 years ago and only on very rare occasions had any sense of feeling in anything other than harmony with the Maori people.
The colour of anyone's skin simply was not an issue.  Many Maori have distinguished their country in areas as diverse as opera to football.
It's not because of or despite their race that they have done this.  They are just people, same as the pakeha.  
Sadly, I understand from friends in New Zealand that there has been a deterioration of the harmony I remember.  I don't know why this has happened.

It seems to me that if a particular behaviour by a person/group of people is criticised and that person/group being criticised is white, then that's OK.  But if the same behaviour exists within an aboriginal person/community, then to criticise it is racist.


----------



## mikat (14 February 2008)

aboriginal people get sit down money. thats what its called,which is welfare to just do nothing. they get royalties from all the mining. rotalties from the national parks, they get hundreds of millions of dollars spent on comunities, that the average person isnt allowed into , it goes on and on.
geoff clarke is a criminal. the massive rorts thats went on within asic were astounding, and it couldnt have been closed down soon enough 



rederob said:


> Although it's nothing to do with "sorry", would you care to elaborate on *"all the money, opportunities"*?
> The data shows that aborigines have average incomes half that of non-indigenous people.
> The data shows that in every field of information collectable, they have access to fewer opportunities and, accordingly, participate at lower levels.
> The myths that ignoramuses perpetuate as givens or facts are stunning, and reflect their mindsets.
> ...


----------



## nikkothescorpio (14 February 2008)

Julia said:


> This is exactly right and is not confined to indigenous people.  Even the views that we express are at least to some extent echoes of what our parents inculcated in us as we grew up.
> 
> I sometimes wonder when I read statements like this just how much first hand experience the writers have had of living with the indigenous people of those countries.  At least you said 'to a far lesser extent, NZ'.  I spent all my life in New Zealand until 14 years ago and only on very rare occasions had any sense of feeling in anything other than harmony with the Maori people.
> The colour of anyone's skin simply was not an issue.  Many Maori have distinguished their country in areas as diverse as opera to football.
> ...




What is your point?  Apart from staing the bleeding obvious on the first quote???   I'd say aboriginals suffer from much higher %  of just about every social ill and disease they keep a stat on - a few stats could be wrong but many really beg the question WHY?

And the simple answer is the govts of this country haven't given a fark about them - we've paid just enough to keep them quiet and make it look like we're concerned with ending the problems once and for all - but we never have been.  Hence the scathing UN reports and others on us.

And on your second point - once again what the hell are you on about????  You try and rubbish my point of view and then recant it totally and agree that its not all milk and honey in NZ.

What has playing rugby for NZ or singing in an opera got to do with being a barometer for how happy the indigenous people are with their lot??????

Don't you dare try to take on the victim mentality yourself saying oh everyone else can do it but if a white person says anything negative its racism......what a laugh.

Historically the white christian race has started more wars and caused more **** than just about everyone else put together - hardly something I can reference but it doesn't take a genius to see and know this - there's serious daylight to the next worst offender! 

Yes, we've done some good stuff on our watch too - but we've also really dropped the ball on a lot of stuff that we KNEW was the wrong thing to do.

And EVERY country in the world has its fair share of racists....but Australia is REALLY up there and its kidding itself if it thinks otherwise. Just scratch the surface and the ugly hate oozes out everywhere against muslims, aboriginals, yellow hordes from Asia, queue jumping boat people  - blah blah blah!

It doesn't help that so many people get their news from channel 9, only read the tele mirror and their idea of a great journalist is Ray Martin or John Laws....


I'd really like to see how hard 3/4 of the posters in this thread would be bleeting if THE SHOE WAS ON THE OTHER FOOT....or their partner was aboriginal or they had an adopted aboriginal child etc.

As Chris Rock jokes about in a stand up routine - he's damn rich - but even the poorest white guy in the audience wouldn't swap his skin colour with him. Its told as a joke - but people know there's a LOT of truth to it.

I still see the rubbish comments coming from people about $$$ and compensation - you greedy sods it must hurt you so bad thinking you should get money too eh?

Well I hope compensation is paid to people who through due and exhaustive process are found to be deserving but moreso I hope a proper investment is made in infrastructure and people so that this vicious circle can be broken once and for all.


----------



## Prospector (14 February 2008)

trading_rookie said:


> I didn't suggest that it was. From my perspective racism is 'colour blind' ;-) What I said was that it is generally accepted that racist commentary is reserved for whites and any derogatory comments made by non-whites towards whites for example is considered reverse racism. .




I think ya'll did!



trading_rookie said:


> it's termed reverse racism because the racist remark is from a non-white. This implies that racism is soley a caucasian ill and originates within that race. Mind boggling.


----------



## nikkothescorpio (14 February 2008)

mikat said:


> aboriginal people get sit down money. thats what its called,which is welfare to just do nothing. they get royalties from all the mining. rotalties from the national parks, they get hundreds of millions of dollars spent on comunities, that the average person isnt allowed into , it goes on and on.
> geoff clarke is a criminal. the massive rorts thats went on within asic were astounding, and it couldnt have been closed down soon enough




Once again another poster boo-hooing over money that they feel should have gone to them or similar - no discussion of the principles or past events , facts etc

Boo freakin' hoo - cry me a river.  You've got no idea what you're talking about - what generalised rubbish.

And really what a laugh ...as for Geoff Clarke - who gives a fat rats? - one person doesn't represent the aboriginal race just the same as any number of scumbag whites don't represent their race.

How's your bitterness and greed going?


----------



## Prospector (14 February 2008)

mikat said:


> aboriginal people get sit down money. thats what its called,which is welfare to just do nothing.




I know some public servants who do that too - they have no work so they are paid to sit and do nothing.  And the long term unemployed, women who have multiple children, people who smoke too much and develop smoking related illness, aged pensioners, and oh yeah, the money spent on car races, advertising, public health and eduction - it is called the Australian budget and well, what should happen?



mikat said:


> geoff clarke is a criminal. the massive rorts thats went on within asic were astounding, and it couldnt have been closed down soon enough.




That goes without saying; everyone agrees with that but it in no way validates any of the other arguments here.


----------



## agro (14 February 2008)

agree with mikat

i am sure given the opportunity to receive the handouts aboriginals receive one would certainly not deny them! 

what makes them different to us? colour? Aren't we all australians?

i think some people have a hard time facing reality


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 February 2008)

Prospector said:


> Actually, I was reminded last night that the Liberal State Premier (Mr Dean Brown) said 'sorry' many many years ago in State Parliament.




Thanks for a bit of perspective on this,  Prospector


----------



## trading_rookie (14 February 2008)

@Prospector, again I didn't suggest that it was...I said it is **implied** it is a Causcasian ill because racist remarks by non-whites are labelled reverse racism, as opposed to just racism...why I even gave you an example


----------



## disarray (14 February 2008)

nikkothescorpio said:


> Historically the white christian race has started more wars and caused more **** than just about everyone else put together - hardly something I can reference but it doesn't take a genius to see and know this - there's serious daylight to the next worst offender!




guilt much?

p.s. that's a load of crap


----------



## nikkothescorpio (14 February 2008)

disarray said:


> guilt much?
> 
> p.s. that's a load of crap




Can you string a few words together to actually make a point?   You disagree?

Well look I'll just list WWI, WWII, the Vietnam war and both Gulf wars......so not worrying about anything else - you think you can top that?

C'mon then back up your rhetoric.   So?

I'm sorry to get offtopic here but I can't belive anyone would argue such a clear point.   So I expect some pretty clear evidence then.


----------



## rederob (14 February 2008)

“I had exposure to hundreds of files in Perth held by the government relating to what was then the department of Aboriginal affairs, or the Department of Native Welfare, and those files went right back to the 1920s and 1930s. They had been assiduously maintained in a warehouse that, back in 1982 or 1983, was located in West Perth. I had exposure to those files for many weeks on end, doing some work. In those files, properly maintained in detail, were hundreds and hundreds of letters written from the 1920s through until the 1960s by mothers and fathers of children who had gone missing, who had been removed or who had been stolen, imploring the bureaucrats in the department to give them advice as to why their child was taken, where the child was now, what the name of the child was, what had happened to the child. There were hundreds and hundreds of these letters, mostly written in a beautiful script and pouring out the emotions of these parents who””over some 40, 50 or 60 years””had lost their children. It was the most heartfelt correspondence. There was other correspondence from policemen, priests, pastors, local chambers of commerce and business people who were writing on behalf of other Indigenous people who were, presumably, illiterate asking for details as to where their children might be and how they might be located. And on each file there was a simple comment””government policy: advise sender we do not have to respond; we do not have any advice. “

Senator Mark Bishop, 13 2/08


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 February 2008)

rederob said:


> “I had exposure to hundreds of files in Perth held by the government relating to what was then the department of Aboriginal affairs, or the Department of Native Welfare, and those files went right back to the 1920s and 1930s. They had been assiduously maintained in a warehouse that, back in 1982 or 1983, was located in West Perth. I had exposure to those files for many weeks on end, doing some work. In those files, properly maintained in detail, were hundreds and hundreds of letters written from the 1920s through until the 1960s by mothers and fathers of children who had gone missing, who had been removed or who had been stolen, imploring the bureaucrats in the department to give them advice as to why their child was taken, where the child was now, what the name of the child was, what had happened to the child. There were hundreds and hundreds of these letters, mostly written in a beautiful script and pouring out the emotions of these parents who—over some 40, 50 or 60 years—had lost their children. It was the most heartfelt correspondence. There was other correspondence from policemen, priests, pastors, local chambers of commerce and business people who were writing on behalf of other Indigenous people who were, presumably, illiterate asking for details as to where their children might be and how they might be located. And on each file there was a simple comment—government policy: advise sender we do not have to respond; we do not have any advice. “
> 
> Senator Mark Bishop, 13 2/08




and you wonder why there were millions of tears cried yesterday 

disarray
you never did answer my question about how you'd feel if your kids were taken from you.  Instead you always tried to say that it wasn't applicable for some reason.  I trust that the errors in your assumptions are starting to hit home.  Don't answer this if you don't want to.  (I'm guessing you'll go off on a tangent).   Any parent who loves their kids can have but one answer.


----------



## Julia (14 February 2008)

nikkothescorpio said:


> What is your point?  Apart from staing the bleeding obvious on the first quote???   I'd say aboriginals suffer from much higher %  of just about every social ill and disease they keep a stat on - a few stats could be wrong but many really beg the question WHY?



I'd suggest that you read some of the exchanges between Prospector and Bunyip on this thread.  They have completely opposing points of view, yet are able to engage in a discourse without rudeness or disrespect. You might learn something.
I wasn't commenting on any statistics regarding aboriginals.
I was simply responding to your generalisation about the indigenous people of a number of countries and asking if you actually had any first hand experience of living in any of those countries with those people.  I note you have chosen not to answer that question.
Then I related my own experience of living in New Zealand for all my life which I'd say puts me in a more appropriate position to comment about race relations in that country than you, unless you too can claim a lifetime of living there.



> And on your second point - once again what the hell are you on about????  You try and rubbish my point of view and then recant it totally and agree that its not all milk and honey in NZ.



Read it again.  I remarked that I am frequently told by friends still in NZ that things have changed there now.  I said I did not know why.  I have some ideas but don't propose to air them here.



> What has playing rugby for NZ or singing in an opera got to do with being a barometer for how happy the indigenous people are with their lot??????



Plenty.  It goes to the capacity for achievement and pride in one's race and country.  New Zealanders are immensely proud of the achievements of many of Maori and don't appear to suffer from the same level of tall poppy syndrome as exists here.



> Don't you dare try to take on the victim mentality yourself saying oh everyone else can do it but if a white person says anything negative its racism......what a laugh.



I have no reason to feel like a victim. That is a very irrational and peculiar interpretation of what I said.  Goes to your mentality rather than mine, particularly the level of anger you seem to be suffering from.



> Historically the white christian race has started more wars and caused more **** than just about everyone else put together - hardly something I can reference but it doesn't take a genius to see and know this - there's serious daylight to the next worst offender!



Well, you said it.  Until you can provide some references and statistics to that effect, it's a stupid, hollow generalisation.



> Yes, we've done some good stuff on our watch too - but we've also really dropped the ball on a lot of stuff that we KNEW was the wrong thing to do.
> 
> And EVERY country in the world has its fair share of racists....but Australia is REALLY up there and its kidding itself if it thinks otherwise. Just scratch the surface and the ugly hate oozes out everywhere against muslims, aboriginals, yellow hordes from Asia, queue jumping boat people  - blah blah blah!



Yep, seems to me you know quite a bit about hate.  You are hardly coming across as a model for tolerance and objectivity.



> It doesn't help that so many people get their news from channel 9, only read the tele mirror and their idea of a great journalist is Ray Martin or John Laws....



Personally, never watch or read any of these.  Still, I'm having difficulty seeing the relevance of such a comment to the topic of my previous post.



> I'd really like to see how hard 3/4 of the posters in this thread would be bleeting if THE SHOE WAS ON THE OTHER FOOT....or their partner was aboriginal or they had an adopted aboriginal child etc.



Dangerous and arrogant assumption.  How do you know any of us don't have either aboriginal partners or aboriginal/fostered children?



> I still see the rubbish comments coming from people about $$$ and compensation - you greedy sods it must hurt you so bad thinking you should get money too eh?



I made no reference to compensation in my post.


----------



## disarray (15 February 2008)

nikko, julia answered well enough for me thanks, but i do think by focussing on the 20th and 21st centuries you might be leaving out just a bit of human history no?

and 2020, 1) i don't have kids 2) if i abused my kids then i suppose they should be taken away, which is the policy today for most people (except aboriginals it seems)


----------



## bunyip (15 February 2008)

Prospector said:


> No Bunyip, just a vision that institutionally we recognise that some pretty inhumane things have been done to the aboriginals as a cultural group and that it will never happen again.




OK then. I think that one thousand million dollars is very much a part of their vision. You don't. On this point then, let's just agree to disagree.



Prospector said:


> In the past we have offered them our solutions; have we ever really listened to them, and considered that they would like some input into what they really need?




Yes, but in the past, perhaps not as much as we should have. In more recent years we've seen increasing consultation between government decision makers and aboriginal leaders, in relation to decisions and policies that affect aboriginals. Which is how it should be.  



Prospector said:


> We expected aboriginals to make the leap from nomadic tribal existence, stories of dreamtime of thousands of years in the making, to our westernised and urbanised society within the space of say, 200 years.  But we Westerners had taken thousands of years to do the same thing. And we wonder why they falter? Or are not excited about our offer.  Would you have transitioned to their society at all if the shoe was on the other foot?




Nevertheless, the aboriginals who have made the transition are living proof that it can be done. If some can do it, others can too.
The difference between those who have made the transition and those who haven't, is attitude. Noel Pearson grew up in the squalor of the north QLD aboriginal town of Hopevale. He rose above all that to become a successful and respected man in both black and white society. 
He did it by utilising the opportunities that were made freely available to him....exactly the same opportunities that were available to the rest of his community, and still are. Most of them don't use those opportunities. Most of them continue living in squalor and poverty and complaining that white society has forgotten about them.



Prospector said:


> We arrived in our ships, bringing our disease and weapons, alcohol and drugs, and, convicts. We took over their land, killed them in many situations, made them live in houses, expected them to forget their culture, and now, we expect them to be grateful for it?




Not at all. 
What we expect them to be grateful for is our efforts to address their present problems. Our efforts to give them healthcare and education and accommodation. Our efforts to give them some hope for the future. Our efforts to give them the skills and training to bring these hopes to fruition.



Prospector said:


> Who are we to say that we do it better than they did?




Whether we do it better than they did it, is open to argument and depends on your point of view. The blackfella system had certain advantages, the whitefella system also has certain advantages. The blackfella system is no longer available to them. That's not their fault, nor is it your fault or mine. It's just the reality of the situation.
The whitefella system is what's available to them now. Again, this is simply the reality of the situation. 
The whitefella system may fall short of what they want (hell, in some ways it falls short of what I want too!), but nevertheless it's a system that offers considerable advantages and opportunities for anyone of any race who avails himself or herself of those advantages of opportunities. 
Those who do in fact avail themselves of what's on offer in our system, usually lead pretty good and fulfilling lives. Black or white, Indian, Chinese, Malaysian or any other race you care to name - it doesn't matter.....Australia is a land of opportunity for anyone who grasps those opportunities and makes the most of them. And that includes aboriginals. The aboriginals who have done it (and there are increasing numbers of them) are living proof. If some of them can do it, others can too.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 February 2008)

robandcoll said:


> Half my family are now expats because of what they can earn overseas. If this economy dives because of Labours focus on social issues instead of economic issues I think the expac percentange will increase, and social unrest could go anywhere.




rob and/or coll,
:topic  when you posted this (back a few, #267 I think) I couldn't help smiling - are you aware that Johnny Howard as treasurer in the 70's did his damnedest to impose income tax on expatriate Aussies even on money earnt overseas.  - but you'll be pleased to know that he also screwed that up


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 February 2008)

disarray said:


> and 2020, 1) i don't have kids 2) if i abused my kids then i suppose they should be taken away, which is the policy today for most people (except aboriginals it seems)




Relevance ?
All you are demonstrating disarray is that you don't understand what happened.  Nor did you listen ( it seems) to either Rudd or Nelson on Wednesday.


----------



## disarray (15 February 2008)

i don't know 2020, you're the one who asked the question


----------



## moneymajix (15 February 2008)

Just heard on radio news.

Dalai Lama has written to Kevin Rudd saying "sorry" was the right thing to do.


----------



## bunyip (15 February 2008)

moneymajix said:


> Just heard on radio news.
> 
> Dalai Lama has written to Kevin Rudd saying "sorry" was the right thing to do.





_*WOWEEEEEEEE.....That proves it then......must be right if the Dalai bloody Lama says so!  lol*_


----------



## Julia (15 February 2008)

Prospector said:


> Helping people is not about giving them handouts.  It is about giving back their sense of self esteem, so that they can help themselves.  Dont give a man a bag of rice ready to cook - give him the knowledge to grow and harvest the rice himself.




Prospector, earlier in this thread I suggested that, rather than send teams of builders to the communities to build houses, better to send people who can teach the local people to build their own houses, to work alongside them.
Then, hopefully, the finished houses will be lived in with a pride of achievement and ownership and cared for accordingly.  Wouldn't this be a start to changing attitudes amongst both races? 



> We have had our barney's, haven't we!  How do we learn though?  By listening, taking on board, accepting others thoughts, discussing, maybe convincing : - I am sure we have both learnt a lot!



Yes, and  your exchange has been an example of two people being prepared to do just that.  Doubt you'll ever agree, but you've both shown respect for the other's point of view - something to be much admired and emulated.


----------



## moXJO (15 February 2008)

nikkothescorpio said:


> Once again another poster boo-hooing over money that they feel should have gone to them or similar - no discussion of the principles or past events , facts etc
> 
> Boo freakin' hoo - cry me a river.  You've got no idea what you're talking about - what generalised rubbish.
> 
> ...




From your posts you seem to have no idea what’s going on. And the fact that handouts make things worse. Not wanting money to be wasted by being pissed up against a wall is a lot different to greed.


----------



## Happy (15 February 2008)

> From ABC, 15 Feb. 08
> 
> INTERNATIONAL LAW COULD BE USED FOR STOLEN GENERATIONS COMPO
> 
> ...





If one can become Australian Citizen, surely there must an equivalent to become Aboriginal.


----------



## bunyip (15 February 2008)

Julia said:


> Prospector, earlier in this thread I suggested that, rather than send teams of builders to the communities to build houses, better to send people who can teach the local people to build their own houses, to work alongside them.
> Then, hopefully, the finished houses will be lived in with a pride of achievement and ownership and cared for accordingly.  Wouldn't this be a start to changing attitudes amongst both races?
> 
> 
> ...




Prospector......I do beleive that Julia has just paid both of us a compliment. 
Isn't she nice?
Thank you Julia. We'll continue exercising restraint by speaking politely and resisting the urge to rip out each other's throats!


----------



## mikat (15 February 2008)

below is the article on the first payout of the "stolen "generation
dont the facts show everybody that he was better in foster care?
his father died at a young age, his mother couldnt care for him, so isnt this the same as a child welfare organisation taking away a child , black or white for their own good?
and to the children of these people. where do you think you would be living today if it werent for the government. in a nice house, going to school, having a job, or sitting in squalor in some town camp, an alcoholic with a short life expectancy, diabetes, no job, house, anything.
so i again i say sorry. sorry that we gave you a future, a longer life, an education, better health, 

THE first member of the stolen generation to successfully sue for compensation has been awarded another $250,000 on top of his historic payout.
Victorian Bruce Trevorrow, 51, last August won $525,000 for false imprisonment, pain and suffering after he was taken from his parents when he was just over a year old. 
The latest payout comes as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd prepares to use a legal loophole to avoid compensation claims when he makes his stolen generation apology. 
Constitutional law expert George Williams said parliamentary privilege would give the Government "iron-clad" protection from payout claims. 
"No liability can arise so long as it is done in Parliament. What is said in Parliament cannot be questioned in court," he said. 
Yesterday, the South Australian Supreme Court awarded Mr Trevorrow an extra $250,000 in lieu of interest. 
Mr Trevorrow's lawyers had argued he should get $800,000 in interest, calculated from the time he was removed from his family, while the state argued he should receive $75,500. 
Mr Trevorrow was not in court yesterday. 
Outside court yesterday, his lawyer, Claire O'Connor, called on the states to set up a compensation scheme for stolen generation members.
Individuals suing for compensation were creating an expensive and time-consuming process, she said. 

"Now that we have this judgment that explains liability and explains practice, it would be, I think, preferable to set up a compensation scheme," Ms O'Connor said. 
"They've got to be cheaper."
Tasmania has established a compensation fund and last year South Australia sought a report on its effectiveness.

SA Attorney-General Michael Atkinson said the state's Crown Solicitor was considering whether to appeal against points of law in yesterday's judgment.

After last year's $525,000 payout, Mr Trevorrow said: "At the end of the day you can't put a dollar value on what has happened to me."

He was 13 months old when on Christmas Day, 1957, he was driven from his Coorong home southeast of Adelaide to Adelaide's Children's Hospital with stomach pains.

Two weeks later, under the authority of the Aborigines Protection Board, he was given to a woman who became his foster parent, without the permission of his parents. About six months later, Mr Trevorrow's mother wrote to the board asking when she could have her son back.

"I am writing to ask if you would let me know how baby Bruce is and how long before I can have him home?" she wrote in July 1958.

"I have not forgot I have a son in there."

The court heard the hospital lied, telling her the baby was making good progress and needed to stay for treatment.

Mr Trevorrow never again saw his father, who died eight years later.

His foster family told him he was white, even as children taunted him with slurs such as "boong" and "darkie".

He developed psychological and behavioural problems.

At three years old, he had trichotilliomania, where children pull out their hair.

He was diagnosed as depressed, had a speech defect and chewed his clothing.
After repeated threats to give him away, he was returned to his mother and siblings when he was nine.
It was only then he found out he was an Aborigine.

However, his mother was unable to care for him, and at 10 he was placed into institutional care.
Mr Trevorrow suffered life-long depression and insecurity, and became an alcoholic.
Last year, Justice Gray found the SA Government had acted without legal authority when it placed Mr Trevorrow with a foster family and had been a material cause of his depression.
The state denied it unlawfully removed Mr Trevorrow.


----------



## mikat (15 February 2008)

some aboriginal people have the skills and motovation to build their own houses, but very few have any respect, pride or anything else for their own or anyone elses property.just visit alice springs and the comunities around it and see for yourself



Julia said:


> Prospector, earlier in this thread I suggested that, rather than send teams of builders to the communities to build houses, better to send people who can teach the local people to build their own houses, to work alongside them.
> Then, hopefully, the finished houses will be lived in with a pride of achievement and ownership and cared for accordingly.  Wouldn't this be a start to changing attitudes amongst both races?
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Happy (15 February 2008)

> From Yahoo7
> 
> Friday February 15 2008, 11:22 AM
> 
> ...





I don’t think reiterated opposition to anything is going to make any difference to what is going to happen next.

Best to think about repercussions and obtain detailed legal advice before making grand statements.

Shouldn’t we make Stolen Compo thread?


----------



## Julia (15 February 2008)

bunyip said:


> Prospector......I do beleive that Julia has just paid both of us a compliment.
> Isn't she nice?
> Thank you Julia. We'll continue exercising restraint by speaking politely and resisting the urge to rip out each other's throats!


----------



## Joe Blow (15 February 2008)

mikat said:


> some aboriginal people have the skills and motovation to build their own houses, but very few have any respect, pride or anything else for their own or anyone elses property




Sadly, it is these sorts of posts that in my view are now stepping over the line and bashing an entire race... and I've had just about enough of them.

This thread is about the issue of saying sorry, not bashing aboriginal Australians or white Australians so those who want to spew their racist garbage instead of discussing the issue at hand can take it to another forum. It's not welcome here.

Any more posts along these lines will be removed.


----------



## Whiskers (15 February 2008)

mikat said:


> below is the article on the first payout of the "stolen "generation
> dont the facts show everybody that he was better in foster care?




A bit of proper perspective is elementary if you are going to make judgemental assertions like that. You obviously need to keep things in chronological order and proper context.

Firstly, in the case you just highlighed he had both parents when...


> He was 13 months old... under the authority of the Aborigines Protection Board, he was given to a woman who became his foster parent, without the permission of his parents




Obviously the judge believed the Aborigines Protection Board acted outside the law and or the scope of their supporting act. They lied to the parents for the express purpose of stealing their baby. 

I don't care whether you are black, white, brindle, or a monkey, most animals recognise their mother and it has been well established that a childs proper mental and social development is directly related to the bond in the first few years with their mother in particular. The lack of a loving caring mother substituted with an alein mother trying to convince him that he is white sets his psycholigical development back to worse than 0, hence social disorders and depression etc. 



> his father died at a young age, his mother couldnt care for him, so isnt this the same as a child welfare organisation taking away a child , black or white for their own good?




Firstly, his mother was obviously traumatised from having her child stolen from her, enough to cause anyone including white people into depression and anxiety disorders.

Secondly, it is not taking a child away for their own good. The mother would most likely have been healthy but for the hospital taking her child away, lying to her and not allowing her to have contact. It would obviously be in the best interest of the the mother and child if they had been honest with the mother and afforded her the same treatment a white mother was afforded.



> and to the children of these people. where do you think you would be living today if it werent for the government.




Obviously, living with their family without the trauma of racist descriminationary effects of white people if nothing else.



> in a nice house, going to school, having a job,




Mikat, if you had one iota of understanding of what it is like to be removed from your family for no good reason you would know that these material so called niceities you refer to mean nothing in comparason.



> or sitting in squalor in some town camp, an alcoholic with a short life expectancy, diabetes, no job, house, anything




Town camp... The state created 'RESERVATIONS TO PLACE THEM OUT OF THE WAY', and where racist elements of society didn't exclude them from society the gov did. I challenge you to show me that white people would do any different if they were treated the same for generations.



> so i again i say sorry. sorry that we gave you a future, a longer life, an education, better health,




A future, huh... you are as hypocritically idiotic as the so called 'Aborigines Protection Board'. I have often spoken about toxic people and how they twist things around to try to make the illogical sound logical. 

Apart from having no reasonable sense of humanity and the needs for the proper emotional development of children in particular, you have a poor interpretation of the law. The mindset is a know-all, self-centered, selfrightious, domineering to dictitorial and you continue to mock the compassion of those who genuinely are sorry for the way they were treated.


----------



## rederob (16 February 2008)

While discussion in this thread meandered from rampant racism to pissing in one another's pockets, at the national level Nelson was caught out for the hypocrite he is on the "sorry" subject.

By using the words of a Auntie Faye Lynam, who was taken from her parent, and using them as he did without her consent, or without knowing the consequences, were unforgivable errors of judgement from Nelson.

Yet these were merely headline matters.

The real story was unfolding in the House and in the Senate.  Nelson's "sorry" speech sowed the seeds for perpetual division of our country.

Nelson was unable to confine his speech to the matter at hand: That of acknowledging the occasion was for those that understood the importance of saying sorry or who needed sorry to be said.

Nelson opened the compensation window and then jumped into the present issues of abuse and neglect in aboriginal communities.  He did other more clever things in his speech than most realised, as it was crafted from a perspective that neatly compartmentalised the systemic destruction of a culture, and shifted the blame away from well intentioned white people to impersonal governments and, ultimately, aboriginals themselves.

Subsequent parliamentary debate followed the leader's respective leads. Government speakers were considerate and understanding.  Opposition speakers relentlessly played a blame game.  It pretty much ended with the Opposition falling behind Howard and his failed policies, while Rudd's team are trying to set anew agenda.


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 February 2008)

I post this to the "file" -  so that this thread records all opinions including this one..
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2162402.htm


> *Why they turned their backs  *14 February 2008, 10:30  Ali Cobby Eckermann
> 
> Yesterday morning I sat in my house at Titjikala, on the edge of the Simpson Desert, with kinship family and friends watching Prime Minister Kevin Rudd give his apology to the Stolen Generations of Australia.
> 
> ...




Maybe we can say thanks to Brendan for getting it half right, (benefit of the doubt)  ... and move on ?


> .... *At least Mr Nelson said 'sorry' in the end and people's high spirits could soar again. His speech is still historic, and his legacy.
> 
> But the day was not about Brendan Nelson or his political party*!
> 
> ...




https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=259165&highlight=quarrel#post259165


----------



## vida (16 February 2008)

He was kidnapped and stolen from his parents. End of story. No permission was obtained. That is a crime. End of story. The motivation was not 'good intention' as is claimed by the opposition. The motive was to expune the aboriginal race, to breed it out by removing children and placing them into white families to hopefully eradicate the culture. There was no good intention, the government of the day did not respect or care about aboriginal culture or its people, otherwise they would not have murdered them as if they were pests on colonising, nor ripped their children from their arms etc etc.  just read the historical documents to see what happened.  The well intentioned thing to have done in those days was to help the whole communities have better food, health care and education not steal babies... they deserve every penny of compensation that they can get.



mikat said:


> below is the article on the first payout of the "stolen "generation
> dont the facts show everybody that he was better in foster care?
> his father died at a young age, his mother couldnt care for him, so isnt this the same as a child welfare organisation taking away a child , black or white for their own good?
> and to the children of these people. where do you think you would be living today if it werent for the government. in a nice house, going to school, having a job, or sitting in squalor in some town camp, an alcoholic with a short life expectancy, diabetes, no job, house, anything.
> ...


----------



## Spaghetti (16 February 2008)

It does not matter if a child was worse off or better off, as said you cannot take children away from parents unless they are being abused. It is a crime against humanity to remove children otherwise.

Does anyone care to give one example of success in a country that uses human rights abuses to improve society?

Generally where such abuses occur there are massive social problems, just as what happened here. It seems many do not see cause and affect too clearly.

The evidence that there was NO improvement in the lives of these children or their communities is CLEAR AS DAY. The evidence is that majority were worse off than those who remained in a family unit.

Of course you will have dysfunction where people have been abused as a race. Of course, so now our governments pays and says sorry because it could not be bothered to in the past. All the fault of government from day one until now.

Howard was buying votes and exploiting the racist element of society by saying Australians should not have to say sorry. Australian people never had to say sorry but the government does have even more reason to  than that alledged genocidal policy. 

It is not white Australia versus black Australia. It is some Australians wanting justice from the government, you know just another basic human right most of us demand.

Why do people want to deny them that right also?


----------



## Superfly (17 February 2008)

Spaghetti said:


> Does anyone care to give one example of success in a country that uses human rights abuses to improve society?
> 
> 
> 
> Howard was buying votes and exploiting the racist element of society by saying Australians should not have to say sorry.



If your so serious about human rights.. then you will boycott the China Olympics... right ?... Wonder what all the political prisoners in Chinese cells think of the Olympics....do you care...? 

Isn't that what Rudd and his hangers on are doing now ( appealing to the left )... but it's starting to blow up in their faces.... John Howard had it right... its not like the AB community get no help from the government...


----------



## rederob (17 February 2008)

Superfly said:


> Isn't that what Rudd and his hangers on are doing now ( appealing to the left )... but it's starting to blow up in their faces.... John Howard had it right... its not like the AB community get no help from the government...



Rudd has said sorry and now moved to the next level: He's already set up a special joint commission to improve Aboriginal housing headed by himself and Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson.  And he's outlined several other initiatives.

Howard and his hero, Bob Menzies, presided over the most prosperous periods of our recent past, and left a legacy of comparative neglect.  They both failed to capitalise on major nation building opportunities.

Howard went a step further: Perhaps an "out of step" further, and was conspicuous by his absence when a supposed bipartisan "sorry" was delivered by our parliamentary leaders.

Howard had it right?
Perhaps, too right.


----------



## anne (17 February 2008)

*sorry*

This is so well-written:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Kevin Rudd, 13 February 2008:

"I move:

That today we honour the indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

We reflect on their past mistreatment.

We reflect in particular on the mistreatment of those who were stolen generations - this blemished chapter in our nation's history.

The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia's history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future.

We apologise for the laws and policies of successive parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians.

We apologise especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country.

For the pain, suffering and hurt of these stolen generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry.

To the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry.

And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry.

We the parliament of Australia respectfully request that this apology be received in the spirit in which it is offered as part of the healing of the nation.

For the future we take heart; resolving that this new page in the history of our great continent can now be written.

We today take this first step by acknowledging the past and laying claim to a future that embraces all Australians.

A future where this parliament resolves that the injustices of the past must never, never happen again.

A future where we harness the determination of all Australians, indigenous and non-indigenous, to close the gap that lies between us in life expectancy, educational achievement and economic opportunity.

A future where we embrace the possibility of new solutions to enduring problems where old approaches have failed.

A future based on mutual respect, mutual resolve and mutual responsibility.

A future where all Australians, whatever their origins, are truly equal partners, with equal opportunities and with an equal stake in shaping the next chapter in the history of this great country, Australia.

There comes a time in the history of nations when their peoples must become fully reconciled to their past if they are to go forward with confidence to embrace their future.

Our nation, Australia, has reached such a time.

That is why the parliament is today here assembled: to deal with this unfinished business of the nation, to remove a great stain from the nations soul and, in a true spirit of reconciliation, to open a new chapter in the history of this great land, Australia.

Last year I made a commitment to the Australian people that if we formed the next government of the Commonwealth we would in parliament say sorry to the stolen generations.

Today I honour that commitment.

I said we would do so early in the life of the new parliament.

Again, today I honour that commitment by doing so at the commencement of this the 42nd parliament of the Commonwealth.

Because the time has come, well and truly come, for all peoples of our great country, for all citizens of our great commonwealth, for all Australians - those who are indigenous and those who are not - to come together to reconcile and together build a new future for our nation.

Some have asked, Why apologise?

(speech continued next post)


----------



## anne (17 February 2008)

*Re: sorry*

Let me begin to answer by telling the parliament just a little of one person's story - an elegant, eloquent and wonderful woman in her 80s, full of life, full of funny stories, despite what has happened in her life's journey, a woman who has travelled a long way to be with us today, a member of the stolen generation who shared some of her story with me when I called around to see her just a few days ago.

Nanna Nungala Fejo, as she prefers to be called, was born in the late 1920s.

She remembers her earliest childhood days living with her family and her community in a bush camp just outside Tennant Creek.

She remembers the love and the warmth and the kinship of those days long ago, including traditional dancing around the camp fire at night.

She loved the dancing. She remembers once getting into strife when, as a four-year-old girl, she insisted on dancing with the male tribal elders rather than just sitting and watching the men, as the girls were supposed to do.

But then, sometime around 1932, when she was about four, she remembers the coming of the welfare men.

Her family had feared that day and had dug holes in the creek bank where the children could run and hide.

What they had not expected was that the white welfare men did not come alone. They brought a truck, two white men and an Aboriginal stockman on horseback cracking his stockwhip.

The kids were found; they ran for their mothers, screaming, but they could not get away. They were herded and piled onto the back of the truck. Tears flowing, her mum tried clinging to the sides of the truck as her children were taken away to the Bungalow in Alice, all in the name of protection.

A few years later, government policy changed. Now the children would be handed over to the missions to be cared for by the churches. But which church would care for them?

The kids were simply told to line up in three lines. Nanna Fejo and her sister stood in the middle line, her older brother and cousin on her left. Those on the left were told that they had become Catholics, those in the middle Methodists and those on the right Church of England.

That is how the complex questions of post-reformation theology were resolved in the Australian outback in the 1930s. It was as crude as that.

She and her sister were sent to a Methodist mission on Goulburn Island and then Croker Island. Her Catholic brother was sent to work at a cattle station and her cousin to a Catholic mission.

Nanna Fejo's family had been broken up for a second time. She stayed at the mission until after the war, when she was allowed to leave for a prearranged job as a domestic in Darwin. She was 16. Nanna Fejo never saw her mum again.

After she left the mission, her brother let her know that her mum had died years before, a broken woman fretting for the children that had literally been ripped away from her.

I asked Nanna Fejo what she would have me say today about her story. She thought for a few moments then said that what I should say today was that all mothers are important. And she added: Families - keeping them together is very important. It's a good thing that you are surrounded by love and that love is passed down the generations. That's what gives you happiness.

As I left, later on, Nanna Fejo took one of my staff aside, wanting to make sure that I was not too hard on the Aboriginal stockman who had hunted those kids down all those years ago.

The stockman had found her again decades later, this time himself to say, Sorry. And remarkably, extraordinarily, she had forgiven him.

Nanna Fejo's is just one story.

(speech continued next post)

to read the rest of this speech, click on 

http://news.ninemsn.com/article.aspx?id=379056



There are thousands, tens of thousands of them: stories of forced separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their mums and dads over the better part of a century.

Some of these stories are graphically told in Bringing them home, the report commissioned in 1995 by Prime Minister Keating and received in 1997 by Prime Minister Howard.

There is something terribly primal about these firsthand accounts. The pain is searing; it screams from the pages. The hurt, the humiliation, the degradation and the sheer brutality of the act of physically separating a mother from her children is a deep assault on our senses and on our most elemental humanity.

These stories cry out to be heard; they cry out for an apology.

Instead, from the nation's parliament there has been a stony, stubborn and deafening silence for more than a decade; a view that somehow we, the parliament, should suspend our most basic instincts of what is right and what is wrong; a view that, instead, we should look for any pretext to push this great wrong to one side, to leave it languishing with the historians, the academics and the cultural warriors, as if the stolen generations are little more than an interesting sociological phenomenon.

But the stolen generations are not intellectual curiosities. They are human beings, human beings who have been damaged deeply by the decisions of parliaments and governments. But, as of today, the time for denial, the time for delay, has at last come to an end.

The nation is demanding of its political leadership to take us forward.

Decency, human decency, universal human decency, demands that the nation now step forward to right an historical wrong. That is what we are doing in this place today.

But should there still be doubts as to why we must now act, let the parliament reflect for a moment on the following facts: that, between 1910 and 1970, between 10 and 30 per cent of indigenous children were forcibly taken from their mothers and fathers; that, as a result, up to 50,000 children were forcibly taken from their families; that this was the product of the deliberate, calculated policies of the state as reflected in the explicit powers given to them under statute; that this policy was taken to such extremes by some in administrative authority that the forced extractions of children of so-called mixed lineage were seen as part of a broader policy of dealing with the problem of the Aboriginal population.

One of the most notorious examples of this approach was from the Northern Territory Protector of Natives, who stated:

"Generally by the fifth and invariably by the sixth generation, all native characteristics of the Australian Aborigine are eradicated. The problem of our half-castes" - to quote the protector - "will quickly be eliminated by the complete disappearance of the black race, and the swift submergence of their progeny in the white."

The Western Australian Protector of Natives expressed not dissimilar views, expounding them at length in Canberra in 1937 at the first national conference on indigenous affairs that brought together the Commonwealth and state protectors of natives.

These are uncomfortable things to be brought out into the light. They are not pleasant. They are profoundly disturbing.

But we must acknowledge these facts if we are to deal once and for all with the argument that the policy of generic forced separation was somehow well motivated, justified by its historical context and, as a result, unworthy of any apology today.

Then we come to the argument of intergenerational responsibility, also used by some to argue against giving an apology today.

But let us remember the fact that the forced removal of Aboriginal children was happening as late as the early 1970s.

The 1970s is not exactly a point in remote antiquity. There are still serving members of this parliament who were first elected to this place in the early 1970s.

It is well within the adult memory span of many of us.

The uncomfortable truth for us all is that the parliaments of the nation, individually and collectively, enacted statutes and delegated authority under those statutes that made the forced removal of children on racial grounds fully lawful.

There is a further reason for an apology as well: it is that reconciliation is in fact an expression of a core value of our nation - and that value is a fair go for all.

There is a deep and abiding belief in the Australian community that, for the stolen generations, there was no fair go at all.

There is a pretty basic Aussie belief that says that it is time to put right this most outrageous of wrongs.

It is for these reasons, quite apart from concerns of fundamental human decency, that the governments and parliaments of this nation must make this apology - because, put simply, the laws that our parliaments enacted made the stolen generations possible.

We, the parliaments of the nation, are ultimately responsible, not those who gave effect to our laws. And the problem lay with the laws themselves.

(speech continued next post)


----------



## Sean K (17 February 2008)

Anne, moved to the appropriate forum. Cheers, kennas


----------



## anne (17 February 2008)

As has been said of settler societies elsewhere, we are the bearers of many blessings from our ancestors; therefore we must also be the bearer of their burdens as well.

Therefore, for our nation, the course of action is clear: that is, to deal now with what has become one of the darkest chapters in Australia's history.

In doing so, we are doing more than contending with the facts, the evidence and the often rancorous public debate.

In doing so, we are also wrestling with our own soul.

This is not, as some would argue, a black-armband view of history; it is just the truth: the cold, confronting, uncomfortable truth - facing it, dealing with it, moving on from it.

Until we fully confront that truth, there will always be a shadow hanging over us and our future as a fully united and fully reconciled people.

It is time to reconcile. It is time to recognise the injustices of the past. It is time to say sorry. It is time to move forward together.

To the stolen generations, I say the following: as Prime Minister of Australia, I am sorry.

On behalf of the government of Australia, I am sorry.

On behalf of the parliament of Australia, I am sorry.

I offer you this apology without qualification.

We apologise for the hurt, the pain and suffering that we, the parliament, have caused you by the laws that previous parliaments have enacted.

We apologise for the indignity, the degradation and the humiliation these laws embodied.

We offer this apology to the mothers, the fathers, the brothers, the sisters, the families and the communities whose lives were ripped apart by the actions of successive governments under successive parliaments.

In making this apology, I would also like to speak personally to the members of the stolen generations and their families: to those here today, so many of you; to those listening across the nation - from Yuendumu, in the central west of the Northern Territory, to Yabara, in North Queensland, and to Pitjantjatjara in South Australia.

I know that, in offering this apology on behalf of the government and the parliament, there is nothing I can say today that can take away the pain you have suffered personally.

Whatever words I speak today, I cannot undo that.

Words alone are not that powerful; grief is a very personal thing.

I ask those non-indigenous Australians listening today who may not fully understand why what we are doing is so important to imagine for a moment that this had happened to you.

I say to honourable members here present: imagine if this had happened to us. Imagine the crippling effect. Imagine how hard it would be to forgive.

My proposal is this: if the apology we extend today is accepted in the spirit of reconciliation, in which it is offered, we can today resolve together that there be a new beginning for Australia.

And it is to such a new beginning that I believe the nation is now calling us.

Australians are a passionate lot. We are also a very practical lot.

For us, symbolism is important but, unless the great symbolism of reconciliation is accompanied by an even greater substance, it is little more than a clanging gong.

It is not sentiment that makes history; it is our actions that make history.

Today's apology, however inadequate, is aimed at righting past wrongs.

It is also aimed at building a bridge between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians - a bridge based on a real respect rather than a thinly veiled contempt.

Our challenge for the future is to cross that bridge and, in so doing, to embrace a new partnership between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians - to embrace, as part of that partnership, expanded Link-up and other critical services to help the stolen generations to trace their families if at all possible and to provide dignity to their lives.

But the core of this partnership for the future is to close the gap between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians on life expectancy, educational achievement and employment opportunities.

This new partnership on closing the gap will set concrete targets for the future: within a decade to halve the widening gap in literacy, numeracy and employment outcomes and opportunities for indigenous Australians, within a decade to halve the appalling gap in infant mortality rates between indigenous and non-indigenous children and, within a generation, to close the equally appalling 17-year life gap between indigenous and non-indigenous in overall life expectancy.

The truth is: a business as usual approach towards indigenous Australians is not working.

Most old approaches are not working.

We need a new beginning, a new beginning which contains real measures of policy success or policy failure; a new beginning, a new partnership, on closing the gap with sufficient flexibility not to insist on a one-size-fits-all approach for each of the hundreds of remote and regional indigenous communities across the country but instead allowing flexible, tailored, local approaches to achieve commonly-agreed national objectives that lie at the core of our proposed new partnership; a new beginning that draws intelligently on the experiences of new policy settings across the nation.

However, unless we as a parliament set a destination for the nation, we have no clear point to guide our policy, our programs or our purpose; we have no centralised organising principle.

Let us resolve today to begin with the little children, a fitting place to start on this day of apology for the stolen generations.

Let us resolve over the next five years to have every indigenous four-year-old in a remote Aboriginal community enrolled in and attending a proper early childhood education centre or opportunity and engaged in proper preliteracy and prenumeracy programs.

Let us resolve to build new educational opportunities for these little ones, year by year, step by step, following the completion of their crucial preschool year.

Let us resolve to use this systematic approach to build future educational opportunities for indigenous children to provide proper primary and preventive health care for the same children, to begin the task of rolling back the obscenity that we find today in infant mortality rates in remote indigenous communities up to four times higher than in other communities.

None of this will be easy. Most of it will be hard, very hard. But none of it is impossible, and all of it is achievable with clear goals, clear thinking, and by placing an absolute premium on respect, cooperation and mutual responsibility as the guiding principles of this new partnership on closing the gap.

The mood of the nation is for reconciliation now, between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. The mood of the nation on Indigenous policy and politics is now very simple.

The nation is calling on us, the politicians, to move beyond our infantile bickering, our point-scoring and our mindlessly partisan politics and to elevate this one core area of national responsibility to a rare position beyond the partisan divide.

Surely this is the unfulfilled spirit of the 1967 referendum. Surely, at least from this day forward, we should give it a go.

Let me take this one step further and take what some may see as a piece of political posturing and make a practical proposal to the opposition on this day, the first full sitting day of the new parliament.


----------



## anne (17 February 2008)

the final bit:

I said before the election that the nation needed a kind of war cabinet on parts of Indigenous policy, because the challenges are too great and the consequences are too great to allow it all to become a political football, as it has been so often in the past.

I therefore propose a joint policy commission, to be led by the Leader of the Opposition and me, with a mandate to develop and implement, to begin with, an effective housing strategy for remote communities over the next five years.

It will be consistent with the government's policy framework, a new partnership for closing the gap. If this commission operates well, I then propose that it work on the further task of constitutional recognition of the first Australians, consistent with the longstanding platform commitments of my party and the pre-election position of the opposition.

This would probably be desirable in any event because, unless such a proposition were absolutely bipartisan, it would fail at a referendum. As I have said before, the time has come for new approaches to enduring problems.

Working constructively together on such defined projects would, I believe, meet with the support of the nation. It is time for fresh ideas to fashion the nation's future.

Mr Speaker, today the parliament has come together to right a great wrong. We have come together to deal with the past so that we might fully embrace the future. We have had sufficient audacity of faith to advance a pathway to that future, with arms extended rather than with fists still clenched.

So let us seize the day. Let it not become a moment of mere sentimental reflection.

Let us take it with both hands and allow this day, this day of national reconciliation, to become one of those rare moments in which we might just be able to transform the way in which the nation thinks about itself, whereby the injustice administered to the stolen generations in the name of these, our parliaments, causes all of us to reappraise, at the deepest level of our beliefs, the real possibility of reconciliation writ large: reconciliation across all indigenous Australia; reconciliation across the entire history of the often bloody encounter between those who emerged from the Dreamtime a thousand generations ago and those who, like me, came across the seas only yesterday; reconciliation which opens up whole new possibilities for the future.

It is for the nation to bring the first two centuries of our settled history to a close, as we begin a new chapter. We embrace with pride, admiration and awe these great and ancient cultures we are truly blessed to have among us cultures that provide a unique, uninterrupted human thread linking our Australian continent to the most ancient prehistory of our planet.

Growing from this new respect, we see our indigenous brothers and sisters with fresh eyes, with new eyes, and we have our minds wide open as to how we might tackle, together, the great practical challenges that Indigenous Australia faces in the future.

Let us turn this page together: indigenous and non-indigenous Australians, government and opposition, Commonwealth and state, and write this new chapter in our nation's story together.

First Australians, First Fleeters, and those who first took the oath of allegiance just a few weeks ago. Let's grasp this opportunity to craft a new future for this great land: Australia. I commend the motion to the House."


----------



## anne (17 February 2008)

I  know the speech is long, but I thought it important to post it all.  Read it and see what you think.

cheers Anne


----------



## Whiskers (17 February 2008)

Superfly said:


> If your so serious about human rights.. then you will boycott the China Olympics... right ?... Wonder what all the political prisoners in Chinese cells think of the Olympics....do you care...?
> 
> Isn't that what Rudd and his hangers on are doing now ( appealing to the left )... but it's starting to blow up in their faces.... John Howard had it right......




Superfly, seriously you have to stop twisting the facts and involving unrelated issues a-la toxic people I mentioned in an earlier post. I don't necessairly espouse to the author of this site but it is a simple well established definition. post.http://www.oprah.com/spiritself/lybl/control/ss_lybl_control_10_b.jhtml

What you are illustrating is a poor understanding of the meanings and application of words and or an inherent prejudice. I'm happy to keep discussing it with you if you are interested in resolving your issues.

What we are serious about on this thread is saying sorry to the aboriginals subjected to state sanctioned policies to remove aboriginal children from their parents, to essentially breed out the aboriginal race. 

Many of us probably agree with your concerns re China but that issue is totally seperate, unrelated and irrelevant to the issue of saying sorry here. 



> its not like the AB community get no help from the government



Some of the earlier posts have already pointed out that much of what was done in the name of 'helping' the aboriginal people was not 'help' but dictitorial management a-la toxic people. It's really basic english, understanding of the meaning of words and not a very difficult legal concept to grasp.

A common meaning for help (verb) is; 

to give aid; be of service or advantage: _Every little bit helps._ 

to make easier or less difficult; _The exercise of restraint is certain to help the achievement of peace. _

to give or provide what is necessary to accomplish a task or satisfy a need; contribute strength or means to; render assistance to; cooperate effectively with; aid; _He planned to help me with my work. Let me help you with those packages. _ 

to do something with or for someone that he cannot do alone, or that he will find useful. Example: _Will you help me with this translation?; Will you please help me (to) translate this poem?; Can I help?; He fell down and I helped him up._

Your use of help is an idiom. (_a language, dialect, or style of speaking peculiar to a people. a construction or expression of one language whose parts correspond to elements in another language but whose total structure or meaning is not matched in the same way in the second language._)

—Idioms 
22. help oneself to, 
a. to serve oneself; take a portion of: _Help yourself to the cake._ 
     b. to take or use without asking permission; appropriate: _They helped themselves to the farmer's apples. Help yourself to any of the books we're giving away._​
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/help


----------



## Superfly (17 February 2008)

Whiskers said:


> Superfly, seriously you have to stop twisting the facts and involving unrelated issues a-la toxic people I mentioned in an earlier post.




Thats a response to an earlier question on human rights... 



> aboriginals subjected to state sanctioned policies to remove aboriginal children from their parents, to essentially breed out the aboriginal race.



Your not serious...maybe you are, if so then you would be beating the drum for the "sorry" crowd. 



> Many of us probably agree with your concerns re China but that issue is totally seperate, unrelated and irrelevant to the issue of saying sorry here.




Separate yes... unrelated yes... irrelevant no... why, because you should never forget those people around the world, that have had Socialism forced upon them continue to live under an iron fist. 



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/help


----------



## Whiskers (17 February 2008)

Superfly said:


> > Originally Posted by Whiskers
> > Superfly, seriously you have to stop twisting the facts and involving unrelated issues a-la toxic people I mentioned in an earlier post.
> 
> 
> ...




But clearly expanded by you, dare I highlight again in a toxic way, out of the particular context of human rights used in this thread issue. 



Superfly said:


> > aboriginals subjected to state sanctioned policies to remove aboriginal children from their parents, to essentially breed out the aboriginal race.
> 
> 
> 
> Your not serious...maybe you are, if so then you would be beating the drum for the "sorry" crowd.




You question that it was state sanctioned!?

The following extract from Rudds apology speech identifies the laws and policies and or philosophies to extinquish the aboriginal race. 


anne said:


> But should there still be doubts as to why we must now act, let the parliament reflect for a moment on the following facts: that, between 1910 and 1970, between 10 and 30 per cent of indigenous children were forcibly taken from their mothers and fathers; that, as a result, up to 50,000 children were forcibly taken from their families; that this was the product of the deliberate, calculated policies of the state as reflected in the explicit powers given to them under statute; that this policy was taken to such extremes by some in administrative authority that the forced extractions of children of so-called mixed lineage were seen as part of a broader policy of dealing with the problem of the Aboriginal population.
> 
> One of the most notorious examples of this approach was from the Northern Territory Protector of Natives, who stated:
> 
> ...




Any reasonably competant person can research the law archives or google it to validate this.



Superfly said:


> > Many of us probably agree with your concerns re China but that issue is totally seperate, unrelated and irrelevant to the issue of saying sorry here.
> 
> 
> 
> Separate yes... unrelated yes... irrelevant no... why, because you should never forget those people around the world, that have had Socialism forced upon them continue to live under an iron fist.




Irrevelant yes... because the solution to this problem is totally seperate, unrelated and irrelevant to the China political issue. If you let your emotions on China interfere with the issue at hand with the sorry issue, and visa-versa it detracts from your ability to focus to get a resolution and good result for either or both.


----------



## Superfly (17 February 2008)

Whiskers said:


> You question that it was state sanctioned!?




Yes, still question if an Australian Federal government ever sanctioned the elimination of the AB race. I'm happy to stand corrected if that was ever passed as law by a Federal government. Even if this was so... the current generation of Australians should not have to say "sorry", it's just playing into the victim mentality among other things. 



> The following extract from Rudds apology speech identifies the laws and policies and or philosophies to extinquish the aboriginal race.




Your talking 1937... and Rudd's speech would back himself up...
Ok this guy said that.. but how many other views were there back then that haven't been mentioned. It's easy for both sides to pick the worst and play it up. There was an AB criket team who played in England.. not something that would happen if the government was trying to crush them...



> Irrevelant yes... because the solution to this problem is totally seperate, unrelated and irrelevant to the China political issue. If you let your emotions on China interfere with the issue at hand with the sorry issue, and visa-versa it detracts from your ability to focus to get a resolution and good result for either or both.




Whats a good result...they have their "sorry"... is this about sorry or $$$... are you going to pay out of your own money because your so so sorry...bet not.. if you voted for Rudd..this what you get... how much will this cost Australia... but I'm sure all has been posted through this thread before, so I'm out of this one now.... 

How many of the sorry crowd would still be sorry if it was their money on the line....hmmmmmm 
As for China...that come about by a human rights question from a "sorry" fan cluber .....maybe thats for another thread sometime....


----------



## Prospector (17 February 2008)

bunyip said:


> Prospector......I do beleive that Julia has just paid both of us a compliment.
> Isn't she nice?
> Thank you Julia. We'll continue exercising restraint by speaking politely and resisting the urge to rip out each other's throats!




Yes, Julia has many fine traits, except I think in this case she does agree with you!  Oh well, no-one is perfect :

I am sure there is one thing we both will agree on - that your concerns about the millions of dollars in compensation, never comes to fruition!


----------



## agro (17 February 2008)

*Could've guessed compensation was on the cards - lawyers have been planning it up to the lead up of the day i bet!!*

http://www.livenews.com.au/articles/2008/02/15/Stolen_Generations_compensation_claim

A Victorian member of the Stolen generations is planning to become the first to sue for compensation after this week's apology.


----------



## Whiskers (17 February 2008)

agro said:


> *Could've guessed compensation was on the cards - lawyers have been planning it up to the lead up of the day i bet!!*
> 
> http://www.livenews.com.au/articles/2008/02/15/Stolen_Generations_compensation_claim
> 
> A Victorian member of the Stolen generations is planning to become the first to sue for compensation after this week's apology.




Argo, we have already discussed a case awarded prior to the sorry announcement. 

So it's obvious that a case can be made irrespective of the sorry statement.

If a white person can claim damages for wrongful imprisonment, kidnapping, abuse or whatever, why should Australian aboriginals found by the courts to be treated similarly illegaly under the same laws, be excluded from similar compensation?

Correct me if I'm wrong Argo but you seem to be saying bar the Judges from awarding criminal/civil compensation to Australian aboriginals.

You seem to resent aboriginal Australians being conferred the same laws and rights as the rest of us. Isn't that Racism, like apartheid was in South Africa!?


----------



## Prospector (17 February 2008)

South Australia has already had one claim successfully proceed through the courts; the story was very sad; there was no evidence at all of abuse, the child was removed from Hospital and the mother was told a pack of lies.  Heaven help us if you think that is OK!  Walk a mile in their shoes, how would you react as a father if your child was taken from you merely because someone else didn't like the colour of your skin?


----------



## rederob (17 February 2008)

Superfly said:


> Your talking 1937... and Rudd's speech would back himself up...
> Ok this guy said that.. but how many other views were there back then that haven't been mentioned. It's easy for both sides to pick the worst and play it up. There was an AB criket team who played in England.. not something that would happen if the government was trying to crush them...



The views were in print, and from the highest levels:


> "_Generally by the fifth and invariably by the sixth generation, all native characteristics of the Australian aborigine are eradicated. The problem of our half-castes will quickly be eliminated by the complete disappearance of the black race, and the swift submergence of their progeny in the white." _Dr. Cecil Cook, NT Chief Protector 1927-39:



Unfortunately people lacking the compassion to appreciate the importance of "sorry" also seem to lack the capacity understand the substantial documented evidence that describes the purpose of separation.


----------



## Julia (17 February 2008)

Prospector said:


> Yes, Julia has many fine traits, except I think in this case she does agree with you!  Oh well, no-one is perfect :
> 
> I am sure there is one thing we both will agree on - that your concerns about the millions of dollars in compensation, never comes to fruition!




Hey Prospector:  re your first paragraph, could you point me to where I have actually endorsed all that Bunyip has said?  I have several times said I'm behind the 'saying Sorry' issue.  I've also suggested, although I don't actually know because I can't read the minds of the people who formulated the policy, and I was many years away from living here at the time, that the policy of removing children at the time was probably well intentioned.
This belief on my part might reflect nothing more than my persistent, if frequently invalidated, tendency to believe the best of most people.

Re your second paragraph:  I'm very happy for compensation to be awarded if it is - as the government is presently suggesting - put into additional services such as addiction management, addressing of domestic violence and child sex abuse issues - rather than paid out to individuals which I am completely against.

A couple of pages ago I asked you how you would feel about  instructors in building going into the communities to show indigenous people how to build their own homes, as distinct from teams of government builders just going there and whacking up lots of new houses.  You haven't responded to this.
It seemed to me in line with your suggestion of showing people how to grow their own food rather than give them ready prepared food material.  The people should be consulted on what kinds of homes they need.

One of my beliefs is that we value that which we have had a hand in creating more than that which is easily given and which will be replaced if necessary.
One of our members suggested aboriginal people do not have any sense of pride or achievement.  I absolutely reject that.

That said, there are thousands of people, white, black and everything in between, who are homeless and living on our streets.
What are we doing to address housing for them?  There are many mentally ill amongst them.  Do they have less of a priority than aboriginal people?

And, before someone jumps on me for the above question, pointing out that it is irrelevant to the topic in hand, no it's not.  We should be concerned to address the issues of all disadvantaged people, not just aboriginals.

For sure, Mr Rudd has garnered the aboriginal vote very well indeed.  He is probably even reasonably sincere in his comments.  But he does not have a long record of being impassioned about the plight of indigenous people.
So, before we all get too carried away about our great new Leader, let's just remember that he, Brendan Nelson, and all the others, are at heart politicians first and foremost.


----------



## Whiskers (17 February 2008)

Julia said:


> I'm very happy for compensation to be awarded if it is - as the government is presently suggesting - put into additional services such as addiction management, addressing of domestic violence and child sex abuse issues - rather than paid out to individuals which I am completely against.




Hi Julia 

I would agree with your comment. 

I think the difference between the relatively few like the decided case referred to previously by mikat on this thread at post 410, is that case involved the child being dishonestly and consequently technically illegally taken from the parents, by the nurses at the hospital, ie not specifically notifying the parents that the child was being removed under the authority of the particular act. This case was genuinely stolen which gave way for further compensation for emotional abuse by the foster parents.

Whereas in most cases they were rounded up and the parents were notifed the children were being taken under the authority of the law at the time. These cases I expect will not succeed in law as a case of 'stolen' children and consequently won't get an entitlement to compensation for that. These will be the vast majority of cases that I expect will be helped with community wide resources of the like you mention.

However there may still be some (living) that can legitimately claim physical and or emotional abuse eg rape even though they were properly removed as the law stood at the time, but abused by overzealous officials etc.



> One of the most notorious examples of this approach was from the Northern Territory Protector of Natives, who stated:
> 
> "Generally by the fifth and invariably by the sixth generation, all native characteristics of the Australian Aborigine are eradicated. The problem of our half-castes" - to quote the protector - "will quickly be eliminated by the complete disappearance of the black race, and the swift submergence of their progeny in the white."
> 
> The Western Australian Protector of Natives expressed not dissimilar views


----------



## bunyip (18 February 2008)

Julia said:


> Hey Prospector:  re your first paragraph, could you point me to where I have actually endorsed all that Bunyip has said?  I have several times said I'm behind the 'saying Sorry' issue.  I've also suggested, although I don't actually know because I can't read the minds of the people who formulated the policy, and I was many years away from living here at the time, that the policy of removing children at the time was probably well intentioned.
> This belief on my part might reflect nothing more than my persistent, if frequently invalidated, tendency to believe the best of most people.
> 
> Re your second paragraph:  I'm very happy for compensation to be awarded if it is - as the government is presently suggesting - put into additional services such as addiction management, addressing of domestic violence and child sex abuse issues - rather than paid out to individuals which I am completely against.
> ...




An excellent post, probably the best that has yet appeared on this thread. 
Well done Julia!


----------



## trinity (18 February 2008)

> I'm very happy for compensation to be awarded if it is - as the government is presently suggesting - put into additional services such as addiction management, addressing of domestic violence and child sex abuse issues - rather than paid out to individuals which I am completely against.





well said Julia ...


----------



## Prospector (18 February 2008)

Ok, Julia, I hear your message.

Of course our society must care for those who can't care properly for themselves, and that will embrace the disabled and the mentally ill.  Unfortunately our (state) Government has swung the pendulum the other way, and taking away the residential care system (remniscent of the old 'asylum' image I guess) and put people out into the community.  Unfortunately they are not willing to put the required support mechanisms in place to ensure that they have the capacity to do this.  But the Government did not create mental illness.  It did however, create the stolen generation.

The 'sorry' part for me, only comes from the forced separation of infants from their family, simply because we thought the white way was better for raising children, and ignoring the fact that families were torn apart.  The end did not justify the means. As simple as that.  

The rest - well, we havent exactly gone about things in a culturally sensisitive manner - we just assumed that they were primitive, we were advanced and of course they would want to do things our way?  But that was never what the sorry was all about though.

And yes, their sense of self esteem and determination will come from working with them, to build and develop those things they see as important; educating their children so they become the teachers, Doctors and Nurses they need for their own people; working with them to develop appropriate health regimes and in a manner that values their own traditions and customs.  Not assuming that our way is the best way.  So yes, empowering them is what they need, not the handouts nor benevolent (sometimes) power we have used in the past.


----------



## Spaghetti (18 February 2008)

Superfly said:


> If your so serious about human rights.. then you will boycott the China Olympics... right ?... Wonder what all the political prisoners in Chinese cells think of the Olympics....do you care...?
> 
> Isn't that what Rudd and his hangers on are doing now ( appealing to the left )... but it's starting to blow up in their faces.... John Howard had it right... its not like the AB community get no help from the government...




I do not believe what I read at times.

What has blown up in who's face?

Aboriginal people have a right to claim compensation through the legal system same as anyone else. The federal government is not automatically paying out compensation but if anyone wants to try to claim tis their right. Are you suggesting (along with others) THEY SHOULD STILL CONTINUE TO BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY and not have the same rights we enjoy.?


----------



## Witchywoman (18 February 2008)

We hear of all the bad things that happened to the stolen generation but what about all the good things, we dont hear of the ones that have made a good life, theres no thankyou from them...what about the baby's of unmarried (white) mothers that where taken away and the children brought over from England during WW1 all this was done for their supposedly good they dont ask for a sorry or compensation....how many of those aboriginals who attended the "Sorry" day held at several venues actually work......and most you wouldnt have known they were aboriginal...as they were mostly white....where does it stop, when are you not classed as an aboriginal,  when you are  1/4 or 1/8 or does it go on and on......I think we should only help the full blooded aboriginals.... why I feel for the ones who really have had it tough through no fault of their own, I dont for the ones who want to bludge on taxpayers money.......and blame the whites for all their troubles....


----------



## Spaghetti (18 February 2008)

Witchywoman said:


> We hear of all the bad things that happened to the stolen generation but what about all the good things, we dont hear of the ones that have made a good life, theres no thankyou from them...what about the baby's of unmarried (white) mothers that where taken away and the children brought over from England during WW1 all this was done for their supposedly good they dont ask for a sorry or compensation....how many of those aboriginals who attended the "Sorry" day held at several venues actually work......and most you wouldnt have known they were aboriginal...as they were mostly white....where does it stop, when are you not classed as an aboriginal,  when you are  1/4 or 1/8 or does it go on and on......I think we should only help the full blooded aboriginals.... why I feel for the ones who really have had it tough through no fault of their own, I dont for the ones who want to bludge on taxpayers money.......and blame the whites for all their troubles....




Of course they may have appeared white. The stolen generation were not full blood.


----------



## Prospector (18 February 2008)

Witchywoman said:


> We hear of all the bad things that happened to the stolen generation but what about all the good things, we dont hear of the ones that have made a good life, theres no thankyou from them.......




OK, thankyou from taking me away from the mother who wanted me and looked after me!

There, does that make you feel better  (not that I was, but sheesh!)


Witchywoman said:


> what about the baby's of unmarried (white) mothers that where taken away .......




We all agree, that is wrong too!



Witchywoman said:


> and the children brought over from England during WW1 all this was done for their supposedly good they dont ask for a sorry or compensation.......




Maybe they should, what was done to them by the British Government was very wrong too, but they wont apologise.


Witchywoman said:


> I think we should only help the full blooded aboriginals




I think we have probably killed most of the full blooded aboriginals off


----------



## chops_a_must (18 February 2008)

Witchywoman said:


> the children brought over from England during WW1 all this was done for their supposedly good they dont ask for a sorry or compensation....




Ah.. yeah, they did. They got a very large compo payout from the WA government last year. So check your facts!


----------



## Spaghetti (18 February 2008)

Government pays out compensation all over the place and even for reasons that relate to workplace conditions that have lead to health issues. Not our fault, not the present day government's fault but hey as long as they are not aboriginal who cares?

Horse flu compensation, now that one is a beauty, we do not mind compensating the gambling indutstry. Guess we have our priorities right.


----------



## agro (18 February 2008)

Spaghetti said:


> Government pays out compensation all over the place and even for reasons that relate to workplace conditions that have lead to health issues. Not our fault, not the present day government's fault but hey as long as they are not aboriginal who cares?
> 
> Horse flu compensation, now that one is a beauty, we do not mind compensating the gambling indutstry. Guess we have our priorities right.




aboriginals get weekly compensation as well as many other benefits thats the point i am getting at

the claims being filed are like the icing on the cake for them


----------



## IFocus (18 February 2008)

Prospector said:


> Ok, Julia, I hear your message.
> 
> Of course our society must care for those who can't care properly for themselves, and that will embrace the disabled and the mentally ill.  Unfortunately our (state) Government has swung the pendulum the other way, and taking away the residential care system (remniscent of the old 'asylum' image I guess) and put people out into the community.  Unfortunately they are not willing to put the required support mechanisms in place to ensure that they have the capacity to do this.  But the Government did not create mental illness.  It did however, create the stolen generation.
> 
> ...




Thanks for your posts Prospector have enjoyed the whole discussion but your posts have echoed my own views much more eloquently than what I could contribute

Focus


----------



## Spaghetti (18 February 2008)

Second that Focus, very hard to write nicely when the only source of education on aboriginal issues for some seems to come from the latest racist email doing the rounds. Yet Prospector has written very well. Very hard when such ignorance abounds, I have not been able to write half what I wanted I have burned with so much anger.


----------



## rederob (19 February 2008)

agro said:


> aboriginals get weekly compensation as well as many other benefits thats the point i am getting at
> 
> the claims being filed are like the icing on the cake for them



Exactly what are you getting at?
Aboriginals get what the Social Security Act allows by way of pensions and benefits that non-aboriginals are also entitled to receive.
What are the "other benefits"?
Earlier deaths?
Greater prevalence of disease?
Poor infrastraucture?
Highest costs of foodstuffs in Australia?

Perhaps your ignorance is the icing on the cake given that no claims have been filed (can I assume for being stolen?).


----------



## Witchywoman (19 February 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Ah.. yeah, they did. They got a very large compo payout from the WA government last year. So check your facts!




Check ur own facts no such thing.........


----------



## Superfly (19 February 2008)

rederob said:


> Exactly what are you getting at?
> Aboriginals get what the Social Security Act allows by way of pensions and benefits that non-aboriginals are also entitled to receive.
> What are the "other benefits"?
> Earlier deaths?
> ...




Try yours Red... 

and you forgot to add...

*Sex abuse

 *Violence

 *No job opportunity

 *Booze

Exactly what YOU posted is why many many years ago some thought the best way to give a child from that type environment in that community a chance was to do what was done.... 

As in a previous post "you don't hear of the good things" that resulted from these actions... and none of the Sorry Fan Club has yet posted a Law or even a tabled Bill by an Australian Federal government that aimed at wiping out the AB race... why .. because it never happened... 

You think that there will be no claims for money ?... lol .. yeh and Haneef was 100% innocent.... lol.... (so were the 9/11 high jackers until 9/11...get it !!!!! )


----------



## Happy (19 February 2008)

agro said:


> aboriginals get weekly compensation as well as many other benefits thats the point i am getting at
> 
> the claims being filed are like the icing on the cake for them




I heard about few more -

Children get – shoe money – correct me if my information is wrong but this used to be $2.50 for every day ab child shows face at school.

There are special low interest or even no interest loans, how come I cannot get it, probably wrong race in our non-racial society

People who should be on the same rate of pay are not on the same rate of pay, go figure.

Special travelling allowances.

Not to mention no need for fishing license in Australia, in supposedly non-racial Australia

There are probably more, but not published freely, wander why?


----------



## Happy (19 February 2008)

And post-sorry snippets just keep coming



> From ABC 19 Feb. 08
> 
> STOLEN GENERATIONS COMPO COULD COST WA $140M
> By David Weber
> ...






> "And to put a figure of 30, 40,000 on some of those cases is an insult to the people who have suffered terribly."




If $40,000 is an insult, then probably $140M WA suffering money will swell to something that is not perceived as an insult.

Time will tell how sorry we will feel, after all the sorry money is handed over.


----------



## Spaghetti (19 February 2008)

Superfly said:


> Try yours Red...
> 
> and you forgot to add...
> 
> ...




Those white fathers of the stolen generation sure do have a lot to answer for.


----------



## rederob (19 February 2008)

Happy said:


> I heard about few more -
> 
> Children get – shoe money – correct me if my information is wrong but this used to be $2.50 for every day ab child shows face at school.
> 
> ...



Not a single fact above, so maybe some sources to the lies would be handy.


----------



## Whiskers (19 February 2008)

Superfly said:


> As in a previous post "you don't hear of the good things" that resulted from these actions... and none of the Sorry Fan Club has yet posted a Law or even a tabled Bill by an Australian Federal government that aimed at wiping out the AB race... why .. because it never happened...




You sure are a lazy, ignorant pest Superfly. I've told you before that the information is easy to find in the archives or google. I will highlight a couple examples. Do yourself a favour and do some research before ranting on such nonsense.

*Firstly there was no federal government when the first laws were enacted. *

Federation didn't occur until 1901. The first colonies eventualy became states of a federal Australia in 1901.

The following is one of the first laws enacted to limit the rights and control Aboriginals. When you read the acts you will see that words like 'protection' are used as an idiom, even completely contradictory.



> *AN ACT*
> To provide for the Protection and Management of
> the Aboriginal Natives of Victoria.[11th November 1869]
> http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/vic7i_doc_1869.pdf
> Photocopy of original act: http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?sdID=22​




Happy, your comment below is silly because 'Australian' referes to a country, nationality, whereas 'Aboriginal' is a race, more specifically considered 'native to'.



Happy said:


> If one can become Australian Citizen, surely there must an equivalent to become Aboriginal.




Just to be clear, whether or not you were aboriginal was written into the law. These half-cast people were designated aboriginal by the law of the time which pretty much stayed in force to about the 1960's.

The following from the above legislation "Who to be deemed aboriginals".

*8.* Every aboriginal native of Australia and every aboriginal halfcaste
or child of a half-caste, such half-caste or child habitually
associating and living with aboriginals, shall be deemed to be an
aboriginal within the meaning of this Act; and at the hearing of any case
the justice adjudicating may, in the absence of other sufficient evidence,
decide on his own view and judgment whether any person with reference
to whom any proceedings shall have been taken under this Act is or is not
an aboriginal.​
Controls over Aboriginal people were largely exercised through government-appointed authorities, such as the Aborigines Protection Board in NSW (re-named in 1940 the Aborigines Welfare Board). 

Aboriginals were generally wards of the state by law. Among other things the wages and entitlements of many aboriginals were confiscated by the government, but for some nominal pocket money.

The commonwealth government hosted an initial conference of Commonwealth and State Aboriginal authorities in Canberra on 21-23 April 1937. The purpose was to unify and better coordinate the official and uniffical policies if the states to breed out half casts and remove full blood aboriginals to remote reservation and limit access.

The Law was ammended in 1943 to provide for the reconstitution of the Aborigines Welfare Board ; to constitute the Aborigines Welfare Board a body corporate, and to extend its powers, authorities, duties and functions ; for these and other purposes to amend the Aborigines Protection Act, 1909-1940 ; and for purposes connected therewith. http://www1.aiatsis.gov.au/exhibitions/legislations/pdfs/nsw/vn71409-16x_a.pdf


----------



## Happy (20 February 2008)

rederob said:


> Not a single fact above, so maybe some sources to the lies would be handy.





Calling somebody racist and liar is overused and so popular that I should not bother to reply to your post.

Little quote from WA fishieries dept webpage to provide you with that SINGLE FACT to support alleged lies. 

https://secure.fish.wa.gov.au/fisheries/TCForm.jsp




> Terms and Conditions
> 
> Before you apply for a Recreational Licence you must be aware:
> 1. Rules regarding Recreational Fishing can be found on this website by selecting one of the following links:
> ...




You prove that the rest is not true.


----------



## Happy (20 February 2008)

Whiskers said:


> Happy, your comment below is silly because 'Australian' referes to a country, nationality, whereas 'Aboriginal' is a race, more specifically considered 'native to'.




Silly me, sorry for that, I understand now, Australia is non-racial providing that ab race gets different treatment from all the other possible races.


----------



## Superfly (20 February 2008)

Whiskers said:


> You sure are a lazy, ignorant pest Superfly.





First, lets keep this civil... I'm sure you will be the first to cry to the Mod's if things get heated... 



> *Firstly there was no federal government when the first laws were enacted. *



 Derrrrrrrr ... really... I thought Captain Cook called the first house of reps question time...



> The following from the above legislation "Who to be deemed aboriginals".
> 
> *8.* Every aboriginal native of Australia and every aboriginal halfcaste
> or child of a half-caste, such half-caste or child habitually
> ...




So.. so what.. its an act that clarifies who the state deems an AB... can't read anything there about any intent for the elimination of the AB community...



> Aboriginals were generally wards of the state by law. Among other things the wages and entitlements of many aboriginals were confiscated by the government, but for some nominal pocket money.




They still got it better than the North American Indians..etc


> The commonwealth government hosted an initial conference of Commonwealth and State Aboriginal authorities in Canberra on 21-23 April 1937. The purpose was to unify and better coordinate the official and uniffical policies if the states to breed out half casts and remove full blood aboriginals to remote reservation and limit access.



 and did it happen ? also don't forget to notice the "IF THE STATES" part... are they or are they not....

Not even close Whiskers... No Cigar for you....


----------



## Whiskers (20 February 2008)

Happy said:


> Silly me, sorry for that, I understand now, Australia is non-racial providing that ab race gets different treatment from all the other possible races.




Com'on happy, you can see that aborigals were clearly treated differently socially and buy law, essentially wards of the state for some public officials to pretty much treat them like animals from the first white settlement.  

The sixties were a big turning point for the aboriginal to be treated more equally to us 'whites' and progessively things are getting evened out. 



Superfly said:


> They still got it better than the North American Indians..etc
> 
> and did it happen ? also don't forget to notice the "IF THE STATES" part... are they or are they not....
> 
> Not even close Whiskers... No Cigar for you....




Superpest er fly, you are starting to get quite obnoxious with your deliberate ignorance. 

Obviously if you had bothered to read and understand you would notice '"IF" is a typo for 'OF'. 

Tut tar ignoramus. :
Ignoramus: One who ignores the knowledge of something; one really unacquainted with it. It is an ancient law term. The grand jury used to write lgnoramus on the back of indictments "not found" or not be sent into court. Hence ignore. The present custom is to write "No true bill."


----------



## bandicoot (20 February 2008)

My favorite 'sorry' speech was from that funny chap, Brenden 'Super Hornet' Nelson, of the Liberal Party, or the Coalition, or the Hertfordshire Hunting Party, or whoever they think they are. I like the way he alludes to 'best intentions'.  Deja vu?  Peruse some transcripts from Nuremberg and the Hague, as well as from a string of lesser trials where people were eventually convicted for 'doing the right thing.'  With so many people doing the right thing, it's a wonder we have any problems at all.


----------



## Julia (20 February 2008)

Talking with one of our aboriginal clients today I asked her what she thought of Mr Rudd's apology and accompanying speech.  "Very good", she said.
Then I asked her what she thought about Dr Nelson's speech.  "Very good", she said.  "Did she think one speech was better than the other, or did she think either one was more sincere?"   No, she liked them both.

The other comment she made was "there are some of our people who will never be happy whatever anyone did for them."


----------



## rederob (20 February 2008)

Happy said:


> You prove that the rest is not true.



Happy
Aborigines that fish recreationally in the way you or I typically would do, must apply for a license.
Only those in WA that continue to fish in the traditional manner are exempt.
So it's not true, Happy!!!


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 February 2008)

Would it be fair to say that this thread is outdated.
"Why are we saying sorry"  is now 
"Why did we say sorry".

And the reasons were given in the speeches of Rudd and Nelson. Of the two Nelson was closest to tears. 

I think agro's first post (and many of the subsequent posts) are really more suited to "we don't want any financial compensation paid to the stolen generation".   

Then of course we get onto fishing.


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 February 2008)

PS "we" as in Govt if you wish.


----------



## Superfly (21 February 2008)

Whiskers said:


> > Superpest er fly, you are starting to get quite obnoxious with your deliberate ignorance.
> >
> > Tut tar ignoramus. :
> > Ignoramus: One who ignores the knowledge of something; one really unacquainted with it. It is an ancient law term. The grand jury used to write lgnoramus on the back of indictments "not found" or not be sent into court. Hence ignore. The present custom is to write "No true bill."




.. you sound like a little school girl with pig tails .. Superpest.. ignoramus... whaa whaa whaa ....


----------



## Julia (21 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> And the reasons were given in the speeches of Rudd and Nelson. Of the two Nelson was closest to tears.




2020, Given that you are usually more aligned with the government, it's generous and fair of you to make this observation.


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 February 2008)

Julia said:


> 2020, Given that you are usually more aligned with the government, it's generous and fair of you to make this observation.



Julia
Don't know what you thought - I thought Brendan's speech started out ok - and he empathised with stolen kids making it clear there was no motive other than race when they were taken - only problem was he went on to other topics.  Ended up all over the place - lost the plot.   I mean I didn't like his speech seen in toto (just in case you misunderstood me). 

PS Still he did make it a bipartisan decision / occasion, and that was important - so I guess I should give him credit for that. 
(I'm confident that Malcolm Turnbull would have given a better speech though )


----------



## Julia (21 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Julia
> Don't know what you thought - I thought Brendan's speech started out ok - and he empathised with stolen kids making it clear there was no motive other than race when they were taken - only problem was he went on to other topics.  Ended up all over the place - lost the plot.   I mean I didn't like his speech seen in toto (just in case you misunderstood me).
> 
> PS Still he did make it a bipartisan decision / occasion, and that was important - so I guess I should give him credit for that.
> (I'm confident that Malcolm Turnbull would have given a better speech though )



Yes, agree about Dr Nelson's speech.  The diversion into sexual abuse etc was inappropriate given the spirit of the day.

I'm not sure about whether Malcolm Turnbull would have done a lot better.
For all his experience in the world of business etc., he still lacks a measure of political savvy.  
When being critical of Dr Nelson, I guess we need to remember that he was walking somewhat of a tightrope with trying to appease the apology situation, without too much upsetting his colleagues and traditional Liberal voters who on the whole were against the apology.  I don't envy him the difficult balance.  However, had he just made the first part of his speech, as you said, and tossed the rest in the bin, he would have probably created more friends.


----------

