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

[Superfly]

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
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.​

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

PS "we" as in Govt if you wish.

 

[Superfly]

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]

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]

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]

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.