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

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!

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).

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.

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).

Click to expand...

respect.....

rederob said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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

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?

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?

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.

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

2020hindsight said:

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

Click to expand...

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)

2020hindsight said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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

Click to expand...

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

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

To the casual observer, the passage last Thursday of a resolution by the Australian federal parliament expressing “deep and sincere regret” for past injustices against the Aboriginal people might appear as a step towards the achievement of genuine social equality.

At least that is how the Howard Liberal government is hoping it will be interpreted, especially in the Asian region where Australia's treatment of its indigenous population has been something of a political embarrassment.

Closer examination of the circumstances surrounding the resolution, however, reveals otherwise. The resolution has nothing to do with a commitment to address the mounting social problems confronting Aboriginal people. Rather, it is the outcome of a series of manoeuvres involving members of the government, representatives of big business””especially mining companies””and a thin layer of so-called Aboriginal leaders.

Click to expand...

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.”

But the conference was thrown into disarray by the actions of Howard. Anxious not to lose further rural support to the right wing One Nation Party, the prime minister shouted at the audience, launching into a vitriolic defence of his government's 10-point plan to partially extinguish “native title” property rights. These rights had been established by the High Court's decision upholding the claims of the Wik people.

Howard's display, coupled with the refusal of his government to offer an “apology” to the “stolen generation” of Aboriginal children, forcibly removed by government authorities from their parents as part of the official policy of “assimilation”, led to a worsening of relations with the leaders of the various Aboriginal bodies.

Click to expand...

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.

Ridgeway provided the crucial link in the negotiations. A former president of the NSW Aboriginal Land Council, he was well known to former NSW Liberal Party president Bill Heffernan, who was made Cabinet secretary after the October 1998 elections.

Heffernan is described as a man with extensive networks and “close to some of the biggest names in business”. He worked to ensure passage of a resolution through the Liberal Party and its coalition partner, the National Party. Ridgeway's task was to lock in the support of key Aboriginal leaders, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission chairman Gatjil Djerrjura, the chairwoman of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, Evelyn Scott and former ASTIC chairwoman Lowitja O'Donoghue among others.

Negotiations over a preamble to the Constitution, to be voted on in the November 6 referendum on the republic, provided a test for the new relationship. After discussions with Ridgeway and the Democrats, Howard agreed to drop the proposed reference to “mateship” in the preamble and insert a phrase pointing to Aboriginal “kinship” with the land, carefully avoiding any mention of “custodianship” (preferred by many Aboriginal leaders) lest this provide the basis for future property or compensation claims.

Click to expand...

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.

The problem with the government resolution, he declared, was that it did not go far enough to “put the issue behind us.”

These considerations were also behind the decision of ten Aboriginal spokesmen, including the co-author of the “stolen generation” report Mick Dodson, to oppose the resolution. Branding it as a “hasty and disgraceful pretence”, they feared losing credibility if they were seen to be backing the government.

Click to expand...

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.

Mr Howard, who is expected to call a general election by the end of the month, said that if returned to office he would give Australians a say on whether formally to acknowledge that Aboriginal people were the first settlers in the land.

Having long refused an apology to Aborigines for their harsh treatment by white settlers, he hinted that he had doubts about his past handling of the issue.

In a speech to the Sydney Institute, a conservative think-tank, the Prime Minister said that he would like the Constitution to include “a statement of reconciliation” with the Aboriginal people, who have long claimed to have been victims of atrocities, including massacres, by white settlers. “I’m the first to admit that this whole area is one I have struggled with during the entire time that I have been Prime Minister,” he said.

However, Mr Howard reiterated that he did not believe a national apology was warranted. He said that an apology would “only reinforce a culture of victimhood and take us backwards”.

He said that his proposal for the recognition of Aborigines within the Constitution would enshrine their special place in Australia and record their right to preserve their heritage.

The Prime Minister’s initiative took observers by surprise because in his more than ten years in office he has shown little enthusiasm for engaging with Aboriginal Australia. He has accused academics and others who have pleaded for a formal apology as having “a black armband” view of history.

Early in his term as Prime Minister he was snubbed by Aboriginal leaders, who turned their backs to him when he addressed them.

Click to expand...

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

21: median age of Aborigines, compared with 36 for rest of population

3: times as likely to be unemployed

59: life expectancy of Aboriginal men, 64 for women, compared with 77 and 82 for rest of population

40%: lower household income than rest of the population

Click to expand...

2020hindsight said:

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

Click to expand...

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".

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".

Click to expand...

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

2020hindsight said:

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

Click to expand...

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 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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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)

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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".

Click to expand...