This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

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

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.


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?
 
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.
 
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
 
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...




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

Attachments

  • nelson telescope.jpg
    55.2 KB · Views: 194
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.
 

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.


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
 

Attachments

  • chameleon.jpg
    17.8 KB · Views: 188
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..."
 

Attachments

  • chameleon telescope.jpg
    18.5 KB · Views: 194
  • windsock.jpg
    8 KB · Views: 181
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.
 
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".
 
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

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


 

Attachments

  • Lowitja.jpg
    9.5 KB · Views: 164
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.


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

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

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

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

Brendan Nelson: NOWHERE MAN.
Laurie Oakes:-
 
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 

Attachments

  • sshot-4.png
    2.6 KB · Views: 117
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...