More Sorry Suggestions

The replies to this thread have I feel, demonstrated my point regarding this apology being the turning point for many non-aboriginal Australians who have sat by quietly and watched the train wreck that is happening in many aboriginal communities to stand up and say enough is enough, Kevin better actually have the balls to do something about the current situation and not just use it as political grandstanding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fuzzie

We (white fellas) should also be assimilating some useful part of the aboriginal culture so we would all become some sort of homogenized Australian people.

---

:2tsup: I have seen a few white youths in the news lately that could do with a spear in the leg as a wake up call.

Well, I came here on a boat in the late 60's, so its not my problem to worry about.

However it does make me wonder if I'm due an apology from the Norman French, assorted Germanic tribes, the Romans and I'm not sure who else tromped across the UK in the last few thousand years.

The French at least could apologise for spelling/pronunciation atrocities such as "knight" and "queen" that we are stuck with to this day.

I do think the 'victim' mindset is an issue; if saying sorry helps some indigenous people come to terms with the fact that that the world has changed, and Australia will never be like it was 100, 500 or 40,000 years ago and it is time to move on, then good.

I don't know how much good saying sorry will do, but I do know that not saying it will stop things from getting better.
Also, just throwing money will not solve the problem, but the solution will require money. Not in the form of compensation, but on education, health and possibly some social engineering. But all the money in the world won't solve the problem without the input of intelligent people of good will, and the exclusion of those out to feather their own nests.

Again I feel the need to point out that this apology is aimed specifically at people affected by the child removal policies of the Australian government and not at indigenous Australians in general. The people Rudd wants to apologise to are the people of mixed race who were taken from their birth parents, and the birth parents themselves and perhaps the extended families. Perhaps there may be a general apology to the Aboriginal people that such a policy was implemented at all.

The apology was called for following the "Bringing them home" report, which focused specifically on the forced removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their parents.

This is what Rudd will be apologising for. He wont be apologising for European settlement, confiscation of land, murder, assault, rape, forced slave labour (although there is an aspect of that associated with the child removal policy), deprivation of rights in general etc etc. It does nothing to address land rights or alcoholism or paedophilia or domestic violence or health. The apology affects something like 100,000 people over a period of 100 years. That's only a fraction of the number of Aboriginal or part Aboriginal people who have lived in this country since white settlers first came here.

If this apology is all that's stopping them from moving on, taking some control of their lives and sorting themselves out, then I would say it makes them look more than a little bit silly. Is that really all they have been waiting for? Come on...

Silent, whilst I think you may be right in your assumption as to what the apology will cover, no one person outside Rudd's immediate circle has seen the actual wording. There fore you, and I and a few million other Australians, can only "assume".

I've been keeping out of this thread because I wanted to see where it went. The net result is that Astrid has risen in my estimation quite dramatically. I'm with you, Astrid, and I like the way you stood up to the red-necks (a hobby of mine, by the way :wink:)

In the early part of this century in WHITE AUSTRALIA it was expected that the Aboriginal population would die off because of the natural processes of evolution (i.e., that the superiour race would prevail over the weaker, see Hitler and WWII). This meant policies of segregation where the indigenous people were herded into settlements (like the American indigenous people and the "Indian reservations") where this process could take place. We all accept these days that this process was given some assistance with bullets and poison.

In the 20s, 30s and 40s the indigenous population actually increased, mainly through a rising population of the so called "half castes". A range of policies were introduced to "solve this problem". At the same time the scientific community here suggested that, as Aboriginal people were a specific type, "Australoids", that were "pre-caucasion" rather than "negroid", there was little chance that there would be "black throwbacks" after inter-relationships between white people and the indigenous people.

Therefore, it was understood that in WHITE AUSTRALIA you could actually breed the black out of the indigenous population through continued inter-relationships with the larger white population. This meant new policies of continued segregation for the so-called "fullbloods" in the expectation that they would continue to die out, and policies of amalgamation for the "halfcastes" in order that they be absorbed into the white population.

This is why halfcaste children were taken from their parents, and we owe the indigenous population in this country an enormous apology for the horrendous and racist way we have treated them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rossluck

and I like the way you stood up to the red-necks (a hobby of mine, by the way :wink:)

---

There is no need for personal attacks and name calling based on the fact that someone has a different opinion to you. Thankfully we live in a democratic society and the fact that some people do not agree with what the government has chosen to do does not remove their right to put forward their point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rossluck

I'm with you, Astrid, and I like the way you stood up to the red-necks (a hobby of mine, by the way :wink:)

---

Can you please provide a definition of the term "redneck"?
While your at it could you also provide the term given to those who are the opposite of redneck?
I am thinking it is along the lines of moralistic, do-gooder, opiniated, non contributor to society, whinger, one eyed, unable to accept others opinions, Kevin Rudd supporter. Or somewhere along those lines.

Cheers, Jack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack E

Kevin Rudd supporter.

---

Must be a few of those, did you happen to see the election result?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Shed

Silent, whilst I think you may be right in your assumption as to what the apology will cover, no one person outside Rudd's immediate circle has seen the actual wording. There fore you, and I and a few million other Australians, can only "assume".

---

True. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see. We might all be surprised.

"

Quote:

---

The net result is that Astrid has risen in my estimation quite dramatically. I'm with you, Astrid, and I like the way you stood up to the red-necks (a hobby of mine, by the way :wink:)"

---

Rossluck, it is offensive to call people rednecks because they post an opinion. It is equally offensive to suggest you should have read at least one book before offering an opinion as was proffered by Astrid .

It is my personal belief that no matter how much verbal diarrhoea flows in Canberra tomorrow, not a lot will change but it will probably help the 'industry" get a bit more momentum for further financial help.

I do have a problem being confronted with an aboriginal family beating their kids in shopping centres, this seems to be a common event these days and perhaps these poor little people should be taken from their parents, I certainly would not have a problem with that occuring despite the opinions being proffered here.

If reading books produces dialogue such as your post I will pass on that. It may be that I am possibly a redneck, or perhaps was not educated enough to understand some of the worldly problems but I am still offended by your comments.

Regards Mike

[quote=Rossluck;681265] The net result is that Astrid has risen in my estimation quite dramatically. I'm with you, Astrid, and I like the way you stood up to the red-necks (a hobby of mine, by the way :wink:).[/quote]

1. Well seeing as Astrid "stood up" to me by insulting me then that would mean that you are talking about me and therefore consider me a redneck. She did a great job, come on, call people names, tell them to read a book and then leave.

Show me what I have said that is "rednecked"?

From the Oxford dictionary;

redneck


• noun N. Amer. informal, derogatory a working-class white person from the southern US, especially a politically conservative one.


Dont think daddy was from the south, maybe you have some other meaning.


2.

"Therefore, it was understood that in WHITE AUSTRALIA you could actually breed the black out of the indigenous population through continued inter-relationships with the larger white population. This meant new policies of continued segregation for the so-called "fullbloods" in the expectation that they would continue to die out, and policies of amalgamation for the "halfcastes" in order that they be absorbed into the white population. "

Was this a govt policy?

According to Reconcile.org.au;

"1. Who are the stolen generations?

The term ‘stolen generations’ refers to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians who were forcibly removed from their families and communities by government, welfare or church authorities as children and placed into institutional care or with non-Indigenous foster families. The forced removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children began as early as the mid 1800s and continued until 1970.

This removal occurred as the result of official laws and policies aimed at assimilating the Indigenous population into the wider community. "


The policy was assimilation, once again from the oxford;

"absorb and integrate into a people or culture."

Where is this breed it out of them policy?

3.

Obviously, the opposite policy would have been "segregation"

"the enforced separation of different racial groups in a country, community, or establishment."

So lets transport Rossluck back in time to the 1800's. Your now the governor and you have a two cultures. One is a very old culture and one is a very new culture. They are clashing with one another. Clashing over land, cattle and crops amongst other things.

They are beginning to interbreed with the offspring being rejected in many cases by both cultures.

Show us your policies Governer Rossluck. Dont forget though that you are back in the 1800's, some still think the world is flat, that ridges on your skull can determine intellect and across the world enslaving cultures is seen as a noble profession.

Whats the fix Guv:?

Oh, and keep in mind that you will be held accountable by a far more worldly and educated society long after your gone

If you are going to post an opinion I have no problem with quoting the reference it came from. However like Mick I don't think its useful to provide an unsupported opinion and then ask others to read a book to find the basis for that view, which by its nature is insulting. By all means state a view back it up with the reason, and accept that others will have different views. I'm sure most of us have read many articles and publications on the subject over the years, some have closer contact of varying forms, and this is not a black and white (no pun implied) issue it is very much shades of gray, and although I fully support an apology I can equally see the reasons why others don't even if I don't agree with them.

Just don't apologise on my part, I didn't do anything, okay?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnc

If you are going to post an opinion I have no problem with quoting the reference it came from. However like Mick I don't think its useful to provide an unsupported opinion and then ask others to read a book to find the basis for that view, which by its nature is insulting. By all means state a view back it up with the reason, and accept that others will have different views. I'm sure most of us have read many articles and publications on the subject over the years, some have closer contact of varying forms, and this is not a black and white (no pun implied) issue it is very much shades of gray, and although I fully support an apology I can equally see the reasons why others don't even if I don't agree with them.

---

well said John.

no matter what side of the fence you sit on, those that insult the other side show a lack of tolerance of other views. surely posting on this subject without tolerance is the greatest of ironies?

anyone is entitled to an opinion, and entitled not to be insulted for voicing that opinion.

personally i cant help but look at the "progress" of the last 25 yrs, and see that things have got worse not better, and wonder whether our direction is entirely wrong. In many ways the intellectualised guilt has lead to much of the special treatment, atsic etc, and relatively has done nothing to improve the situation. I am concerned that today then following onto some form of official recognition and treaty in time will simply take the focus off efforts that will actually do something. Grandiose posturing is just that - seems to help some people in leadership positions, but will it actually help the people who need it?