NationStates Jolt Archive

[NOTE: The contents of this thread are factual and may offend some left wing/liberal viewers]

Ok...to set the record straight. In Australian history there was no:

1. Genocide of natives
2. Stolen generation

There is also no need for reconciliation.

(to be continued...)

admitting that im pretty ignorant on this subject.....
what happened to the aboriginal nations? didnt the european conquest of australia kinda work against them?

admitting that im pretty ignorant on this subject.....
what happened to the aboriginal nations? didnt the european conquest of australia kinda work against them?

The tribes died out from diseases like small-pox (many rejected vaccinations from the British)

alot of them walked into the dream time and never came back. its really much nicer there than in most of central australia.

admitting that im pretty ignorant on this subject.....
what happened to the aboriginal nations? didnt the european conquest of australia kinda work against them?

The tribes died out from diseases like small-pox (many rejected vaccinations from the British)
now i know thats not the same as genocide but when it has the same effect as genocide, isnt there something to at least be ...... somewhat sympathetic about?

So killing and kidnapping are the only possible ways in which a country can oppress its people. Well, I'm sure MLK would have liked to have known that.

admitting that im pretty ignorant on this subject.....
what happened to the aboriginal nations? didnt the european conquest of australia kinda work against them?

The tribes died out from diseases like small-pox (many rejected vaccinations from the British)Though there is archeological evidence some settlers did infact massacare aboriginals.

admitting that im pretty ignorant on this subject.....
what happened to the aboriginal nations? didnt the european conquest of australia kinda work against them?

The tribes died out from diseases like small-pox (many rejected vaccinations from the British)Though there is archeological evidence some settlers did infact massacare aboriginals.

Written evidence, not archaeological evidence (correct terminology please!). Of course, but in retaliation for natives stealing or camping on settled land (which was taken from the natives to begin with anyway).

Talk about BIG misunderstandings between cultures.

so what is this reconcilliation thing?

so what is this reconcilliation thing?

1. The "aborigines" want to be recognised as the owners of all Australia.

2. They want an apology from the government and lots and lots of money in compensation for the British taking their land.

3. Hardline Left Wingers want white people to feel ashamed of themselves for events nobody today is responsible for.

It is a very messy and ridiculous thing. Reconciliation is rubbish.

I don't know much about Aussie history, but I have heard about the whites taking children away from the Aborigines as late as the 1970's. Sure it's horrible, but I don't know enough about it to really say anythign about it.

yeah quite a can of worms. there isnt enough money to pay for what they lost but y'all won it fair and square.
its been the way of the world since humanity began. why start apologizing for it now?

when it comes to native rights I say you don't punish the son for something the grandfather did

Since the Aborigines had no concept of property rights I don't believe that the area now known as Australia was stolen from them.

Since the Aborigines had no concept of property rights I don't believe that the area now known as Australia was stolen from them.

thats just a rationalization
it was stolen
"i claim this land for england" *puts up a flag* "hey wait, this is our land" "do you have a flag?" "whats a flag?" "well then its ours now, we put up a flag"

Since the Aborigines had no concept of property rights I don't believe that the area now known as Australia was stolen from them.

thats just a rationalization
it was stolen
"i claim this land for england" *puts up a flag* "hey wait, this is our land" "do you have a flag?" "whats a flag?" "well then its ours now, we put up a flag"

No need to be sarcastic. The fact that they were nomadic further supports my claim.

admitting that im pretty ignorant on this subject.....
what happened to the aboriginal nations? didnt the european conquest of australia kinda work against them?

The tribes died out from diseases like small-pox (many rejected vaccinations from the British)

Let's not forget where these diseases came from.

The fact that they were nomadic further supports my claim.

It does? How?

The fact that they were nomadic further supports my claim.

It does? How?

Nomadic peoples are hunter-gatherers and therefore wander about in search of food. They do not live in the one place. Therefore, they do not own land and the British could claim it under the pre-text of "terra nullius"

[NOTE: The contents of this thread are factual and may offend some left wing/liberal viewers]

Ok...to set the record straight. In Australian history there was no:

1. Genocide of natives
2. Stolen generation

There is also no need for reconciliation.

(to be continued...)

Did you go to school? There were major genocides, why do you think there are no longer any native Tasmanians left? Fool...

[NOTE: The contents of this thread are factual and may offend some left wing/liberal viewers]

Ok...to set the record straight. In Australian history there was no:

1. Genocide of natives
2. Stolen generation

There is also no need for reconciliation.

(to be continued...)

Did you go to school? There were major genocides, why do you think there are no longer any native Tasmanians left? Fool...

School? History that is taught in schools is false! Genocide? In one "aborigine hunt" by angry settlers they found 2 aboriginal males and that was it.

Disease killed most natives off. Those who died in war with settlers and troops are comparitvely few.

Since the Aborigines had no concept of property rights I don't believe that the area now known as Australia was stolen from them.


Exactly.

One of the governments main policys before assimilation was that of simply killing them off. The british have thousands of aboriginal heads in their musuems ecause the british wanted to study the heads.
People also hunted them for sport, just for fun.
I agree that a lot did die from disease, but you can't say there weren't mass genocides.

The diseases came from the westerners. Now, as in the case of slave reparations in America, becuase i am more familiar with this argument, no i don't believe that "40 acres and a mule" is the correct reply, now hundreds of years later, but something is necissary. You should check out the movie "Rabbit Proof Fence" which is based on facts which shows the English taking children from the native people. Now direct compensation is not called for, because as was already said, it is not necissarily the son's responsability to pay for what the grandfather did, but is an apology that far out of line? Are the native people treated equally, or are they a poor underclass like many of the African Americans in the US? In that case, public money could be funneled into social programs to help the disadvantaged native population (whose way of life was made impossible by the western colonizers) such as headstart or early education programs.

admitting that im pretty ignorant on this subject.....
what happened to the aboriginal nations? didnt the european conquest of australia kinda work against them?

The tribes died out from diseases like small-pox (many rejected vaccinations from the British)Though there is archeological evidence some settlers did infact massacare aboriginals.

Written evidence, not archaeological evidence (correct terminology please!). Of course, but in retaliation for natives stealing or camping on settled land (which was taken from the natives to begin with anyway).

Talk about BIG misunderstandings between cultures.No, there is actual archeological evidence of an aborignal massacre.

admitting that im pretty ignorant on this subject.....
what happened to the aboriginal nations? didnt the european conquest of australia kinda work against them?

The tribes died out from diseases like small-pox (many rejected vaccinations from the British)Though there is archeological evidence some settlers did infact massacare aboriginals.

Written evidence, not archaeological evidence (correct terminology please!). Of course, but in retaliation for natives stealing or camping on settled land (which was taken from the natives to begin with anyway).

Talk about BIG misunderstandings between cultures.No, there is actual archeological evidence of an aborignal massacre.

Prove it. I know there is no such evidence, but humour me.

So what about all these people who were taken from their aboriginal parents in the '50s?

While you're at it, explain where did the six million "missing" Jews in Europe went.

So what about all these people who were taken from their aboriginal parents in the '50s?

While you're at it, explain where did the six million "missing" Jews in Europe went.

"All these people?" How many exactly? There was NEVER a stolen generation.

I'd like to see some evidence to support claims that an entire generation of children were abducted in the middle of the night by government soldiers.

Thus far, there is no evidence. If you have some Filamai, then do share it with us.

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

So what about all these people who were taken from their aboriginal parents in the '50s?

While you're at it, explain where did the six million "missing" Jews in Europe went.

"All these people?" How many exactly? There was NEVER a stolen generation.

I'd like to see some evidence to support claims that an entire generation of children were abducted in the middle of the night by government soldiers.

Thus far, there is no evidence. If you have some Filamai, then do share it with us.

Which I see he has done.

Now, how about a source to support your ridiculous claims.

Although, I imagine at this point I will be ignored or asked not to post in "your" thread, your usual responses to challenges to your claims.

http://library.trinity.wa.edu.au/aborigines/stolen.htm

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

No, I actually want to see evidence. Not some political organisation or universities or lecturers who makes wild claims.

Government reports, military reports, statistical evidence would suffice.

Not political opinion. That does not count as evidence.

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

Please do not confuse Lord Pheonix Benicius with facts.

No, I actually want to see evidence. Not some political organisation or universities or lecturers who makes wild claims.

Government reports, military reports, statistical evidence would suffice.

Not political opinion. That does not count as evidence.

And we expect the same from you. You commenced this thread with your usual wild claims - where is your evidence?

If you make these claims, the onus of proof is on you to back them up.

Provide anything which can be checked - if you can.

[NOTE: The contents of this thread are factual and may offend some left wing/liberal viewers]

Ok...to set the record straight. In Australian history there was no:

2. Stolen generation


There was but people tend to skip the fact that it happened to the whites aswell

Since the Aborigines had no concept of property rights I don't believe that the area now known as Australia was stolen from them.

There were there first. Lived off the lands resources. WTF did you expect? That they would be carrying paper documents saying "All this land belongs to us". . .Come on, get a grip!

I think recognizing them as "first peoples" and giving them equal rights is a good start. I do not believe in material compansation, however (i.e: giving them money). But I do believe there culture should be respected and preserved.

No, I actually want to see evidence. Not some political organisation or universities or lecturers who makes wild claims.

Government reports, military reports, statistical evidence would suffice.

Not political opinion. That does not count as evidence.

I think you will find that those are all very reliable sources, which build their reports on hundreds of very reliable sources.

And what does the military have to do with this?

[NOTE: The contents of this thread are factual and may offend some left wing/liberal viewers]

Ok...to set the record straight. In Australian history there was no:

2. Stolen generation


There was but people tend to skip the fact that it happened to the whites aswell

And the claimed "factual" nature of the claims has not been verified despite frequent challenges to do so.

Wonder why?

so what is this reconcilliation thing?

1. The "aborigines" want to be recognised as the owners of all Australia.

2. They want an apology from the government and lots and lots of money in compensation for the British taking their land.

3. Hardline Left Wingers want white people to feel ashamed of themselves for events nobody today is responsible for.

It is a very messy and ridiculous thing. Reconciliation is rubbish.

1.The aborigines werent the first anyway,the pigmies were,the aboriginies killed most of them off when they came to Australia

2.The aboriginies are always getting lots of money & stuff from the government,if the government were to apologise now the aboriginies would press them for more

3.Im not ashamed of something i didnt do

And what does the military have to do with this?
Some elements of the far right refuse to recognise the validity of anything, unless endorsed by the military. :roll:

I believe that reconciliation is always a positive thing. The fact remains, the colonisation of the continents by European settlers was a dirty and unpleasant business, and although nothing can be done to reverse it now, simply giving a symbollic apology to a few thousand descendants of the natives is hardly a harmful act.

And what does the military have to do with this?
Some elements of the far right refuse to recognise the validity of anything, unless endorsed by the military. :roll:

I believe that reconciliation is always a positive thing. The fact remains, the colonisation of the continents by European settlers was a dirty and unpleasant business, and although nothing can be done to reverse it now, simply giving a symbollic apology to a few thousand descendants of the natives is hardly a harmful act.

Remember that this was only 35-50 years ago...the children stolen have all grown up now and are still searching for what happened to their parents...

1. The "aborigines" want to be recognised as the owners of all Australia.

2. They want an apology from the government and lots and lots of money in compensation for the British taking their land.

3. Hardline Left Wingers want white people to feel ashamed of themselves for events nobody today is responsible for.

It is a very messy and ridiculous thing. Reconciliation is rubbish.

1. Rather, hardline left winger Aboriginal groups want to be recognised as the owners of all Australia. This is rubbish, yes, but it doesn't invalidate the entire reconciliation argument.

My position: yeah, the British settlers came in and took the land. So what? It's been described by some as conquest rather than settlement (since terra nullius has been overturned) - I entirely agree. The British conquered Australia from the native peoples.

What does this mean today? Well, for one, extremist views on native title can be safely ignored. The British conquered it, so it no longer belongs to the previous owners. The current system actually works rather well - a lot of frivolous or exploitative claims are made, but almost all get rejected. But here's where reconciliation is important: we're all living in the same country. Both sides need to work towards reconciliation, which means that yes, Aboriginal rights groups need to stop making divisive demands, but then all sides need to make concessions (oh hell that sounds like a government TV ad).

And let's face it, your brand of revisionist history isn't helping any. You don't have any more proof for your claims than the "conventional" history does.

No, I actually want to see evidence. Not some political organisation or universities or lecturers who makes wild claims.

Government reports, military reports, statistical evidence would suffice.

Not political opinion. That does not count as evidence.

I think you will find that those are all very reliable sources, which build their reports on hundreds of very reliable sources.

And what does the military have to do with this?

Filamai...well according to claims, the government sent troops to steal the native children.

In addition...since these events never happened...there is no evidence. Therefore I need not post links which are unreliable, discredited and out right lies. Unlike some people.

Since the Aborigines had no concept of property rights I don't believe that the area now known as Australia was stolen from them.

There were there first. Lived off the lands resources. WTF did you expect? That they would be carrying paper documents saying "All this land belongs to us". . .Come on, get a grip!

Doesn't mean that they were there first doesn't mean that they own the place. The aborigines saw themselves as belonging to the land, not the owners of it.

And what does the military have to do with this?
Some elements of the far right refuse to recognise the validity of anything, unless endorsed by the military. :roll:

I believe that reconciliation is always a positive thing. The fact remains, the colonisation of the continents by European settlers was a dirty and unpleasant business, and although nothing can be done to reverse it now, simply giving a symbollic apology to a few thousand descendants of the natives is hardly a harmful act.

TG when the Left accuse soldiers of beating native babies and taking them from their homes, then it involves the military!

As for an apology...as soon as the PM says "sorry" all the hardline left wing aborigines and their white sympathisers will run crying for their squillions from the High Court.

Reconciliation is rubbish. Just let us all get on with things.

John Howard is personally sorry for the Stolen Generations and has stated this on many occasions. He will not say sorry on behalf of the nation.

John Howard is personally sorry for the Stolen Generations and has stated this on many occasions. He will not say sorry on behalf of the nation.

He did not say "sorry". He expressed regret at the plight of the natives. And nor should he say sorry on behalf of the nation!

In addition...since these events never happened...there is no evidence. Therefore I need not post links which are unreliable, discredited and out right lies. Unlike some people.
Ah, but can you post links proving that it never happened? And not from far-right revisionist history websites, and any parties who might have a legal or financial interest?

Ah, but can you post links proving that it never happened? And not from far-right revisionist history websites, and any parties who might have a legal or financial interest?

Of course he can't. It's just blind racist rants claiming that they never killed or wiped them out. :roll:

Rabbit Proof Fence, the biggest load of fiction to ever be offered as fact. Firstly, the person who's life it was meant to depict stated after seeing the movie "That was not my story". She never claimed to be stolen...in fact she was removed from the community she was living in because she was half-caste and was ostracised from the rest of the group and was being assaulted by other children. The director and writer of this film then dragged the star of the movie, a girl from an aboriginal community in Western Australia I believe, all over the world plugging his film. She was so miserable that she wanted to go home..guess what..he didn't let her. Anyone see the irony?

Not one single case of the "stolen generation" has been proven in court. In fact a woman by the name O'Donahue finally admitted she was handed in by her white father after her mother abandoned her. Another claimant was found to be of African descent with a white mother...not even an indigenous Australian. This is perhaps because what happened to Aboriginal children was also happening to white children in that these children were removed from unsafe or unsuitable environments, educated and given a chance to reach their potential. Noone is crying about the white children removed from their parents. Then again, there is no political points to score for doing that.

The Aboriginal people believed the land owned them, their dreamtime stories state they were moulded from the Earth. So rather than own the country the country owned them so to speak. Regardless, races and empires rose and fell over the thousands of years of human history. Why is this any different? Homo Sapiens killed off the Neanderthals, the Romans expanded their empire by assimilating civilisations, the Turks, the Mongols it goes on and on through history.

Its time to stop treating Aborigines as people who are unable to stand up for themselves. They have equal rights, in fact they have more rights than the rest of us at present. Its time to stop throwing money at the symptoms and start getting the Aboriginal people to have pride in themselves. Stop patronising them and maybe the victim culture that has been instilled into them might disappear and they will gain some self esteem and make something of themselves. Oh, thats probably racist..I mean...expecting them to be treated the same as everyone else.

Funny, it is the people who label others racist that keep perpetuating stereotypes and trying to encourage dividing the people of our nation into ethnic and religious groups.

so your asking, in fact, for evidence to be provided against your argument - but only from sources you approve of.


No, I actually want to see evidence. Not some political organisation or universities or lecturers who makes wild claims.

Government reports, military reports, statistical evidence would suffice.

Not political opinion. That does not count as evidence.

I think you will find that those are all very reliable sources, which build their reports on hundreds of very reliable sources.

And what does the military have to do with this?

Filamai...well according to claims, the government sent troops to steal the native children.

In addition...since these events never happened...there is no evidence. Therefore I need not post links which are unreliable, discredited and out right lies. Unlike some people.


so basically, you believe something on the grounds of no evidence, as opposed to believing something on the grounds of shaky, questionable evidence? or am i interpreting this wrong?

In addition...since these events never happened...there is no evidence. Therefore I need not post links which are unreliable, discredited and out right lies. Unlike some people.
Ah, but can you post links proving that it never happened? And not from far-right revisionist history websites, and any parties who might have a legal or financial interest?

Since it did NOT happen, there is obviously no way a link can be provided. If something did not happen, there is no evidence of it clearly.

Also TG, I am not a believer in websites as proof. If you wish to prove a case, then get proper reports, documentation, state library resources. Not websites.

I know it is easy to post a link here, but websites can be manipulated and even organisations have political bias. So essentially you are saying the argument that it did occur is unproven too.

so basically, you believe something on the grounds of no evidence, as opposed to believing something on the grounds of shaky, questionable evidence? or am i interpreting this wrong?

If something did not happen, naturally there will be no evidence.

e.g. A man was not killed...

Therefore you will not find:

(a) a body
(b) a weapon
(c) a murderer

If you cannot understand that still, then I am at a loss as to how to explain this concept.

Such ignorance going around in some of the posts here....

Why do you people insist on defending that "white supremacy"? It is ridiculous. European (and other) explorers/colonizers slaughtered, enslaved and humiliated indigenous people for hundreds of years, driven by their thirst for land, power and wealth, by their greed.

I am portuguese and I admit (not proudly) that my people ravaged through african, south american, asian and oceania's peoples since they became "discoverers". There is blood in the hands of the corpses of our ancestors.

I do apologise for something that my ancestors did. I am sorry that in the past my people commited such atrocities against living beings (let alone humans) for greedy desires.

This is like the armenian genocide issue. Armenians only want recognition, they want people to know that these crimes happened.
Why? Because they feel that something was taken away from their lives, their history, their past.
What for? They cannot undo the evils that were done but they want those evils to be recognised, to make sure that it never happens again

Is it so hard to say, with an open mind and open heart, that you admit that crimes were done in the past and that you will try to make sure they will never happen again?

Your inhumanity disgusts me.


Rodrigo Costa
Citizen of the Free Land of Tribal Ecology

I don't recall seeing anything about white supremacy on this thread. If you want to apologise for what your ancestors may or may not have done then thats your choice. If you want to spend your life flagellating yourself over things that may have occurred hundreds of years ago then go for it. To be honest I am more concerned with the future...then again..if I trace my ancestry back long enough I could probably sue the Romans for looting my ancestors village back in 12BC or something...

The way forward is for all of us to just get on with life...all these demands for apologies, money and other rot in fact take us backwards.

I am not sorry for anything. I have done no wrong and since my ancestors have done no wrong, I have no regrets.

Inhuman? No. I am just a realist. Get on with life and stop whinging about events which:

(a) never took place
(b) you could not change even if they had happened.

I don't recall seeing anything about white supremacy on this thread.

I agree, I hate it when someone starts accusing you of being a racist in order to win an argument.

Indeed, it is a sad reflection on their inability to discuss a topic civilly.

Well, you get used to it.

Yep, unfortunately so.

The way forward is for all of us to just get on with life...all these demands for apologies, money and other rot in fact take us backwards.

I am not sorry for anything. I have done no wrong and since my ancestors have done no wrong, I have no regrets.

Inhuman? No. I am just a realist. Get on with life and stop whinging about events which:

(a) never took place
(b) you could not change even if they had happened.


Are you denying that these things took place? It's in history books, the unaltered ones. And even some altered ones mention these things.

You cannot change it but you can make sure they will not happen again.
I get on with my life. I want to. We all do. But those people find it hard to get on with their lives with that REAL burden their bear - shame and unhappiness. It is not hard to say that it happened. It will not hurt you.
Are you afraid of losing money because of it? Then you are a greedy bastard, just like your ancestors.

You can ignore their cries for recognition but you should not deny their freedom to express their views. By posting topics like this you only demonstrate that you consider them as inferiors and that you "do not owe anything" to those "sub-humans". Pitiful.


And you might not be racist or consider yourself one but your eyes are indeed closed. Or blinded by preconception and/or greed, for one with a normal, open mind, thinking for himself does not have such beliefs.

First off, forgive my lack iof knowledge on Austrailian history.

But..Shouldnt the majority of the Aborigines complaints fall at the feet of the British Empire?

Was it not THEY that took their lands?

When did Austraila become a sovereign nation?

I ask thios becuase, if there was a lot of killing of indigenous peoples, it seems like the fault is at the hands of the colonizers, and thier leaders.
That would be Britain.

Secondly, this reminds me of many threads ive been in where someone tries to deny the Holocaust.

History is against them.

It is not for those that deny history to prove them wrong.
It is for them, to prove themselves right.

The race card is old.

Get on with life. The only racists here are those who continue to make wild accusations about stolen generations and genocide.

The race card is old.

Get on with life. The only racists here are those who continue to make wild accusations about stolen generations and genocide.

What proof of your claims do you have?

History says otherwise...

Im assuming then....that since your denying history..then you must have some solid evidence, right?

Secondly, this reminds me of many threads ive been in where someone tries to deny the Holocaust.

History is against them.

It is not for those that deny history to prove them wrong.
It is for them, to prove themselves right.

That's exactly what is happening in this thread; same story, different event.

Benicius, in complete agreement with you mate

...still waiting for that incontrovertable proof Benny....

The race card is old.

Get on with life. The only racists here are those who continue to make wild accusations about stolen generations and genocide.

What proof of your claims do you have?

History says otherwise...

Im assuming then....that since your denying history..then you must have some solid evidence, right?

He has no proof, I wish turds like him would step into a native american reserve and so that really loud. . .I wonder if he'll get out alive after, that. . .Ah! what am I saying?! He probably wouldn't have the balls!!

It's funny, I do not see many tee pee's and longhouses any more. . .

The truth is, is that the aboriginels no longer have equal statis to the land.

Equal status? If you are a citizen of Australia then you have equal right to the land. Australia belongs to all Australians. Not to one group.

The race card is old.

Get on with life. The only racists here are those who continue to make wild accusations about stolen generations and genocide.

What proof of your claims do you have?

History says otherwise...

Im assuming then....that since your denying history..then you must have some solid evidence, right?

He has no proof, I wish turds like him would step into a native american reserve and so that really loud. . .I wonder if he'll get out alive after, that. . .Ah! what am I saying?! He probably wouldn't have the balls!!

It's funny, I do not see many tee pee's and longhouses any more. . .

The truth is, is that the aboriginels no longer have equal statis to the land.

Who was talking about North America?

Since the Aborigines had no concept of property rights I don't believe that the area now known as Australia was stolen from them.

There were there first. Lived off the lands resources. WTF did you expect? That they would be carrying paper documents saying "All this land belongs to us". . .Come on, get a grip!

Doesn't mean that they were there first doesn't mean that they own the place. The aborigines saw themselves as belonging to the land, not the owners of it.

So? I see myself as belonging to the land!!! If makes far more sense!! We are dependent on the land - Not the other way around!!

Have you no decency and respect?! I know we can't change the past, but we should recognize they have some rights to the land - They sure as hell managed it better!! Maybe we can learn from these so called "savages". I've often found (having spent time in an Indian reservation) that the "savages" are more civilized than we are.

They are, how shall I put it. . .wiser. . .

The facts are, no stolen generations claim has been proven. In fact a vast majority have been embarrassing failures.

Noone has said not a single aborigine was killed by a European settler but to say there was a genocide is to say the sole purpose of the settlers in this country was to exterminate the aborigines. If this was the case there would be none left.

To make comparisons of the Holocaust to early Australian history is a disgrace. The systematic extermination of 6 million people compared to the death of a precentage of indigenous people from disease and the occassional clash with settlers is hardly the same thing.

So? I see myself as belonging to the land!!! If makes far more sense!! We are dependent on the land - Not the other way around!!

Have you no decency and respect?! I know we can't change the past, but we should recognize they have some rights to the land - They sure as hell managed it better!! Maybe we can learn from these so called "savages". I've often found (having spent time in an Indian reservation) that the "savages" are more civilized than we are.

They are, how shall I put it. . .wiser. . .

So making generalisations on race is Ok provided you are denigrating whites?

The facts are, no stolen generations claim has been proven. In fact a vast majority have been embarrassing failures.

Noone has said not a single aborigine was killed by a European settler but to say there was a genocide is to say the sole purpose of the settlers in this country was to exterminate the aborigines. If this was the case there would be none left.

To make comparisons of the Holocaust to early Australian history is a disgrace. The systematic extermination of 6 million people compared to the death of a precentage of indigenous people from disease and the occassional clash with settlers is hardly the same thing.

For those who wish to talk about genocide, perhaps I could make the counter claim that the Aborigines were out to kill all Europeans...

After all in 1971 an aboriginal speared Governor Phillip. An act of war on the crown's representative.

What about aboriginal attacks on settler stations? Many incidents have been recorded where aboriginals killed farmers and their families.

Funny how that is rarely taught to young Australians.

So? I see myself as belonging to the land!!! If makes far more sense!! We are dependent on the land - Not the other way around!!

Have you no decency and respect?! I know we can't change the past, but we should recognize they have some rights to the land - They sure as hell managed it better!! Maybe we can learn from these so called "savages". I've often found (having spent time in an Indian reservation) that the "savages" are more civilized than we are.

They are, how shall I put it. . .wiser. . .

So making generalisations on race is Ok provided you are denigrating whites?

What are you talking about? It's not a genralization. It's a plain fact! I talking from experience!

The race card is old.

Get on with life. The only racists here are those who continue to make wild accusations about stolen generations and genocide.

What proof of your claims do you have?

History says otherwise...

Im assuming then....that since your denying history..then you must have some solid evidence, right?

He has no proof, I wish turds like him would step into a native american reserve and so that really loud. . .I wonder if he'll get out alive after, that. . .Ah! what am I saying?! He probably wouldn't have the balls!!

It's funny, I do not see many tee pee's and longhouses any more. . .

The truth is, is that the aboriginels no longer have equal statis to the land.

Who was talking about North America?

It's called minor topic drift. . .It happens! Well Duh!

So based on your visit to Indian Reservations all indigenous races are wiser than Europeans.

The facts are, no stolen generations claim has been proven. In fact a vast majority have been embarrassing failures.

Noone has said not a single aborigine was killed by a European settler but to say there was a genocide is to say the sole purpose of the settlers in this country was to exterminate the aborigines. If this was the case there would be none left.

To make comparisons of the Holocaust to early Australian history is a disgrace. The systematic extermination of 6 million people compared to the death of a precentage of indigenous people from disease and the occassional clash with settlers is hardly the same thing.

For those who wish to talk about genocide, perhaps I could make the counter claim that the Aborigines were out to kill all Europeans...

After all in 1971 an aboriginal speared Governor Phillip. An act of war on the crown's representative.

What about aboriginal attacks on settler stations? Many incidents have been recorded where aboriginals killed farmers and their families.

Funny how that is rarely taught to young Australians.

Yeah, well if an invading people started walking all over the land that my ancient ancestors had walked on for thousands of years, Yeah! I'd guess I'd be pretty pissed off! Especially, since in all likelyhood, they probably started it! Yeah! I'd guess i'd fight back! Funny that.... :roll:

No, I actually want to see evidence. Not some political organisation or universities or lecturers who makes wild claims.

Government reports, military reports, statistical evidence would suffice.

Not political opinion. That does not count as evidence.

I think you will find that those are all very reliable sources, which build their reports on hundreds of very reliable sources.

And what does the military have to do with this?

Filamai...well according to claims, the government sent troops to steal the native children.

In addition...since these events never happened...there is no evidence. Therefore I need not post links which are unreliable, discredited and out right lies. Unlike some people.

You are the one who continues to make wild allegations - I challenge you again...where is your evidence?

Ah, but can you post links proving that it never happened? And not from far-right revisionist history websites, and any parties who might have a legal or financial interest?

Of course he can't. It's just blind racist rants claiming that they never killed or wiped them out. :roll:

And he blithely continues to ignore repeated requests to offer anything to "prove" his ridiculous assertions.

Benicius, in complete agreement with you mate

The 1 post wonder - not a clone, surely?

Benicius, in complete agreement with you mate

The 1 post wonder - not a clone, surely?

No...Smeagol. Your accusations are going to have to cease please.

Ah, but can you post links proving that it never happened? And not from far-right revisionist history websites, and any parties who might have a legal or financial interest?

Of course he can't. It's just blind racist rants claiming that they never killed or wiped them out. :roll:

And he blithely continues to ignore repeated requests to offer anything to "prove" his ridiculous assertions.

Still waiting...anything m'lud? Anything at all ?

I understand this is an Australian thing and I don't mean to digress (but I will) however, we have a similar issue in the States. American Indians want an apology for Manifest Destiny and African Americans want slave reparations from the government. I'm against both and I can understand why Australians are against this reconcilliation. What happened in the past happened. The people living today cannot be expected to apologize for actions that happened fifty, one hundred, two hundred five hundred years ago. 21st century ideas of morality and right and wrong cannot be applied to incidents that happened many years ago. Those people were living with different morals. What seems wrong now was perfectly ok back then. Its a shame, its terrible, yeah. But I didn't do it. And my father didn't do it. And my grandfather didn't do it, etc. So I'm to be made to apologize to an Indian because a hundred and some odd years ago, his ancestors were run off there land by people that I have no direct connection to other than the color of my skin. No way. Or my tax dollars go to pay the decendants of former slaves (imagine trying figure who is a true decendant) when my ancestors had not yet arrived in America. Not to mention half a million men died in the four years of the Civil War.

Any legitimate government is held to much higher expectations than individual citizens. Its legitimacy is a measurement of its integrity. Each new generation must honor the PRINCIPALS on which the nation was founded; Freedom, Equality, JUSTICE. That responsibility is not erased every time a new prime minister or president is elected. Laws do not become null after 10 yrs or even 20, 30, 100 years. The actions of any government are relevant whether they occurred last week or 100 years ago.

While Smeagol and others trawl through history to find things to be ashamed about most Australians move forward and look to the future. The Stolen Generation myth is one of the things the apologists hang their hats on but it is a myth. The author of Bring them Home, the report on the supposed stolen generation admitted his report was based on hearsay and only interviewed people claiming they were stolen. That is, they did not investigate as a neutral but investigated and reported only what would support the myth.
The fact that no case presented to the scrutiny of court, that is where they are required to produce evidence of being stolen, has succeeded means that the basis for this allegation is a best feeble. In fact, government records proved that the claimants were in fact handed in to church or government officials by one of their parents or in one case, the claimant was not even aboriginal.
So, if you want to spend your life looking for things to feel ashamed of then go for it but don't expect the entire nation to get bogged down in your self-flagellation and don't expect the nation to open itself up to bankruptcy to silence the vocal minority.
Australia is a country for all Australians, one country, one set of laws. We all have to obey them regardless of our race or religion and thats the way it should be.

While Smeagol and others trawl through history to find things to be ashamed about most Australians move forward and look to the future. The Stolen Generation myth is one of the things the apologists hang their hats on but it is a myth. The author of Bring them Home, the report on the supposed stolen generation admitted his report was based on hearsay and only interviewed people claiming they were stolen. That is, they did not investigate as a neutral but investigated and reported only what would support the myth.
The fact that no case presented to the scrutiny of court, that is where they are required to produce evidence of being stolen, has succeeded means that the basis for this allegation is a best feeble. In fact, government records proved that the claimants were in fact handed in to church or government officials by one of their parents or in one case, the claimant was not even aboriginal.
So, if you want to spend your life looking for things to feel ashamed of then go for it but don't expect the entire nation to get bogged down in your self-flagellation and don't expect the nation to open itself up to bankruptcy to silence the vocal minority.
Australia is a country for all Australians, one country, one set of laws. We all have to obey them regardless of our race or religion and thats the way it should be.

What a stupid post.

I am not "trawling through history to find things to be ashamed about".

This post was started by someone who claimed that the history never in fact occured.

He was repeatedly asked to provide any evidence for such a ridiculous statement. He failed to do so, instead began flaming other posters, and then moderators, and was subsequently deleted.

Lets see if you can do any better.

If you wish to deny Australia's history, produce the evidence.

The best thing for Australia to do is in fact to recognise and come to terms with its history, and then move on.

Pretending things never happened helps nobody.

In fact, its about as useful as flaming people when asked to produce evidence for ridiculous assertions.

What he claimed was there was no "genocide" and there was no "stolen generation".
Clashes between aboriginals and settlers are not genocide. Genocide is defined as:

The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

(Source: www.dictionary.com)

In order to make such an allegation you must produce evidence to support a systematic and planned extermination of an entire race. Evidence showing something did not occur cannot be submitted by the fact that the event did not occur.

Definition of Generation from the same source:

1. All of the offspring that are at the same stage of descent from a common ancestor: Mother and daughters represent two generations.
2. Biology. A form or stage in the life cycle of an organism: asexual generation of a fern.
3. The average interval of time between the birth of parents and the birth of their offspring.

4
a. A group of individuals born and living about the same time.
b. A group of generally contemporaneous individuals regarded as having common cultural or social characteristics and attitudes: “They're the television generation” (Roger Enrico)....

The "stolen generation" is a myth. White children were taken from their mothers if they were deemed to be in a dangerous environment also. To say there was a government policy to raid aboriginal communities and take their children for no reason is a myth. This has been proven by the fact a court has never upheld such a claim. To have a stolen generation means an entire generation of people were forcibly removed from their families. This is false. Sure, some children were removed in questionable circumstances but so say an entire generation was removed is pure hype..a myth.

The following link is a summary of a story that appeared on the Sunday program last year called "Fabricating Aboriginal History". The story looks into the claims of Keith Windschuttle, author of The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, that most historians of Aboriginal Australia had invented evidence about the murder of Aborigines by white settlers. At the bottom of the summary you will find a link to a transcript of the story.

http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/cover_stories/article_1286.asp

What he claimed was there was no "genocide" and there was no "stolen generation".
Clashes between aboriginals and settlers are not genocide. Genocide is defined as:

The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

(Source: www.dictionary.com)

In order to make such an allegation you must produce evidence to support a systematic and planned extermination of an entire race. Evidence showing something did not occur cannot be submitted by the fact that the event did not occur.

Definition of Generation from the same source:

1. All of the offspring that are at the same stage of descent from a common ancestor: Mother and daughters represent two generations.
2. Biology. A form or stage in the life cycle of an organism: asexual generation of a fern.
3. The average interval of time between the birth of parents and the birth of their offspring.

4
a. A group of individuals born and living about the same time.
b. A group of generally contemporaneous individuals regarded as having common cultural or social characteristics and attitudes: “They're the television generation” (Roger Enrico)....

The "stolen generation" is a myth. White children were taken from their mothers if they were deemed to be in a dangerous environment also. To say there was a government policy to raid aboriginal communities and take their children for no reason is a myth. This has been proven by the fact a court has never upheld such a claim. To have a stolen generation means an entire generation of people were forcibly removed from their families. This is false. Sure, some children were removed in questionable circumstances but so say an entire generation was removed is pure hype..a myth.

His actual words were in fact :
"[NOTE: The contents of this thread are factual and may offend some left wing/liberal viewers]

Ok...to set the record straight. In Australian history there was no:

1. Genocide of natives
2. Stolen generation

There is also no need for reconciliation."

He was asked to produce any evidence to support his statements and failed to do so.

You have been asked the same question, and have also failed to support your statements.

If you propose a contrary view to what is generally accepted, then the onus of providing some sort of evidence is with you.

On what basis do you claim to have more or greater knowledge than what is generally accepted to have occured?

What research has allowed you to decide that previous conlusions are false?

Please note that merely wishing something had not occured does not count, even if you wish really, really hard.

It saddens me to see the ignorance of a lot of people. The plight of the Australians is a horrible one. "assimilation" is code for destruction of culture. I know a few Australians, (this is not a generlization of the Australian people) and they happen to be appalingly racist. Many aborigines are treated as sub-human. Physical genocide may not have occured, but cultural genocide did

Would it really hurt the pride of the Australians to apologize? what is the downside?

In regard to the actual poll question:

Anyone who votes yes is a moron. If you didn't do something, WHY THE FUCK SHOULD YOU APOLOGISE FOR IT?

As far as this aboriginal thing. No clue, sorry. Guess I'll do some research. Knowledge of the world is always a good thing.

As for the "not apoligizing for what my Grandfather did", i have a peculiar situation. On my mom's side, My ancestors were settlers in Deerfield Massachusetts. On my dads side, My ancestors were the American Indians who raided that town. They fought and killed eachother. Kind of gives you a strange perspective on things.

It saddens me to see the ignorance of a lot of people. The plight of the Australians is a horrible one. "assimilation" is code for destruction of culture. I know a few Australians, (this is not a generlization of the Australian people) and they happen to be appalingly racist. Many aborigines are treated as sub-human. Physical genocide may not have occured, but cultural genocide did

Would it really hurt the pride of the Australians to apologize? what is the downside?

On what basis is the plight of Australians a horrible one? I advocate integration, not assimilation..noone has mentioned assimilation here. Integrarion means that everyone lives by the same set of laws and are free to practise their religion and culture provided this does not break the law or impede others from practising their religion and culture.
Well your Australian friends are not representative of all Australians and if you were not intending to make a generalisation then why mention it at all? It is a bit like starting a sentence with "I don't mean to be rude but..." usually followed by something rude.
Where are indigenous Australians treated as sub-human? The level of funding that goes towards the welfare of indigenous Australians is greater per capita than any other race or religion. The fact is that throwing money at the problem does not solve the problem. It just makes the people throwing mor emoeny to them feel better about themselves while it does not treat the symptoms of the problem.
Apologising to the Aboriginal race on behalf of the country has a downside in that the country would be bankrupted with compensation claims. If it were to be a purely symbolic gesture in the interests of better relations between indigenous Australians and the government then the indigenous people would sign a declaration waiving their right to sue. That will never happen because it is all about money. Secondly, I have done nothing to harm an aboriginal so why should I apologise for something I did not do? Why should the government apologise on my behalf. Our Prime Minister has expressed presonal regret for any misdeeds towards the indigenous people in the past.

Ignorance is where people believe things when there is no evidence of it occurring because it suits them to think so. There is no evidence of genocide, there is no evidence of a stolen generation.

What he claimed was there was no "genocide" and there was no "stolen generation".
Clashes between aboriginals and settlers are not genocide. Genocide is defined as:

The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

(Source: www.dictionary.com)

In order to make such an allegation you must produce evidence to support a systematic and planned extermination of an entire race. Evidence showing something did not occur cannot be submitted by the fact that the event did not occur.

Definition of Generation from the same source:

1. All of the offspring that are at the same stage of descent from a common ancestor: Mother and daughters represent two generations.
2. Biology. A form or stage in the life cycle of an organism: asexual generation of a fern.
3. The average interval of time between the birth of parents and the birth of their offspring.

4
a. A group of individuals born and living about the same time.
b. A group of generally contemporaneous individuals regarded as having common cultural or social characteristics and attitudes: “They're the television generation” (Roger Enrico)....

The "stolen generation" is a myth. White children were taken from their mothers if they were deemed to be in a dangerous environment also. To say there was a government policy to raid aboriginal communities and take their children for no reason is a myth. This has been proven by the fact a court has never upheld such a claim. To have a stolen generation means an entire generation of people were forcibly removed from their families. This is false. Sure, some children were removed in questionable circumstances but so say an entire generation was removed is pure hype..a myth.

His actual words were in fact :
"[NOTE: The contents of this thread are factual and may offend some left wing/liberal viewers]

Ok...to set the record straight. In Australian history there was no:

1. Genocide of natives
2. Stolen generation

There is also no need for reconciliation."

He was asked to produce any evidence to support his statements and failed to do so.

You have been asked the same question, and have also failed to support your statements.

If you propose a contrary view to what is generally accepted, then the onus of providing some sort of evidence is with you.

On what basis do you claim to have more or greater knowledge than what is generally accepted to have occured?

What research has allowed you to decide that previous conlusions are false?

Please note that merely wishing something had not occured does not count, even if you wish really, really hard.

The OP stated that the Stolen Generation did not exist and that there was no genocide.

I have stated that there has been no case before the courst of this country supporting the stolen generation and that there is no evidence of a systematic and deliberate extermination of Aborigines by the Australian government or any other group in this country.

If these events are so clear cut and factual then you could easily present the damning evidence that proved they existed and shut me up. You haven't. My evidence is that there is no evidence these events occurred as proven by the courts of this country.

HERE HERE.

Look, the argument is such:

Physical evidence cannot be provided to support the fact that genocide in Australia and the stolen generation did not occur.

Because these things did not happen, there is no physical evidence. Only when something happens is there evidence.

...as there is no physical evidence to suggest there was genocide or a stolen generation, then the argument that they did not happen stands true.

Well, well. It would appear that most people would oppose a national apology.

The people have spoken!

Someone must have tampered with the poll...surely? :roll:

Someone must have tampered with the poll...surely? :roll:

LOL yes! It must be a conservative conspiracy! :lol:

Reading through I gotta add my two cents as an Australian citizen, no I dont feel I should apologise for something I know my family had no hand in allegedly doing.

Whilst, most people here state evidence for something happening and others claim it to be false, I have to stop and wonder, is the middle the truth? Did maybe a small amount of the accused actions take place but nothing was ever recorded?

How often do children just simply disappear and nobody knows why? Sometimes there is just no evidence to prove something. I personaly would consider the claims to be somewhat truthful but not as large as they are. History yes is full of past atrocities, but then people forget alot of the first 'settlers' on Australia were exiled british people, for commiting crimes against the crown. There are cases of racial conflict and there are cases of racial co-existance, I think one of the main prison camps lived peacefully with aboriginals for quite some time.

I feel any atrocities that happened didnt happen until 1901 I think is when my country was founded as a true country, and then like with all countries given recognition they want it all and thus atrocities happen. To deny them is foolish, sure I believe alot of the million or so aboriginals were killed through disease and skirmishes with british troops and later on australian land owners but to blanket all australians as being guilty is rather foolish.

Can you really blame a man for being taken from his homeland and being put on a foreign one as a prisoner later free'd only to have another person try to take his land away from him again? I know I'd resist as much as my beliefs would let me.

None of the stolen generation claims have been prove truthful but does that mean nothing happened? I know rabbit proof fence was a total miss-write of the person's story, lack of evidence doesnt always mean it didnt happen.

Australia is a country for Australians and anyone that wishes to make her their home. It's owned by nobody and owned by all, when you agree to become an Australian citizen you agree to abide by our laws. Aboriginals agreed to these same things over time, admittedly alot may have been forced too, but then show me anywhere in the world where forced 'civilising' hasnt occured and has not recieved as much complaint?

Do we all sit around complaining about the romans taking away our barbarinsm in places where rome reached? Do we complain to the egyptians, the greeks, the turks or who ever else was a party in widespread conquering of lands in the name of one state? No, so why should this be any different?

Aboriginals are not treated as sub-human infact it's easier to be granted welfare from the government if you are aboriginal or a tores straight islander, I recently had the difficulty of trying to get some sort of financial aid from my government, me being a white descendant took me a long time to get anything. I had to turn 21 before I could gain any sort of recognition.

Aboriginals on the other hand had their own council and abstudy which basicaly gives any aboriginal money whilst they recieve education. Another question someone put forward is why dont we help them get over their greif? I believe it's been tried, education is open to everyone here, it's their choice. Can we force them to be educated? Maybe but are we any better than the enslavers of a previous time? No. They choose to wallow in greif and sorrow society doesnt force them too.

There are aboriginal communes in many places where they live as they used too, in a socialist styled living, food and clothing is given to the community by them, they also make and sell aboriginal potting and paintings to keep the community afloat. I'm rambling now and I apologise for this, I think I had a point but I've lost it and I hate doing that. I'll finish this with saying alot of the greif and accusations being flung about are made by younger generations who feel a hostility towards white people, all the older aboriginals those that may have grown up in the stolen generation time or during the atrocities are quite friendly people, as are the true aboriginals. The majority of aboriginals now days are half casts, half aboriginals, they for some unknown reason are also rather violent.

To label all aboriginals as suffering is doing them a wrong which makes them feel that they are suffering, instead we should all embrace our future and that is Australian, we are all one nationality, be it black, white, asian or carribean we are Australian.

*APPLAUSE* - (goes silent and hangs head in shame at own "un-parliamentary behaviour)

Well said Iraqstan.

I do not deny that SOME aborigines were killed by settlers nor do I deny that SOME aboriginal children were removed from their parents under questionable circumstances. What I do object to is the fact that the terms "genocide" and stolen "generation" are used and treated as factual despite lack of evidence to support it.
What I also object to is having these events taught in schools as though they are fact. Teaching the children of European descent to be ashamed of their heritage and history based on material which is at best exaggerated and worst a complete fabrication is something that should be ceased. Teach history as it happened not how you want it interpreted. People can make up their own minds.

I also agree that the time for the victim mentality with regards to the aboriginal people to stop. They have access to education the same as any other person in this country. They have greater access to financial assistance to enable themselves to get an education and get a start in life. Ultimately it is their choice what they do with their lives and noone else should be held responsible for their decisions.
At the end of the day we are all Australians, we live under one set of laws that govern for us all. Education should teach people the facts as they exist and then the person can interpret them as they see fit. The teaching of propaganda as fact is unacceptable.

Iraqstan you sum up everything I've thought about the aboriginal situation if you will WELL DONE *claps*

Iraqstan you sum up everything I've thought about the aboriginal situation if you will WELL DONE *claps*
*joins in the round of applause*

Something interesting which I just remembered...

Apparently one of the Kings of Uganda (there are more than one?) is suing the United Kingdom for 1.7 trillion pounds for the degradation of his country under white rule. :shock: That was published a few months ago, but it is a good indication of what Australians would probably be faced with following a "national apology".

...uh...does the UK even have 1.7 trillion pounds to give?

Many cultures and nations were lost because of colonization. Many of these countries are now poor countries, many at war and many ruled by dictators that live at the expense of the people (Angola, Congo, etc.). They were not rich or poor before, they were just living their lives, many of them happily. Now they are all unhappy.

The same happens in Brazil for example.
Many of the indian tribes live in communities where there are no leaders, no one is below anyone and where they live freely.

Then the "white man" started "civilizing" the place, ravaging, etc, and the indians became inferiors, persecuted and killed for their culture, for the lands they occupied or simply because of the god they didn't follow.

How happy are they now? What did we bring them? Medicine? Sure. There are 80 year olds amongst the tribesman that didn't have contact with colonizers and evangelizers. Religion? They had their own religion, their own cosmogony and they respected their own, they respected nature and they lived in peace.
Colonizers brought them shit, I tell you. Not a single advantage.

yeah quite a can of worms. there isnt enough money to pay for what they lost but y'all won it fair and square.
its been the way of the world since humanity began. why start apologizing for it now?

How about: to show evidence of the evolution of civilization?

The fact that they were nomadic further supports my claim.

It does? How?

Nomadic peoples are hunter-gatherers and therefore wander about in search of food. They do not live in the one place. Therefore, they do not own land and the British could claim it under the pre-text of "terra nullius"

A British legal position alien to the Aborigine.

Re: nomadic cultures... Are you suggesting (rhetorical since your monkey ass got deleted) that a people who choose to exploit their lands in a cyclic mobile fashion do not have the right to continue to possess those lands?

[NOTE: The contents of this thread are factual and may offend some left wing/liberal viewers]

Ok...to set the record straight. In Australian history there was no:

1. Genocide of natives
2. Stolen generation

There is also no need for reconciliation.

(to be continued...)

Did you go to school? There were major genocides, why do you think there are no longer any native Tasmanians left? Fool...

School? History that is taught in schools is false! Genocide? In one "aborigine hunt" by angry settlers they found 2 aboriginal males and that was it.

Disease killed most natives off. Those who died in war with settlers and troops are comparitvely few.

How convincing. Describe the least destructive example of a settler-aborigine hate crime and treat it as proof of the absence or relative irrelavence of such matters. Perhaps in your next incarnation you will have risen above such sophomoric rhetorical tactics.


...
Not to mention half a million men died in the four years of the Civil War.

Can you prove that? 8) I mean... since it "never happened", I'm sure you can't. Yes, that jibe is certainly for someone else, and yes as a counterexample it is grossly exaggerated, vis a vis the amount of MILITARY and GOVERNMENT documentation on PAPER... but can YOU prove that half a million died in the U.S. civil war? ...or that Australian aboriginal genocide and child-relocation did not occur? You refer to history in a web forum where anyone can type out anything, so how do WE know that half a million died in the U.S. civil war?

Someone must have tampered with the poll...surely? :roll:

LOL yes! It must be a conservative conspiracy! :lol:

Perhaps it is merely a conspiracy of certain people who are known to use puppetry? Or perhaps it simply reflects those who are taking the poll question literally and outside of the context of the subsequent post? And perhaps if it had been worded "that neither they nor their ancestors did and that they enjoy no benefits from" the poll results would have been different.



Why Waste Another Vote On the Old Coke-and-Pepsi Party?
Waste Your Vote On Me

How about: to show evidence of the evolution of civilization?

So, to "show evidence of evolution of civilisation" we all must apologise for crimes that were never committed. There is a huge difference between killings of aborigines in clashes with settlers and a genocide. Same with the stolen "generation", an exaggeration and something that never happened.
If you wish for someone to apologise they have to have committed the offence they are apologising for. In order to seek compensation you must also prove your case before the court to gain such compensation. Noone to date has proven their case so why should the government apologise?


How convincing. Describe the least destructive example of a settler-aborigine hate crime and treat it as proof of the absence or relative irrelavence of such matters. Perhaps in your next incarnation you will have risen above such sophomoric rhetorical tactics.


As opposed to the people pushing your argument who have shown no evidence of such crimes. Show me the conclusive proof these events happened. Reminding you that a genocide by the government would involve a deliberate and systematic extermination of aborigines authorised by said government.


Perhaps it is merely a conspiracy of certain people who are known to use puppetry? Or perhaps it simply reflects those who are taking the poll question literally and outside of the context of the subsequent post? And perhaps if it had been worded "that neither they nor their ancestors did and that they enjoy no benefits from" the poll results would have been different.


I am not a puppet of Benicius or Thuthmose III. People may have not read the "reason" for the poll but what diffeence does that make? Under what circumstance should people apologise for what they did not do?

I love how you can have two left wingers converse on NS, but if two conservatives agree one must be a puppet!

Why should I apologise for something that:

(a) never happened
(b) that I would not have been alive to commit

It's not about whether we committed those crimes. It's about us benefitting from the crimes our great grandfathers and grandfathers committed. What we have is something that maybe we didn't steal, but we've got it anyway, and it's still stolen.

Maybe the aborigines don't want the land back. Maybe if they did they'd have a right to it. Maybe you'd be as much a bastard as your great grandparents if you said to them, "No. I've got it good here, and if you want it, you're going to have to come and take it." After all, they've been turned into a minority, due to disease and genocide. It's not like they outnumber you.

I think the main issue here is acknowledgment. I think they'd like to hear someone admit that what happened happened, and it was a shame and a crime. Maybe there's no way to change that, but at least the truth is being told.

*Streaks through thread*

I think the main issue here is acknowledgment. I think they'd like to hear someone admit that what happened happened, and it was a shame and a crime. Maybe there's no way to change that, but at least the truth is being told.

The thing is that genocide never happened. The stolen generation is a myth (in the way it is portrayed). There is no need therefore to acknowledge what never happened.

Besides...an apology will no doubt open the Australian taxpayer to multiple law suits.

The idea is to move forward...address issues affecting all Australians. An apology will only send us backwards.

It's not about whether we committed those crimes. It's about us benefitting from the crimes our great grandfathers and grandfathers committed. What we have is something that maybe we didn't steal, but we've got it anyway, and it's still stolen.

Maybe the aborigines don't want the land back. Maybe if they did they'd have a right to it. Maybe you'd be as much a bastard as your great grandparents if you said to them, "No. I've got it good here, and if you want it, you're going to have to come and take it." After all, they've been turned into a minority, due to disease and genocide. It's not like they outnumber you.

I think the main issue here is acknowledgment. I think they'd like to hear someone admit that what happened happened, and it was a shame and a crime. Maybe there's no way to change that, but at least the truth is being told.

Again you use the word genocide. I am sure a large number of people who loosely use such a word do not know its meaning at all.
Everyone acknowledges there were unsavoury events in the past but that does not make a genocide. The Prime Minister has expressed personal sympathy to the aborigines over any incidents that were unsavoury but a national apology is not about moving on, it is about compensation for events that did not occur.

*runs naked into thread, does a few star jumps just for fun, then runs on*

Also in addition demanding a national apology is demanding an apology from every australian, uhm that would include australian citizens or australians born of asian descent, since they had no part in it why should they apologise? Why should I apologise for something I or my family have had no part in?

Do we demand apologies from brittain, rome or greeks for their land grabbing conquests oh so many years ago? Why is this any different? We acknowledge that sure bad things happened, but to demand we as a nation apologies when specific groups had no part but must still apologise is unjust and arrogent.

I'm sure there are people involved that hold regret, but there's just no way to prove anything other than what we are told by people. It's more an issue that needs to be moved on from, we as a nation acknowledge there was tragedy and we are willign to move on, minority or not aboriginals have as much right and more so to gain a life than they did under the old laws, I say that's more than enough compensation.

Land rite claims are a bit iffy since not all of Australia was colonised by them, a million or so aboriginals on a land mass that even now houses 20 million with no signs of over-population...... I dont see how they can claim all as their own if they'd never seen it or lived on it.

I personaly refuse to apologise for anything that I had nothing to do with, my grandfather was a boy during all this, his family imigrated from scottland to work the coal mines, I've had no wealthy or privelaged ancestors that would have the power to do the abuses white people are accused of. There is over a century of mining history in my family, we are basicaly peasants and workers not rich people. Do you think it right for me or my family to apologise for attrocities that may or may not have happened just becuse we are white? I dont think it's very fair at all......

I've only gone through a few pages, and sometimes I wonder why some of you bother with topics like this. People who don't believe the Holocaust happened will continue to do so no matter what. People who have no concept of the native Australians will continue to do so no matter what.

I, however, will state that unlike these apparent military geniuses, I study documents from the Australian government during my recent class at Melbourne Uni clearly outlining the way migrants - and native Australians - were treated since colonization. You're interested in it, stop by the bookshop at Melb Uni and check out some of the Australian Studies readers.

The native Australians had no concept of land ownership, just like the native Americans. The colonizers declared that this meant those people really didn't exist and claimed the land (kudos to whoever made the Eddie Izzard reference!) The Stolen Generation is where native Australian youth were removed from their families in order to force them to integrate with White Australia.

Whether you committed the crimes against the native Australians or not is immaterial. It completely fails to address the fact that every single Australian is still benefiting from the fact that these crimes were done, just as the Americans are benefiting from the crimes against the native Americans. The historical impact can not be ignored simply because it is a couple of generations removed.

~Merric

I've only gone through a few pages, and sometimes I wonder why some of you bother with topics like this. People who don't believe the Holocaust happened will continue to do so no matter what. People who have no concept of the native Australians will continue to do so no matter what.

I, however, will state that unlike these apparent military geniuses, I study documents from the Australian government during my recent class at Melbourne Uni clearly outlining the way migrants - and native Australians - were treated since colonization. You're interested in it, stop by the bookshop at Melb Uni and check out some of the Australian Studies readers.

The native Australians had no concept of land ownership, just like the native Americans. The colonizers declared that this meant those people really didn't exist and claimed the land (kudos to whoever made the Eddie Izzard reference!) The Stolen Generation is where native Australian youth were removed from their families in order to force them to integrate with White Australia.

Whether you committed the crimes against the native Australians or not is immaterial. It completely fails to address the fact that every single Australian is still benefiting from the fact that these crimes were done, just as the Americans are benefiting from the crimes against the native Americans. The historical impact can not be ignored simply because it is a couple of generations removed.

~Merric

Your connection of the holocaust and aborigines is ludicrous to begin with.

Also...are you suggesting that aborigines are not benefitting from colonisation? Tell that to the ex ATSIC board...how much was Clarke earning again...

As for the "stolen generation"...the children who were removed from their homes were those whose parents were violent, drunks, etc. The removal of children was to protect them from abusive parents (much like child welfare does today). And...by generation...it is implied that EVERY SINGLE ABORIGINAL CHILD was "stolen". This is a blatant lie.

What has happened (nothing to the extent of genocide or entire generations being stolen) is not the fault of today's society. We cannot change the past, but we can move forward by securing a better future for ALL Australians. An apology will only send us backwards.

...but...I would argue (on top of your argument) that the aboriginal people owe the Australian government the sum of $4 trillion AUS for all the technology and benefits given to them since 1778. This includes: the wheel, clothing, medicine, schooling etc. They can then go and live off the land like their anscestors.

have i won yet?

Also...are you suggesting that aborigines are not benefitting from colonisation? Tell that to the ex ATSIC board...how much was Clarke earning again...

As for the "stolen generation"...the children who were removed from their homes were those whose parents were violent, drunks, etc. The removal of children was to protect them from abusive parents (much like child welfare does today). And...by generation...it is implied that EVERY SINGLE ABORIGINAL CHILD was "stolen". This is a blatant lie.
[snip]
...but...I would argue (on top of your argument) that the aboriginal people owe the Australian government the sum of $4 trillion AUS for all the technology and benefits given to them since 1778. This includes: the wheel, clothing, medicine, schooling etc. They can then go and live off the land like their anscestors.

1) The board of ATSIC getting huge salaries isnt the same as all aborigional's getting huge salaries
2) Parents could well be considered "violent" if they choose to live in a tribe & hunt for food with a spear. This does not have to make them bad parents, nor does it justify taking their children
3) If you give me something as a gift, I do not "owe" you anything for it.

Personally, I see the amount of money wasted by ATSIC as ludicrous - Aborigionals are *currently* (statistical average - check the ABS for detailed info) poorer than other groups, and depending on your political views it may or may not be fair to give them aid. Regardless of this, any aid that is given should be spent meaningfully, and this is not happening.

As for whether what happened constitutes genocide: Personally I have not decided this, despite having read into the subject fairly deeply. Certaintly, the british saw themselves as suprerior: government documents available from books in most university libraries confirm this view. Regardless, seeing oneself as suprerior is not the same as genocide.
It could probably be assumed that the aborigionals, correctly or not, saw the british as entering the lands their tribe lived on without at least asking permission. According to several aborigional elders interviewed for the writing of history texts such an incursion by another tribe would often be treated as an attack unless the other tribe gave some sort of warning in advance.
From this information it is logical to assume that the british would be treated, at least initially, as enemies or potential enemies.

There were killings on both sides, but this does not have to be genocide.
The essential problem is that the history is not documented well enough to make an informed decision either way - but this does not prove that genocide did not take place.

There were killings on both sides, but this does not have to be genocide.
The essential problem is that the history is not documented well enough to make an informed decision either way - but this does not prove that genocide did not take place.

By what you're saying, it doesn't prove that the genocide DID take place either. I don't really know much of anything on the subject, but I just like to nitpick people's arguments :D.

If something did not happen, naturally there will be no evidence.

e.g. A man was not killed...

Therefore you will not find:

(a) a body
(b) a weapon
(c) a murderer

If you cannot understand that still, then I am at a loss as to how to explain this concept.

This is quite possibly the funniest thing I have ever read.

A man was not killed...
Therefore he would still be alive and you would be able to prove that a murder was not committed, jackass! :rolleyes:

As for the "stolen generation"...the children who were removed from their homes were those whose parents were violent, drunks, etc. The removal of children was to protect them from abusive parents (much like child welfare does today). And...by generation...it is implied that EVERY SINGLE ABORIGINAL CHILD was "stolen". This is a blatant lie.
Where did you get this ridiculous idea from?
It was not just the offspring of drunks and abusive parents that were stolen. Practically most children who were half-casts were taken and made property of the government, inadequate parents or not.
Don't deny history, it does no good, and is an insult to the memory of those who suffered at the hands of such unjust policies.

...but...I would argue (on top of your argument) that the aboriginal people owe the Australian government the sum of $4 trillion AUS for all the technology and benefits given to them since 1778. This includes: the wheel, clothing, medicine, schooling etc. They can then go and live off the land like their anscestors.

Ummm, given that the aboriginal people lived fairly successfully without the $4 trillion worth of inventions for 40,000+ years i dont think you can really send them a bill. Had europeans not arrived then they would probably have gone on living like their ancestors quite happily, cos they didnt know about all the amazing advances like: education (becuase obviously our institutionalised version is more appropriate to their lifestyle than oral tradition) or medicine (for diseases that didnt exist here till Europeans brought them).
Not taking sides in an important national debate, i just think that the above was a really fucking stupid argument.

Let the dead rest.