NationStates Jolt Archive

The Federal Government says it will today begin the formal process of formulating an apology to the Stolen Generations.

Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin [...will] be meeting Indigenous leaders to start discussions on an official apology.

[...] Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner Tom Calma has outlined conditions for an official apology.

Mr Calma says the election of a new federal government is a second chance for it to apologise to those who were forcibly removed from their families.

He says the apology must include the word "sorry" and be formulated in consultation with Indigenous groups. He also says it should unite rather than divide the nation.

Mr Calma says an apology by the Australian Government does not need to cover every act since colonisation.

He says its important the apology is specific to the Stolen Generations as they are the people who need closure.


(link (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/11/2115439.htm))

See also here (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/how-to-say-sorry-and-heal-the-wounds/2007/12/11/1197135463459.html) and here (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22908262-421,00.html).

Finally. Rudd can be commended for starting this as soon as he was elected.

Why does an apology from these people mean anything? I never understood that.

Why does an apology from these people mean anything? I never understood that.

Speaking as an Australian who the hell knows its just that the Abo's that where taken are now living good lives most of them would be dead by now either from alcohol posioning, drug overdose killed in the many fights that happen in those isolated communities not onl that they may have been hit by STD's espically as a large amount of young children are gang raped they want an apology from being saved from this sort of life. I ask anybody that if a white child was being treated this way (raped, allowed to sniff petrol and drink large amounts of alcohol and beaten up) and child services came to ensure that the child would be brought up with a better life do you think that they shouldn't be taken away from their parents and that it is wrong for the government to do so?

I didn't do this Australians didn't do it why should we be now forced to apolgise for something we didn't do along with all the compensation they will begin to claim it will run into the hundreds of millions of dollars. PM Rudd should not just bow down to left wing idealolgy which will be a big mistake, these people who want it also want Abo communities to continue living the way their currently are where most of the adults are drunk women and children are raped and beaten, very few have jobs and rely on the dole which most is spent on alcohol, and where Abo's live 20 years fewer than the rest of Australia.

Why does an apology from these people mean anything? I never understood that.

They want an apology in the name of the government. It's of symbolic and emotional importance. They need to be offered an apology so that they can officially receive and accept it, enabling reconciliation to move on to more practical issues.

The Stolen Generations were a more ghastly and traumatic event than most people seem to realise. Because it happened in a Western country, it tends to get minimised. It was part of an openly expressed policy of wiping out Aboriginals through forced assimilation. About 100,000 children were forcibly removed from their parents. Refusing to apologise was perceived as adding grievous insult to injury.

They want an apology in the name of the government. It's of symbolic and emotional importance. They need to be offered an apology so that they can officially receive and accept it, enabling reconciliation to move on to more practical issues.

I know that, and I think they should because of how much it means to all those people. It's just, if I was in their situation I wouldn't care, because the apology isn't coming from those who wronged me.

Sometimes I just don't understand humans :rolleyes:

Speaking as an Australian who the hell knows its just that the Abo's that where taken are now living good lives most of them would be dead by now either from alcohol posioning, drug overdose killed in the many fights that happen in those isolated communities

Tell that to Bruce Trevorrow (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6937222.stm), you ignorant racist bastard:


In claiming his life had been destroyed, Bruce [stolen from his parents at the age of 13 months] could also compare his experience with that of his three Aboriginal siblings, all of whom have enjoyed very successful lives.

"We could make such a stark contrast because his Aboriginal brothers were such high achievers," says Claire O'Connor, "and they had stayed with the parents."


Oh, I'm sorry, does the truth upset your need to cling to ridiculous, racist generalisations?


not onl that they may have been hit by STD's espically as a large amount of young children are gang raped they want an apology from being saved from this sort of life. I ask anybody that if a white child was being treated this way (raped, allowed to sniff petrol and drink large amounts of alcohol and beaten up) and child services came to ensure that the child would be brought up with a better life do you think that they shouldn't be taken away from their parents and that it is wrong for the government to do so?

I'm going to try and make this simple.

1) You are right on one point: children who are being ill-treated within Aboriginal communities should be protected, and that includes being taken away from abusive relatives if need be. You either don't know or don't want to know that Aboriginal leaders were furious when a white judge handed down a lenient verdict on Aboriginal men who raped an Aboriginal girl (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/11/2114977.htm) recently. Aboriginal leaders have demanded that the full severity of the law be applied to rapists. Cases of abuse within Indigenous communities should be treated in the same way as any other case of abuse; they should not be an excuse for ignorant racists like you to advocate the kidnapping of tens of thousands of children from their loving and caring parents, creating lifelong trauma in the process.

2) The Stolen Generations were not taken to be protected from abusive relatives. They were taken, most often from loving and caring parents, for no reason other than the colour of their skin. This was openly admitted at the time, and was part of an explicit policy to make Aboriginals "disappear". How the fuck can you possibly support that? Are you seriously saying that it is justifiable to snatch a baby from its weeping mother's arms, and never allow them to see each other again, simply because of the baby's skin colour?

3) Many Aboriginals who were taken from their parents as children face much greater difficulties (unemployment, depression...) than those who were not removed, as evidenced by Trevorrow and by the Bringing Them Home report.


I didn't do this

Nobody is asking you to apologise personally.


Australians didn't do it

Oh, really?


why should we be now forced to apolgise for something we didn't do

The State is being asked to apologise in the name of the State, not in the name of Kevin Rudd or in the name of any individual Australian alive today. Surely that's not hard to understand. The concept of an apology from the State is nothing new. It's happened in New Zealand several times, with apologies to Maori, to the Chinese community, and to Samoans.


along with all the compensation they will begin to claim it will run into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Again, I direct you to the case of Bruce Trevorrow. Try to understand why he received compensation. Being kidnapped as a child was (surprise, surprise!) extremely traumatic, and ruined his life. The same is true of tens of thousands of your fellow Australians.

By the way, every Australian State has already apologised on the State level; only a federal apology was still lacking. You may not have noticed, but the State apologies haven't exactly opened a floodgate of compensations. Trevorrow is the only Aboriginal ever to have received compensation for having been kidnapped by the government as a child.


PM Rudd should not just bow down to left wing idealolgy which will be a big mistake, these people who want it also want Abo communities to continue living the way their currently are where most of the adults are drunk women and children are raped and beaten, very few have jobs and rely on the dole which most is spent on alcohol, and where Abo's live 20 years fewer than the rest of Australia.

Absurd and groundless statement. Nobody wants that.

The huge irony, of course, is that many Aboriginals face these problems today as a direct result of policies of enforced assimilation. Over two hundred years, Aboriginals have been hounded off their lands, shot if they dared to approach their own lands' waterholes appropriated by white squatters, and left with no choice except the "choice" between starvation or drifting into white settlements - where they were subjected to exploitation, abuse, racism and discrimination by whites, culminating with the kidnapping of their children. People like you, who are ignorant of history, then advocate solving today's problems by applying the problems' original causes!

I bet you've never even tried to look at this through an Aboriginal perspective.

How exactly would you feel if your ancestors had been brutally attacked, driven off their lands by force, wept at the murder of several of their relatives, robbed of an entire system of society which had defined the meaning of their existence, and forced to move into an alien society which rejected them? If your mother had been raped by a white man, had struggled to bring you up by herself, and then you had been kidnapped by the government because of your skin colour, and put into an institution where you were exploited and sexually abused by whites? And then, when as an adult you dared to point out that you had a rather strong claim for feeling hard done by, ignorant bigots turned to you and demanded that you be grateful for being "rescued" from your mother?

How exactly would you feel if your ancestors had been brutally attacked, driven off their lands by force, wept at the murder of several of their relatives, robbed of an entire system of society which had defined the meaning of their existence, and forced to move into an alien society which rejected them? If your mother had been raped by a white man, had struggled to bring you up by herself, and then you had been kidnapped by the government because of your skin colour, and put into an institution where you were exploited and sexually abused by whites? And then, when as an adult you dared to point out that you had a rather strong claim for feeling hard done by, ignorant bigots turned to you and demanded that you be grateful for being "rescued" from your mother?

I expect a "I'm white, thereby superior, so it will never happen to me" response or something akin to it.

This is excellent news.

Tell that to Bruce Trevorrow (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6937222.stm), you ignorant racist bastard:



Oh, I'm sorry, does the truth upset your need to cling to ridiculous, racist generalisations??

Ridiculous and racist generalisations I think not my work has taken me within these communites within the NT and the AP lands in SA and I have seen this behaviour with my own eyes

I'm going to try and make this simple.

1) You are right on one point: children who are being ill-treated within Aboriginal communities should be protected, and that includes being taken away from abusive relatives if need be. You either don't know or don't want to know that Aboriginal leaders were furious when a white judge handed down a lenient verdict on Aboriginal men who raped an Aboriginal girl (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/11/2114977.htm) recently. Aboriginal leaders have demanded that the full severity of the law be applied to rapists. Cases of abuse within Indigenous communities should be treated in the same way as any other case of abuse; they should not be an excuse for ignorant racists like you to advocate the kidnapping of tens of thousands of children from their loving and caring parents, creating lifelong trauma in the process.

Thats good I am glad Aboriginal leaders are no longer just say thats the way its always being done but I was not refering to Aboriginal leaders I was refering to lefties many of which live in the cities and/or work at unis and haven't left their corridoors for many years that say that this sort of thing should be allowed and any misdeeds such as this rape is the fault of the governments and white settlers and so they should not be punished but left to their own devices this reasoning is the current cause of the problem, Parents may be loving and intend to care espically mothers but that doesn't mean that they are treating them well

2) The Stolen Generations were not taken to be protected from abusive relatives. They were taken, most often from loving and caring parents, for no reason other than the colour of their skin. This was openly admitted at the time, and was part of an explicit policy to make Aboriginals "disappear". How the fuck can you possibly support that? Are you seriously saying that it is justifiable to snatch a baby from its weeping mother's arms, and never allow them to see each other again, simply because of the baby's skin colour?

3) Many Aboriginals who were taken from their parents as children face much greater difficulties (unemployment, depression...) than those who were not removed, as evidenced by Trevorrow and by the Bringing Them Home report.

There are also many Aboriginals that were taken from their parents are are living rich and fulfilled lives Some of the truma he claimed was from being picked on at school while that is the governments fault (but not because he was taken) this may have happened to him anyway and because he was taken in by a loving and caring foster family he managed to get oppurtunites he may never have had (I use he but I refer to most of those taken)

Nobody is asking you to apologise personally.

Maybe not apologise but they do want us to feel personal guilt and remose for something other people did

Oh, really?

Point taken but I meant individuals you claim that the state should apologise does that not mean it was the state that did it not Australians

The State is being asked to apologise in the name of the State, not in the name of Kevin Rudd or in the name of any individual Australian alive today. Surely that's not hard to understand. The concept of an apology from the State is nothing new. It's happened in New Zealand several times, with apologies to Maori, to the Chinese community, and to Samoans.

I am sure that in the apology there will be some reference to "on behalf of the Australain people" or something along those lines so it will not just be on the state

Again, I direct you to the case of Bruce Trevorrow. Try to understand why he received compensation. Being kidnapped as a child was (surprise, surprise!) extremely traumatic, and ruined his life. The same is true of tens of thousands of your fellow Australians

By the way, every Australian State has already apologised on the State level; only a federal apology was still lacking. You may not have noticed, but the State apologies haven't exactly opened a floodgate of compensations. Trevorrow is the only Aboriginal ever to have received compensation for having been kidnapped by the government as a child.

Half a million dollars for just one man thats going to add up, and yes every state has apologised and now the Tasmainian government is paying a lot of compensation and the Queensland government has but aside $100 million for compensation. The states have apologised because of the lefties within the partyr room these ideals have lead to the current crisis

Absurd and groundless statement. Nobody wants that.

They may not want it but their ideals and policies have lead to it

The huge irony, of course, is that many Aboriginals face these problems today as a direct result of policies of enforced assimilation. Over two hundred years, Aboriginals have been hounded off their lands, shot if they dared to approach their own lands' waterholes appropriated by white squatters, and left with no choice except the "choice" between starvation or drifting into white settlements - where they were subjected to exploitation, abuse, racism and discrimination by whites, culminating with the kidnapping of their children. People like you, who are ignorant of history, then advocate solving today's problems by applying the problems' original causes!.

By leaving themto their own devices with access to such things as alcohol and petrol with money they don't have to work for while any other facilities given to them such as housing medical centres and education facilities are either destroyed or not used because of these newish ideas that we should let them live in thier own way which has failed to solve any of these problems of drug abuse, diseases, health issues education issues and social issues so yes maybe moving to an older way might fix them which btw didn't cause these problems it was the current way of thinking towards aboriginal policy that caused these problems

I expect a "I'm white, thereby superior, so it will never happen to me" response or something akin to it.

Ah Non aligned States your ignorance has no bounds it may not happen to me because I was not brought up in culture (which has been allowed to continue for a long time) where the dole is the only source of income and VB is the only thing to drink where because I am male I am allowed to rape teenage girls and young boys as well as being told not to go to school but to spend my days sniffing petrol out of a tin can

Why does an apology from these people mean anything? I never understood that.

It means acknowledging mistakes which is really important.

Excellent, I'm liking Rudd more and more. I think he'll bring some welcome changes to Australia in the next few years.

Waste of time. A symbolic gesture most won't fully believe in, and that will divide rather than unite.

why do i see this as something for those of mix blood to use to get more money to waste on booze and smokes

dp

Speaking as an Australian who the hell knows its just that the Abo's that where taken are now living good lives most of them would be dead by now either from alcohol posioning, drug overdose ...The question is: Would the original Australians be hopelessly Alcoholic and drug-addicted if they had not been colonized ?

The question is: Would the original Australians be hopelessly Alcoholic and drug-addicted if they had not been colonized ?

Instead they'd be worshipping an idol, dancing around in grass skirts and dying of any number of treatable diseases.

http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/2346/sydneycronullariotracewtl1.jpg
1, 2, 3, 4 I declare a race war! (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/race-riots-spread-to-suburbs/2005/12/11/1134235951313.html)

You Assies sure know how to celebrate cultural diversity. Just think of what the world would be like if everyone had the warm fuzzy feelings for colored people that you do.

Ridiculous and racist generalisations I think not my work has taken me within these communites within the NT and the AP lands in SA and I have seen this behaviour with my own eyes

I provided you with a quote refuting your statement that children of the Stolen Generations always fared better than their siblings who were not stolen. Trevorrow's three siblings, who were not taken, "have enjoyed very successful lives" and have been "high achievers". By contrast, Trevorrow, who was taken from his parents, suffered from "alcoholism, depression and inability to hold down a proper job", which the court found was a consequence of his having been kidnapped by the government (and of the consequences thereof).

If that's not enough, how about this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generation)?

The social impacts of forced removal have been measured and found to be quite severe. Although the stated aim of the "resocialisation" programme was to improve the integration of Aboriginals into modern society, a study conducted in Melbourne and cited in the official report found that there was no tangible improvement in the social position of "removed" Aborigines as compared to "non-removed", particularly in the areas of employment and post-secondary education. Most notably, the study indicated that removed Aboriginals were actually less likely to have completed a secondary education, three times as likely to have acquired a police record and were twice as likely to use illicit drugs. The only notable advantage "removed" Aboriginals possessed was a higher average income, which the report noted was most likely due to the increased urbanisation of removed individuals, and hence greater access to welfare payments than for Aboriginals living in tribal communities.

So much for the claim that Stolen children's lives were generally improved. They were not. They were generally made worse.


Thats good I am glad Aboriginal leaders are no longer just say thats the way its always being done but I was not refering to Aboriginal leaders I was refering to lefties many of which live in the cities and/or work at unis and haven't left their corridoors for many years that say that this sort of thing should be allowed and any misdeeds such as this rape is the fault of the governments and white settlers and so they should not be punished but left to their own devices this reasoning is the current cause of the problem, Parents may be loving and intend to care espically mothers but that doesn't mean that they are treating them well

You may be surprised to hear that I agree with you... partly. I agree that Aboriginal children who are suffering abuse should, of course, receive immediate and urgent help, including being taken away from provenly abusive relatives. However, my point is that the Stolen Generations were not an issue of absuse; they were an issue of "race". Children were taken because they were Aboriginal, irrespective of whether or not they were leading healthy, balanced lives. As has been proven, in most cases, being taken in this way made their lives worse. It was also an unimaginable trauma for them and for their parents.

Incidentally, Aboriginal elders have been trying to get the government to help them to crack down on abuse for quite a while. When Howard promised to send social workers into the Northern Territory, Aboriginals pointed out they had been asking for that for years.

Here are some more facts for you, from the Bringing Them Home report:


The report discovered that removed children were, in most cases, placed into institutional facilities operated by religious or charitable organisations, although a significant number, particularly females, were "fostered" out. Children taken to such places were frequently punished if caught speaking local indigenous languages, and the intention was specifically to prevent them being socialised in Aboriginal cultures, and raise the boys as agricultural labourers and the girls as domestic servants.

Further, the report found that incidence of sexual abuse were disturbingly high. Overall 17% of females and 8% of males reported experiencing some form of sexual abuse while under institutional or foster care.

How wonderful. So there were thousands of cases of children being taken away from stable, caring Aboriginal families, and handed over to whites who sexually abused them. I'm sure that made a great "improvement" to their lives.


There are also many Aboriginals that were taken from their parents are are living rich and fulfilled lives Some of the truma he claimed was from being picked on at school while that is the governments fault (but not because he was taken) this may have happened to him anyway and because he was taken in by a loving and caring foster family he managed to get oppurtunites he may never have had (I use he but I refer to most of those taken)


I'm sorry, what? In Trevorrow's case, he ended up depressed and unemployed, while his three siblings, who had been left with their Aboriginal parents, became "high achievers". Somehow, that suggests that being removed from his family was what denied him the opportunities he would otherwise have had.


Maybe not apologise but they do want us to feel personal guilt and remose for something other people did

Not guilt. There are no leading Aboriginals who want non-Indigenous Australians to feel guilt. What they want is an acknowledgement. They've already received that from many Australian people (National Sorry Day); what they want now is an apology from the government.


Point taken but I meant individuals you claim that the state should apologise does that not mean it was the state that did it not Australians


Individual Australians who are dead obviously can't apologise. Individual Australians who had nothing to do with it... well, had nothing to do with it. The State, however, is a continuity. You'll note that hundreds of thousands of Australians have chosen to say "sorry", as Australians. Their gesture was symbolic, but meaningful for Aboriginals. If nothing else, it helped reconciliation.

Remember, also, that as a non-Indigenous Australian you are profiting directly from the dispossession which has been inflicted on Aboriginals. That doesn't mean you need to feel "guilty". But it does mean you perhaps should not feel indifferent.


I am sure that in the apology there will be some reference to "on behalf of the Australain people" or something along those lines so it will not just be on the state


We'll see. In any case, as I said, you are all direct beneficiaries of the dispossession and violence inflicted on Aboriginals, so a token gesture of recognition would be a miniscule sacrifice in comparison.


Half a million dollars for just one man thats going to add up, and yes every state has apologised and now the Tasmainian government is paying a lot of compensation

Source? I haven't heard of any other person receiving compensation.


The states have apologised because of the lefties within the partyr room these ideals have lead to the current crisis


What, you mean the "crisis" of recognising that kidnapping children was wrong?


They may not want it but their ideals and policies have lead to it


"Ideals and policies"?


By leaving themto their own devices with access to such things as alcohol and petrol with money they don't have to work for while any other facilities given to them such as housing medical centres and education facilities are either destroyed or not used because of these newish ideas that we should let them live in thier own way which has failed to solve any of these problems of drug abuse, diseases, health issues education issues and social issues so yes maybe moving to an older way might fix them which btw didn't cause these problems it was the current way of thinking towards aboriginal policy that caused these problems

Eh, no. Obviously doing nothing isn't a solution, and Aboriginal elders have been asking for a long time to talk to government representatives to sort something out. But quite clearly, as I've already explained in detail, the original violence, dispossession and racism inflicted on Aboriginals, the combination of stealing their lands and discriminating against them in white society, was what set off this vicious circle. Which is another reason why non-Indigenous Australians perhaps should feel a responsibility, gratitude and maybe even a little shame for what has been done to Aboriginals.

The current problem is an extremely complex one. It was created by settler violence and racism, and maintained by successive government until three or four decades ago. It's been established that kidnapping children is not only horrendously inhumane (duh!), it also seriously messes them up, and, in a majority of cases, has done them far more harm than they would have faced if they had stayed with their own parents.

If I were Aboriginal, I'm certain I'd feel angry or depressed at the ignorance, arrogance and denial displayed by many (though by no-means all) non-Indigenous Australians.

Yet another reason to recognise the Stolen Generations through a formal apology is this: perhaps it will go some way towards making sure that the victims are no longer blamed for all the consequences of the hardships and crimes inflicted upon them.

Instead they'd be worshipping an idol, dancing around in grass skirts and dying of any number of treatable diseases.

Aboriginals never worshipped idols, and never wore grass skirts. They were also a lot healthier on average in 1770 than your average Brit.

Have you finished yet, or do you want to display your ignorance some more?

This kind of politically correct nonsense is pretty sickening. You ever heard of anyone in Europe being apologized to for their country being conquered and plundered by dozens of different nations at dozens of different times? Nope.

If the Abo's possessed the ability, they would have gone to Europe and colonized. It's just apologizing for human evolution and progress. Would the world be better off with a few million primitives possessing all of North America and Australia now? Human equality, myth #1.

This kind of politically correct nonsense is pretty sickening. You ever heard of anyone in Europe being apologized to for their country being conquered and plundered by dozens of different nations at dozens of different times? Nope.YEAH!! that was the Swedes, You should ask Fass for some -long overdue- compensation love. :D

Yeah, have the Scandinavians ever apologized to anyone for the behavior of the Vikings? Should they? It would never end. Everyone in Europe got owned at one time of another, it's the way it was.

Yet it's always apologies to cultures who got owned and weren't white. It's just more racism and PC bs.

This kind of politically correct nonsense is pretty sickening. You ever heard of anyone in Europe being apologized to for their country being conquered and plundered by dozens of different nations at dozens of different times? Nope.

If the Abo's possessed the ability, they would have gone to Europe and colonized. It's just apologizing for human evolution and progress. Would the world be better off with a few million primitives possessing all of North America and Australia now? Human equality, myth #1.

:rolleyes:

This kind of politically correct nonsense is pretty sickening. You ever heard of anyone in Europe being apologized to for their country being conquered and plundered by dozens of different nations at dozens of different times? Nope.

Because the past conquered in Europe are not suffering today from the consequences of two centuries of oppressive and discriminatory policies. Many Aboriginals alive today were kidnapped as children. We aren't talking about the distant past. We're talking about things that have been done to people who are alive right now.

Are you seriously saying that it's ok to kidnap children, put them through intense trauma, wreck the rest of their life, lock them in institutions where a great many of them will be raped by the white men who are supposed to look after them.... and then, when the children grow up as human wrecks and are a tad bit peeved, you just say "Fuck off, an apology would be too 'politically correct'"?


If the Abo's possessed the ability, they would have gone to Europe and colonized.

No they bloody well would not. Your ignorance is absolutely astounding. Aboriginals had no concept of conquest. They never invaded one another's lands. Why? Because their beliefs rooted them firmly in their own community's land, and they would have found it utterly inconceivable to move off their land and onto someone else's.

Which is one of the many reasons why being forced off their lands was so traumatic. Apart from the fact that it caused them to starve.

Seriously, your ignorance is amazing. How on earth can you claim to have an opinion when you have not even the faintest hint of an idea what you're talking about?


It's just apologizing for human evolution and progress.

Hey, the Victorian age has just called. It wondered where you'd got to.

Oh, and I'm sure Aboriginals who were violently forced off their land, shot at, raped, and had their children kidnapped, had good reason to be mighty grateful for "progress".

And people wonder. There is a lot of things they had no concept of. The hilarious thing is that you actually think their ignorance and lack of basic human concepts and knowledge is somehow a good thing. Instead of realizing that it's proof of inferiority on every level to almost everyone else, which is no small feat.

That's because they were primitive savages who didn't the ability to build the ships, weapons or have the intelligence to plan an invasion of other societies or they would have. There is one universal truth when it comes to human history. Every society conquered and oppressed everyone else that they could. It has nothing to with race or religion.

If you honestly believe that the Aboriginals would not have conquered other societies if they had the resources and ability to do so, then you are denying everything to be learned about the history of human beings.

Apologizing for someone else's behavior is everything wrong with the modern world. Do we punish kids for the actions of their parents or demand apologies from a great grandson for a crime done by his ancestor? It's complete nonsense.

And people wonder. There is a lot of things they had no concept of. The hilarious thing is that you actually think their ignorance and lack of basic human concepts and knowledge is somehow a good thing. Instead of realizing that it's proof of inferiority on every level to almost everyone else, which is no small feat.

That's because they were primitive savages who didn't the ability to build the ships, weapons or have the intelligence to plan an invasion of other societies or they would have. There is one universal truth when it comes to human history. Every society conquered and oppressed everyone else that they could. It has nothing to with race or religion.

If you honestly believe that the Aboriginals would not have conquered other societies if they had the resources and ability to do so, then you are denying everything to be learned about the history of human beings.

Apologizing for someone else's behavior is everything wrong with the modern world. Do we punish kids for the actions of their parents or demand apologies from a great grandson for a crime done by his ancestor? It's complete nonsense.

So the Aboriginals are inferior because they didn't kill or harm others? They are inferior because they didn't build ships, and didn't exploit the rest of the world? So they're fucking inferior, even though they didn't contribute in the fucking over of humanity!? It's not their fault that today people value a dollar more than a human life.

You cannot claim to know how history would have happened had things been different.

Apologizing is something that people with mature minds do, I wouldn't expect you to like it.

Once again, are you saying that their lack of intelligence is a praiseworthy thing because they didn't have the ability to engage in mass conquest? Or you know build cities and what not. With that mentality, we'd all be living in caves, eating roots and drawing stick figures in the sand. The bad comes with the good.

Oh, and I always apologize when I do something. I simply don't apologize for things that I had nothing to do with. If that is a fault, I gladly accept it.

And people wonder. There is a lot of things they had no concept of. The hilarious thing is that you actually think their ignorance and lack of basic human concepts and knowledge is somehow a good thing. Instead of realizing that it's proof of inferiority on every level to almost everyone else, which is no small feat.

I'm going to try one last time, and then I'll give up on you. I don't mind spending time on people who know less than I do, as long as they're interested in learning and making up for their lack of knowledge. If they prefer to revel stubbornly in their ignorance like pigs in mud, and prove themselves my intellectual inferiors, I see no reason to waste time on them.

So, here's my last try on you.

We were talking about the alleged human urge to conquer and invade, and I showed you that you were grossly ignorant in your ridiculous supposition that Aboriginals would have been interested in invading Europe if they had had the technical know-how. I'm not going to repeat myself. I'll simply point out that your premise -namely, that having a society in which your attachment to your native land is what gives meaning to your existence, therefore excluding the very possibility of conceiving of invading other people's land, is somehow inferior- is rather odd. The European lust for conquest in the late 18th century (and onwards) somehow makes them "superior" to Aboriginals who had learnt to cope peacefully with what they had?


That's because they were primitive savages who didn't the ability to build the ships, weapons or have the intelligence to plan an invasion of other societies or they would have.

I've already explained to you why that's not true. If you're incapable of understanding simple facts and basic English, there's not much I can do for you.


There is one universal truth when it comes to human history.

Wrong, as I've explained.


If you honestly believe that the Aboriginals would not have conquered other societies if they had the resources and ability to do so, then you are denying everything to be learned about the history of human beings.

No, my understanding of the truth is based on my superior knowledge. Your absurd statements are based on gross, self-satisfied ignorance, which you refuse to remedy.


Apologizing for someone else's behavior is everything wrong with the modern world. Do we punish kids for the actions of their parents or demand apologies from a great grandson for a crime done by his ancestor? It's complete nonsense.

The legitimacy of the apology is open to debate. I've explained my views on it; you're entitled to yours, since this is a matter of opinion rather than fact.

For the rest, let me know if and when you're willing to address the problem of your own ignorance. Then, perhaps, we can have an interesting and meaningful conversation. There's little point as long as you persist in claiming a point of view on issues which I have a thorough understanding of and which you know absolutely nothing about.

Once again, are you saying that their lack of intelligence is a praiseworthy thing because they didn't have the ability to engage in mass conquest? Or you know build cities and what not.

Oh, and I always apologize when I do something. I simply don't apologize for things that I had nothing to do with. If that is a fault, I gladly accept it.

Intelligence is a word that's difficult to grasp, you first have to define what intelligence is. And they are praiseworthy for not fucking the world up, can you tell me what crime they committed?

Name one advanced culture that contributed to building the modern world that was not brutal and didn't engage in war, slavery and conquest?

You calling me ignorant for noting that all human societies engaged in conquest to the extend of their ability is like saying I'm a fool for believing that humans drink water. It's just common sense that I'm not going to bother arguing.

I'm simply not a person that will say that a primitive society is praiseworthy because they didn't have the basic knowledge and yearning to learn more about the world and advance their culture. Aboriginals were at the bottom of the barrel in that regard. And I'm not saying this to insult them, I'm just pointing out that the world is a brutal place. They were conquered like most societies have been and I don't believe anyone should apologize for the way the world was at the time.

Aboriginals never worshipped idols, and never wore grass skirts. They were also a lot healthier on average in 1770 than your average Brit.

Have you finished yet, or do you want to display your ignorance some more?

Perhaps they were healthier than the "average Brit" in 1770; whether they would be in the following centuries is unlikely.

Where the tribal paraphenalia are concerned, I'm sure you have the intellgence to get the general thrust. That you actually care about which items individual tribes used says more about you than me I feel.

Name one culture that contributed to the evolution of human society that was not brutal and didn't engaged in war, slavery and conquest?

You calling me ignorant for noting that all human societies engaged in conquest to the extend of their ability is like saying I'm a fool for believing that humans drink water. It's just common sense that I'm not going to bother arguing.

I'm simply not a person that will say that a primitive society is praiseworthy because they didn't have the basic knowledge and yearning to learn more about the world and advance their culture.

They were happy, content with what they had. There is nothing greater than that, nothing. Tell me whether their conquerors ever found contentment in life, satisfaction. Tell me whether they ever truly knew happiness. I will tell you that the natives did, and because of it, they could live content lives. All the problems you talked about (or someone else), all those abuses (rape, drugs, etc.), all of those things are problems from Western "Civilization", which deserves the word civil as much as a civil war does. They may not have had the technology to conquer and to oppress, but would have been better off from it had the woes of "civilization" not been brought to them.

Ok, so you think that ignorance is bliss. That's fine, but I disagree.

And I don't think all that land should rest in the hands of primitives when intelligent and productive human beings needed places to go. The same as if baboons were living in the bush, I wouldn't say we should leave because they are happy.

In the same way that I don't think we should stop human progress because of some rare species of fish lives in a nearby creek. Human beings are animals after all.

Ok, so you think that ignorance is bliss. That's fine, but I disagree.

And I don't think all that land should rest in the hands of primitives when intelligent and productive human beings needed places to go. The same as if baboons were living in the bush, I wouldn't say we should leave because they are happy.

In the same way that I don't think we should stop human progress because of some rare species of fish lives in a nearby creek. Human beings are animals after all.

I never said ignorance is bliss. But what I consider ignorance, and what you consider ignorance, seem to be very different.

Why shouldn't they get land. That's just a load of Calvinist bullshit, you'll never be happy living your life like that. You'll keep on taking and taking, and you'll never once be content. And why would you remove someone anyway? Is it because they stand in the way of your ignorant sense of progress?

Animals, wicked and cruel animals under the fake guise of "civilization".

Ok, you seem to think that because Aboriginals were very primitive and had no understanding of the outside world, that it was a good thing because they didn't hurt other societies. Like I said, that's fine. But it's not societies like those that made it possible for people to have heart surgery, fly or store food for years as a few examples. Or have the internet and this game and forum for that matter.

And I'm talking from the perspective of a leader or a colonist. I see primitives living on a huge piece of land and my own country is overcrowded and we have the population to expand and explore and learn more about the world. So if I'm a leader, I'm saying let's go ahead and do it. If I'm a colonist with nothing worth staying for, I'm saying that I have no problem going here and displacing and/or fighting people who worship dirt for it. It's that simple.

Ok, you seem to think that because Aboriginals were very primitive and had no understanding of the outside world, that it was a good thing because they didn't hurt other societies. Like I said, that's fine. But it's not societies like those that made it possible for people to have heart surgery, fly or store food for years as a few examples.

And I'm talking from the perspective of a leader or a colonist. I see primitives living on a huge piece of land and my own country is overcrowded and we have the population to expand and explore and learn more about the world. So if I'm a leader, I'm saying let's go ahead and do it. If I'm a colonist with nothing worth staying for, I'm saying that I have no problem going here and displacing people who worship dirt. It's as simple as that.

Certainly it would have been good if they had known more about medicine, about life, about science, but if it is at the expense of their humanity, at the expense of their liberty, then they are better off "ignorant". The crimes that have been committed in the name of "progress" are too great to be counted, but again, can you tell me what crime the Aboriginals committed?

This isn't fucking colonial times, so why the fuck are you looking at it like a colonist? And how is it relevant what any person worships?

But basically, here's the picture your painting

"Hey I'm a European, and it's crowded over here. Hey, there's darkies over there! Let's kill em and take their land! Yay! Progress and learning!"

You really want society to be like that?

I'm not talking about just Europeans. The new immigrants to Australia are not European, yet of course they don't seem to be criticized for moving there. I guess because they didn't have to do the hard work that included the fighting and doing what's necessary to establish a nation.

I don't blame them either, even if I think the ancestors of the original settlers should be unhappy since they have the ability to stop them and due to the weakness in Western societies now, will not. If the Aboriginals had the ability to stop the Europeans who immigrated they would have without being criticized, yet Australians who want to stop immigrants are called Nazis. A testament to the PC world.

Point is that I don't believe anyone should apologize for the way the world is.

I'm not talking about just Europeans. The new immigrants to Australia are not European, yet of course they don't seem to be criticized for moving there. I guess because they didn't have to go the hard work that included the fighting and doing what's necessary to establish a nation.

I don't blame them either, even if I think the ancestors of the original settlers should be unhappy since they have the ability to stop them and due to the weakness in Western societies now, will not. If the Aboriginals had the ability to stop the Europeans who immigrated they would have without being criticized, yet Australians who want to stop immigrants are called Nazis. A testament to the PC world.

Point is that I don't believe anyone should apologize for the way the world is.

If the new immigrants were coming to kill and pillage, then the current inhabitants would have a right to stop them, but that's not the case.

This has nothing to do with political correctness, but everything to do with civilized and uncivilized. I am promoting civilization, you are promoting barbarism. It is shows maturity to understand that the actions of one's ancestors were wrong, and the height of maturity to apologize for them.

Maturity? Ok, so non-Aboriginal Australians today should be ashamed to be alive and condemn their ancestors for doing what's necessary to build the nation they have and apologize for it? Ok, the world is in deep trouble.

These kind of apologies are condemnations of those that gave their lives to build a society for the future generations. It makes me sick really.

Maturity? Ok, so non-Aboriginal Australians today should be ashamed to be alive and condemn their ancestors for doing what's necessary to build the nation they have and apologize for it? Ok, the world is in deep trouble.

These kind of apologies are condemnations of those that gave their lives to build a society for the future generations. It makes me sick really.

Why should one be ashamed? There is a difference between acknowleding mistakes of the past, and being ashamed of it. And how can you say for sure that it was necessary? Are you saying that this is the best possible outcome from history?

You apologize for things you are ashamed of.

There is nothing really for us to discuss anymore, everything has been said already on the topic and we are just kind of going way from it.

Recap: This apology is a bullshit.

HSH, your mindset was the reason why Europe was embroiled in constant war for centuries upon centuries.

Once we realized that conquest and war were brutal and stupid things and acknowledged it, you'll notice that Europe advanced considerably.

Once Japan realized that conquest and war were brutal and stupid things and acknowledged it, you'll notice that Japan advanced considerably.

The US, having never suffered from conquest and war, still has issues with regarding war as brutal and stupid. The day the US is actually the subject of conquest and war, maybe they'll realize why their mindset fails.

You are probably right. It's that mindset that is also the reason the internet exists along with vaccinations.

Europe did most of his advancements after they suddenly realized that war and conquest were stupid? From face paint and loin cloths to automobiles and planes is quite a thing to advance further from. You are completely wrong on that.

It's those centuries of conflict that led to the modern world, not the hippie nonsense. Japan advanced because of the work ethic of their people. They were a great industrial power before the way, they were the undisputed masters of Asia anyway and quite possibly could and would have achieved the same technological success if they had won the war, likely even greater.

The US as never been conquered by a foreign power, but I don't think that such a thing would automatically turn the people into pacifists, we will have to disagree.

You are probably right. It's that mindset that is also the reason the internet exists along with vaccinations.

The internet was first developed in CERN, with the mindset that "Universities should have the oppurtunity to work together much faster and share knowledge much faster".

Hardly a "Let's conquer the world!" mindset.

Already here your argument has fallen apart, as you don't even know when the internet was developed or how the idea of vaccinations came about.

Europe did most of his advancements after they suddenly realized that war and conquest were stupid?

The massive surplus in food, goods and services that exist in Europe are a direct result of not having to pay for pointless wars between each other anymore.

From face paint and loin cloths to automobiles and planes is quite a thing to advance further from. You are completely wrong on that.

Wars quieted down and the industrial revolution became a possibility. Each war brought with it severe destruction and years upon years of rebuilding. The wars brought little good except death to warmongers - the years afterwards did.

It's those centuries of conflict that led to the modern world

The modern world was built by engineers, not soldiers and not hippies.

Japan advanced because of the work ethic of their people and the knowledge they acquired from the Western world.

Neither of which is a mindset of "let's conquer the world!"

Before all of that, they were the undisputed masters of Asia anyway and quite possibly could and would have achieved the same technological success if they had won the war.

But the war itself cost them dearly. The war brought nothing but death and destruction to their country. The years after, with their new pacifist mindset was what brought them their true glory.

The US as never been conquered by a foreign power, but I don't think that such a thing would automatically turn the people into pacifists, we will have to disagree.

It's a quite simple argument really: The only reason the US supports war right now is because they see it as a good thing. As soon as war hits their own soil, that mindset is bound to change, seeing as how it tends to bring death and destruction.

You missed the point entirely. It's all the wars and conflict that pushed humans to progress and invent and everything else that comes from knowledge obtained through conquest and discovery.

So all of those thousands of years of war and conflict in Europe didn't lead to the modern world and all the advancements in society? It was only after allegedly Europeans realized war was a bad thing that they advanced?

I'm not even going to bother. People can realize how wrong that is or eat paint chips, nothing I can do.

You missed the point entirely. It's all the wars and conflict that pushed humans to progress and invent and everything else that comes from knowledge obtained through conquest and discovery.

The internet and pretty much every non-war development (such as the vaccine, medicine or bridges) were NOT developed through conflict and conquest.

Therefore, you have NO point.

We've advanced more in the past ten years that we have in the past two thousand.

So all of those thousands of years of war and conflict in Europe didn't lead to the modern world and all the advancements in society? It was only after allegedly Europeans realized war was a bad thing that they advanced?

I'm not even going to bother. People can realize how wrong that is or eat paint chips, nothing I can do.

Look, I'll gladly have you point me to ONE instance in the entire history of Europe where Europe was ever as well off as it is today.

You cannot do that, because we haven't ever been, because it's only in the past sixty years that it's experienced any sort of lasting peace and development.

HSH, you are correct in that the wars themselves did lead to advancement in technologies. I should point out however that the advancements were mostly for better warfare and the peaceful versions of those advancements only came about after the rebuilding process.

Furthermore, a wide variety of advancements and technological innovation thrives not in wartime, but in peacetime. Automobiles, modern computers, airplanes, and so on and so forth were all developed during a time of peace.

Working together in harmony helps us far more than conflicting against each other. As beings with the intelligence that we have we can recognize this and use it to our advantage.

Furthermore because we can recognize that brutal warfare was wrong we can and should make amends to those still suffering today because of it. Aboriginals in Australia are still suffering extremely and should be helped, not condemned.

Frankly I find your opinions ridiculous, naive, foolish, racist, and absolutely abhorrent. I suggest you try to change your mindset lest you be swept away by the ocean of history.

Conflict leads to invention. All of these came as a result of European conflict and advancement because of conflict.

That is just such basic knowledge that I feel no need to defend it.

Conflict leads to invention. All of these came as a result of European conflict and advancement because of conflict.

That is just such basic knowledge that I feel no need to defend it.

Necessity leads to invention. Conflict can be the necessity at times, but so can peaceful scientific development, and the advantages of the latter far outweigh any possible advantages of the former.

Conflict is important, as it forces us to get better, makes things better and work more efficiently. True, its mostly for military and it rarely helps the civilians in the short term. However, just like now, it does trickle its way down a lot of the time.

I am no condoner of war; not the in least. However, I do realize that we need war and conflict if we are to have the heroes we have in our history and today. Eisenhower, Chamberlain, Washington, all wouldn't have become the men we respect and revere so much if it weren't for the conflicts that tested them and shaped them into what we know today. They were good men before, no doubting it, but conflict enabled them to shine forth as inspirations for us all.

And as humans, we will always find something we differ on. And conflict will sometimes follow those differences in opinion.

Conflict leads to invention. All of these came as a result of European conflict and advancement because of conflict.

That is just such basic knowledge that I feel no need to defend it.

So... how does the Renaissance fit into your bizarre little world? Scholars from Byzantium didn't exactly march in shouting "Bow before our almighty knowiness!"

You mentioned vaccines, too. Surely they're counter-productive? I mean, they keep people alive that are so weak that they'd die of disease! Don't those idiot medical researchers know that we only advance through death?!

"In Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switerzland they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace, and what did they produce? The cuckoo clock." - Orson Welles

People actually arguing that the wars and conflict aren't responsible for the advancements in human society is just astounding to me. It's a completely fantasy world.

People actually arguing that the wars and conflict aren't responsible for the advancements in human society is just astounding to me. It's a completely fantasy world.

M'kay, well, let's apply your logic. War produces the biggest advances in human society, correct? Ergo, the areas that are the most war-torn... eh, war-improved, must subsequently be the most advanced. This is why Africa and the Middle East are the most advanced countries on Earth. Right?

Take your time.

Hahahaha. Ridiculous.

It takes time and it takes intelligence. American Indians may have been at war with each other for centuries, but they didn't advance their cultures because they didn't have the intelligence to do so. Europeans and Asians on the other hand were able to do so in large part because war and conflict made these things necessary. That is the entire point. Conflict pushes people, certainly not everyone, but a very small percentage of people who have the intelligence to come up with things like mining and building ships.

"In Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switerzland they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace, and what did they produce? The cuckoo clock." - Orson Welles

People actually arguing that the wars and conflict aren't responsible for the advancements in human society is just astounding to me. It's a completely fantasy world.

That quote is a joke, in case you didn't notice. Switzerland is more than a cuckoo clock. And clocks are also an example of an improvement that no war could ever bring about - the mechanics involved behind are too complex to develop during many short wars.

Wars and conflict are NOT responsible for the advancements in human society. I would like you to point me to something which was developed during war.

The internet wasn't. The internet was developed as a necessary communication tool. Electricity wasn't. Steam power wasn't. Most anything that has served us were developed for economics purposes.

Conflict and necessity might further things, but war is inherently destructive.

You have not yet brought forth a good argument that has stood the test of time.

*Yawns* I'm done for real this time. This is just beating my head against a brick wall. Anyone with any concept of history knows that it is the powerful and aggressive societies who invented everything and/or obtained the knowledge and need for advancement.

Hahahaha. Ridiculous.

It takes time and it takes intelligence. American Indians may have been at war with each other for centuries, but they didn't advance their cultures because they didn't have the intelligence to do so.

Europeans and Asians on the other hand were able to do so in large part because war and conflict made these things necessary. That is the entire point. Conflict pushes people, certainly not everyone, but a very small percentage of people who have the intelligence to come up with things like mining and building ships.

Most anything to do with industry was to improve tools and produce more, not to produce weapons of war - That came later.

*Yawns* I'm done for real this time. This is just beating my head against a brick wall. Anyone with any concept of history knows that it is the powerful and aggressive societies who invented everything and/or obtained the knowledge and need for advancement.

Everyone with a knowledge of history knows that it is the societies that abandoned their aggressiveness that have developed the most in the past century. Just study the past sixty years of European history - we've advanced more than we have in two thousand years or more.

Rome fell because people became aggressive and lacked the refined sense of developing things. It's achievements were wiped clean by war.

The US has been developing solely because it has avoiding being the subject of any war on its own soil, thus avoiding the repercussion that war usually brings.

M'kay, well, let's apply your logic. War produces the biggest advances in human society, correct? Ergo, the areas that are the most war-torn... eh, war-improved, must subsequently be the most advanced. This is why Africa and the Middle East are the most advanced countries on Earth. Right?

Take your time.

Not to mention that the Middle East was most developed after it was done conquering, when it became more philosophical and less aggressive.

Then, when it became aggressive again, it all fell apart.

Hahahaha. Ridiculous.

It takes time and it takes intelligence. American Indians may have been at war with each other for centuries, but they didn't advance their cultures because they didn't have the intelligence to do so. Europeans and Asians on the other hand were able to do so in large part because war and conflict made these things necessary. That is the entire point. Conflict pushes people, certainly not everyone, but a very small percentage of people who have the intelligence to come up with things like mining and building ships.

Colour me unsurprised that your whole reasoning boils down to the usual "Uh... them blacks are dumber than us!" line.

Ah Non aligned States your ignorance has no bounds it may not happen to me because I was not brought up in culture (which has been allowed to continue for a long time) where the dole is the only source of income and VB is the only thing to drink where because I am male I am allowed to rape teenage girls and young boys as well as being told not to go to school but to spend my days sniffing petrol out of a tin can

Thank you for falling into the pigeonhole I provided for you. Your thinly veiled claims of superiority show you exactly for what you are.

If the Abo's possessed the ability, they would have gone to Europe and colonized. It's just apologizing for human evolution and progress. Would the world be better off with a few million primitives possessing all of North America and Australia now? Human equality, myth #1.

Ahh, so wiping out a race is fine as it is merely "evolution in progress".

I suppose you support the reopening of Treblinka and restoring its original purpose?

Once again, are you saying that their lack of intelligence is a praiseworthy thing because they didn't have the ability to engage in mass conquest?

Are you saying that ability to engage in mass conquest is praiseworthy? Well then, I'm sure the 3rd Reich would have appreciated your praise.

I provided you with a quote refuting your statement that children of the Stolen Generations always fared better than their siblings who were not stolen. Trevorrow's three siblings, who were not taken, "have enjoyed very successful lives" and have been "high achievers". By contrast, Trevorrow, who was taken from his parents, suffered from "alcoholism, depression and inability to hold down a proper job", which the court found was a consequence of his having been kidnapped by the government (and of the consequences thereof).

If that's not enough, how about this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generation)?

Yes you showed me some examples of where a child fared worse than their brothers, but they are also others who have fared well and a living comfortable and successful lives after they were taken and are currently demanding an apology and compo. I also told you of my experiences which shows opposite stuff than your claims. Linking me to a site on Wiki is not good enough that could have been writtern with someone with a bias it is entirely possible for it to be rewrittern to show how good the program was

So much for the claim that Stolen children's lives were generally improved. They were not. They were generally made worse.

As I said some examples of this happening there are also examples that counter it

You may be surprised to hear that I agree with you... partly. I agree that Aboriginal children who are suffering abuse should, of course, receive immediate and urgent help, including being taken away from provenly abusive relatives. However, my point is that the Stolen Generations were not an issue of absuse; they were an issue of "race". Children were taken because they were Aboriginal, irrespective of whether or not they were leading healthy, balanced lives. As has been proven, in most cases, being taken in this way made their lives worse. It was also an unimaginable trauma for them and for their parents.

Incidentally, Aboriginal elders have been trying to get the government to help them to crack down on abuse for quite a while. When Howard promised to send social workers into the Northern Territory, Aboriginals pointed out they had been asking for that for years.

Yes some leaders said that they wanted it but they were plenty more who said that the intervention should not go ahead and opposed it there are two notable aboriginals which supported the move Noel Pearson and the MP in the NT government (name escapes me). Also many of the Abo's who were in these areas actively opposed the move regardless of what their leaders said

Here are some more facts for you, from the Bringing Them Home report:



How wonderful. So there were thousands of cases of children being taken away from stable, caring Aboriginal families, and handed over to whites who sexually abused them. I'm sure that made a great "improvement" to their lives.

So we should apologise for the actions by a few which wasn't endorsed by the program

I'm sorry, what? In Trevorrow's case, he ended up depressed and unemployed, while his three siblings, who had been left with their Aboriginal parents, became "high achievers". Somehow, that suggests that being removed from his family was what denied him the opportunities he would otherwise have had.

As I said you are only showing me one example just because his life was screwed dosen't mean they all were

Not guilt. There are no leading Aboriginals who want non-Indigenous Australians to feel guilt. What they want is an acknowledgement. They've already received that from many Australian people (National Sorry Day); what they want now is an apology from the government.

If you aplogise for something it usually means that you feel guilty for doing something therefore they want us to fell guilty for this happening

Individual Australians who are dead obviously can't apologise. Individual Australians who had nothing to do with it... well, had nothing to do with it. The State, however, is a continuity. You'll note that hundreds of thousands of Australians have chosen to say "sorry", as Australians. Their gesture was symbolic, but meaningful for Aboriginals. If nothing else, it helped reconciliation.

So what? Just because a few Australians feel guilty dosen't mean that all Australians should

Remember, also, that as a non-Indigenous Australian you are profiting directly from the dispossession which has been inflicted on Aboriginals. That doesn't mean you need to feel "guilty". But it does mean you perhaps should not feel indifferent.

How am I profiting directly from it? And if I am then why would I want give up on it and apologise?

We'll see. In any case, as I said, you are all direct beneficiaries of the dispossession and violence inflicted on Aboriginals, so a token gesture of recognition would be a miniscule sacrifice in comparison.

What benefits do I get from it?

Source? I haven't heard of any other person receiving compensation.

You should read the papers a lot more, as I can't be bothered going through pages of news articles over the past four months, I can say that it has been stated in papers such as The Australian many times about Tasmania starting a compensation program

What, you mean the "crisis" of recognising that kidnapping children was wrong?

No the crisis that is currently happening and has been around for many years alcoholism, drug abuse rape on kids and women, high unemployment high rates of STD's

"Ideals and policies"?

The Ideals and policies that Abo's should be left alone and allowed to continue their own way of life which has led to the above mentioned problems

"Eh, no. Obviously doing nothing isn't a solution, and Aboriginal elders have been asking for a long time to talk to government representatives to sort something out. But quite clearly, as I've already explained in detail, the original violence, dispossession and racism inflicted on Aboriginals, the combination of stealing their lands and discriminating against them in white society, was what set off this vicious circle. Which is another reason why non-Indigenous Australians perhaps should feel a responsibility, gratitude and maybe even a little shame for what has been done to Aboriginals.

Theres that shame word ie guilt you just said we shouldn't have to feel that to apologise and now you turn around and say we do

The current problem is an extremely complex one. It was created by settler violence and racism, and maintained by successive government until three or four decades ago. It's been established that kidnapping children is not only horrendously inhumane (duh!), it also seriously messes them up, and, in a majority of cases, has done them far more harm than they would have faced if they had stayed with their own parents.

No the current problem arose after the original program was taken away and we alowed to live how they wanted to live under seperate laws, and now when someone from those communites breaks the law by doing something hhoorrendous such as gang raping a 6 year old boy they are allowed to return to their communities, thus they consider it as something they are allowed to do because they know they will not be punished for it

If I were Aboriginal, I'm certain I'd feel angry or depressed at the ignorance, arrogance and denial displayed by many (though by no-means all) non-Indigenous Australians.

I like it how you say that some one is ignorant because they disagree with you, I do have a lot of knowledge on this issue and have read up on it for a long time and had many discussions and arguments about other people who also has a lot of knowledge on this topic, to call me ignorant is a cop out and a fallacy on your behalf

Aboriginals never worshipped idols, and never wore grass skirts. They were also a lot healthier on average in 1770 than your average Brit.

Have you finished yet, or do you want to display your ignorance some more?

I agree with you on this point but Aboriginals would certainly not have access to a lot of the technologcal adavncements or luxuries than if they were completly left alone. This is evidnenced by the fact that at the technological point that Europeans were in the late 1700's the Aboriginals were still using sticks and stones and had not advanced even into say the bronze age

No they bloody well would not. Your ignorance is absolutely astounding. Aboriginals had no concept of conquest. They never invaded one another's lands. Why? Because their beliefs rooted them firmly in their own community's land, and they would have found it utterly inconceivable to move off their land and onto someone else's.

Which is one of the many reasons why being forced off their lands was so traumatic. Apart from the fact that it caused them to starve.

Seriously, your ignorance is amazing. How on earth can you claim to have an opinion when you have not even the faintest hint of an idea what you're talking about?

That is the biggest amount of bull I have ever read "Aboriginals have no concept of conquest" now who is showing their ignorance and dosen't know what they are talking about. The fact of the matter is that they did why else would they have weapons and don't say it is to hunt, Different aboriginal tribes did have war against each other they did invade other tribes lands and they did defend when their tribes were attacked. To say anything to the contary is ludicous, and if you want proof head up to the Aboriginal centre in Cairns which is run and owned by Aboriginals and they will tell you all about it

I agree with you on this point but Aboriginals would certainly not have access to a lot of the technologcal adavncements or luxuries than if they were completly left alone. This is evidnenced by the fact that at the technological point that Europeans were in the late 1700's the Aboriginals were still using sticks and stones and had not advanced even into say the bronze age

Ah... yes. Those Aboriginals had not yet reached the Age of Pointy Sticks, how uncivilized and inferior of them.

If the new immigrants were coming to kill and pillage, then the current inhabitants would have a right to stop them, but that's not the case.

This has nothing to do with political correctness, but everything to do with civilized and uncivilized. I am promoting civilization, you are promoting barbarism. It is shows maturity to understand that the actions of one's ancestors were wrong, and the height of maturity to apologize for them.

Apologize for the actions of others is maturity, it is one thing to apologize but if Australia apologises than it is setting its self up for large compensation payments which could be considered punshiment which the people who didn't commit these actions will now be held responsible.

The internet and pretty much every non-war development (such as the vaccine, medicine or bridges) were NOT developed through conflict and conquest.

Therefore, you have NO point.

We've advanced more in the past ten years that we have in the past two thousand.

Of course every non-war development was not developed inf times of war thats why they are non-war developments
I think you will find that medicine was something that greatly improved during times of war as it is a neccessity, but they have been plenty of advancements because of war such as jet engines invented end of WWII by Germany, some basic components of physics were greater understood due to the necessity or war it is after all the mother of invention

Thank you for falling into the pigeonhole I provided for you. Your thinly veiled claims of superiority show you exactly for what you are.

What pigeonhole I mearly stated that I was not brought up in a cilture where this happened and where governments allowed and still continue to allow this to happen, there are white children who are brought up in this sort of culture and yes they should be taken away and allowed to grow up in a much more safer environment it has nothing to do with race it just so happens that this happens a lot within Aboriginal communities

Ah... yes. Those Aboriginals had not yet reached the Age of Pointy Sticks, how uncivilized and inferior of them.

Yes that is excatly right they were technologically inferior to most of the world thank you for agreeing with me. Now were they civilized well that depends on how you define civilized, but nether the less they were inferior.

Yes that is excatly right they were technologically inferior to most of the world thank you for agreeing with me. Now were they civilized well that depends on how you define civilized, but nether the less they were inferior.

I suppose you didn't see the sarcasm. The Aboriginals may not have been technologically on par with Europe, but that hardly makes them inferior. And as you recognize, they were not necessarily less civilized.

I suppose you didn't see the sarcasm. The Aboriginals may not have been technologically on par with Europe, but that hardly makes them inferior. And as you recognize, they were not necessarily less civilized.

No I noted the sarcasm, but the fact remains is that Aboriginals were inferior as I said Europeans technology, social, and administrative way of life was superior to the aboriginals thus it means that they were inferior

No I noted the sarcasm, but the fact remains is that Aboriginals were inferior as I said Europeans technology, social, and administrative way of life was superior to the aboriginals thus it means that they were inferior
You know, I think you may be on to something. The Nazis were very advanced technologically, and had well-developed administrative and social systems, probably. Heck, they were smart enough to develop a "final solution" far better than the Australians for dealing with inferior races.

People always bring up the Nazis. Another couple generations when immigrants are dominating several European nations and close to the rest, when it being like South Africa now is the best they can hope for, we'll see how much people slam the Nazis for their racial separation beliefs. And I'm not at all saying they are right, but we'll see how people rewrite history.

People always bring up the Nazis. Another couple generations when immigrants are dominating several European nations and close to the rest, when it being like South Africa now is the best they can hope for, we'll see how much people slam the Nazis for their racial separation beliefs. And I'm not at all saying they are right, but we'll see how people rewrite history.

Brown Peoples: WE"RE IN UR EU SPREADING TAKING YER MAJORITY1111

Future Europe: "Oh noes, who will save us from the brown people? We should have listened to the Nazis but it's too late, nest-ce pas?"

Awakened Internet: It doesn't matter because your consciousnesses are all uploaded into me and your cultures are intentionally regulated in their entirety by media input.

What pigeonhole I mearly stated that I was not brought up in a cilture where this happened and where governments allowed and still continue to allow this to happen, there are white children who are brought up in this sort of culture and yes they should be taken away and allowed to grow up in a much more safer environment it has nothing to do with race it just so happens that this happens a lot within Aboriginal communities

You just keep on adding to it don't you?

People always bring up the Nazis.

I could bring up the Armenian genocide, but that's not as well known or flogged about. Besides, you're statements are supportive of wiping out entire people's as part of "evolution in action", so why say the Nazi's were wrong?

Hypocrite.

Everything the Nazis did were counterproductive to what I believe. Targeting the Jews who more than anyone else are among the most intelligent and productive people in the world is #1. Going to war with other Europeans, etc...

And nothing I said has anything to do with wiping anyone out. You are reading what you want Australia is a huge nation. I don't believe it was wrong for outsiders to settle there and there is more than enough room.

The point is not that individual Aborigines' lives were affected. The point is that an attempt was made to destroy the Aborigine culture, to forcibly assimilate them, and the problems of today are a result of this forced assimilation.

Perhaps I could compare the Aborigines to the Native Americans. The Native Americans suffered, but not nearly as bad. There were attempts to forcibly assimilate them, but not nearly as widespread. Instead, the Native Americans were given reservations where they had a significant level of autonomy (Native American reservations are immune to state law). This all happened a while ago - the reservation system has been in place for decades.

There are still problems, but the Native Americans did have the chance to develop their own economies. In fact, their immunity to state law gives them a monopoly on some industries in certain states. Many states have laws against casinos or the sale of fireworks, including my home state of Washington. So what do the Native Americans do? Build casinos and sell fireworks! There's a gigantic casino on the Muckleshoot reservation and like a dozen small stores selling fireworks. And when South Dakota passed a law banning abortions except in certain circumstances, the Sioux tribe promptly opened up an abortion clinic on their reservation.

I don't know much about the Aborigine situation, but I'm inferring that they never got to develop their economies the way the Native Americans did. They descended into poverty. Result - rampant crime and drug use.

The forced assimilations should never have happened. Frankly, the Aborigines would have been better off if they had been given reservations on their native land.

Everything the Nazis did were counterproductive to what I believe. Targeting the Jews who more than anyone else are among the most intelligent and productive people in the world is #1.


So? According to you, they couldn't defend themselves, so their extermination was "deserved". You seem to think everything that happened to the Aborigines was their fault for not teching up fast enough to start building tanks when the settlers came, so why not apply the same standards to Jews?

And where did you get that rubbish idea of most intelligent and productive people? Jewish people produce their fair share of industrious and smart people, but that sure doesn't make them inherently superior to anyone else.


And nothing I said has anything to do with wiping anyone out.


The Australian government then did their damndest to wipe them out short of marching them into death camps. You argued that it was evolution in action.

And now you backtrack on that?


You are reading what you want Australia is a huge nation. I don't believe it was wrong for outsiders to settle there and there is more than enough room.

Well then, fine. Your home is now mine. I'm sure there's more than enough room for you under a bridge somewhere. Let's see how you enjoy the same treatment the aborigines got.

I said that extermination was deserved? We are talking about the right of people to colonize places where some areas are inhabited by savages. And once again, I'm not insulting them, I'm simply pointing out that what happened was the way the world was. In Europe it was no different, except no one expects apologies for looting and raping dozens of nations at dozens of different times.

If the Australian government had truly wanted to wipe out the Aboriginals, it would have been done. That's the plain fact of the matter. You are just making outrageous claims.

And settling new territories in the past centuries is hardly comparable to your ridiculous example. Colonizing a massive continent inhabited by primitives is not the same thing at all.

Everything the Nazis did were counterproductive to what I believe. Targeting the Jews who more than anyone else are among the most intelligent and productive people in the world is #1.
So the holocaust was wrong because Jewish people are productive? What about the 6 million non-Jews? Was it okay for them to get the ovens?

Also, using your own twisted logic, how do you know that Jews are racially superior, and it wasn't in fact the holocaust that culled all the Jews stupid enough to get on the train? Nazis caused ZOG = Evolution in action!

We are talking about the right of people to colonize places where some areas are inhabited by savages.That IS extermination. Please list examples of "savage" cultures that successfully survived colonization.

What if I supported the right of savages to colonize areas inhabited by people? I mean, savages don't have nukes and firebombing, or the means to commit genocide, or wage slavery. And arguably, the so-called advantages of "civilization" dry up when faced with the prospect of unsustainability, unnatural psychological pressures, and surveys that indicate civilized peoples aren't any happier than savages.

Once again, reading what you want. That's just an example because they were the #1 target. The same thing could be said for homosexuals and most the other groups targeted. Political dissidents are not the same thing.

As for comments about Jews in large part being among the most intelligent and productive citizens. That's just being aware of the way things are. There's a reason that so many Jews are in important positions and it has nothing to do with a conspiracy, it's just historically the way it has been.

And actually I'd like you to point out a few places that were colonized and the natives were exterminated? I could point where American Indians settled and exterminated other tribes, in Florida for example, but I don't know any that were wiped out completely by the settlers.

In Europe it was no different, except no one expects apologies for looting and raping dozens of nations at dozens of different times.

Except the victims of this particular brand of looting and raping are still alive. I suppose next you'll argue that since rape was once acceptable in wars, rape victims can't get recompense now?


If the Australian government had truly wanted to wipe out the Aboriginals, it would have been done. That's the plain fact of the matter. You are just making outrageous claims.

Outrageous? How outrageous is forcibly kidnapping people and raising them as someone they aren't? How outrageous is stealing land belonging to other people, including their only sources of water, and then shooting them when they try to drink from it?


And settling new territories in the past centuries is hardly comparable to your ridiculous example. Colonizing a massive continent inhabited by primitives is not the same thing at all.

It's exactly the same. You just don't want to see it. Stealing other people's lands and only source of sustenance while shooting them if they try to come back. Evicting you from your house and bank account while threatening to shoot you if you do come back would fit just perfectly.

As for comments about Jews in large part being among the most intelligent and productive citizens. That's just being aware of the way things are. There's a reason that so many Jews are in important positions and it has nothing to do with a conspiracy, it's just historically the way it has been.


Having Jews in important positions /= most productive and intelligent people. So what if there were some who made it into history? Plenty of others did so too. Does that magically make their ethnic group the most productive and intelligent people?

And actually I'd like you to point out a few places that were colonized and the natives were exterminated? I could point where American Indians settled and exterminated other tribes, in Florida for example, but I don't know any that were wiped out completely by the settlers.
Then you should probably do at least a few seconds of research on the topic before posting. The vast majority of Native Americans and native American villages were wiped out due to European presence in America. Most of the "tribes" that persist do so only in name, and not function.

But why would you bother to find that out for yourself when you are already certain of your notions? If one tribe had slaves, then they all did. If one African nation offends you, then the all do. Why does it seem like Jews are smarter? Not because they had to evolve a culture that values intelligence, but because they are just naturally superior. -Nevermind that notions of race and ethnicity are social constructs and have been scientifically demonstrated to have no bearing on genetic predispositions to traits like intelligence.

But racism isn't your only fault. You believe that the "superior" races should conquer the "inferior" ones, as if the differences you imagine in predisposition would give them the right to do so. I ask, what value does your racist theory of social evolution serve? If you devalue fundamental human rights, what is there left in your morally bankrupt philosophy?

Yes you showed me some examples of where a child fared worse than their brothers, but they are also others who have fared well and a living comfortable and successful lives after they were taken and are currently demanding an apology and compo. I also told you of my experiences which shows opposite stuff than your claims. Linking me to a site on Wiki is not good enough that could have been writtern with someone with a bias it is entirely possible for it to be rewrittern to show how good the program was

The facts on the Wikipedia article were backed up by direct links to specific pages of the Bringing Them Home report, which you can go and check out for yourself. I wouldn't have quoted unsourced comments from Wiki. Your experience of specific cases is one thing; data on what the situation is nation-wide is another.

As for the minority whose standards of life were arguably improved by being kidnapped... Are you seriously saying that if you had a child, healthy and happy, and your child were kidnapped by some millionnaire in the US or Luxembourg or Taiwan or Saudi Arabia, you and your child should be grateful and not demand an apology?


As I said some examples of this happening there are also examples that counter it


On the balance of it, most children were harmed a lot more by being taken away than they would have been by remaining with their parents. And even those whose living standards improved by some criteria were faced with the lasting trauma of being seperated from their families for no valid reason and purely on the basis of "race".


Yes some leaders said that they wanted it but they were plenty more who said that the intervention should not go ahead and opposed it there are two notable aboriginals which supported the move Noel Pearson and the MP in the NT government (name escapes me). Also many of the Abo's who were in these areas actively opposed the move regardless of what their leaders said


The intervention in the NT was a highly complex and controversial affair. I've already stated my view that when a child is facing abuse from its parents, that child should be removed to a safe place (preferably within its kin group if it's Aboriginal), whatever its ethnicity.


So we should apologise for the actions by a few which wasn't endorsed by the program


I'm glad to hear you say it. But the fact remains in addition that kidnapping children is inherently wrong.


As I said you are only showing me one example just because his life was screwed dosen't mean they all were


No, I sent you to an article with sources. The findings of the Bringing Them Home report show that most of their lives were screwed. Seriously, imagine for a moment being taken from your loving, caring parents and thrust into an institution where you are forbidden to speak your language, where you are forced to train to become a servant for white people, and where you are "prepared" for a life where you will face constant institutionalised racism. Imagine yourself as a small child crying at night because you've been ripped from your weeping mother's arms and taken to a strange place, and you don't understand why, and people there tell you that you will now be forced to change, forget your parents and family (you'll never be allowed to see them again anyway), forget your past life and everything that ever had meaning for you, and get ready instead for a life as a menial worker subjected to constant racism and discrimination.


If you aplogise for something it usually means that you feel guilty for doing something therefore they want us to fell guilty for this happening


Nope. Apology does not imply guilt. It implies a recognition of something wrong having been done, and a willingness to help set it right.


So what? Just because a few Australians feel guilty dosen't mean that all Australians should


Cf. above.


How am I profiting directly from it?

You're living on land that was taken from Aboriginals by brute force and illegally. You're profiting from their suffering, dispossession and death. As I explained, that doesn't mean you should feel guilty. What it does mean is that you owe them, and you could at least feel some concern and sense of obligation.


And if I am then why would I want give up on it and apologise?


Nobody's asking you to give up on anything. Are you deliberately trying to twist facts?


You should read the papers a lot more, as I can't be bothered going through pages of news articles over the past four months, I can say that it has been stated in papers such as The Australian many times about Tasmania starting a compensation program


I read them as best I can from the other side of the bloody world. I can't spend my life reading every newspaper every day from a country on the opposite side of the planet. How often do you read the French press? And particularly the French regional press?

If Tasmanians are going to be compensated, good. However, I do know none of them have been yet, since Trevorrow is the only Aboriginal ever to have received compensation.


No the crisis that is currently happening and has been around for many years alcoholism, drug abuse rape on kids and women, high unemployment high rates of STD's


Nobody is disputing that. On the contrary. Your point?


The Ideals and policies that Abo's should be left alone and allowed to continue their own way of life which has led to the above mentioned problems


It's not their initial way of life which led to these problems, as I've comprehensively demonstrated. I've also said (several times) that children who are being abused should receive immediate and urgent assistance. But if you think that foolishly trying to force Aboriginals to "assimilate" is going to solve these problems rather than make them a lot worse, you're sadly ignorant of history. When you have a problem, you don't apply the "remedy" which created the problem in the first place.


Theres that shame word ie guilt you just said we shouldn't have to feel that to apologise and now you turn around and say we do


No, I said "shame", not "guilt". Don't pretend I've said things that I haven't.


No the current problem arose after the original program was taken away

You have GOT to be kidding me! I've already demonstrated to you the horrendous harm that the programme caused. You're either being utterly hypocritical or you're in complete denial.


and we alowed to live how they wanted to live under seperate laws, and now when someone from those communites breaks the law by doing something hhoorrendous such as gang raping a 6 year old boy they are allowed to return to their communities, thus they consider it as something they are allowed to do because they know they will not be punished for it

Ah, because it's so much better to be raped by white "carers", as seventeen percent of Stolen girls were. And 8% of boys. That's up to 12,500 children. Raped by the white people who were supposed to make their lives "better".

Regarding the abuse of children in Indigenous communities, I've already given my view MANY times. And as I have also already said, Aboriginal leaders were furious at the judge's leniency. Aboriginals are demanding that the justice system do its work properly and punish criminals.

Here are some more comments by Aboriginals on the issue:


NSWALC chair and member of the NSW Government’s Ministerial Advisory Panel on sexual assault in Aboriginal communities, Bev Manton [an Aboriginal woman] yesterday said in a statement that the “inadequate penalties” could undermine the calls by Aboriginal leaders to break the silence.

“As a mother and a grandmother it makes me sick to my stomach reading reports of the gang rape of a 10 year old Aboriginal girl and the completely inadequate penalties made by the court on the perpetrators,” Ms Manton said.

“The laws are there to protect the innocent and we would expect the justice system to enforce those laws. In this case there appears to have been a huge miscarriage of justice.

“Such rulings could undermine calls by Aboriginal leaders and the wider community for Aboriginal men and women to speak out and break the silence about child sexual assault and family violence in their communities.”

Prominent Queensland Aboriginal academic Boni Robertson yesterday told the media that the case had set back the cause of Indigenous women’s rights.

“It’s actually undermined everything we have worked for over the last 10 years to get our women justice in this country,” Prof Robertson said.

“There is something more sinister – it’s actually given a very clear message to the perpetrators out there generally.”


(link (http://www.nit.com.au/story.aspx?id=13630))


I like it how you say that some one is ignorant because they disagree with you, I do have a lot of knowledge on this issue and have read up on it for a long time and had many discussions and arguments about other people who also has a lot of knowledge on this topic, to call me ignorant is a cop out and a fallacy on your behalf

HSH Prince Eric is grossly ignorant. You are not, and I never implied you were. However, you are (or were) ignorant of certain specific facts, which are necessary to have an understanding of the issue.

Absolute hilarity.

Less intelligent people should submit to the whims of more intelligent people. I'm certain you would not advocate the annihilation of the rights of children, the elderly, the mentally disabled and the generally less educated in the world. But that's what you're entailing when you sanction the lawful subversion of native peoples under the guise that they are 'less intelligent'. You must therefore either abandon this premise or confess your racism because it is not logically possible to draw such a distinction without being a racist. So what will it be?

I can't be stuffed finding the quote, but somebody said that some Aboriginies benefited from their forceful removal from their homes. This may well be true, it is logically possible that some Aboriginies benefited from this policy. Aside from the fact that appeal to the hypothetical does not change the fact that many more appear to have suffered (abuse also occurred in white households, and regardless, children were removed whether they were being abused or not), you spare no thought for the grievous subversion of liberty and human rights that is necessitated by removing tens or hundreds of thousands of children from their families. But that's precisely what would be expected of a fascist.

I would continue but I need to get some sleep now.

Ariddia mate I could go over every single one of your points but I won't, let me say a few things, One I have never said that the program was the right thing to do (if it seems I did I apologise that was not my intention), but I do disagree when people say that it disadvantaged all of the abroginals taken, because that is simply not true, and currently over the past 30 years because there has been an attempt to rectify this by allowing them to live in seperate communities as this has led to a large amount of problems, where authorities are reluctant to take abused children away because of the stolen generation issue.
But as I have always throught and said I do agree with apologising in the sense of I am sorry it happened the same way you would say to someone I am sorry your father passed away, But the type of apology wanted is not that sort of apology seeked the sort seeked is one where responsibility is taken i.e where you would apologise to someone for their father dying and take responsibility for his death. If that were to hapen then Australia and Australians as a whole would have to take responsibility and that is why many Australians oppose reconciliation which would lead to large amounts of payouts.

A few other points, you say you are in France does that mean you are french? good call by the way no I do not read regional newspapers from france which is why I would not say much on an issue there untill I read up on the facts, which it seems like you have. Maybe one of the reasons I and many other Australians are against it i because we have seen what other programs similar to it such as native title has done such as lower life expectency, high rates of STD, domestic violoence and sexual abuse, and by allowing continuation of this will lead to a continuation of this problem. But as i say while we do not support the stolen generation program we do not think that by apologising for it and giving out large compensation increases shold happen.

Yes HSH Prince Eric is ignorant but while some cases I wasn't aware, there are more I am aware of and have seen with my own eyes and spoken to may people who deal with the issues everyday about, and not just relied on the media (which is bias one way or the other regardless of what they say).

To conclude No I do not support a formal apology to the Aboriginals and may never will, but that is not to say that I fully support the way it was done and espically Bruce Trevorrow or some others like him. But I do not think that we should apologise and be forced to feel the guilt of other peoples actions which they do want because I have been hounded with it for a long time about feeling guilty, it may be that reason because Australians don't want to feel guilty for the actions of others that many oppose reconciliation

Waste of time. A symbolic gesture most won't fully believe in, and that will divide rather than unite.

Divide who? The far-right fringe stolen-generation-deniers from mainstream Australian society? If so bring it on.


To conclude No I do not support a formal apology to the Aboriginals and may never will, but that is not to say that I fully support the way it was done and espically Bruce Trevorrow or some others like him. But I do not think that we should apologise and be forced to feel the guilt of other peoples actions which they do want because I have been hounded with it for a long time about feeling guilty, it may be that reason because Australians don't want to feel guilty for the actions of others that many oppose reconciliation
John Howard went to the election with exactly this position on the apology, and the answer was pretty emphatic friend.

I don't feel guilt for what happened, nor does guilt follow from my sympathy or my saying sorry to the Aboriginies for what happened to them. What am I to feel guilty for? Any person who says that people who had no involvement or no agreement with the policy should feel guilty is absurd.

However, I am sorry for what what was done to them by the previous custodians of my society. To those who believe that the government saying "sorry" necessitates a flurry of compensation claims, I say, you misconceive the role, purpose and nature of modern law.

Ariddia mate I could go over every single one of your points but I won't, let me say a few things, One I have never said that the program was the right thing to do (if it seems I did I apologise that was not my intention),

All right. I did get the impression you were supporting it.


but I do disagree when people say that it disadvantaged all of the abroginals taken, because that is simply not true,

You're right. Some Aboriginals, inevitably, ended up with better living conditions in material terms, and no doubt in terms of life opportunities. But that was far from being the general rule, and it doesn't justify the practice.


and currently over the past 30 years because there has been an attempt to rectify this by allowing them to live in seperate communities as this has led to a large amount of problems, where authorities are reluctant to take abused children away because of the stolen generation issue.

As I said earlier, this reluctance to protect children who are suffering abuse is indeed a huge problem. Hopefully the latest tragedy will at least lead to that changing.

The thing is, what do you propose? (Regarding the situation in general, I mean. Regarding children in urgent need of help, the solution is more obvious.) Force Aboriginals off their lands again, and forcibly relocate them into cities? Attempt compulsory assimilation? In addition to being a violation of human rights, and illegal under the recognition of native title, that was what created the problem in the first place.


But as I have always throught and said I do agree with apologising in the sense of I am sorry it happened the same way you would say to someone I am sorry your father passed away, But the type of apology wanted is not that sort of apology seeked the sort seeked is one where responsibility is taken i.e where you would apologise to someone for their father dying and take responsibility for his death. If that were to hapen then Australia and Australians as a whole would have to take responsibility and that is why many Australians oppose reconciliation which would lead to large amounts of payouts.

If there were to be compensation, one presumes it would be in cases such as Trevorrow's, where being kidnapped as a child led to trauma, depression and other factors which wrecked his life chances. I don't see how one could oppose compensation in such cases.

Regarding the issue of an apology, it's obviously a matter of opinion. My personal view is that, since Australians have benefited from the suffering inflicted on Aboriginals, and since the issue is of symbolic importance to Aboriginals as a necessary step prior to "practical reconciliation", it's a very small sacrifice indeed that's being asked of non-Indigenous Australians.


A few other points, you say you are in France does that mean you are french?

Yes.

I did live in Australia for a short while a few years ago.


Yes HSH Prince Eric is ignorant but while some cases I wasn't aware, there are more I am aware of and have seen with my own eyes and spoken to may people who deal with the issues everyday about, and not just relied on the media (which is bias one way or the other regardless of what they say).

I wasn't comparing you with HSH Prince Eric. ;) You're obviously a lot more alert, aware and informed than he is.

I don't feel guilt for what happened, nor does guilt follow from my sympathy or my saying sorry to the Aboriginies for what happened to them. What am I to feel guilty for? Any person who says that people who had no involvement or no agreement with the policy should feel guilty is absurd.

However, I am sorry for what what was done to them by the previous custodians of my society.

Well put. And it seems hundreds of thousands of Australians have already realised that saying "sorry" does not imply guilt.

I feel nothing but guilt.

I haven't even wred the thread, been to busy wailing on the Americans for their problems. Kinda lost interest in our problems.

BunnySaurus might do better.

This post is really no more than a bump.

John Howard went to the election with exactly this position on the apology, and the answer was pretty emphatic friend.

Do you mean the last election because this issue was not an issue at all for the vast majority of Australians and the elections where this was a much higher issue of the mind of voters he was ahead on the polls and won the election

As I said earlier, this reluctance to protect children who are suffering abuse is indeed a huge problem. Hopefully the latest tragedy will at least lead to that changing.

The thing is, what do you propose? (Regarding the situation in general, I mean. Regarding children in urgent need of help, the solution is more obvious.) Force Aboriginals off their lands again, and forcibly relocate them into cities? Attempt compulsory assimilation? In addition to being a violation of human rights, and illegal under the recognition of native title, that was what created the problem in the first place.

Well native title may have been part of the problem which now hinders many state and federal government policies to do a lot of things, but nevertheless there is a problem and allowing it to continue and saying they should be allowed to live how they want (which is what a lot of people say when any attempt to change it) and say it must done because of the stolen generation thing (trying to use guilt this is not always aboriginals who say this) does not help the problem but rather allows the cycle of poverty and abuse to continue. Perhaps it is time to take children away but only when cases of abuse or negligence is evident such as a child who has contracted an STD or the parents are drunk all the time and spend most of the money on booze not take them for the sake of taking them just because they are aboriginal as in the original policy. As for the high rates of unemployment there are not to many chances to get a job in the middle of the outback but because of the measures of natitive title perhaps we should encourage them to move into areas which yes will be townships and maybe the larger cities in order to get a job and have a better standard of living.



Regarding the issue of an apology, it's obviously a matter of opinion. My personal view is that, since Australians have benefited from the suffering inflicted on Aboriginals, and since the issue is of symbolic importance to Aboriginals as a necessary step prior to "practical reconciliation", it's a very small sacrifice indeed that's being asked of non-Indigenous Australians.

Have we really benefited? yes we are living here but it is not as if the continent was colonized or settled they were after all nomads and if the continent was connected then they may have continued their migration, in regards to practical reconcilliation to speak semantics why not just do that and try and help them to live a better life and i don't mean compo but help them with relocation benefits, job training and better health faclities and get them to use it and treat them like any other Australian would be. As I have said one of the reasons the current problem is because they are treated differently such as lesser sentances and a freer reign which has not helped the problem at all.

Yes.

I did live in Australia for a short while a few years ago.

Hope you enjoyed your time in Oz where you here for work, study or just trekking around the worlds largest island

Well put. And it seems hundreds of thousands of Australians have already realised that saying "sorry" does not imply guilt.

I have listened to this and I have understood it but many people some aboriginals and some non aboriginals want Australians to feel guilty about it, and just because we can apologise it will be seen and portrayed by the Australian and possibly the world media as an acceptance of guilt and that is why a lot of Australians (not just the The far-right fringe stolen-generation-deniers Eureka Australis) do not want to apologise because it will be seen as accepting guilt. As I said earlier we could apologise in the same way as saying I am sorry for your grandmother dying (without guilt) but there are those and yes some are high 'ranking' aboriginals who will see you apologising for that happening and taking the blame for it

Well native title may have been part of the problem which now hinders many state and federal government policies to do a lot of things, but nevertheless there is a problem and allowing it to continue and saying they should be allowed to live how they want (which is what a lot of people say when any attempt to change it) and say it must done because of the stolen generation thing (trying to use guilt this is not always aboriginals who say this) does not help the problem but rather allows the cycle of poverty and abuse to continue. Perhaps it is time to take children away but only when cases of abuse or negligence is evident such as a child who has contracted an STD or the parents are drunk all the time and spend most of the money on booze not take them for the sake of taking them just because they are aboriginal as in the original policy. As for the high rates of unemployment there are not to many chances to get a job in the middle of the outback but because of the measures of natitive title perhaps we should encourage them to move into areas which yes will be townships and maybe the larger cities in order to get a job and have a better standard of living.

There are several issues here.

Regarding child abuse, my view is that children in need of emergency help should, of course, receive it regardless of ethnicity.

Regarding social issues in Aboriginal areas in general, I doubt there's a simple solution. A possible two-pronged approach might be to fund training programmes to enable Aboriginals to gain employment (including starting up businesses) without having to move off their lands, while at the same time ensuring that Aboriginals receive a full education in their own culture, traditions and traditional laws, re-enforcing these, promoting them as valuable and a source of pride and human dignity. This would have to be accompanied by efforts (possibly on an institutional level) to promote and re-enforce the traditional influence and authority of elders.

I'm no economist, so my perspective on the first part of the suggestion may be completely wonky. On the second part, however, it's obvious that problems stem from the fact that many Aboriginals have drifted into a "semi-Western" lifestyle while remaining on their lands, outside areas where they might find better education and employment opportunities. The cause of this has been the systematic attempt (at least until the 1970s) to eradicate their way of life, their traditional skills and knowledge which had enabled their survival and well-being, without providing anything to replace that lack. The attempt to destroy the source of Aboriginal dignity, knowledge and sense of self-worth, replacing it with a policy of enforced assimilation, limited and contradicted by racism and discrimination, has had the catastrophic results which we see today.

Part of any solution would have to entail promoting traditional skills, knowledge and values once more, to give these Aboriginals a framework of meaningful laws, help them build a sense of self-worth, help them find meaning in their lives once more. Help them rediscover pride in their history, culture and knowledge, which sustained them for 60,000 years or more. You cannot help Aboriginals develop a sense of self-worth and purpose by denigrating who they are and trying to force them to be something else.

Of course, Aboriginals, as individual Australians, should be able to choose whether they want to move into an urban, Western, "individual" lifestyle, and should be given educational and economic opportunities to do so. But they should not be forced. Coercion is inherently counter-productive when it involves paternalism and implicit denigration. And Aboriginals should also have the option of understanding their traditional norms, values and knowledge, which can restore their sense of pride, purpose and belonging. There are Aboriginals who are knowledgeable in traditional ways, and who could play a vital role in this capacity.

It's also extremely important to underline that it need not be an either/or situation. I've known urbanised Aboriginals who were knowledgeable in traditional ways and values, who felt a strong sense of Aboriginality which helped give meaning to their lives, and who led successful professional lives at the same time. Any policy would have to look at the example they've set, and work on replicating the conditions which made it possible.

Lastly, any attack against Native Title would be disastrous. It would be an attack on the very essence of Aboriginality, and perceived as such. It would be rightly interpreted by Aboriginals as a continuation of cultural genocide, and as a gigantic step backwards. It seems to me that very few non-Aboriginals understand the importance of land from an Aboriginal perspective. It's extremely complex, but its importance cannot possibly be emphasised enough. I'd be glad to clarify it a little. Another thing I would suggest is compulsory education for non-Indigenous Australian children, teaching them the basics of Aboriginal culture and society, to ensure that all Australians understand the Aboriginal perspective on land. This would help avoid a great deal of misunderstanding, bitterness and pain.


Have we really benefited? yes we are living here but it is not as if the continent was colonized or settled they were after all nomads

Wrong.

With no insult intended (honestly), I find it appalling that non-Indigenous Australians are still led to believe that Aboriginals are/were fully nomadic. They were not.

Each group had a defined territory, and was linked to it in such a way that it defined every aspect of its inhabitants' lives. Everything -and I do mean everything: laws, religion, every custom of everyday life- derived its meaning from the specific area of land belonging to the group in question. To move onto someone else's land would be quite literally inconceivable, because you would become literally a "nobody", a rootless person, whose presence in the other land had no justification and no meaning. Forcibly moving Aboriginals off their lands made them, from their perspective, "nobody" people in the most literal sense. People without identity, without purpose, with no past and no future, adrift and "empty". The psychological trauma was immense. Hence why the legacy of the Stolen Generations has been and is such trauma, and why forcing people off their lands again today would compound the problem.


Hope you enjoyed your time in Oz where you here for work, study or just trekking around the worlds largest island

Thank you, I did. This was four years ago now. I was there to work and to study (postgrad).

Do you mean the last election because this issue was not an issue at all for the vast majority of Australians and the elections where this was a much higher issue of the mind of voters he was ahead on the polls and won the election

You can read the minds of a majority of Australians, how would you know that wasn't a major issue?

Waste of time. A symbolic gesture most won't fully believe in, and that will divide rather than unite. Hevan forbid he do something controversial that might get some Aussies mad at him.

For those who don't know much about the situation in Aboriginal communities, see a video report here (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/reportages/Caring-FRANCE-24).

For those who don't know much about the situation in Aboriginal communities, see a video report here (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/reportages/Caring-FRANCE-24).

France24 FTW.

Regarding social issues in Aboriginal areas in general, I doubt there's a simple solution. A possible two-pronged approach might be to fund training programmes to enable Aboriginals to gain employment (including starting up businesses) without having to move off their lands, while at the same time ensuring that Aboriginals receive a full education in their own culture, traditions and traditional laws, re-enforcing these, promoting them as valuable and a source of pride and human dignity. This would have to be accompanied by efforts (possibly on an institutional level) to promote and re-enforce the traditional influence and authority of elders.

Yes I agree with this up to a point while Aborignals should be able to get some assistance as it will help pull them out of the cycle of poverty, and yes they should recieve education on their customs and traditions, but they should recieve education on Australia and what all other Australian kids are being taught this will help them to move further out of the cycle of poverty. Aboriginals should be treated the same as all other Australians this currently does not happen both ways, prime examples of this is the lack of law and order which has been allowed to develop such as rape of children and getting much lower sentances than other Australians (yes there has been outcry overy the most recent incident but this sort of thing has been going on for years) (this different treatment towards Aboriginals also seperates them from the community and dosen't do Aboriginals any good)

I'm no economist, so my perspective on the first part of the suggestion may be completely wonky. On the second part, however, it's obvious that problems stem from the fact that many Aboriginals have drifted into a "semi-Western" lifestyle while remaining on their lands, outside areas where they might find better education and employment opportunities. The cause of this has been the systematic attempt (at least until the 1970s) to eradicate their way of life, their traditional skills and knowledge which had enabled their survival and well-being, without providing anything to replace that lack. The attempt to destroy the source of Aboriginal dignity, knowledge and sense of self-worth, replacing it with a policy of enforced assimilation, limited and contradicted by racism and discrimination, has had the catastrophic results which we see today.

Yes that is true but there is now currently policies in place that allow them to stay on 'their' land but allows them to continue in a semi western lifestyle where there is booze and petrol (fo them to sniff) and a lack of law and order where the strong men win out over rape and domestic violence this is not helped by do gooder judges who allow these men to return to the communities with out appropriate punishment, while the past policies may have lead to the problem the current policies since the 1970's has allowed these problems to continue and increase thus the current way of thinking is not working and should be changed. At the risk of sounding like an idiot Could you tell me what you thought my first point was?

Part of any solution would have to entail promoting traditional skills, knowledge and values once more, to give these Aboriginals a framework of meaningful laws, help them build a sense of self-worth, help them find meaning in their lives once more. Help them rediscover pride in their history, culture and knowledge, which sustained them for 60,000 years or more. You cannot help Aboriginals develop a sense of self-worth and purpose by denigrating who they are and trying to force them to be something else.

Yes by all means allow them to learn about their ancestors and their heritage and customs but if they are ever going to move out of their plight then they must be brought up and treated like all Australians

Of course, Aboriginals, as individual Australians, should be able to choose whether they want to move into an urban, Western, "individual" lifestyle, and should be given educational and economic opportunities to do so. But they should not be forced. Coercion is inherently counter-productive when it involves paternalism and implicit denigration. And Aboriginals should also have the option of understanding their traditional norms, values and knowledge, which can restore their sense of pride, purpose and belonging. There are Aboriginals who are knowledgeable in traditional ways, and who could play a vital role in this capacity.

I never said forced I said encouraged to move to places where they and their children can live much more healthier and better life. Aboriginals can still live in urban areas and learn about thier heritage and customs and if they need to be in the outback to do that such as learning how their ancestors caught kangaroo then they can take a week trip out there (As I wrote this I ealised you made the same point I did in your next paragraph)

It's also extremely important to underline that it need not be an either/or situation. I've known urbanised Aboriginals who were knowledgeable in traditional ways and values, who felt a strong sense of Aboriginality which helped give meaning to their lives, and who led successful professional lives at the same time. Any policy would have to look at the example they've set, and work on replicating the conditions which made it possible.

Yes excatly right.

Lastly, any attack against Native Title would be disastrous. It would be an attack on the very essence of Aboriginality, and perceived as such. It would be rightly interpreted by Aboriginals as a continuation of cultural genocide, and as a gigantic step backwards. It seems to me that very few non-Aboriginals understand the importance of land from an Aboriginal perspective. It's extremely complex, but its importance cannot possibly be emphasised enough. I'd be glad to clarify it a little. Another thing I would suggest is compulsory education for non-Indigenous Australian children, teaching them the basics of Aboriginal culture and society, to ensure that all Australians understand the Aboriginal perspective on land. This would help avoid a great deal of misunderstanding, bitterness and pain.

Native title is something that may belong on another thread and a long drawn out argument over. When I grew up we did get this sort of education and currently they still do I spoke to a teaher who currently teaches this (about a year ago) and a few students who recently where taught it and one of the underlying issues is that a lotof time is spent on Aboriginals but students are being taught in a way where they should feel guilty over it and that they are responsible for the problems that have arisen this causes non-indigenous australians to begin to resent Aboriginals as they see that the aboriginals are blaming them for their problems when in fact it is not the aboriginals but the left wingers which have infiltrated the education departments and drawn up these curriclums and is in fact doing more harm than good

Wrong.

With no insult intended (honestly), I find it appalling that non-Indigenous Australians are still led to believe that Aboriginals are/were fully nomadic. They were not.

Each group had a defined territory, and was linked to it in such a way that it defined every aspect of its inhabitants' lives. Everything -and I do mean everything: laws, religion, every custom of everyday life- derived its meaning from the specific area of land belonging to the group in question. To move onto someone else's land would be quite literally inconceivable, because you would become literally a "nobody", a rootless person, whose presence in the other land had no justification and no meaning. Forcibly moving Aboriginals off their lands made them, from their perspective, "nobody" people in the most literal sense. People without identity, without purpose, with no past and no future, adrift and "empty". The psychological trauma was immense. Hence why the legacy of the Stolen Generations has been and is such trauma, and why forcing people off their lands again today would compound the problem.

Yes I was perfectly aware that they had their own sections but they still wandered around those areas thus they were nomads

I liked that little video post you put up there and I watched some of the other stories I think I will start watching that program a bit more

You can read the minds of a majority of Australians, how would you know that wasn't a major issue?

(In a sarcastic tone) Yes Eureka that us excatly what I do I read their minds(end tone)
Don't be stupid I read the papers and watch the media a lot from a number of different sources, but I also look at the polls where issues where asked of voters on the importance and aboriginal affairs wasn't listed as a seperate entity. I also happen to know two respected political scientests who have access to a lot more information then you and me combined and when I spoke to them on seprate occassions on the result of the last election and why voters voted in the labour party and some of the issues they never once mentioned that Aboriginal issues was a major factor next time I see them I will ask them for you if te majority of Australians had that issue on their mind when deciding on who t vote for