Howard was right, they did do what they thought was right at the time. Attempts to say otherwise are moral revisionism.

Despite the academic language used, I can see what the former senior lecturer is trying to do: he's arguing for a morality that transcends time, place, cultures, and civilizations. Kant did indeed try to argue for this. However, Kant's argument becomes highly confusing, and thus unbelievable, when we have a look at his metaphysics. It's predicated on removing human beings from the chain of causal effects and peering into the "thing in-itself". True morality, for Kant, was devoid of human interests, values, and influences. Nietzsche correctly refuted this assumption because it insinuates human beings can free themselves from their earthly condition and view phenomena purely, with no causal influences. This is commonly called the "view from nowhere." Removing human beings from earthly influences is the domain of religion, like Christianity's distinction between the spirit and flesh, or Buddhism's Nirvana. Attempts at making morality transcend time therefore has little to teach us on actual history.

Morality today has shifted considerably since the time of the "stolen generation". Today, academics and "progressives" are hell bent on reinterpreting the past according to their hyper-sensitive morality. There has been considerable effort by them to paint Australian and/or Western history in the worst light possible. This is political through and through.

The author feels able to dismiss the reasons for Howard involving us in the Iraq war in a short paragraph, very abruptly, because it was “wrong”, but thinks it is necessary to spend the rest of his time analysing why the Coalition did not apologise to the so-called stolen generation, when the same short answer could have been given: because it was “wrong” to apologise for something that has now be proven to have never occurred.

The whole saga was fabricated by left leaning academics (one an ex-Communist, whatever an ‘ex’ one of those is) and activist aborigines for political and economic reasons.

Our “community values” were soiled by the whole fairy tale of a manufactured stolen generation.

"Howard was right, they did do what they thought was right at the time. Attempts to say otherwise are moral revisionism. "

I don't think the author did attempt to say otherwise and I think any implied conclusion that the author is therefore guilty of moral revisionism does not follow. In fact, I think any contrary implied conclusion, that their doing what they thought was right at the time means that it was right, also founders.

Lots of seemingly good people manacled slaves, doing what they thought was right at the time. This does not move most people today to conclude that because keeping slaves seemed right at the time, therefore it was and that consequently we have no need to feel sorry for the way slaves were treated by our ancestors. Perhaps the fact that we do owe some kind of apology to slaves, and any other groups who were badly treated by our ancestors, would be easier to grasp were our ancestors part of the offended against group rather than the offending.

But Glen C, perhaps slavery is only wrong at this time, because some consider it so. It does at least solve any unemployment problem, & many law & order problems, so is it actually wrong? Perhaps it could cure many Mediterranean problems right now.

Actually, from what I have read on Roman slavery, it was often much better to be slave than free man.

I do find it most amusing that Max, who spent a great deal of his life training people for the most dishonest & immoral profession know to man, that of lawyer, should assume some right to lecture us, & John Howard on morals.

Taking the high moral high ground is the last thing anyone connected with the legal profession is entitled to do.

Hang on Glen C, that's a load of old cobblers, apart from the first two decades of the colony slavery has never been legal much less practiced in Australia so how could our "ancestors" commit such crimes and what do your comments have to do with this article?

The only problem with the "apology" is that it's misunderstood by most people and that misunderstanding is wholly the fault of the "Anti Racists" who have injected their own false and pernicious White guilt narrative into the proceedings when clearly it simply doesn't belong there. The apology is a very narrow document pertaining to a very specific group of people who were affected by a very specific set of practices implemented by the state. There's no implication of collective guilt or collective victimhood in the apology and it has no wider context, it's between the state and those Aboriginals who were for one reason or another taken from their parents under the coercive powers of the state.

Max seems unaware that there is no factual basis for the false assertion of a “stolen generation”.

This phrase is an activist slogan for a political movement, aimed at gaining power for the activists dishonestly repeating it.

Numerous failed Court cases have demonstrated the absence of any factual basis for this scurrilous assertion.

How about some honest research, Max, before subjecting us to your baseless version of history?. Pleae relinquish your asserted belief in history devoid of facts.