Stephen it happened and as you described it. We invaded and took your land as we - Anglo/Celts - did to many other countries. We 'won' not because we were/are better people but we were stronger and had better weapons. We, in the main, treated the Aboriginal people with great cruelty, contempt and disdain. Yet at that time we treated our people no less savagely and with no less barbarism - re the convicts.
Stephen neither of us can change history, though we can make sure that it is the true history - as you appear to be doing. We need to look up to and respect one another, assist one another. dare I say it - love one another.Then live together as much as possible. Forget windshuttle and his lies and/or slanted history. Forget mean spirited, divisive,dimisive lying howard, though he does have a svengali (Correctly spelled?)hold on many deluded electors. Stephen don't get bitter, there are many of us whites who are sorry. There are many of us who are deeply ashamed as well. Hang in there friend, Regards, numbat

Numbat - We 'won' not because we were/are better people but we were stronger and had better weapons.

Well how else do you win - you can say the same thing about any other fight over territory that has ever occurred. That's what happened in the past when two groups claimed the same resources and it still happens now in some places in the world - Israel/Palestine anyone?

You heartfelt apology to the aboriginals really got me thinking about all the peoples and species my ancestors have had run ins with so here is my rather guilty sorry list.

Because of my Danish heritage I apologise to all the peoples of Europe who were raped, pillaged and plundered by the Vikings. It was a shameful exercise and is inexcusable.

Because of my English heritage I must apologise to all the colonies once under British rule. These are too numerous to list individually so I'll just lump them all together. Also to the Scots, Welsh and Irish - gee we gave you hard time for a few centuries. Sorry. Then there is Germany in WWI and WW2 - we just had better weapons (and the help of the Yanks)

Now my Maori heritage is shameful because our fierce warriors were pretty harsh on a lot of other Polynesian peoples during the past 1500 years. We didn't mean any harm.

My Aboriginality is harder because I don't know exactly who my tribe ever had squabbles with - but sorry to you. And also to the megafauna we helped make extinct when we got here 60,000 years ago.

And finally - on behalf of homo sapiens sapiens i am sorry to the neanderthals, homo erectus and other forms of early human for out competing you. This was very selfish and i now realise the error of my ways. I hope this apology makes up for it.

oh that's right - none of these apologies will change a thing and neither wil one from John Howard (who never killed or stole anyone)

t.u.s.

The usual suspect, you do make light of tragedies eh? Your compassion just bubbles out - well something bubbles out anyhow. The topic was our, not yours appently, invasion of this country and the dispossesion of its people. OF COURSE ! the same has occurred elsewhere yet that makes it right? numbat

no numbat it doesn't make it right but saying sorry doesn't change a thing. My point was that dispossession of land is as old as human history. The strongest have done what they want. making apologies, 50 years, 200 years, 1000 years after an event does not make it better. what is worse is when people apologise on behalf of someone else to people on behalf of someone else.

eg me apologising to poms whose ancestors were wronged by my ancestors. or John Howard apologising for things which he was not responsible for.

If you have never been racist towards aboriginals why do you apologise for past cruelty.

The only people to benefit from an apology would be some members of the legal profession who would hear the word sorry and see dollar signs.

t.u.s.

NUmbat, I didn't read 'making light' of TUS's post, I think he is hitting the nail right on the head.

To realize what he is saying, will be part of the healing for aboriginal people. If we had not managed to separate ourselves from what would otherwise be consuming anger over being dispossessed (and my ancestors were 'cleared' from the Scottish highlands for sheep pasture for English lords) and it would eat away at out souls and destroy us.

There ARE things we can do, but saying sorry is probably not a high one on the priority list, it wont change anything 5 minutes after any 'sorry' ceremony, but inviting aboriginals into our social circles WILL make a diff.

My wifes people have been (and are being) dispossed of vast tracts of land by the malaysian government, who allocate it as 'political booty' to MPs, it sucks, but there isn't much u can do besides start an insurrection or roll with the punches.

Anyone trying to tell me that our Aboriginal friends are less 'clannish' than those of Somalia would struggle to keep my attention. Human nature did not 'suddenly stop' being what it is at the borders of Australia and fail to infect aboriginals. We are all the same, and in one way or another, we are all victims of history.

Wars between groups such the British and the Irish are not the same as the ‘wars’ between the Europeans and the Indigenous peoples of the countries they colonised.

When the Scottish were driven from their land, and in Malaysia today both groups (the winners and the losers) shared the same basic philosophy and world view.

Their culture had private ownership, accumulated wealth, had a religion that advocated man as supreme over animals and the earth, both had a heirachy with clear cut class distinctions, etc

But through the 'war' in Australia not only did the Indigenous people lose their land and the economic basis for their lives, they also lost their culture.

They were told that they were primitive, they were less intelligent than white people. Until very recently, racism meant that there was bugger all chance that they could join white society in any but the most menial and degrading positions.

They are supposed to want to join a culture that is almost the opposite of what they had. Hard to believe for some of you, but this may not be seen as a better life, for people who were spiritually rather than materially oriented, who found satisfaction in relationships (with the land and their tribal groups) rather than with things.

There certainly are many white people who do not find happiness in our material culture so it should not be too hard to imagine that there are people who think maybe there is a better way.

It is not as simple as letting go anger at being dispossessed. It is far more complex than that.

We could say sorry because we are sorry that it happened. Since there are many different people with different needs, an apology just may help somebody feel better. Where is the harm?

The Canadian goverment apologised to their Indigenous people and there were no legal problems in that country. The legal thing is just an excuse for pig-headed racist people to avoid taking some responsibility. And just because you have some Indigenous heritage does not mean that you are not racist.

the recent gesture of thankfulness from malaysia by awarding medals to australian servicemen who helped fight communist insurgency in malaysia 50 years ago fits in here too. most of those blokes have passed on, had 2 uncles over there in fact, and its great that their efforts are being recognised.

if its ok to accept thankful gestures for acts committed 50 years ago, it should also ok to offer up sorry for acts committed 50 years ago.

for one to be ok and the other not ok is hyprocracy.

Yes, this nation was built entirely on the dispossession of our Indigenous peoples. It is only fitting that their loss is commemorated alongide the sentiments and memorials of others who were sacrificed in the process of creating the Australia we know and love.

Both Anzacs and Aborigines were sacrificed by the British Empire to further its territorial and economic interests. Our current national identity draws heavily on both defeats.

How about this for a suggestion: make "Sorry Day" a public holiday, equivalent to Anzac Day? We could easily 'sacrifice' the Easter Monday public holiday for this purpose, since it has no inherent religious significance. We could even celebrate it on the same day, neatly harmonising with Christian ideas of sacrifice and regeneration.

Just a thought...

Mollydukes, you need to let go of this idyllic idea of aboriginal existence before settlement. Life expectancy was lower than it is today and the environment had been changed significantly over 60,000 years of aboriginal habitation of this continent. Mythology certainly tied indigenous people to the land but as a way of explaining things not some deep mystical attachment to the earth. Nature was powerful and unable to be explained without being in awe of some other powers.
What happened when white people arrived was a tragedy, I don't dispute that but saying sorry more than 200 years later will NOT change what happened.
There are very few aboriginal people living a traditional lifestyle now so loss of culture to urban aboriginals is just plain crap. The majority of aboriginal teenagers I know and associate with listen to rap music (with a lot of the non-indigenous kids)and live the same urban culture as the rest of the people in the neighbourhood.
A few of them even had holidays up in the NT with some of the more traditional tribes and absolutely hated it - they missed their coke and chips and chocolate biscuits.
If treating everyone equal and telling them to get on with their life without an apology is racist - then I am a racist.
But you are the one pigeonholing people and putting them into different baskets.

t.u.s.

t.u.s, its called assimilation and the current moves by johnny and co with their mutual obligation and shared responsiblity will try to bring all aboriginal people under more assimilation policies.

you're explanation of ties to country does not explain away things like the bora ring and ceremony, they didn't just put bora rings any old where and ceremony wasnt practiced in just any old place.

one of me uncles who served in malaysia, and nam as well, was also posted in the territory and told us some pretty amazing stories about the ways of the aboriginal people who helped them from time to time. one is about a yank soldier who went awol in desert there and they didn't know how to find him - bring in the aboriginal trackers who told em exactly where he was and that's where they found him.

there's more to connection to country then a bunch of stories that helped to make ya feel more safe from scary mother nature.

There are many complex ceremonies performed by many different peoples across the world which have evolved over time. However, most anthropologists will tell you that these ceremonies originated as a way to explain what was happening in the world.Things take on more meaning and become more sophisticated as time moves on and aboriginals certainly had a lot of time for their mythology to evolve. As nomadic people living in a resource poor continent - an acute understanding of the environment was important to survival and things grew from there.
You talk of assimilation as if it is some sort of evil. Mollydukes is very surprised how well assimilated I am because I don't want an apology. All it means is I have more time to provide for my family, spend time with my community and encourage people to stop waiting for something to happen and go do something yourself.
Turn negatives into positives. see article http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3301

And don't wait for an apology

t.u.s

t.u.s you make a lot of unjustified assumptions. I am not surprised at how well assimilated you are. Your western cultural background provided you with the cultural and philosophical basics to get on with it.

I am surprised at how ignorant you seem to be about Indigenous people who live in the outback settlements. You may understand the urban Indigenous but you really do not seem to have an accurate understanding of the conditions, or lack of, in the outback communities and although they do not live traditional lives, the traditional philosophies and attitudes are still very much intact.

You assume that I believe that Indigenous existence was idyllic before white settlement. Re read what I wrote and you will not find that is what I said. I would like to know your sources for assuming that life expectancy was lower than it was today though. Can you provide the reference for this? I am not being sarcastic.

You also do not appear to have much understanding of the traditional Indigenous religions. Can I recommend “Broken Song” by Barry Hill - about T.G H. Strehlow and his life with the Central Austalian Indgenous tribes?

Other unjustified assumptions you make are that I called you racist and that I am pigeonholing people. People are individuals and that surely was my point, that while an apology is meaningless to you and anyone you know, there are people to whom it is very meaningful.

Why are you are so against an apology. What does it mean to you?

It is not racist to say get on with your life and I am sure you would say that to disadvantaged white kids also. It is however indicative of your lack of understanding of the ‘causes’ of the failure of some people to be able to do this

Garra.. this is for you.

Your suggestion has a degree of merit I feel (which may sound rather different from my usual line on this issue) but probably not for the reasons you outlined, well, not completely.
For me as a Christian, I would like ANY day of special remembrance to have prophetic overtones. i.e. calling us back to justice and righteousness under God. Reconciliation is a major theme in the bible, in fact its a history of reconciliation and breakdown of a relationship between God and man. You gave your idea as 'just a thought'

I've got one also, but its a quote straight out of the 'good book'

"If my people who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicket ways, then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." 2nd Chronicles 7.14

Just a thought :

Mollydukes - the only people who really, really, really want an apology from the government is the lawyers. Just another trough to stick their faces in.

I'm sure most Australians who are all for an apology have the best of intent. I don't know what good they think it will do - apart from making themselves feel like really top-class, compassionate human beings - but I just have a disagreeable feeling that the main reason an apology is sought is for the potential financial gain.

In relation to Hagan's article there's a bit of difference between a cemetary, indigenous or non-indigenous, and war graves. We dig up old whitey cemetaries all the time. Aboriginal sacred sites - whether fair-dinkum or not - are protected all over this country. You'd be a bit offended if I chuckled at a bulldozer cavorting through an Aboriginal sacred site, similarly I'm a bit offended that you think it's fine to smirk at the possible digging up of our ANZAC heroes graves.

To Mollydukes:- and his assumption that the Canadians apologised, without any ramifications, legal or otherwise; go ask a Canadian, particularly a Canadian who lives in the city of Winnipeg, specifically a Canadian investment/revenue property owner who has a rental property in the inner suburbs of Winnipeg {colloquially known as the WAR ZONE}.

Don’t be mistaken or misled, I do not intend to malign the indigenous populations as a whole (no matter where in the world they happen to be); there is an element in any society which will take unfair advantage of rules and/or perceptions meant only to help the unfortunate.

While a element, any element or group in this country, regardless of how we all came to be here, continue to demand conditions and/or treatment different to that of any other, then we will never be a cohesive society.

tus, yes many indigenous peoples across the world practiced complex ceremonies, i think the most famous example would have to be feng shui, a vibrational science that aboriginal people were also very much aware of and of course expressed it differently to the chinese, probably due to population.

as for assimilation, when it involves decimation, deception and betrayal then yes it is 'evil' as you suggest. however, if it allows for the inclusion of cultural practices of those being assimilated then i wouldnt have a problem. eg italian, greek, yugoslav, chinese, vietnamese australians who have taken on australian way of life that includes parts of their cultural heritage. they're no different to aboriginal people except for the fact that they weren't classified as animals when they landed on australian shores. not to say that they didnt experience racism from anglo-extract australians but they were given opportunity to develop an asset base, something that was denied of aboriginal people until the late 60's.

as for sorry, i agree with you in part, sorry dont mean nothing to me without action to back it up its just a word. my father and his family were removed from their country, he and his sister utilised as the slave labour force who had their wages stolen. will sorry reinstate all that they've lost? i dont think so. will it make them feel any better? well, like a bandaid its temporary.

fact remains tho, if gestures of thanks can be accepted on behalf of dead people for their actions, then gestures of sorry can be accepted on behalf of dead people for the actions done against them.

Kalalli please accept my heartfelt sorrow for what we have done to you and yours. Fond Regards, numbat

I think the point of the original post was lost in the debate about Aboriginality and the need for a sorry etc.

The point was, we make a fuss when white graves are potentially desecrated, but don't when Aboriginal ones are. He argues that it is hypocrisy to treat them differently. And as a white Australian, I agree with that viewpoint. If we did not make a fuss about white graves in Turkey, then it would not be hypocrisy. However, as this is unlikely to occur, and in my view wouldn't be a good thing if it did, we probably should focus more on equal treatment and legal protection of Aboriginal sites. That being said, however, we do need a more careful undertaking of what exactly a "sacred site" is, so that we don't just have random bits of land being protected without any scrutiny.

The point of the article has not been commented upon at all really.

I guess it is easier to bring up the tired old issue of 'the apology'. Please note that I did not raise the issue. It is interesting that it gets so many people so upset. I don't buy the legal problem angle at all - and I have spoken to Canadians.

The other tired old stand-by cry of the anti-Indigenous that 'all people should be treated the same' demonstrates an understanding of how many people in this society get 'special treatment'.

In a society that functions well, there will always be a need for some people to get that 'special treatment'. In the end it is for the good of the community as a whole.

To get back to the article itself, hypocrisy is a feature of mainstream Western culture - hardly a shred of humility or consideration that other cultures may have something valuable to offer - we who overeat while starving to death spiritually in a plethora of material wealth.

Colonial interaction with the colonised people began with hypocrisy, and perhaps the most hypocritcal were some of the early missionaries. Great stuff that Stephen has pointed out just one small example of the on-going hubris of we white colonists.

“I would like to know your sources for assuming that life expectancy was lower than it was today though. Can you provide the reference for this? I am not being sarcastic.”

www.brown.edu/Departments/Economics/Papers/2004/2004-14_paper.pdf shows life expectancy for most hunter gatherer tribes was between 25-35. Aboriginals now live to be 56.9 for males and 61.7 for females. (check the ABS website) This represents around a 100 per cent increase in the past 200 years – about the same life expectancy increase as that of European Australians in the past two centuries (see www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/ PRB/Educators/Human_Population/Health2/World_Health1.htm).
Still the point is that life expectancy will not magically increase when the words sorry leave John Howard's lips. it might increase if everyone takes advantage of the resources available to them.

"And just because you have some Indigenous heritage does not mean that you are not racist (Posted by Mollydukes, Friday, April 08, 2005 2:17:16 AM)". – that looks like you are calling me racist.

“I am not surprised at how well assimilated you are. Your western cultural background provided you with the cultural and philosophical basics to get on with it.” I am sorry – it was that other M – Morganzola - who made that comment in another topic.

Now that that is out of the way I have some questions for you – what exactly is the cause of failure for the people you are talking about. I have been to places like Broken Hill and Wilcannia and the problems there are based on alcohol and poor parenting - the only options for the government are to ban alcohol for everybody (not going to happen) ban alcohol for aboriginals (may happen as part of mutual obligation arrangements) or remove children from homes (not going to happen given hysteria about stolen generations. I like option two but not as an aboriginal thing but as something for many low socio economic families where alcohol is a problem.
Or some of the kids can come to the realisation (as many do but not enough) that this life stinks and try to do better.

t.u.s

t.u.s. it is generally accepted that hunter-gatherer tribes life expectancy was that low but I don’t think that this applies to the Australian Indigenous people. They really were not simply Neanderthal hunter-gatherers.

I have looked into this issue and there is no reliable estimate but you have only to look at some of the very early photographs to see well-built men who are quite obviously well into their 50’s. It is clear that life span and health began to decline for the Indigenous who moved to the missions and began to eat missionary food

The lifespan and size of the Europeans who came here varied considerably depending on class. The poor were small and died early and some of the aristocracy who were too stupid to eat properly but some peasant groups living in productive rural areas and some of the aristocracy lived to ripe old ages.

As in most things, the ‘truth’ is more complex than the overall statistics would indicate.

Re your assumption that I called you a racist; it was a warning I guess. Racism is another constant and ubiquitous feature of human nature – traditional Indigenous are very racist – and needs to be guarded against for everyone.

The causes of failure for the Indigenous kids in townships are similar to those for the white kids in disadvantaged families – poor parenting and alcohol for sure. But how do you think that kids can ‘just realise’ that they need to try and do better? It's not that easy. They need to believe that they have choices and they need to know the skills to negotiate white culture.

Things like proper eye-contact, like wiping your nose and really basic stuff like that as well as being able to organise your clothes for an early morning appointment the night before. These things may seem so obvious to you but that is because you learned them before you even realised you learned them because your family has white input/white knowledge.

Part two follows if I have not exceeded by daily post limit.

But Indigenous parents, even if they are trying to be good parents do not have these skills themselves so cannot pass them on.

That is also the problem for many disadvantaged white kids but the lack of skills are even more pronounced for Indigenous kids and their cultural values are still an influence although the cultural thing is not overt. And many of them cover it up with the veneer of sophistication that comes from tv knowledge – like rap and the Simpsons talk.

These kids sell themselves short all the time. They may say to you – a male who is successful – that they don’t care and just can’t be bothered, but surely you can see this is bravado. They ‘know’ they can’t do well, so why give people a chance to kick you when you are down? Society is the enemy, they believe that white society doesn’t want them?

That is the sort of attitude I find that they have. Also, they often put things such as family problems first before their own wants (so will go to court to be with a brother) and miss an exam.

The problem is very difficult and nobody has the answer. I am sure there is no one answer. For some kids your approach may work but it won’t for most.

Molly,

I think we are finally seeing eye to eye a bit on this issue.

kids do sell themselves short all the time but ultimately the desire to be better has to come from within them - the government, or me or you can only do so much.

They need to see people who have made it or see things can be different to what they are - white society should not be the enemy but government policies which deliberately treat indigenous people differently from the rest, not the same create division.

This is way off topic now, so hopefully we can finish on some kind of agreement.

t.u.s

My GOD ! I've just discovered there is such a thing as 'MISSIONARY FOOD' ... Thanx Molly :) Whats more, its LETHAL.. not enough that they 'wreck culture, and destroy traditions.' now we (I was a missionary) POISON people as well ....

The thing is, I can't relate this concept to my own experience ... at our 'mission station' we relied more on the indigeneous people of Borneo to catch a deer or a pig or an Otter or monkey for some good tucker than they relied on us. ( I didn't eat Otter, I only even saw one in the last months of an 8 yrs stint, apart from that I would not know they were there )

I do take your point though Molly, but I seriously challenge you to look MUCH more deeply into the big picture before condemning 'missionary food'.. its not 'missionary' its just 'food food'...Western maybe, but not 'MISSIONARY' geeee.. no wonder people look sideways at 'religious nuts' with comments like these flying around the place.

Anyway, keep up the posts :)

t.u.s We are way off topic but I think Graham is tolerant if the discussion is related to the issue in general.

Sorry, but I can’t agree with you about Government policy so please bear with me a bit longer.

Government’s treat many groups differently. They provide ramps for disabled. Some mean spirited people resent this. The resentment is the problem?

Secondly are you sure that Indigenous people are being treated so differently?

It is largely a myth that they get more money than the rest of us. Lots of money supposedly spent on them, has been for white profit. Lots of money was wasted because Govts didn’t provide support for organisations (like ATSIC) to operate effectively.

It seems obvious to me that Indigenous people (in general) are more disadvantaged than white people and it is in everyone’s interests to even the playing field by treating them ‘special’ if it seems useful.

But some more thought about what is needed. I think self-respect is important, respect for their culture from white society. This may be happening. I was surprised but very pleased when the Governor General suggested on Australia Day that we need to learn more about their culture.

Sorry is an indicator to some Indigenous people that the white government cares. They are not traditionally a cynical people. The failure to be able to say sorry demonstrates Howard’s emotional problems. He couldn’t apologise to Cornelia Rowe either, whereas Costello did.

And another thing to think about is that the idea of helping them all to achieve in our society is assimilation. It seems to me that we lose something very valuable by ignoring what their culture has to offer. I am not idealising it but a culture that was so stable for so long has to have some wisdom and insights into human happiness.

But if you are interested in Indigenous kids and their problems, I just heard about this wonderful website called ‘us mob’ Check out the story at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/lm/stories/s1341400.htm

David you are exaggerating! If I was blaming the well-meaning missionaries, I apologise. There is no question though that it was food mostly provided by missionaries that decreased the health and well-being of the Indigenous people back then.

Of course food distribution was done from the best reasons, just as the desire to turn them (and all of us) into Christians was, and is a genuine desire to provide people with something real and beautiful.

I think the real problem was (and is) that the missionaries believe that Christianity is the ‘only’ way. That is the sticking point for me. If, as a Christian you are prepared to see that others can find what you have without adopting your beliefs then we can have mutual respect, otherwise you are pitying me and feeling superior and that won’t do.

I really do recommend “Broken Song’ by Barry Hill to you. It is a marvellous insight into the psychology of TGH Strehlow (a Lutheran missionary) and his relationship with the Indigenous people, lots of knowledge about the religion of the central desert Indigenous tribes and about the attitudes and behaviour of ‘the usual missionary’ back then.

The idea back then was only to supplement the traditional foods but many of the Indigenous did not get this idea and pretty much gave up their traditional food gathering practices in favour of hanging out for the hand-outs.

Should we blame them for choosing the wrong option back then also? It is easy to blame the victim (and the missionaries?:) in western society

Molly.. u got it in one :) yes, I was exxxxaggerating, to make a point.
The main issue you have with Christians is that they believe Christ is the only way ... well, its not an easy concept to accept. Most understandable. But then, we are simply echoing His own words. But more than this Molly, the presentation of Christ as the only way to God, is not in the vein of 'our religion is better than yours -ner ner' nothing could be further from the truth. It emerges from not only the sayings of Jesus, but the place Christ holds in salvation history. One would have to begin at Genesis and see how that plan unfolded, and that from the beginning its been about a fallen humanity out of fellowship with its creator, and that He (God) has been continually reaching out to mankind to restore that broken relationship. (Though Israel and finally Jesus) One cannot separate one from the other.

See what occurred between Thomas and Jesus in this dialog

5Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”

6Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you really knew me, you would know[b] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

8Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

9Jesus answered: “Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.

Molly, our faith rests on these words, not on what we would like Jesus to be. We are often charged with 'inventing' a Jesus of our own convenience. Trust me, the above words are NOT convenient. They immediatly isolate us from the rest of humanity. There is often a social cost, economic cost and family cost. But to understand this, is to understand why Paul and others suffered they did, willingly for Him.

The interview I heard on Radio National breakfast program this morning about the Anzac Cove graves disgusted me significantly. My first, and enduring, thought was the blatant hypocracy that exists in this country. Neither our contemporary "leaders", nor those in the past, are, or have been, prepared to recognise and acknowlege the disrespect shown to the sacred sites of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples through mining and agricultural pursuits, and now with coastal development pressures, such as the recent Sandon Point struggle on the south coast of NSW. The examples of this ignorance are too many to mention in the 350 word limit that exists on this forum.

I recently read a publication by John & Wendy Watt - "The Whitefella Problem". I wholeheartedly agree with one of the reasons the Watts put forward for this ignorance of our history with respect to Indigenous Australians - the truth of the history is not sufficiently publicised and discussed. We know far more about Jewish history or happenings in South Africa than we do about the subjugation and destruction of Indigenous peoples lives here on our own soil.

I have a great respect for the ANZACs and any person that goes to war for their country. We know a lot about these efforts because they are always in our faces. One commentator mentioned about "Sorry Day" - I think that a far greater extent of discussion and publicity in all forms of media about our Indigenous history since invasion, particularly on "Sorry Day" and during Reconciliation Week, would at least be a beginning to national appreciation. Then we may be able to move to respect and further onto "reconciliation". Even Radio National does not do enough of this on a "Sorry Day" - just listen to the reporting on Anzac Day.

I don't see any difference between the desecration of Indigenous burial sites and the graves at Anzac Cove

I was embarrassed to see our illustrious PM on TV last night, expressing his concern at roadworks at Gallipoli. Somebody ought to tell him that we lost that battle - Gallipoli is Turkish territory.

When one country thinks it has a right to 'advise' another about such things, I'd expect the turks to be tempted to go and dig them all up, sort out the bones from the dirt and send them all back where they came from with the words 'bite me' on the package.

Or, perhaps more effective, would be to re-count some of our own transgressions against aboriginal culture to our diplomats.

It is overwhelmingly hypocritical to whine about roadworks in Turkey, and not to worry about Aboriginal sites of similar cultural value.