SORRY, its past that.
Can I have my ancestors land back instead?

Sorry Ash, I didn't mean to offend you. If I had anything to do with it your land wouldn't have been taken in the first place. I am deeply ashamed of my own culture for the blind way in which it has stumbled around the planet laying claim to whatever it wants and doing what seems like a good idea at any given time. I don't know where your ancestor's lands are but I really hope you can reclaim them...but the realist in me doesn't think that will happen until the majority of Australians get past the ignorance they have about what it is to be Aboriginal, empathise with your situation and respect your culture for what it is instead of what they think it is.

Whitekitten,
I have no argument which much of what you say,but I differ to you on the worth & consequences of an apology.

If you read the news stories pre-Mabo, you will see that the spin-doctors were telling us it would be a panacea for all Aborginal woes- we now know it was not the case.
Then we had 'Abroginal Deaths In Custody' (which as it turned out was based on a false premise) which was supposed to heal a lot of woes –but only fuelled the hate-blame-game.

'The Stolen Generations' 'An Apology'& the call for 'A Treaty' are just the latest blockbusters from the same producers.

I hope you will understand, if this time around, some of us are a little cynical.

All an apology is likely to do is trigger a chain of compensation claims which will largely go the line the pockets of ravenous lawyers & officialdom –and do little to improve the overall plight of Aborigines.

Horus identifies an important phenonomen in Aboriginal affairs that has been around since Invasion - I call it white moral panic solutions, others such as the anthropologist W E Stannner called it the 'disremembering' on a national scale.

Look back through the public debates of Mabo, the Stolen Generations reports, the Black Deaths in Custody Royal Commission and you will see very open attacks on the "credibility" of Aboriginal people and Aboriginality. Some common themes in these question of credibility were;

Mabo: They are not traditional people
RCIADC: They all suicided
Children stolen: It was for their own good

And now we get accused of wanting an Apology for monetary gains?

Its time for a Treaty that resolves once and for all the legal, political and economic status of invaders and the status of the colonised. Cook’s orders were to negotiate occupation with the native inhabitants. These orders remain ignored in Australian law.

Rainer employs a typical tactic-act offended -make a lot of noise & hopefully the threat will be intimated & withdraw.

"And now we get accused of wanting an Apology for monetary gains?"
(Perish the thought! )
Of course we know the Aborigines exist on a higher spiritual plain -though I must say -as with humans of all colours or creeds, I have not seen many knock back monetary benefits when they are available.

Rainer let me ask you a question, since you seem to have assumed authority to speak for all Aboriginal peoples. Can you say categorically that no group if given an apology would then not want “compensation” –and even if they didn’t initially- would they be able to resist the manipulating manoeuvrings of self seeking lawyers & officialdom to go further?

As for ‘the public debates on Mabo”. It would be a travesty to call the noise that surrounding the implementation of Mabo ‘a debate’ .The whole episode was more akin to Moses coming down from the Mt Sinai and handing the Israelites the ten commandments- it was signed sealed & delivered, realistically, the ordinary Australian had as much chance of altering the outcome as the Israelites had of amending aspects of the ten commandments.

And "a Treaty that resolves once and for all the legal, political & economic status of invaders and of the colonized." is another furphy.
We already had "the status" resolved, long ago .
We are all Australian citizens. We all have equal rights AND RESPONSIBILITIES under a national law.The difference is that equal (OR BETTER) input has not, up to the present, produced equal outcomes.

"Equality" is a difficult word to use - many people consider that if you treat everyone the same then that will make everyone equal. Surely the debate should be about giving everyone an equal opportunity to succeed in life. For some this means they need different treatment to enable them to have equal access to those opportunities in the first place.

From what I have seen and read over the last couple of years the idea of equality for Aboriginal people in Australian law, education and health seems like an oxymoron. We learn about law, like culture, through interactions in our families, school, in society and through the media. In mainstream Australia it is all in coded behaviours and all in English and a lot of it in pretty complicated English at that. Reading "Why Warriors Lay Down and Die" - a brilliantly accessible book for people like me; a lay person - pointed out that whilst Urbanised indigenous people might be more likely to pick up information about laws, rights and responsibilities in Australian law, those living in more remote communities, those who live outside of "mainstream" society and may speak 10 of their own languages before they get to English are outside of this loop.

There are many cases where the systems of law and health have failed them because they are linguistically inaccessible. I have heard some say "well why don't they learn English then?!" which is a mad arguement as they are living on their own land and surely should be able to expect that laws be translated into their own languages so that they can at least interact with them. Doesn't there need to be a level playing field first where everyone understands not only the rights and responsibilities that are expected of citizens in modern Australian society but also those that can be expected of the government. The comment about Cook ignoring his own responsibility to "negotiate"settlement was highly relevant. Rights and responsibilities exist on all sides.