I spoke again to some aborigines today (real ones). One young man was telling me how his grandmother was the first to see white men and that they were treated very kindly. He told me how much worse off the generation are today without the missionaries teaching them about God. Many of the kids are being abused due to drugs alcohol and pornography. We need to say sorry for those taken for the wrong reasons but also say sorry for the last 50 years of State and Federal Government neglect in not taking away the abused children. The black arm band theory has led to multitudes of children being neglected and abused. Just look at the 12 year old girl left for dead by her aboriginal foster parents recently in Darwin or the young boy starved to death while his parents or carers boozed on. The symbolism might bring a smile to some academics but will not save one child from future neglect and abuse.

I stand by my view that there is no moral or legal right for anyone to apologise to anyone for a situation over which they had no control.
For once Howard had it right - we can regret what happened in the past (and I think he did) but we cannot take responsibility for it. We have no right to apologise for the actions of other people, often long dead.
Is there some sort of superstition attached to this?(Like a religious group baptising their ancestors?) Or a belief that 'all will be well when we apologise'? If that is the case then a lot of people are going to feel let down and disappointed. Far from unifying the nation an apology is going to deepen some divisions and cause others.
I also regret what happened in the past but my ancestors would have no reason to apologise for their actions - to the contrary.
Ask Australians to sign a document saying they regret what happened and the vast majority would without hesitation. Ask them to sign a document apologising for something they did not do and it would be a very different story.

We are back to meaningless chatter about saying 'sorry' for things done in a time when none of us were here. I have no doubt that the stupid argument will roll on and on , while one side will say, 'it wasn't us' ,the other side will say 'you owe us'.
In the meantime, according to today's paper, there has been sexual and violent abuse of women and children in 97 -yes ninety seven- aboriginal communities across Australia.
Bullies are making sure that no one reports them and the filthy abuse goes on unchecked because the authorities are paralysed by political correctness.
Poor children poor women.

So because our skin is not the same colour as the aboriginies' skin, it is implied that all those of our colour, are responsible for any damages caused by any people of our colour, to any of those of their colour. Racism.

And of course we really believe that the socialists who propogate this nonesense go home in the evening with heart-felt concern for the lost generation, and bend over backwards to help aboriginies when they meet them in the suburbs.
Considering that the average man sticks his finger up at you and 'tailgates' you with his high-beam on if you accidentally cut him off in traffic, I doubt very much that same man spends even .00001% of his life worrying about aboriginies. Socialists are part of the set called "the average man".

Arguement falls into two schools of thought :

- those who seek continued racial discrimination ;

- those who seek no racial discrimination ;

Those for continued racial discrimination argument it is essential racial discrimination continue so as to compensate previous victims of the practice... which creates current practice victims, for whom we need compensate later, which will create new victims, who will need be compensated later...

Purported objections to racism and racist behaviours when examined frequently are just arguements supporting the practice... with a change to the flavour.

Little of arguements in these columns addresses issues needing to be resolved in keeping with the principal of ending racsim.

Comments about "the intervention" whether for and against, rarely addressed underlaying fundamantal human rights principals - and failures, concerning care for children and families.

Why as major landlords are Land Trusts in the NT, SA and WA not required to issue tennants of public funding housing projects basic valid leases to their homes ?

It must be acceptable to deny ALL tennants around Australia - particularly publicly funded housing tennants, any valid leases for their homes...

Why are tennants of major landlords the Land Trusts in the NT, SA and WA all denied valid leases ?

Apparently because giving them leases gives them rights..

“A refusal to say “sorry” to dispossessed Aboriginals”

Correction, the supposedly “dispossessed “ died around 150-200 years ago.

The current aboriginal population are as “disposed” (forfeited by conquest / colonisation) as current Anglo-Saxons, who lost their lands under the Norman invasion of 1066.

“Grand historical crimes which require an apology by the perpetrator’s descendants have certainly spun a commemorative industry that does imply responsibility at first instance.”

Only if one also holds the view that the descendents of Hitler and Stalin are responsible for the crimes of their despotic ancestors.

“Peter Costello was technically a manager on autopilot, a zombie in the Treasury with about as much historical agency as King Canute over waves.”

Actually Canute used the waves to demonstrate to his followers how he could not influence the tide, despite the “Divine Right of Kings”.

I would suggest any Treasurer who understands the limits to government intervention in things which they really cannot and should not influence, demonstrates a wisdom which should be a mandatory requirement for all wannabe politicians.

As for “Minimal government is the slave to the invisible re-ordering of market forces: it is these forces the neo-liberal zealot worships; while governments are merely obstructionist goons who should abdicate.”

Better the government with minimalist attitudes who understands the limits of their capabilities than the arrogant, meddlesome fools who demand we all fall in line behind the socialists flawed and failed belief that “government” has inherited the “Divine Right of Kings” since the move to “constitutional monarchy”.

Dearest Margaret (famous for sharing Ronald Reagans views on “minimal government”) said

We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.

But let me not show bias, Lenin

“While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State.”

Benoy should stick to "scholarly" pursuits and leave the real world for "real" people to handle