Barking, Mr G H S-H, just barking. Not an English town.

Russell,
I get the message. You're unsure...about a few things...
OK, no ALP. Just a proposition on communism and/or socialism generally as applied to Australian politics.
It's your interest... a pre-disposition, if you like. No worries...forget that:-}
The primary request from the indigenous activists was for the word "Sorry" to be said.
I, like perhaps many others, are indeed sorry that some people have had to experience challenge and trauma in their lives, be it illness, accident or other misfortune.
That we, the current generation, in this instance, should "apologise" and by use of that word assume moral responsibility for the actions of a previous generation is anathema logically, as well as contrary to basic Judaeo-Christian belief.
To answer your question then, I contend that any statement made on our behalf should have expressed our sympathy for the situation that occurred as being now determined, in hindsight, unfavourable, but not unlawful. Decisions were taken which AT THE TIME were deemed to be in the best interests of those involved. Australia then is not the Australia of now. We are not to blame. We, therefore, do not need to apologise. I hope you can empathise with that.
Why advocate change through divisive action? (That's the state being responsible for everything and..well you know the rest) Why not refer the matter to the community via plebiscite, even if not required by law, to foster inclusion, particularly on such a matter? Arbitrary pronouncements such as has been made are not inclusive, despite your efforts to say otherwise.

You having imagined something does not necessarily make it so, as you have said to me. You fail to address the point of an official acknowledgement, from a spokesperson for the aggrieved, expressing acceptance. Is there no lawfully entitled spokesperson available to make a public statement for the record?
If you can't work out the genealogy example, bad luck, I guess. I believe you are just being obtuse. It speaks of accountability, adaptability and determination, in spite of circumstances.(end of part 1)

(part2)
It's your prerogative to view my statement re:"..oppressed minority" as justificatory logic. I cannot make a choice for anyone. That's their business. Part of basic human psychology, as you'd know.
As I have done nothing for which to seek absolution, you can't justify your view. It predicates you being predisposed to a mostly contrary position.
Genocidal? In what sense? Race suicide? Umm, that's self-inflicted so I guess it must be ....race murder, right? Who got murdered, figuratively speaking? Half caste Aboriginals? Then wouldn't that be race suicide, not murder?
No-one got murdered. People still carry their identity of race and place. Even you. Australian, no doubt, but fully aware of your heritage, no matter what might be done to you. Can I ask, when have you ever in your life sought an apology for anything, seriously? If not, why not? Perhaps resolve to just "get on", inculcated through generations of Celts, Angles/Saxons and other Teutonics having at each other. Maybe, maybe not...

anomie: "Barking, Mr G H S-H, just barking. Not an English town"

Quite so, anomie. There seems to be an awful lot of it on these threads about the overdue apology.

However, given this morning's news that Rudd's approval rating is over 70%, we can be quite sure that all this yapping, whining and barking is coming from a small but noisy minority.

Bill02 - Ellis and his local variant, Andrew Fraser (formerly of Macquarie), are representative of a tiny minority of voices amid an overwhelming consensus on the "science" of racial characteristics (though Fraser is less credible, given that he's a constitutional lawyer by training, and not a biological scientist). But let's proceed on the basis that they just might be the Copernicus and Galileo of their generation, and on the liberal assumption that they have the right to be heard.

In his 2001 article "Race, marxism and the 'deconstruction' of the UK" (published in the journal of the ideologically-driven CSES), Ellis assumes that nations emerged out of a German-romanticist "volk" culture (rather than, for example, a French civic culture espoused in the writings of Rousseau): but even Herder's ideal nation was conjured up by selecting various aspects of what was presented as cultural history and re-presenting them in particular ways. Of course, this is how heritage works everywhere, and I do not intend to dismiss its value simply by identifying its origins. But it's important to understand that Ellis's concept of "nation" is - and was from the beginning - contestable.

He assumes away the violent disagreements between what were once called the various "races" of Britain (the Celts, the Normans, the Saxons, etc - and who can forget the religious wars?), and nominates non-British immigration as the cause of "racial" conflict. Other than multiculturalism, his main target in this article seems to be the "illiberal neo-Marxism that underpins so much of multiculturalism", without recognising that multiculturalism emerged as much out of liberal theory as it did out of socialist. Just because he cites a handful of scholars who make the same assumptions is no "proof" of anything: the authors in the recent neo-Leninist collection "Lenin ReLoaded" do exactly the same thing.

He assumes the existence of a conspiracy designed to “destroy” Britishness, failing to recognise that multiculturalists merely have a different concept of what a “nation” is (and should be). It follows that, for Ellis, “genetics” (modern-day eugenics?) is vital, whereas for multiculturalists, it is irrelevant.

tRAKKA - I've posted a response to your comments at

http://www.blognow.com.au/russellmarks/83121/Debate_Stolen_Generations_Apology.html

(I've posted our whole debate - my most recent reply is at the bottom) as it's too long to post here!