There is more to leading “this country well into the second decade of the new millennium “than saying ‘sorry’ to a very small and isolated section of society.

“…it would appear our new Prime Minister has created a tsunami style wave of unparallel support that literally swept the nation up in its path for audaciously saying “sorry” to the stolen generation in federal parliament”.

Another wild statement – Hagan’s “it would appear” indicates that even he is not so sure. The narrow polls he refers to are certainly not indicative of the ‘popularity’ of Rudd saying sorry, anymore that the polls are that Hagan has not mentioned showing that 75% of Australians did not believe in the grand gesture. Most people are more interested in practical matters than in meaningless gestures.

The ‘sorry’ palaver was a grand gesture that has already gone from public interest and back to the same old gimme, gimme situation that will be with will us forever.

And John Howard will be, and is, being favourable judged on matters far more important to Australia and all Australians that the silliness of whether or not he said ‘sorry’ to a minority group.

And, Martin Luther King gets a Guernsey – again!

“Sitting with other academics…” suits Stephen Hagan very well. Big on pomp, and nothing on the practicalities of bringing better lives to people he is as remote from as any white man.

It is entirely appropriate that Rudd, the leader of the parliamentary labor party should apologise to aboriginal Australia. It was the Labor Party, after all, that had a sex offender (Bob Collins) in the Senate and in the Cabinet of Hawke & Keating.

So when will we see that far more deserving apology for the unlawful acts done by one of their own? Or is this just another example of "our little secret".

See "Labor's forgotten apology" at http://ianmott.blogspot.com/

For once I must agree with Mr Right. The Aboriginal industry will now proceed to increase demands for perks and lurks far beyond what they already get. When will someone say "Thank you" for arranging preferential entry to university, for the free education available, for the free public health care available, for stopping tribal warfare and samll inter-tribal genocides, for ending the stupid superstitions that led to oppression of females in "natural" aboriginal communities and as reported by observers such as Sir Hubert Wilkins, for the free housing, for the welfare that means unemployed aboriginals do not starve, for inventing and supplying antibiotics to prevent women from dying in childbirth from sepiticaemia. It is very much a case of, "The evil that men lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones". Contacts between contrasting cultures always bring conflict and suffering. But oftentimes later generations benefit. And it's about time THAT was appreciated. Otherwise this Irishman and Scotsman wants compensation from the English for far greater wrongs done for longer to my ancestors than were ever done to the Australian Aborigines. And no, I am not "anti-Aboriginal", just totally irritated by this constant abuse of "whitey". We are not all bad. We are woefully human, just like the Australian Aborigines.

I agree, Stephen, Kevin Rudd's Sorry speech will go down as one of the finest moments in Australia's parliamentary history. His words moved the nation in a way that few have before or since.

The mean-spirited posters here are not representative of the mainstream response to Rudd's speech. The fact that his approval rating as preferred Prime Minister soared to an unprecedented 70% soon after the speech says it all really.

I'd need to know the source of the poll quoted by Mr Right and the wording of the question before I accepted his claim that "75% of Australians did not believe in the grand gesture."

As pointed out by Stephen, it is very instructive that so many who were sceptical or uninterested in the lead-up to the speech actually changed their minds once they'd heard it delivered. It just goes to show the power of good oratory and strong leadership. And hopefully the results of the action on the ground during Rudd's term will match the magnanimity of his words.

I enjoyed this article Stephen and agreed with every word though I was a little disappointed in the last part of it.

"Unfortunately for the offender the blow was negligible and as a recipient of several faster and harder blows to the head he was unflatteringly rendered horizontal on the bar room floor."

I found this sentence a little disconcerting on several fronts, not least of which being the obscure way you informed the reader that your nephew hit back. I know it would be difficult to do in the face of such blatant racist abuse but I feel the most admirable response, and the one we all have to work toward if relations between us are ever to heal, would have been to turn and walk away.

Whilst I disagre with anything Hagen has to say as an Indigenous person, Henry the idiot is well out of order. What industry are you talking about? the problem with people like you is that you are happy to steal murder and remove the rights of others but if they fight back you winge.

Why arn't you complaining about the farmers in this country recieving handouts and subsidies for land that is not only not theirs but is unsustainable. Why because these idiots have destroyed it with poor farming practices and the destruction of our water ways.

I have no interest in the apology but would be happy to acept a thank you. If not for the theft of my land and the destruction of my rights which you benefited from personally not to mention Indigenous people's service during wars which we recieved no recogniotion for or money, you and your family would not exist and probly would still be living in england or other dump.

I don't believe my generation should have to pay taxes for pensioners or farmers, but each year my business gets taxed to support them so why shouldn't you who have most benefited by our land pay you way for a change.

Mr Rudd's speech was polished while Dr Nelson's speech was far more truthful.