Ok, ok, we all know what was done to aboriginal children all those years ago. I agree it was appalling and so very wrong to assume that their parents could not care for them because they were not white.

But whilst I agree that it is terrible, the idea that some politician somewhere in some office who has never met me and doesn't know me or my family, assumes to know what is in my mind and heart and will therefore apologize to people who I don't know for something that I was not responsible for on my behalf makes me irate.

I wasn't alive when all these things happened. I don't know anyone who was! As far as I am aware, my family and ancestors did not take part in these proceedings. So why must someone apologize on my behalf for something I had no part in?

And worse still is the idea that someone believes it's his duty to apologize on behalf of my children! How rude can you get! If my children feel the need to say the "s" word, surely they should have the right and responsibility to do that on their own behalf.

Dear Kevvy, please take note - IF YOU ARE DEAD SET ON MAKING THIS APOLOGY, PLEASE ENSURE THAT YOU NOTE THAT I DO NOT WISH TO APOLOGIZE FOR SOMETHING THAT I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH!

I have spoken to my children about this and they all voiced the opinion. They have nothing to apologize for, since they weren't even imagined when this all took place. Why make the next generation of Australians responsible for the misdeeds of a century ago?

Will someone in a century's time look back and apologize to my descendents for forcing us to submit to this ludicrous thing? Methinks not.

So I for one do not support the idea of a national apology - a national apology should have the backing of the nation, and I'm pretty certain that there are at least ten people in this nation that don't agree with this thing.

Past wrongs have been admitted by countries around the world in recent years.

* The US government formally apologised to 80,000 Japanese-Americans
interned during World War II.

* In 1998 the Canadian government issued a Statement of Reconciliation to its indigenous people.

* The British government has said sorry to the Irish for failing to help those who suffered during the potato famine.

* Germany has apologised to Jews for the Holocaust.

* Former colonial power Germany has apologised to African states that were victims of slavery and colonial exploitation (some 12 million slaves were shipped, locked and chained, from Africa in the 400 years of human trafficking until the 19th century).

Saying sorry is a sign of maturity, of a willingness to face mistakes that caused suffering. It heals divisions between people, shows a deeping understanding of the life of a nation and reflects humility and honesty.

The acknowledgement of guilt is not to be confused with personal guilt. Rather, it acknowledges a historical responsibility.

In the case of indigenous Australians, many of whom lost family, culture and tribe, it helps to soothe the anger and frustration of those who feel affected.

The first Australians, until recently were never included in this country's history books. Their extraordinary civilisation and their oneness with an ancient land were never taught as a source of national pride. And their inclusion, still to be achieved, remains the nation's key to itself.

As the late Aboriginal leader Rob Riley, an unforgettable man with a broad, wry smile, thick black beard and horn-rimmed glasses. Eloquent and witty, who spoke hard truths with a gentle voice, said:

"But, it's simple. Unless you give us back our nationhood, you can never claim your own."

The PM won't be apologising on behalf of the people of Australia, he'll be apologising on behalf on the parliament of Australia. This is to emphasise that *you* were not responsible for the mistreatment of Indigenous Australians, katheedavis, but former parliaments.

I find that news sources, such as the ABC or news.com.au, can really help sort out these little misunderstandings.

Beautiful post, Foxy.

Some people haven't a clue what this is all about ... and are teaching the next generation? Very sad.

Having lived with stone age people for a considerable length of time, I don't see anything extraordinary about the stone age or its limited mentality of tribal rivalries, payback, wife-beating and assorted other extremely common human traits. Sorry. I eagerly await the Italian government saying sorry for their country's invasion and genocide of Celtic Britain, Germany saying sorry for their invasion and genocide of my Romano-Celtic ancestors, Scandinavia saying sorry for their invasion, rape and murder of my Anglosaxon-Romano-Celtic ancestors, the French saying sorry for William the Conqueror's invasion and mass murder of my Viking-Anglosaxon-Romano-Celtic ancestors, the English for their abuse of my Irish and Scottish ancestors, and on behalf of all Celtic tribes, Subtribes and Clans of the Celtic people, the Chinese giving back Western China including the Taklakman Desert to the Celtic people whose ancestors were there 3000 years ago and whose descendents are now forced to say, "Sorry, but we are Chinese now". Oh, and Australia needs to say sorry to my wife and her relatives for its eager complicity in the genocidal (3 million dead) American invasion and terror-bombing of Vietnam, for its complicity in spraying Agent Orange on the place and in destroying her house with a bomb. On the face of it, the aborigines have not had too bad a time, albeit many things happened that shouldn't have. Sorry to be politically incorrect.

So much ignorance expressed in a single post from katheedavis.

As Vanilla has pointed out, the apology is specifically NOT on behalf of the Australian people, rather it is to be made on behalf of the Parliament.

Further, these events didn't take place "a century ago". If you'd bothered to read the 'Bringing Them Home' report upon which the apology is to be based (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/), you'd be aware that the forced removal of Aboriginal children from their families continued until the 1970s. I'm sure you know people who were alive then.

"I'm pretty certain that there are at least ten people in this nation that don't agree with this thing"

Finally, in her last sentence, something that resembles a fact.

Katheedavis

I concur with your view kathee

I am quite able to apologize to people I have wronged.

The whole thing is a beef up to extract money from the public purse, a sort of cargo cult attitude to your and my taxes.

More and more information is coming to light. The supposed stolen generation were, in the large, being saved from the sort of horrific neglect and abuse which we have seen reported in court cases of aboriginals in recent months, the sort of abuse which the recently departed federal government had the courage to stand up against.

Like HenryVIII (the poster not the monarch) said ”On the face of it, the aborigines have not had too bad a time,”

Just put it down to the comparative benevolence emanating from the inherited virtues of British colonial rule.

Vanilla: I find that news sources, such as the ABC or news.com.au, can really help sort out these little misunderstandings.

Rolling with laughter after reading this !

Auntie ABC does some really great reporting, however it wears its blinkers for most appearances.

For the apology, am busy trying to determine if means my left side should be apologizing to my right side, or the other way around.

You can dribble on until the cows come in! Throwing mud will get you all nowhere. Apologies! Is that going to make it all better!
Ask for your piece, and make them help you! How strong would the fathers of the past think if they had the opportunity that the new generation has today? If you leave them as they are, they Will become extincted! And thats a fact! What has been put into aboriginal funding, that city I spoke about be four, would be filled with hope, tourism, independences, Some feel that those pommie so and so,s, should give you all ago. What they don't see is, that Australia would be the first in the world to help and support the old world into the new.

Think about it! Build them a city and help them run it! Go down in history has the best, and not a bunch of hateful bastards.

I am Scottish by the way. Check out the correlation.

I was part of the so called "stolen generation" even though in reality I was "rescued". Lets put emotion aside for a minute and go beyond the one sided "stolen" argument. Some kids were removed from unfit parents, some simply abondoned and some surrended willingly. They were NOT taken because of their aboriginality. They were children that were being abused, sometimes sexually. Never any mention of white kids that were "stolen" for the same reason. I wonder why. I suppose in 10 or 15 years another sorry apology will be demanded for the recent N.T. intervention. What's happening now in these communities is the same as what was happening then. Kids as young as 1 year old being sexually abused or 8,9,10 yr olds being gang raped. Lets not forget about the parents offering their children for sex for as little as some alcohol or cigarettes. This is the reality. Why did the Government of the day intervene? Someone had to just as they have to now. The aborigines aren't doing much about it except turning a blind eye. I was fostered out to a caring, loving family who provided me with a safe happy home, a good education but above all gave me the love and affection that every child deserves. If compensation is to be paid it should be paid as reimbursement to the families that were kind enough to raise these kids. Make no mistake this sorry nonsense is more about money. Most of the "stolen" gen were given a better life like me. Sorry for what? PLEEAASSEE.

ginsyd

Good For you and thanks for speaking out. I was listening to talk back radio while driving a few months ago just before John Laws retired.
He was speaking with a lady much like you who was outraged that her family were being made to look as if they had been involved in some evil act when if fact they saved her life.

She said I wont have my Mum and Dad insulted by history this way.

Now by history all those wonderful foster Mums and Dads that did the right thing and provided food shelter and love are being insulted.

What about those people. Kevin Rudd has got himself into a mess making silly promises and dragged up lots of new trouble along with it.

This is why Howards said no apology because it was a slap in the face to the aboriginal people themselves in many ocassions.

I also dont think money was the 'only' motive. I think with Bush UK and eventually Australia one day being listed as war criminals this will be used as icing on the cake.

It would be interesting to find out where this apology idea really generated from.

I think long term politically its a very wise move if you happen to be on the wrong team that is.

Kevin Rudd made this promise to get elected. Yes other countries have said sorry but Australia is the only one with war criminal down the track going to be tagged with US and UK isnt it.
I can see real trouble in many years to come by this being done.

Its certainly not going to help all the peoploe like ginsyd is it.

I felt the original statements to be common and even feral katheedavis and somewhat Byron Bay.
They showed the lack of love that many of the commoners seem to have for the aborigines.
I think youve believed the lie that aborigines are no good and we shoudnt bother with them.
Youre nippers feeling the same is just an extension of your own heart. Theyll say anything you prompt them too.

I have no problem saying sorry for things that actually happened. There have been so many lies and things made up by the whites and blacks that it is hard to know. What we do know is that many of the 'forced removal of Aboriginal children from their families continued until the 1970s' that CJ Morgan speaks of were rescued from abuse rather than stolen. Maybe a few more white and black children need to be 'stolen' today to save them from households full of drug and sexual abuse.

Patrols in the Northern Territory and Nearby Patrols in Central Australia (Western Desert)

http://mc2.vicnet.net.au/home/pmackett/web/patrolwas.html

examples:

(1) National Archives of Australia CRS F1/0 Item 1960/320

(a)Report on Patrol Lake Mackay Area June / July 1957

(2) National Archives of Australia CRS F1/0 Item 1962/1843

(a) Report on Fieldwork west of Papunya June-July 1962

(b) Desert Pintubi contacted 1962/1963

(c) Report on Patrol west of Papunya August 1963 by Jeremy Long

(d) Report on Patrol west of Papunya April 1964 by Jeremy Long

polpak

Thanks for those links. All these factual files only point to rescue rather than stealing. Good to see some one has done some honest research.

So Katheedavis wasn't aware that Rudd had assured us that he wouldn't be apologising for us, but he would be apologising for government.

All of the usual smart arses put her down, of course, but good on her for raising the issue. I knew that Rudd wouldn't be appolgising for me, but it makes no difference to the fact that the whole thing is a politically motivated, pathetic, gutless sop to a minute portion of the population who should be getting on with their lives - not wallowing in woe. There are many aborigines who have moved on over the past 200 years or so, and they must cringe at the stirring of aboriginal big shots continually whining about how bad they've got it, while there are people in remote camps who can't even speak English, the first requisite for success in Australia.

The time for all of us to be sorry is when we cop the cost of this nonsense, knowing that we will be handing out money indefinitely to people who should be doing something for themselves

As an Aboriginal person, I wouldn't want an apology from a narrow minded insecure bigot like you kathy,

When Kevin does apologise he's be expressing something that you don't have the intellect or the heart to understand.

So why don't you just put some ear plugs in or watch your soapies or playschool, or teletubbies or whatever it is that entertains you.

Leave the real world out there for the real people! We'll be fine without you!

Agreed Rainier!

To be honest I cannot see that that one word could be that important. I am a cynic who believes that the phrases "I love you" and "I'm sorry" are the most abused phrases on this planet.

BUT; If this one word brings any peace to Australian indigenous peoples then they should have it.

I am also disgusted at the rationale that children were forcibly taken from their parents because they were being abused.
You mean ALL of them? I think not, and THAT is the final insult to injury

calling them stolen if you steal from a shop or someones wallet this is stealing when you steal a person thats kidnapping why arnt you called the kidnapped generation i guess if i stole a lollie pop would i be kiddnapping it why is rudd sorry you want to really know the truth australians are sorry for voting him into power kevin rudd was not elected just because he was going to say sorry to the kiddnapped generation he was elected because he promised a lot of things to help the country if i knew his first ever promise he was going to deliver was for the kiddnapped generation i reckon we all would have had a second thought as to who we elected why do you think he is only apologizing on behalf of the parliment because he knows most australians feel the same way i do sorry for what happened to you all but i didnt kiddnapp ya kids some old fart with power did why dont you find out who he was and go piss on his grave then ya may feel better i feel sorry for your elders your generation now has no respect thats why prime minister howard had to intervein again he had children removed because they were in danger did he kiddnapp them to he removed them cause of sexuall abuse and drunken sods that alcohol ment more to them than there own children elders said they would deal with the seven mongrels who raped that little girl i hope they take them to the out back shove a boomerang up there arse one that wont come back and spear them in there eye of there weener and i dont apologize for writing this it is my freedom of speech and get it right you were kidnapped i can eat my lollie pop i stole i can wear the clothes i stole i can spend the money i stole but if we stole the aboriginals they didnt get eaten they were held captive by the government you were not stolen you were kiddnapped

I'm amazed at the ignorance and venomous bigotry seeping from the minds of a few here.

I'm amazed, but not surprised.

Rainier,
I would like to ask you what you would do if, wherever you are in the world, you came upon an, in your opinion, neglected & abused child. Would you leave it to it's dreadful fate or would you take (steal) it & take care of it.
I don't view this as frivolous so please refrain from your standard acid remarks.

In 1997, the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission released a damning and painful report, "Bringing Them Home, on perhaps the darkest chapter in the nation's history: that of the 'stolen generation.' It described how thosands of Aboriginal children of mixed race were taken from their parents as part of a systematic policy in order to 'breed out the colour.' Police were used to find and steal children. They had orders not to tell them or their parents where they were being taken.

As previously suppressed files now reveal, there was often no pretence of taking into care 'neglected' children, who were stolen from loving families. Robert T Donaldson, an inspector of the perversely named Aborigines Protection Board, became infamous as the 'kids collector.' A gaunt figure who roamed New South Wales, appearing with sweets and disappearing with children.

The policy was inspired by the eugenics movement, which was fashionable in the first two decades of the twentieth century and spread the fear that white women were not breeding fast enough and the 'white race' would be 'swamped.' During the 1930s, this was known as 'assimilation' and was promoted by the Professor of Anthropolgy at
Sydney University, AP Elkin, who speculated that Aborigines were the 'lowest race' and 'parasites' that should be 'absorbed.'

The boys were sent to sheep and cattle stations as labourers and paid in rations and pennies. The girls, who were the majority, were sent mostly to the Cootamundra Training Home for Aboriginal Girls, where they were trained to be domestic servants, then 'indentured' to 'masters' in white middle-class homes. The historic parallel is with the use of black slave girls as domestics in the American southern states before Emancipation.

While books, plays and laments have been written about the dispossession and suffering of black Americans, there has been only a tentative recognition in Australia.

It is time to acknowledge the past.

Foxy
'who speculated that Aborigines were the 'lowest race' and 'parasites'
This certainly was evolutionary thinking. No wonder many of the missionaries were and still are respected by many of the Indigenous people today when 'scientist' persist with that rubbish. Thank God someone was doing something to help these people in practical terms. Its a pity we gave into the social engineers who insisted on the right of the aborigines to have grog which has almost ruined them.

Dear Runner,

You asked, "Who speculated that Aborigines were the 'lowest race' and 'parasites?'

I answered that question in my post if you want to re-read it. It happened during the 1930s and was promoted by the Professor of
Anthropology at Sydney University, A.P. Elkin. It was typical
'white man's' thinking of the period. Although from some to the
posts on this Forum - not that much has changed - sadly.

From some of the comments above, an apology from some of the posters here would not be worth much anyway.
Some people seem happy to drown in their own venomous bile.

Foxy,
I acknowledge the info in your post and can't imagine anyone not feeling sadness. You really should seek out the descendents of those bureaucrats and get them to express their remorse. You quote that thousands of Aboriginal children of mixed race were taken from their parents as part of a systematic policy in order to 'breed out the colour.' Police were used to find and steal children. Those Police, just like Police nowadays, followed orders. Many of them were Aboriginal.
I have never heard of mixed race Aboriginal from anywhere in the world. If they were mixed race than they must have had at least one non aboriginal parent as well. Is there any info on how many non aboriginal parents have taken their children and exercised their parental obligations. None of this rhetoric will ever compensate those poor children but neither will an appology. If Rudd delivers an acceptable appology will the taxpayer get an acknowledgement from those indigenous who weren't removed but nevertheless benefited from the taxpayers' contributions.

Individual, read the report,do some historical study. You will find that many Aboriginal children were removed from perfectly loving and safe environments. And even if they were not they would have preferred to growing up knowing who they were and especially their immediate and extended families. Your take is too simplistic to for me tore-explain in chapter and verse here - You'll just have to take my word for it (which i know you won't)

PS. Hope this response isn't too acidic to your delicate sensibilities petal. :)

Posting this for those lazy posters here who rely only on their bigoted ideas for evidence.

Bringing them home: The 'Stolen Children' report (1997)

Read the Report online or download PDF (18 MB)

Us Taken-Away Kids commemorating the 10th anniversary - 11 December 2007

Bringing them home Education Module 2007 update - 11 December 2007

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/Social_Justice/bth_report/index.html

"... the greatest advantage of young Aboriginal servants was that they came cheap and were never paid beyond the provision of variable quantities of food and clothing. As a result any European on or near the frontier, quite regardless of their own circumstances, could acquire and maintain a personal servant (Reynolds 1990 page 169).

" Unlike white children who came into the state's control, far greater care was taken to ensure that [Aboriginal children] never saw their parents or families again. They were often given new names, and the greater distances involved in rural areas made it easier to prevent parents and children on separate missions from tracing each other (van Krieken 1991 page 108)

ginsyd, you articulated the other side of this very emotive and sometimes irrational discussion very well. Yes, perhaps things could have been done better more compassionately than perhaps in some cases was done to the children and parents.

But I ask you all generally, what is the apology going to achieve for the children in communities, who are as we speak are being subjected to the most inconceivable brutality of child rape, pack rape, seeing their parents - generally mothers being assaulted to the point of death, when is the apology going to come to the children, who due to family and community standards and degraded values due to alcohol will never have the opportunity to achieve all that they can be in school, due to the conditions around them. Are we going to apologize to those children and families, particularly the grandparents who have to pick up the shattered pieces of their lives? correction; are the Federal and State governments going to apologize for ignoring the decrepit situation that exists in many states of Australia, both in communities and under the bridges, railways, alley ways of our large cities with the homeless. This apology would be much more meaningful because with funding for viable LONG TERM community housing and genuine good will - these lives can be turned around.

We can't fix the past, we can learn from it. But we can positively influence the future. Saying 'sorry" over something that we had no control over, will do nothing - it won't change anything. Maybe by saying sorry for letting the situations get out of hand in the communities (both Western and Urban) and getting our hands dirty to change it - well the word "sorry" means something then and the impetus of change is then "owned" by all i.e. everybody. If 'sorry" is owned and acknowledged, then the behavior that led to the offence is less likely to occur again, and that is what we want to achieve.

Rainier,
I gather from your last post that australian Aboriginal children received much the same dreadful treatment as did many of the european Aboriginal children & indeed Aboriginal children from all over the world still do today courtesy of greed & mindless bureaucracy.
The reason why I asked you to reply to my question (which you haven't done yet) is, that I see indigenous children on a daily basis being treated at the clinics for conditions of neglect. Not so many months ago a 7 year old diabetic girl had a birthday party with soft drinks. cakes & lots of sweets. The clinic nurse approached the mother & explained how dangerous it was to let the girl have all these sweets. The mother & other relatives swore at the nurse & told her f-off. Only a day later the girl had to be evacuated to a hospital. Other people behave in exactly the same ignorant manner but they can't claim discrimination or appologies.
Rainier, these threads are not about who can win an argument, at least I don't view them as such. they are a great opportunity to find common ground & thus , hopefully more understanding & a better future. My honest opinion is that Bureaucracy is the single most cause of the wrongs in past & present & where I live indigenous people make up a large %tage of Bureaucracy who hold positions for reason other than merit much like everywhere.

rainier,
just as an add-on to my previous post. As you now know I live amongst indigenous people. Some are mixed european, asian however one is supposed to identify another person in these days of the insanity of political correctness which btw, caused more problems than it can ever solve.
In my workforce there are people who are given every & more opportunity to learn & enter the work force. What do you suggest I can do to entice several of the workers to attend work for a full day & for the whole week. Several of my indigenous co-workers share my concern so it's nothing racial. it's an attitude problem fostered by the politically correct ignorant academic do-gooders who have their limited mind locked into "every white is bad" mode & perpetuate that stupidity to justify more funding which is not questioned by the mindless bureaucrats who are largely left-wing. Outrageous ? YES ! Why am I so worked up ? I'm sick & tired of the hyporitical guilt industry brigade. If you REALLY want to do the right thing re wrongdoing & work out a solution then take a good look in the mirror & ask "what have I done today to make things better". I bet millions will stare at their own blank & hollow expression. as much as I hope Rudd's appology will improve the situation I fear that it will only open a can of even bigger worms.
Rainier, you're obviously an intelligent person so please use that blessing with positive action on your side of the fence. you never know we may even get rid of the fence like the Berlin wall.

There is no doubt that some children that were removed from Aboriginal communities in days past were being abused, but my understanding is that many of the children were not and were swept up in the campaign of removal regardless. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe these are the children that are referred to as the "Stolen Generation". You only have to listen to some of the stories from the Stolen Generation to feel the pain that this action caused.

Can you imagine the outcry if a white child (who was not abused) was removed from their family without cause. While I am sure the whites believed they acted in the best interests of the children at the time, the bottom line is large numbers of un-abused children were taken indiscriminately.

If the symbolism of an Apology from the government is an important part of bridging the gap between Indigenous and European Australians and aids in the moving on to more constructive policies to improve the quality of life for Indigenous people then so be it. The British Empire did introduce alcohol, killed Aboriginal people to possess their land, introduced new diseases, imposed a new language and a strange and foreign culture.

The problem is now with governments and the Courts being sensitised to cultural issues are probably too reticent in removing children from white or Aboriginal families when they should. DOCS do have their hands full and are sorely under-resourced and that is why some kids do slip between the cracks. The recent case in Newcastle where a young white girl died from malnutrition is one example.

The recent decision by a Judge in Cairns to release the men who raped a young Aboriginal girl because "she consented" just boggles the mind of the absurdity of political correctness. This poor child had been removed once before due to abuse and then returned to the same community in which the original perpetrators were still residing.

Child abuse is abhorrent and protecting children should be a first priority and cross the boundaries of race, religion and culture.

Dear individual,

Here is a website that may be of interest to you:

www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/33dtexts/mosesAustrgenBib029.htm - 6k

If you have problems with the site - you can always Goggle:
"Bibliography. Genocide in Australia."

It will give you a list of references on the subject.

Rainer you noted "Unlike white children who came into the state's control, far greater care was taken to ensure that [Aboriginal children] never saw their parents or families again. They were often given new names, and the greater distances involved in rural areas made it easier to prevent parents and children on separate missions from tracing each other (van Krieken 1991 page 108)"

From what I understand, this same method also applied to the "so-called" orphans who were evacuated from the UK during WW2. Quite a number of these children were not orphans at all. One could ask where's the apology to them?

katheedavis

I didn't do anything wrong either - nor did my children - but I'm part of this nation and am excited that an acknowledgment for past wrongs and continuing consequences is now imminent. It is so overdue.

I didn't support my nation going to any of the wars in the twentieth century nor in Iraq - and there were many like me too. I don't remember getting a chance to have a say in those decisions. But nations are led by leaders who make mistakes and by leaders who make good decisions.

Foxy has given an excellent summary of what some other nations have done to apologise for shameful decisions and actions. And he gives a good account of the benefits to nations of issuing apologies.

The apology to be issued on Wednesday is from the Australian Parliament, as Vanilla points out. You can still have your personal position. And your children can still agree with you.

You say: "Ok, ok, we all know what was done to aboriginal children all those years ago." Do we? Can I be bold enough to suggest you haven't read the HREOC Report, "Bringing Them Home" nor Bruce Pascoe's "Convincing Ground: Learning to Fall in Love with Your Country" (ASP 2007).

"Sometimes a decade arrives when nations have the chance to turn away from bigotry and selfishness and turn to their countrymen and women and embrace them as loved members of the human family (Pascoe p. x)."

I'ts time for generosity of heart.

If the apology critics are prepared to look at the facts and not the emotional rhetoric, they would see that the apology was never intended for those who were removed for their own safety or well-being.

Rather it’s for those who were forcibly removed for no other reason than being half-caste or suspected of being half-caste and also for the families of those children. It was part of a planned agenda of cutural genocide.

It’s also for those who were put into abusive Mission environments and destined only to become household servants for wealthy landowners.
It’s for the trauma of being told that their parents had abandoned them or were dead.

This is something that was clearly and strongly recommended by an independent enquiry but tainted by wedge-playing opportunists for their own political interests.

It’s also not something that was done in the dim distant past.

This was done to human beings who were still classified as fauna until the sixties, at a time where I was still being taught about “Little Black Sambo” in primary school and that the aborigines were a dying race.

Thank-you Rache; I could not have put it as clearly as you have.

Rainier “As an Aboriginal person,”

What % aboriginal rainier?

“Leave the real world out there for the real people! We'll be fine without you!”

He said, talking down to everyone from the security of his academic tenured ivory tower, high above the common folk and clamour of the streets.

Isatoy ” captive by the government you were not stolen you were kidnapped”

There is a widely held view which claims those who were supposedly “stolen”, which you describe as “kidnapped” current, were, in fact saved from abuse, neglect and infant death.

Foxy “It happened during the 1930s”

Yes, the “science of Eugenics” was very popular at the time.

Today the “science” of Eugenics has no credibility.

If you want to blame the deficiencies of incompetent scientists and their fraudulent claims, do so. But do not presume to expect someone like me to carry any burden of guilt (either emotional or fiscal) for their misguided notions.

(A little off-topic) I would observe, today we hear scientists going off about global warming. One wonders how long before the “science of global warming” is seen as a crock of shite too.

Dear Col Rouge,

Let me bring you up to date with things. When John Howard came to office in 1996, his first act was to cut $A400 million from the
Aboriginal affairs budget -which he referred to contemptuously as the
"Aboriginal industry." Few doubted the real meaning of his words. He was speaking in Queensland, a state whose historic racism had, in the late nineties, demonstrated its resilience in the election to Federal Parliament of Pauline Hanson as an independent candidate, on an anti-Aboriginal, anti-immigration platform.

Once in office, Howard began to reverse the most significant gain made by the Aboriginal people. This was the Native Title Act, passed by Federal Parliament in 1993. Based on a landmark ruling by the Australian High Court the year before, the new law had removed from common law the fiction that Australia was uninhabited when Captain James Cook planted the Union flag in 1770. Known as 'Terra Nullus,'
it was used for most of two centuries to justify the dispossession of the indigenous population.

It's sad really that the things that most clearly and distinctly portray Australia to the world are Aboriginal things. Many people will accept the culture for the showcase, but not the activism.
People love Kathy Freeman, the Bangara Dance Theatre, but don't want anything to do with political organisations fighting for land rights.

And, by the way, they're not going to be made to feel guilty, because it's got nothing to do with this generation. That's what the previous Prime Minister said all the time... and maybe there was some truth in it a short time ago. I mean, maybe you could claim distance from the past.

Today, no living Australian can claim innocence, because Parliament has enacted the Native Title Amendment Act on behalf of the majority of this country, and that's the biggest single act of dispossession in our lifetime!

"Bibliography. Genocide in Australia."
foxy,
Like most immigrants to australia I have read a lot of so-called history literature. I have read many versions & the challenge is always the contrast of the for & against accounts relating to the same incidents. To make it even more interesting there are the more realistic non-academic & either coloured in or watered down versions.
I would urge anyone to read about australian history especially when several versions are available. I have experienced the accuracy/inaccuracy of verbal history over 36 years where I was personally involved. It was astonishing to hear someone describe an incident in which I was the only eyewitness & yet the "Elder" who was nowhere even near the incident was credited with "knowing better" about the incident than I who was on the spot & took photos.
I can't even begin to imagine how distorted some of the claimed "Truths' in this much hyped up recorded "as told' history is. Does anyone really believe that anyone would accurately describe their misdeeds as detailed as those of others ?

I await tomorrow (Wednesday 13th) with baited breath! I think I just may be imagining things, but I am sure I can hear in the distance those memorable haunting strains of "Duelling Banjos"!

It would be interesting to conduct a survey of all the bed linen retailers across the country to determine how many white pillow-cases have been sold!

It is very disappointing to realise just how rampantly "red-necked" a section of Australia`s community really is ( and some of them migrants from other countries!) who simply fail to recognise the fact that the Aborogine was here long before "Whitey" and his muskets!

Now I know why we grow so much cotton here!

Dear individual,

David Irving denies the holocaust. There are a few who believe him. Some people believe the propaganda that Stalin 'liberated' the Baltic states. And there are those who also believe that the war in Iraq is about fighting 'terrorism'

Just as there are some who believe that Australia was uninhabited prior to the arrival of Captain James Cook.

Unquestionably, there are parties that have a vested interest in the denial of historic facts.

That's why it is important at all times to remain vigilant - and not allow historic facts to be hidden in government files and archives - but brought out in the open, discussed, - and as needed acted upon, - and the record set straight. As is now happening under the newly elected Government.

The measure of our society over history is our fidelity to our principles - of justice, a believe in an egalitarian society, and a
'Fair go' for all. We must remind our Government and our people to remain faithful to those principles or otherwise our society, like so many in the past, will be swept on the ash heap of history

Foxy writes:

People love Kathy Freeman, the Bangara Dance Theatre, but don't want anything to do with political organisations fighting for land rights.

Australians since before federation have been happy to support efforts to achieve land rights for Australians with prior occupancy rights.

Law for such dates back to 1066 AD defeat of Harold by William Duke of Normandy.

Australians however are NOT happy to support claims for creation of "special" land titles for land which require continued dependence upon racial tests.

Many activists, some who write here, very busily argue for ongoing racial testing dependencies which the majority of Australians do NOT support or want !

Australians generally all to well understanding any power obtained by Parliament can be abused by Parliament.

The States and the Commonwealth abused, and continue to abuse, with negligence from the High Court, the very clear desire of Australian people expressed in their role as Sovereign Power both at Federation, and again in 1967, to declare illegal ANY and ALL qualification of rights and or responsibilities of any Australian on grounds of race.

This approach does NOT prevent just compensation for previous denials of rights and or responsibilities on grounds of race.



.

Foxy “Today, no living Australian can claim innocence, Parliament has enacted the Native Title Amendment Act on behalf of the majority of this country, and that's the biggest single act of dispossession in our lifetime!”

I would note, the government acted according to law and with the interests of the entire population, not just the parochial needs of aboriginals.

Since that act actually redefined the parameters to land occupancy, your assertion to dispossession is false.

How can someone be dispossessed of that which they did not personally possess in the first place?

The point with the Native Titles Amendment Act is this

“Where an inconsistency between the native title and non-native title rights occurs, the non-native title rights prevail.”

That you consider that “dispossession” is your own opinion and “spin”.

I would suggest it is an example of why we have government, to adjudicate and legislate on matters where inconsistencies and potential conflicts exist.

Individual “I have read a lot of so-called history literature.”

The general opinion is history is written by the victors.

What I believe we see here is a history being re-written by the vanquished and endorsed by the appeasers and apologists.

It is no more honest or true, it is only opinion, interpretation and spin.

Ultimately the only thing which will work is when all the folk accept that we are one nation, with one set of laws being applied equally and blindly to all, without exception to ethnicity, culture or religion.

Cuphandle “Aborogine was here long before "Whitey" and his muskets!”

I have been here longer than any aboriginal under the age of 25.

Oh that someones great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great granddad might have fought the first fleet is mere anachronism.

We live our lives without claim to the merits of our forbearers and without responsibility for their shortcomings.

Aborigines here today, were not here when whitey came with his musket, unless they are over 200 years of age.

Foxy “justice, a believe in an egalitarian society, and a 'Fair go' for all.”

Is inconsistent with extending differential rights because someone is of aboriginal origin, whole or part.

Again, just to set the record straight ...

in 1837, a House of Commons Select Committee conducted an investigation into the conditions of native peoples in the British colonies.

Only one people was found to have been denied absolutely the right of prior ownership of their land: the Australian Aborigines.

The Select Committee's report was unequivocal. The first Australians had 'an incontrovertible right to their own soil, a plain and sacred right, however, which seems not to have been understood... The land has been taken from them without the assertion of any other title other than that of superior force.'

This was also the view of the British government. The Colonial office in London had created pastoral leases with one aim: to ensure that Aborigines would continue to have access to their land although it was leased to 'squatters.'

The policy was not meant as a source of enrichment for whites, but as
compensation to the Aborigines for the annexation and colonisation of their land. 'The pastoral lease policy was the high point of British humanitarian concern,' wrote the historian Henry Reynolds. 'The present Australian government is offering the Aborigines less than the British imperial authorities 150 years ago.'

The 'less' is epitomised by John Howard's Native Title Amendment Act of 1998, which watered down the 1993 law, wiped out the universal principle of Native Title in all but name and took away the common law rights that the judges said belonged to Aborigines; nothing like it has been passed by a modern parliament anywhere.

The beneficiaries were not small white farmers, frightened by government propaganda depicting a 'black tide' engulfing properties and lapping the family barbie, but some of the richest and most powerful companies and individuals in white Australia.

Potentially, 42 per cent of Australia could pass from leasehold to freehold land controlled by fewer than 20,000 people, including those with the most influential media and political connections.

Ah Crouge, little petal; you are a past master at distorting and twisting things around!

You should put that to good use and take up macramé.

CONT'D

They include the Packer family, owners of the Nine national television
network, who are the seventh largest landholders in the country, and Rupert Murdoch, wo controls 70 per cent of the capital city press and owns nine vast properties. The two top private land-holders, Hugh McLachlan and the McDonald family, both have close ties with the
National Party, (previous government's coalition partners).

In essence, Howard's law meant the expropriation from one group of Australians, the indigenous people, of property rights that the High Court had said was theirs, the object being to advantage another group, all of whom happen to be white and wealthy.

Right down to its obfuscating detail, the new law was reminiscent of
those enacted by the apartheid regime in South Africa. It was this
that the UN Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination condemned, with one committee member describing the law as 'a sweeping disinvestment of native title rights.'

The result has been legal attrition, as the new regulations are interpreted differently from state to state, leaving Aborigines in a catch-22 of having to prove their 'continuous connection' with lands of which they have been dispossessed.

In the state of Victoria, the claim of the 4,500 Yorta Yorta people to their traditional homelands was rejected by a judge, who based his decision on the amended law, having heard from a powerful array of white political and corporate interests. The claim reached back to the 1850s when white aithorities typically tried to detribalise and Christianise the |Yorta Yorta, often violently. Families and clans were broken up, as men and women were sent to a lifetime of peonage and children to 'training homes.'

'The Yorta Yorta faced an epic task,' wrote Katrina Alford of LaTrobe University, Melbourne. 'They were required to prove their traditional connection with the lands claimed, on both geographical and genealogical grounds, and to present this evidence in a legally acceptable written form - difficult at the best of times, but almost impossible for native title claimants with an oral tradition.'

Someone has stated that young aboriginal lads were taken and trained as stockmen ect and lasses were trained as housemaids and cooks.Now they are just left on outback communities to drugs, petrol sniffing ,alcohol and rape.
Sure is different. Isn't it?

The whole concept of apologising for the past actions of our ancestors is ludicrous. Is anybody prepared to say sorry to the white children who were also taken from their families? I don't think so! This is clearly reverse racism.
The indigenous population of Australia have been given so much by the Government, perhaps this is from guilt, perhaps it is an attempt to permit them to better themselves. Either way, it hasn't worked and the indigenous population have taken these benefits for granted and squander what they are given. Not all of them of course but certainly the media is quick to portray those that do in a bad light.
When I was in school, I was extremely disillusioned to learn that I did not qualify for Austudy but I was entitled to claim Abstudy due to my Aboriginal heritage and yes, I am caucasian in appearance. I questioned why I could get Abstudy but failed to qualify for Austudy and nobody could answer my question but to say just take whatever the government wants to give you. From that point on I refused to accept anything the government wanted to give me because of my ancestry.
The whole concept of aboriginals being hard done by is a joke and so is the idea of apologising. Funny enough, they can claim discrimination yet they are entitled to so much more than caucasians. This is indeed the lucky country!
Rudd, prepare to open up the cheque book even more, by the time they're finished they'll own Australia again and it's going to cost more than a few beads and some mirrors to buy it off them again(yes, this is sarcasm).

Here's something I found recently. It came out of an old text book...

"It's incredible when you think about it. They reckon those Blacks lived out here for more than 50,000 years before we came along. They had their own languages, their own legal system, art, music - a pretty good life by the sounds of things. Everybody knew where they stood and it all came from the land and something they call the Dreaming.

But then they all started dying out and losing interest in what was going on. They were drinking and fighting, and getting all kinds of diseases. The food didn't agree with them either - white sugar and white flour - they didn't seem happy at all.

They didn't have one person, you know, one boss, who could speak for everybody, so it was very difficult to get decisions out of them. Every time something important came up, everybody would get a say. Crikey!
The conversations went on for weeks. That's no way to run a society!
And then there were the special spiritual things which couldn't be changed. In their system, everybody is a part of the religious beliefs as well. It's very deep and goes back to the Creation and there are special stories about how things came to live and be in different places and every single person can trace his own life through these stories.

You've got no idea. It affects everything: laws, daily activities, family life...and on top of that, they're all related to one another and look after each other if there's trouble.

They reckon that every person is also part of life around the place, like a tree or an animal or a river or whatever. And they reckon that God is alive and in these things as well, so they can't kill these things because it would be like killing themselves and God at the same time.

Crazy, isn't it? How can a country get ahead if the people in it have ridiculous ideas like these? I don't know how they lasted as long as they did.

The Pope is supposed to be the leader and spokesman of the entire Catholic faith.

When he apologised for the history and cover-up of all the sexual molestation in the Church, was he doing it on behalf of all the world's Catholics or not?

Mickijo,
According the the findings of the "Bringing them home report", a major reason for the current alcohol and social problems in the aboriginal community is the depressive result of the breakup of the family unit by the dispossession of their children.

As for the stockmen/domestic servant opportunities given to those children - this was all the government ever intended them to be.

Some of them (but not all) even got paid for their efforts.

rache, the whole concept of removing children from their homes was in essence the same role DOCS are supposed to be performing today. That is, remove children who are at risk of abuse (both sexual and physical) and place them in environments where they could be raised safely. Unfortunately, some of the constabulary removed all children rather than just those at risk and placed them with the local churches who assisted with raising the Aboriginal children as good, wholesome, civilised white folk (more sarcasm).
It has been mentioned in this forum how the government has attempted to atone for past sins/actions by giving the Aboriginal people so many benefits. This can be financial or something tangible. How many white Australians can afford a brand new car every three years and only have to make one payment to keep it? Aboriginals get this benefit. Look at housing, how many whitey's have to wait years to get public housing while Aboriginals get it immediately? Heaven forbid if they destroy the place, the government is gracious enough to provide them with another house, usually of better quality than the first. Talk about training Pavlov's dogs! Bad behaviour will be rewarded by the Australian Government. I must be crazy to deny my aboriginal heritage when I can sponge so much of this nation's people. Screw that! I'd rather earn an honest days pay for an honest days work.
Aboriginals have had a free ride for far too long and all of their perks and benefits should be stripped away now the government has said sorry. I am incensed when dealing with the elders of our local aboriginal community who are constantly drunk. These are not people I want to look up to or learn from. I believe the government should say sorry to the whiteys for allowing the aboriginals to get so many more benefits and financial incentives than are available to the white folk. Put everyone on a level playing field and give whitey the same types of benefits.

what a crock of babbling the apology was. kevin rudd read like a robot he rambled on with waffle he didnt stick to the facts of what happened if they the aboriginals can get some peace from the so called apology which was a detour around the thruth all aboriginies need to get together with the white victims of these institutions and whack the government in the hip pocket they ripped off your kids and they ripped off our kids if a pedophile got hold of you bad luck not friggen good enough the government are not sorry they hide these dirty mongrels behind a wall of silence and they use the power of the crown solicitors not to give you commpensation wards of the state state wards fudicury duty of care duty of care what ever they are all full of it if if you got abused or stolen vice versa then you are entitled to compensatation if they said sorry to me like kevin rudd said today i wouldnt accept it just makes mad to think that the aboriginal people belived the crap that was said this morning they tried to word it so you all felt so good well getting down to reality did you feel good i bet all was not happy all you had to do was look at the faces of your people in the gallery half were like what the at least if paul keating had been able to do it yes it maybe beleived sorry my back side fight for ya commpensation black and white

Wassup – your post reminds me of someone else who used to post here. “The usual suspect” has not been around for a long time but if here, I am sure he would be expressing the same values and attitude s as you.

He is/was aboriginal too. He and you are individuals who are proud of who you are and indifferent to how others might choose to label you.

Re “Screw that! I'd rather earn an honest days pay for an honest days work.”

Only through taking on and dealing personally with the issues of self-reliance (including earning an income), do we find the dignity and the self respect which allows us to grow as individuals and experience all we can aspire to.

Dependence upon government “benevolence” is a crutch which weakens the individual and keeps him or her shackled to the whims of the state.

Foxy, I read your missive on colonial history. I would observe you seem more concerned with the ownership of pastoral leases than the territorial land claims of aboriginals.

I wonder why?

That Packers and others have pastoral leases is irrelevant, especially when the corporate entity employs many individuals to work, under negotiated employment contracts.

Pastoral leases are subject to statute. The government is not relinquishing any authority which they might have over pastoralists. In bringing up such matters and adjoining them with aboriginal land rights, you allude to what might be a second agenda, based in your own personal political bias

Dear Col Rouge,

This is getting a bit tedious. I actually don't have a political agenda as you imply - my choices in that department have always been guided what I felt was right at the time.

Anyway, that's a different story - now to answer your point about Aboriginal land rights ... here goes:

In 1992 High Court judgement, known as the 'Mabo decision,' after a successful land rights claimant, Eddie Mabo, was not the victory it was hailed to be at the time. It was a 'historical compromise' between the powerful and the powerless. The judges did not order stolen land to be handed back to native Australians. In deciding that Aborigines might have title to 'crown land' where they had lived continuously, the judges added an escape clause. Land rights could be 'extinguished' by the existence of freeholds and leaseholds held by the huge pastoral estates, many of which the sons of nineteenth-century English aristocrats had acquired, merely by 'squatting' on them.

The Native Title legislation that followed the Mabo judgement was the 'personal mission', as he puts it, of the then Labor Prime Minister, Paul Keating, whose speeches about 'reconciliation' reached rhetorical peaks unscaled by his predecessors. Keating's achievment was to sell the critical ambiguity of Mabo to 'moderate'Aboriginal leaders. It was , he told them, the best deal they would ever get from the white man.

Noel Pearson, one of the Aboriginal negotiators, said ruefully, "To refuse to play the game no longer seemed smart."

Keating was not slow in showing how the game was played. In accepting his assurances, Aborigines gave up the right of veto over 'development' on much of their land, a fundamental principle of land rights.

Prime Minister Howard went further. He demanded that Aboriginal communities give up even the right to negotiate land development. His adviser, South Australian Senator, Nick Minchin, used code familiar to black Australians, and one echoed by Pauline Hanson.

If Aborigines got "too much," he said, the 'community' would resent their special rights' and this would 'undermine the reconciliation process.'

CONT'D

In the meantime, the 'pastoralists' and their lobbyists clamoured for the new legislation to be tested. They did not have to wait long.
In 1996, in an appeal case involving the Wik people in Queensland, the High Court ruled that Native Title was not necessarily cancelled by a leasehold. In other words, a lease was a lease: it granted possession of the land only for a specific period of time.

Thunderous abyse rained down on the 'radical' and 'politically motivated' (where have I heard that one before?) judges, from
Cabinet ministers, agribusiness, mining groups and their media allies.

"In other circumstances," wrote the historian Henry Reynolds, "conservative politicians and business leaders would have flocked to the opposite side of the argument. They would normally applaud the centuries-old battle of the common law to protect property rights against the state. The problem in the Wik case was that the wrong people had acquired rights to the land. What they baulk at is that they will have to deal with indigenous Australians as equals for the first time in 200 years."

This is the heart of it. 'Most Aborigines,' said the Canberra Times, 'gain no legal rights from the Mabo or Wik decisions. What they did gain was a significant moral victory...Aboriginal groups have since behaved with more dignity and more reason, and more willingness to discuss, negotiate and compromise, than some of the groups still unable to get over the outrage that Aborigines have any rights to land at all.'

I won't go on any further -if you're really interested to delve into the subject - go to your State library - they'll be more than happy to assist you.

Cheers.

Cheers.

wassup

"Aboriginals [sic] have had a free ride for far too long and all of their perks and benefits should be stripped away now the government has said sorry." That's why there's a 17 year gap in life expectanch, eh Bro?

That's why you're suggesting we should put 'whitey' on the same types of benefits. 'Whitey' would really like that perk, eh?

isatoy

I'd like to respond to you, but I can't understand a word you're saying. Perhaps when you get back from the pub you could have another go at explaining.

Col Rouge

It sounds like you've really caught a dose of compassion today. Some sorry pills and a good lie down will help you settle down. Will you still respect us in the morning?

well franky boy i am a female and im as white as your arse. have you still got ya suit on sitting at ya desk in ya posh office with nothing better to do than tell everyone how bloody educated you are who gives. what i ment to say was i will do it slow so you can understand ok
what im saying is those friggen places they sent black and white kids institutions were full of kiddy touchers i guess knothing ever happened to you you got lifes lottery the gift of a mother and father whom loved you get ready to open ya wallet cause it will be the rich and wealthy and i must add educated suit boy like you who will end up funding these compensation claims all i say whats good for black is good for white kids who were abused in institutions ok and by the way no i dont visit pubs i stay at home and care for my children make sure you have your soft buttered toast and a nice cup of tea before you retire to bed this evening for .as for me ill just curl up with my flagon of brown musket my packet of durries and my mutiple sex partners you ignorant pig . gee franky ya got to have your educated opinion on every thing keep up the good work

If aborigines get such a better deal than "whitey" I wonder if we should hand over our own kids to be raised by them instead of poor, disadvantaged us.

I attended a lecture some years ago by a Canberra anthropologist on cross-cultural awareness and she put paid to a lot of myths about so-called extra benefits supposedly enjoyed by aboriginals.
They basically get what we get but under different names, and none of it comes close to the middle-class welfare and tax breaks given to the wealthy.

I also mentioned the story about the "single payment car" (which I think was actually more to do with an exploitative car dealer preying on a single group than a widespread rort) to an aboriginal co-worker when it was raised on TV.

He knew nothing about it and would have been the first to sign-up for one if it was a possibility.

Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever seen aborigines cruising the streets in new cars.

Here's a bit more -
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/parliamentary/rebutting/RTMDONE.RTF

isatoy, old white girl

You personal attack on me is about as wrong as it's possible to be; but why let the facts get in the way of your blind prejudice, eh?

I don't wear a suit, I don't work in an office and I grew up in what you call one of "those friggen places they sent black and white kids institutions...full of kiddy touchers". Ten per cent of us were Koories.

So life's lottery did not give me an upbringing with a mother and father, but hey what difference does that make to your prejudice? Nor am I "rich and wealthy". I'm sorry if my words (the only basis on which you could possibly make any judgement of my attributes).

I apologise for getting myself educated. The orphanage and its kiddy touchers packed me off at 15, as they did for the rest of the mob. I find being educated actually quite an advantage - beats pig ignorance every time. You ought to try it sometime, white girl.

Frankgol,

We have much in common! :)

Foxy, have fun playing with Sir Col. I do, but it gets weary after a while.

Bombastic
Supposition junky
Not very well read.

sorry frank im not old my point is you always down grade everyone in here and every where else you go in these forums i thought it was a chance for everyone to have an opinion educated or not . if you were in one of institution you would understand that some are fully srewed in the head because of these kiddy touchers that the government have protected all these years i had to cut my father off the clothes line at the age of 11 i have seen him self disruct all of my life so dont call me dumb ive lived the life with him and i still do so just count yourself lucky that it didnt eat at you and you could concentrate on an education my dad didnt stand a chance maybe im screwed in the head to i dont know but what sucks the most was watching him my dad that is listening to kevin rudd saying sorry all he had to add was sorry about you white kids to . like what you said that there were aboriginies in with the whites in institutions rudd never said his apology from the heart thruth be known it was probably done by his lawyers if someone carnt spell or try to put there point across dont be little people as you never know they could already be on the edge and you belittling people may cause damage we respect your say respect our educated or not isatoy

hi all, I understand that this is a very passionate and personal issue for all of us, but I'm concerned that some posters are becoming too impassioned and are saying derogatory words to one another - definatly something I'm sure they wouldn't say in open public.

Please may we have some peace between ourselves and focus on the issue at hand and not the personalities.

In peace P

Kevin Rudd needs no one to write that speech, he is a word smith.
He may have had help but he knew and understood every word.
In threads from my first day in this forum I have highlighted that whites from my generation too feared the welfare man.
Ran and hid cryed and did not know till returning home what home had been visited.
But no one wanted me because of my race.
Or my parents race.
Kevin Rudd spoke for me today as I drove three and a half hours each way for work I heard every word of every speech.
I am filled with pride in my party and its leader.
This does not mean I am not against compensation I am, we already spend much on these Australians we will spend more.
It does not mean I am unaware the people who sexually assault so many children in the NT and QLD are not white ,and it Lady's is not racist to say so.
Some who are part of the problem not the solution claim we must ignore the wrong direction some cultures have taken.
In a strange and stupid way they want us to not know some evil things are taking place at the hands of Aboriginals inflicted on other Aboriginals.
For all that I am forever sorry.
That so many look for ways to forget the dreadful crimes our country once inflicted good faith or not.
That we once thought the best answer was to breed them out of existence and for the fact so many still think that I am sorry.

I am NOT Australian born, but am "pure?" white from Anglo-Saxon stock and have lived in Australia for 58 years! I speak fluent "strine" and was Best-man at a mates wedding (himself a full-blood Aborigine!)

I watched, listened and hopefully digested ALL the statements that were made yesterday, during which I was moved to tears on several occasions!

I thought that it was very unfair for the treatment that Brendan Nelson was given during his speech (I am NOT and never have been a Liberal supporter!) and felt that all the leaders (Representatives) conducted themselves in a manner beyond reproach, and it was very refreshing to see both leaders of the major Political Parties, for once united in their expression of reconciliation on this very momentous and historical day!

I nominate February 13th to be recognised annually as "AUSTRALIAN RECONCILIATION DAY"

Good Morning Everyone,

Our society gained a great deal from the powerful protests by and on behalf of the Australian Aborigines. These protests awakened the nation's conscience to an intolerable situation: the continued denial of fundamental rights and equal opportunity to so many of our citizens. We were jolted to awareness of the moral and political desease of denial and discrimination which threatened to destroy us as a great and decent nation.

But, finally, under a new Government the conscience of white Australia
responded yesterday to the accusation of guilt. "Sorry" did not come easily to our lips, but at long last we reacted - and did the right thing.

At best, it will take generations to repair the ravages of past neglect and oppression of our indigenous Australians. The size of the job to be done, and the nature of the rehabilitation to be undertaken, means that the indigenous Australians who are now grown - scarred, embittered, and deprived - will not be restored to full dignity and health. They can expect at best only something of a job, something somewhat better as a home. But they can expect and should demand a better life so far as their children and, especially, their children's children are concerned.

The shape of things to come will be determined by the tone and level of the Aboriginal Community's demands, the white community's
response, and the interaction of the two.

Yesterday was a step in the right direction!

Well said friends Cuphandle I differ a little with you I was driving and this old alpha male was crying too when Nelson spoke.
Look I wanted better of him, the day deserved it yet I cringed as he spoke of past generations of whites, it was not the day, not the time for that.
As he spoke of the NT intervention I cringed again, this welded on Labor man thought it was rude to be offended by the truth 42 community's each has child rape and sexual assault in its recent history, truth has value always.
He was boo,ed again for saying no compensation was coming we knew that why did he need to say it?
5 of his party absented them selves from the house why?
Be proud as Foxy is know it is but a step, understand without anger or blame both sides now must act ,be accountable , to achieve change.
I stand by my claim , till the day he dies Brendan Nelson will wish he could do that speech again.

Vanilla I agree that Mr rudd will be apologising for past & previous governments or parliaments, but it won't end there.It comes down to the tax payers who have paid for many years.I'm not saying all aboriginals are bludgers far from it,I have friends that are aboriginal they have never been afraid of hard work & nicer people you couldn't meet & they take pride in themselves.We didn't receive a free education,our children aren't payed to go to school.Why is their health in poor condition,would it be they can't be bothered doing anything for themselves.How does that make it our fault,they can attend any hospital,Dr's are flown into many remote areas.Why wasn't the queen involved in the apology,she is head of our country & she apologised to the Irish for lack of assistance.It would have been the crown that had her officers land etc.Until we are all treated as one people nothing will change.Also the crimes on the elderly have to stop.We had discussions with our children,and did not influence them one way or the other but all agreed we have nothing to apologise for.We work hard,pay our own way as we believe all Australian should.

The 1992 High Court decision re Mabo reaffirmed legal position since 1066 AD when William Duke of Normandy conquered England.

Where customs and practices of people did not conflict with Crown laws, or laws or rulings under and in accordance with Crown Laws, then those practices could continue - until terminated.

The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia as agreed to by the People of Australia for Federation includes requirement provision for the payment of just compensation.

Australia's High Court appears believe termination of customs and practices involving or related or dependent upon usage of land or property includes entitlement to just compensation where such customs and practices are restricted or terminated.

Squatters rights, vacant possession, also include entitlement to just compensation.

Deciding whether particular Australians may posses valid claims involving 'crown land' or unalienated land particularly where people have lived continuously, or for long enough, takes time.

Whilst the justices recognized such rights may be 'extinguished' by the Crown issuing titles or leases for the land, such extinguishing may only be for the duration of the lease then restored, or may be permanently terminated.

However, just compensation needs be considered where and when land titles were issued or varied... losses may result in entitlements to Just Compensation where such losses occurred since federation.

Pursuit of legal resolution title by title for each land title issued since federation, on a case by case basis would be rather expensive in time, money, and political complications.

.

I am glad that the injustices to the original inhabitants of this land have finally been recognised in the most official manner. The genuine victims clearly stood out in the crowd from those who feigned indignation. The Opposition leader's speech was many times superior in quality, content & realism & the genuine people in the crowd did not turn their backs which showed their pride & acceptance of this expression of remorse on behalf of both houses of Parliament.

polpak,
how many times have you been to murray Island & how many people do you know there ?

Foxy “This is getting a bit tedious.”

Oh sorry Foxy (that is the only “sorry” you will get from me).

As dearest Margaret Thatcher said “You may have to fight a battle more than once to win it.”

I guess that gets “tedious”. I must admit I find it so too but have the stamina and self-reliance to prevail over the tedium.

To the rest of your diatribe, it is like this, different people have different opinions, generally based on a mixture of theory and practice, to what is the best solution to a problem.

Obviously, you are working on the theory that appeasement will work.
My observation of history (practice) is appeasement never has.

FrankGol “It sounds like you've really caught a dose of compassion today.”

My level of compassion, today is consistent with every other day.

I would note, compassion is a uniquely human expression.
It is only ever experienced between individuals, where an individual acts “freely” in regard to the interest of others.
It cannot be dispensed by government or bureaucrats acting on behalf of the tax payer because the government and bureaucrats act in accordance with statute and not “freely”.

A happy, fulfilled life is built on self-reliance and self-esteem.

Qualities of Self-reliance and self-esteem contribute significantly to develop the compassionate contributors and builders of the greater community and are lacking in the expectant recipients of “alms” from the same community.

Neither self reliance or self esteem are to be got from government handouts, the proceeds of civil legal actions or words of apology to folk who, with self-reliance and self-esteem, would see others as equals.

“Will you still respect us in the morning”

I am sure I will, if you think you are “worthy” and think you have actually earned that “respect”.

Oh rainier, I see you tripping over yourself to put a word in when you think you are in the majority.
The coward is always at ease when he has the strength of the mob behind him.

Sorry Col Rouge. I was too subtle. Next time I'll use sledgehammer - and you might feel it through your hat and hair.

As anyone who has ever lived as an expatriate in another country will recognise, one is always acting in an ambassadorial capacity as those around demand answers for policies made by one's home country. Over the past couple of years Australia's role as America's tail-wagger, certain foreign policies, refusal to sign Kyoto etc. etc. has resulted in a certain fading of respect when one answers the question "And where are you from?"

But people, no matter how much you squabble domestically about the Sorry speech, what it has done for Australia overseas is to make all Aussies stand a little prouder. People I have never spoken to before have come up and congratulated me personally ( a great leap: usually I get blamed personally for everything from Children Overboard to child abuse), students have asked to know more about Australian history and teachers from other countries have commented on how the signing of Kyoto and the Sorry speech have changed their perceptions.

I am not taking away anything from the arguments you have made here on these posts, but it is unarguable that after Rudd's apology interest and concern for Aboriginal people has increased at least where I live. The growing dismissal of Australia as America's Yes-country has started to dissipate. And every Australian is walking round at least one foot taller.

"As dearest Margaret Thatcher said "You may have to fight a battle more than once to win it"...." (Quote:Cringe)

You mean like the Poll Tax?

Romany:
Very well said!....I sincerely hope we will see a massive infusion of National Pride across the Nation!....It has been sorely lacking for many years!

OK ! Now that so many have had a go at approving/disproving the appology I'd like to suggest:
Rather than constantly countering someone's comment let's have suggestions as to what we can do to make fewer mistakes from now on. Those who insisted that the most wrong was done to the indigenous should come up with ideas as should those who insisted that it was not should also come up with ideas. We all agree that injustices occurred from BOTH sides. Incompetent bureaucracy is on both sides. Peadophilia is on both sides. Crime is on both sides. Stupidity is another thing both sides have in common. So, all you good people who let bad things happen by doing nothing, get moving. don't criticise other's proposal, suggest another angle & explain why you think it is flawed. If we can get a single page of common ground on this thread we're halfway there. Just imagine if we could leave future critics speechless because we've done things right. Prove that you have more foresight than your ancestors & don't make mistakes for which your descendents cop blame like we blame our forefathers.

Dodson & Ross & Central Land Council purport the Land Trusts as the private land owners, are not required to issue tenants with valid leases for their homes (constructed mostly with public funding).

Refusing their tenants - mostly "Traditional Owners" valid leases for their homes, claiming such leases unreasonable...

Then Mick Dodson and David Ross with the Central Land Council argue that "Traditional Owners" living in their "Traditional homelands" communities do NOT have:

- right for family to live with them ;

- right for family to visit them ;

- right for friends to visit or stay with them ;

- right for qualified tradespeople to visit and conduct repairs ;

- right to run a business under fair, reasonable and equitable terms and conditions;

- right to construct or live in a house (under fair, reasonable and equitable terms and conditions) ;

- right to obtain a fair, reasonable and equitable terms and conditions lease for their home (constructed with government monies) ;

- right to work (under fair, reasonable and equitable terms and conditions) ;

- right to receive legal assistance to have legal issues arising considered judicially ;

The Alice Springs town camps rejected $60 million in public funding for housing rather than issue tenants with leases, same reasoning.

Elsewhere in Australia such approaches quite rightly deemed repugnant and racist.

Start improving things for people in these areas by requiring Land Trusts etc issue all their tenants with valid leases... but of course be prepared for the objections, for giving people leases gives them rights and responsibilities.

.

Dear Romany,

Beautifully put.

Dear Col Rouge,

Margaret Thatcher - was a bit of a misguided lady at times.
I have just one example - Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (received tens of millions of CIA dollars).He was a brutal fanatic. Hekmatyar's speciality was traficking in opium and throwing acid in the faces of woman who refused to wear the veil. Invited to London in 1986, He was lauded by Prime Minister Thatcher as a "freedom fighter."

When the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) finally fell in 1992, the West's favourite warlord, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, rained American-supplied missiles on Kabul, killing 2,000 people, until the other factions agreed to make him Prime Minister

Romany:
Very well said!....I sincerely hope we will see a massive infusion of National Pride across the Nation!....It has been sorely lacking for many years!
Cuphandle,
I sincerely hope so. The wound has now been dressed. Treatment must now continue in earnest. We must keep the blowflies away at all cost. Don't remove the bandage because someone will try & pick the scab. let's not allow the healing to be jeopardised by removing the stitches before the wound is closed. Be patient with the patient. We don't want to end up with a hypochondriac.