Foxy,
You are so indeed correct. We should neither forget the good deeds as a reason to celebrate (“those who don't celebrate the good in society are prone to lose It.") or the bad ones not as a matter of personal shame but as national acknowledgement of past grievous mistakes, healing and more importantly as a bulwark against repeating them. ("Those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them").

Horus,
A famous scientist was once asked in an interview “What will do you do if you're proven wrong?"
The answer was “Change my opinion, why what would you do?”

StG,
I agree with most of your post.
I do put it to you that both ‘the most opinionated...’ and your ‘equality ‘ statements are some what open to different interpretation.

Given this is a text only site your first statement need more clarification to be meaningful…do you mean the most belligerent or the most prolific or do you simply mean those who question your view?

In the second point I think that all people being ‘all people are equal’ is statement that
• Acknowledges that every one is equally important as humans. Not necessarily as in life deeds/ path, that is a separate issue. We should by all means celebrate the honourable or exceptional *deeds* of individuals. That does not mean that their opinions or expertise aren’t respected.

• NB this a personal opinion point only; I reject the notion of hierarchies based by means of birth, celebrity, election, money, power, race, sport, et al (alone) in a human context as being substantially unsupportable in logic, fact or morality.

... a bit of a different thought...
Lest we forget - Anzac Day - 1 million killed Iraqis
yes I agree, lest we forget, it obviously means different things to us individually...

Examinator said:

"StG,
I agree with most of your post.
I do put it to you that both ‘the most opinionated...’ and your ‘equality ‘ statements are some what open to different interpretation."

Thankyou. "The most opinionated..." meaning those who aren't afraid to voice their opinion no matter what the content tend to be the ones that are heard the most because of the controversy that content creates. Eg: Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali and his "uncovered meat" comment, and John Law's describing Carson Kressley as a "pompous little pansy prig" and a "pillow-biter" and then stating 'piss off pansy' in 2005. There's a zillion examples of highlighted intolerance that are heard over the good that people do.

Question my view?, no, I welcome all conversation so long as it's thought out and doesn't aim to create hurt. I react badly if it does. I'm learning not to reply.

If the people that aim to do good were given the lime light in SOCIETY more would join the cause.

You said: "That does not mean that their opinions or expertise aren’t respected."

I didn't suggest they weren't. I believe they're not celebrated enough. I think the Indigenous population of Australia are treated like some sort of 'other society' or something by the general population. Not suggesting they're a bunch of angels or anything but they do have a lot to offer. New Zealand is a good example of how things CAN be done. Not saying it is some sort of multicultural utopia but it isn't doing too bad.

It's only relatively recently that I managed to
acquire a copy of the book by historian,
Henry Reynolds, "Why Weren't We told?"

I read it so that I would learn more about this
country's history, as well as being able to
argue with my brother who lives in Kempsey,NSW,
and sees Aborignals in a negative way (unfortunately).

I learned a great deal from the book. But sadly I
don't think I succeeded in changing my brother's
views.

My brother feels that our national cohesion and
self-confidence is being undermined by the historians
of the black-armband brigade. He objects in their
trying to make people feel ashamed rather than proud
of their past.

However, Historian Henry Reynolds explains:

"I have been aware of the attacks - both personal and
general - bu they usually seem to be off target, to
have missed the point.

I don't think I have ever felt guilty about historic
events, regardless how infamous. I have always thought
that guilt pertained to those things - actions, words, thought
even - for which one is personally responsible.

I'm not sure that I have ever felt shame about the brutal
business of colonisation, perhaps because I don't have a
strong enough sense of identification with the British
colonists who thrust the frontiers out into Aboriginal
Australia. I have often been incensed or angry about the
cruelty and injustice involved, but even then I have felt
under a professional obligation to try to understand and
explain the behaviour of the perpetrators.

To know 'why' was more important and more challenging than
simply to descry... but knowing brings burdens which can
be shirked by those living in ignorance.

With knowledge the question is no longer what we know but
what we are not to do, and that is a much harder matter
to deal with. It will continue to perplex us for many
years to come."

I believe that tolerance and understanding must broaden
out. Bigotry must retreat. And although the history
may be distressing, it will enable us to know and understand
each other better.

Horus again! last time you miss quoted me on this subject, you hide away and did not address my telling you it was not me who said that.
Go back to Graham Young's thread started the day or the day after Rudd's speech.
Read it all, come back and call me what you want but this time have the courage not to hide, come back and remind me of exactly what post I said that.
You just must stop telling this lie! I rejoiced here in print at Rudd's every word.
Have you the courage to except my challenge? or are you just uncontrolled words without basis?
Can anyone believe anything you post? in what thread did I have a go at you? remember your first claim? that I got into you for saying we should say sorry?
can you blame me for regarding every thing you post as not reliable?

Foxy
I suspect you've take something I've said as somehow critical of you rather than as is always intended unless attacked as merely declaring MY passion and refusal to back away. What is good for me is rarely good for others simply because of "my boots" and commitment to doing what I can. If Ive offended sorry.

StG.
>There's a percentage that REFUSE to treat others as anything other than equals.
On my first reading I interpreted this to mean that Some people only treat others as equals and I was perplexed now I see seem my day for saying oops sorry in that light I agree with you.