We did, for exmaple, a lot on World War II especially the Jews persecution, and I think, I can say that we are aware of our history and use it as an example to never let it happen again. We comemmorate it every year on 27/01 and every year another school does a project about it (some of ours:http://sg-detmold.de/ (unterricht, fächer Kunst, wie war das damals..)
Thanks a lot!!
Jule

Hi again Jule - I disagree with the whole concept of Sorry Day.

In my opinion it is very racist because it carries an attachment of responsibilty that simply isn't fair or just. It suggests a certain segment of our society apologise for things we didn't do, didn't and DON'T support and can't change - BUT: we CAN and generally DO all agree that wrongs were done and can ALL feel SORROW for that REGARDLESS of the colour of our skin or ethnic background - as well as pledging a genuine determination not to allow the same kinds of things to happen TO ANYONE in Australia ever again.

In the same way, I don't think ALL Germans should say SORRY for the Holocaust - but you'd probably agree that EVERYONE can definitely feel SORROW for what happened.

Sorry Day lives in and looks to the past in a very negative way - Sorrow lives now and lets us look to the future with positive determination to move on.

Hi Spinner!
Thanks a lot. Now your point is clear to me;) And I think it is a very good point; I will think of it will writing and eypecially while judging!
Thank you very much!

I definitely think we SHOULD have a national day - but called SORROW Day - or Day of SORROW, not SORRY Day :-)

I'm back again :-)

- Just one last thing to add in direct answer to "The stolen generation - is the reconciliation process a success?"

My answer: All the politically correct things have been done and said and the process begun, but it's in limbo now because political correctness isn't reality and I don't think anyone is satisfied at this time with the outcome - except maybe some politicians.

Jule,
I am not going to suggest how you should call your paper, only repeat my advice to look at both sides of the story e.g. by reading the Wikipedia entry I suggested.

Let me just say this. In spite of me calling your attention to the Historikenstreit, there is one big difference between the Holocaust and the “stolen generation” (of Aboriginal children): You would not call a paper, say “The problem of ‘Holocaust’” (in quotation marks), because Holocaust is an accepted term to describe the undisputed historical fact about the mass murder of Jews during WWII (only the details are disputed by a few deviants).

On the other hand, “stolen generation” is by its very nature a pejorative term, describing an a priori bad intention on the part of the thief. Well, nobody in his/her right mind would suggests that the nazis - or even just some of them - thought they acted in the best interest of the Jews. However, many, if not all, of those who removed Aboriginal children from their mothers (and sometimes even from functioning families) had the best interest of the child in mind, as mistaken and wrong as that urge to “civilize” them might be when seen from our perspective.

As you know, in Germany even today the Jugendamt can remove a child from a family when it deems this to be in the child’s best interest. And you also know that sometimes they are wrong. Nevertheless, you would not call that practice steeling.

Also, as Suzeonline put it so aptly, “Many of today's Aboriginal leaders, including lawyers or judges or medical staff, were either part of the original stolen generation or were the descendants of them.” This, of course, holds more generally: only those who have learned (voluntarily or not) to live in our century (still West-dominated) can communicate with the rest of the world on the same eye level.