Australia apologizes to Aborigines

Once again, doesn't giving "sorry" from the government make the government look like weak and fool?

Dok,

Then let the aborigines apologize to themselves, too. Doesn't change the culpability of hte Australian government for acts done by the Australian government.

Originally posted by SilentShadow
Very well misconstrued.
How does me claiming that righting a previous wrong be offensive? The act of stopping the wrong is a powerful indicator to individuals as a whole that there was a wrongful act, however, we are now rectifying the mistake.

You have a car.
Some jerk steals your car.
Years later he brings your car back, battered to hell and back and nearly undrivable. And acts like you owe him for his generosity.

Do you consider this situation acceptable? Of course not, right? I sure wouldn't. But that's what we're looking at here. The Australian government stripped the aboriginal people of an essential right (several, in fact) and, a little over a century later, handed those rights back. And then acted as if they were doing the aborigines a favor with that.

The idea of 'real equality' is an interesting term. Here are examples.

During my High School years, the property adjoining the school was owned by a very nice family, they decided they wanted to move. They approved a plan to sub divide the property and sell it off, ultimately making themselves alot more money. Some Aborigines found out there was potentially a burial site on the land and made a claim for the land from the government. The government accepted it (due to laws that exist). The family was given a fraction of what they expected and the land changed hands to the Aborigines. What did they do with the land? Sub-divided it on the plans of the previous owners and sold it all for a huge profit (considering the government payed for the land anyway).

And who's land was it prior to those owners? My guess, given that it was an aboriginal burial ground, would be that it belonged to the aborigines. Good for them. Sucks for the people who expected more money than they got, but I somehow doubt the people who originally owned it got any compensation. See, what you seem to be saying is that it's okay when you do it, but not when they do it, and when the mechanism exists for them to do the same thing you would have done, it's "unfair".

I busted myself having to find a way to try and support myself for 5 years while i went to university. My parents would not help me but in the eyes of the law until 25 i am not independent of parents. I had a friend, however, who was whiter than me (not a racial indication, but actual colour lol). He was able to prove that he had 1/16th aborigine blood which qualified him to get full governmental assistance so he could ease his way through.

Good for him. Would you rather the law be changed to keep others from accessing that advantage, or would you rather have the law changed that says you're dependent on your parents until 25?

Me, I think the latter makes much more sense, 'cause, really... 25?

Our government implemented a $1Billion scheme last year which basically involved police and army to enter Aboriginal Settlements to rescue children. 60% of Australian Aborigine children are abused before the age of 5 and at birth the average Aborigine lives 17 years less than Caucasians due to massive substance abuse. Only 4% of Aborigines enter tertiary education compared to 25% of our population. These statistics are far more damming in those settlements.

This is far beyond an issue of equality. They are a people, who to me, clearly need help.

I recall explaining why this situation exists, at least in part. You did read it, right?

This is a problem that the Australian government has had to deal with for a long time and hence i have NO idea why our *new* government (no joke, they are ONE DAY OLD) would decide to apologise for helping the aboriginal people. The government of the day saw it as the only way to fix the problem, they did it and now a government has the audacity to be able to look in hindsight and judge their actions as wrong.

[edit on 12/2/2008 by SilentShadow]

Well, quite frankly, it was wrong. Just because people at the time thought it was okay doesn't actually make it so. If the paragraph before this one you made is true (and I don't see much reason to doubt that it is) then it doesn't seem the previous governments were all that helpful.

[edit on 12-2-2008 by TheWalkingFox]

[edit on 12-2-2008 by TheWalkingFox]

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
You have a car.
Some jerk steals your car.
Years later he brings your car back, battered to hell and back and nearly undrivable. And acts like you owe him for his generosity.

Firstly, it would be more like looking around and seeing everyone else was given a car and i wasn't. Then years later the mistake was noticed and you received your car.

How did the government act as though they we owed for it?

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Good for them. Sucks for the people who expected more money than they got, but I somehow doubt the people who originally owned it got any compensation.

Not an issue of who originally owned it, it was more to show how much they love to yell and shout that the stolen generation made it hard for their culture to continue. Their culture is so important, until money comes into the picture. Money is the only thing more important apparently. Even during the speech from the leader of the opposition party, he stated there would be no compensation, they let out a combined BOO and turned their backs on him.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Good for him. Would you rather the law be changed to keep others from accessing that advantage, or would you rather have the law changed that says you're dependent on your parents until 25?

I was giving you an argument against the idea that they want equality. I have no problem that my friend got a free ride, it sucked that i actually needed it more than he and i was unable, however, they need incentives to study. 4% is not much heading to university.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Well, quite frankly, it was wrong. Just because people at the time thought it was okay doesn't actually make it so. If the paragraph before this one you made is true (and I don't see much reason to doubt that it is) then it doesn't seem the previous governments were all that helpful.

I was listening to the radio last night and an aborigine that was taken was talking. He said his bit and then finished with "yes i have had a much better life than i would have because of being stolen, i was able to study and become a doctor, but i never had the chance to learn my culture... that's why it is wrong."

Upon being questioned whether he actually went back to his tribe at any point to pursue his culture, he had no comment.

I guess the question comes, was the stolen generation actually a bad thing? Sure it was done the wrong way, but was the outcome far worse than the alternative of abuse and generally living in sub standard conditions.

The goods for sale in that upmarket 'tourist-trap' store HAD to be manufactured in Taiwan and China, because the Aborigine population couldn't be bothered producing the items, despite well-stocked 'schools' and 'workshops' and training. After all, Aborigines have no need to work in Australia .. everything's provided for them by the State at tax-payer expense.

And as Enid explained, nor could her privileged daughter 'be bothered' spending time in the store most people would work a life-time to own. No need. Enid's daughter had already been provided a luxury unit, a substantial income, 'counselling' for her various unhappinesses, and liberal time-off as well as seemingly continual 'travel opportunities' within Australia and abroad. For example, Enid told me she'd just returned from cleaning her daughter's luxury apartment .. Enid described it as a 'pig sty' .. while the daughter was holidaying in the US, courtesy of the Aussie tax-payer, and swapping misery stories with native Americans.

Enid confided that many/most of her grandchildren (the children of her privileged sons and daughters) were 'in care' .. in other words were wards of the State (MORE 'stolen children' ? ) who'd been removed from their parents because they were 'at risk'. One of her sons, she said, was 'manager' of a motel. He'd been provided the motel by the State (by tax-payers).

I must have sounded impressed, because Enid felt bound to add that her son actually did none of the work. The motel, she said, was managed and run by whites, cleaned by others, maintained by others, the bookeeping etc. was undertaken by others. I asked in what way then, did her son 'manage' the motel. Enid laughed and said all her son did was drive around in his new vehicle (yes, tax-payer provided) and play the 'big shot' in town. He was a 'useless drunk' she said, like her other children.

Enid is far from being the only Aborigine I know or have known. I lived in a rural town for several years, where Aborigines were in the majority. I saw what happened to that and other rural towns (progressive, clean, orderly at one time) after Aborigines were allowed to drink alcohol (which had previously been forbidden). Those orderly rural towns are now sink-holes of depravity, violence and squalor. Those who could, got out, selling at a loss in order to do so.

I drove my children to see one of those rural towns I'd known well in former years. Nothing could have prepared me for the destruction. And I was fearful for our lives for several minutes, because as I drove down the wide main streets (once filled with well-maintained flower-beds and civic monuments) I was compelled to drive between two warring gangs of drunken Aborigines who were tossing beer-bottles and other projectiles across the road at each other. It was the middle of Sunday afternoon. Not a white in sight. The drunken Aborigines had taken over the town and were pulling it apart. Enid is correct .. 'useless' is the word for it.

A few months later the town featured in the national news: a white publican, whilst attempting to disperse the drunken Aborigine gangs, had been beaten to death. Left behind a wife and several children.

Enid (in her 80's) and older Aborigines are those who're described as 'stolen' .. they were 'stolen' from depravity, with the very best of white intentions, in the vast majority of cases.

These days, Aborigines are still removed from their parents (stolen?) as are greater numbers of white children ... when those parents' actions are a danger to those children and when investigation has shown that the children in question are not being best provided for by their parents. But Aborigines want 'more', 'more', 'more' from white society .. more money, more 'stuff', more 'privileges'. So they claim their children have been 'stolen'. They're 'stolen' alright .. in the same way the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 'steals' neglected and abused animals from their owners.

The Aborigines (remembering that most nowadays have white or other grandparents, parents, great-grandparents and so are not full-blooded Aborigines) claim there exist 100,000 or more 'stolen people'. Yet recently, when the department charged with investigating these claims was required to provide the names of TEN such 'stolen people' ... they could ONLY produce THREE who were willing to publicly state they'd been 'stolen' ! This was revealed in government publications and in the mainstream news. THREE. And of these, one who professed to be 'stolen' was a teenager who said she'd been 'placed in State care' when her part-Aboriginal mother had been jailed for three months for child-neglect. Of the other two, the claims were similar.

All it takes to 'be' Aborigine these days (and to share in the largesse provided at tax-payer expense) is that you 'feel' Aboriginal.

And of those who 'feel' Aboriginal (thus grabbing for themselves the Aussie version of Affirmative Action) is an assortment of vaguely 'brown' individuals whose actual parentage may be Samoan, Tongan, New Guinean, Maori, Solomon Islander, Cook Islander, Indian or Lebanese !

That's right. Many young Lebanese from Sydney drive to outback NSW on 'kangaroo hunting expeditions (foul cowards and animal abusers who shoot kangaroos from the back of trucks, using spotlights. Don't kill the animals to eat. Don't even bother to ensure the animal is dead. Instead, shoot and disable the animal and cause it a lonely, horrific death. Often the kangaroos toss out their joeys -- baby kangaroos in their mother's pouch .. in the instinctive hope it may survive. In 99% of cases, the joey dies an equally horrible death. All pointless. Men with guns. Like to use them. Men with no brains or conscience or soul.)

When they've finished the carnage for the night, these young Lebanese go into town for sex, food and alcohol .. and often for a fight. Nine months later, many within the local Aboriginal female population give birth .. to half Lebanese children. Who look almost identical to the rest of the Aboriginal population. And who are entitled to claim 'Aboriginal blood money' .. 'payment for being brown' .. from the tax-payers of Australia. Ironic, isn't it ? Then, sick of living in quiet rural towns and unprepared to work for their living (because they're brown, right, and so white people owe them guilt-money) .. they attend Aboriginal action groups and are told Whitey 'owes' them.

Well, now they've received the 'sorry' they claim to have wanted for so long.

Let's see now how long before their '...' lawyers (the usual suspects) start agitating for that 'sorry' to be paid-for in hard cash. Then the Aborigines will begin a new chant. Won't be demanding 'sorry' any more. They have that. Next, it will be: ' Sorry equals compen-saaaaay-shun '.

Because it would be a waste of everyones' time to wait for Aborigines (most of them being only 'part-Aborigine, even 1% Aborigine is good for 'payout' of course) to get off their backsides and start providing for themselves.

So Step One: achieve 'sorry'.
Step Two: turn 'sorry' into 'compen--saaaay-shun'
Steps Three to Three Thousand: will be: ' MORE compen-saaaay-shun'.

Oh, and in case you have doubts, why not google current events in Australia. The out-going government was compelled to take the army into Aboriginal towns in order to 'save'/'steal' those Aboriginal children who right this moment are STILL being abused, starved, neglected, raped, beaten, killed and otherwise dealt with by their non-working, generously-provided for parents and 'tribal elders'.

Read about the households (built and provided by tax-payers) who receive several thousand dollars per fortnight in 'government aid' and who grab that money and head to town in a convoy of late-model vehicles (tax payer provided) to load up on gallons of alcohol .. rather than food and other 'non-essentials' for the kids.

reply to post by Dock6


Well written Dock6.

I agree 100% and can back up Enid as i have Aborigine friends who also call their own kind useless. Not all as i have had a few very good friends who try to separate themselves from their tribes because of the association that comes with being a tribe member. They want to live their own lives and not feel as though they are a burden on society.

Originally posted by SilentShadow
Firstly, it would be more like looking around and seeing everyone else was given a car and i wasn't. Then years later the mistake was noticed and you received your car.

How did the government act as though they we owed for it?

Rights exist. They are not granted. Governments recognize or deny rights, they do not create them. Denial of a right is therefore more akin to theft than an oversight. Especially if that denial is fully intentional. TO use your example, say you're denied the car for the express reason that you're a white guy. You were expressly told that's why. When they finally give you a car, would you want an apology for the bigotry, or will you just smile and go "Thank ya massa suh!" and drive off?

From what I understand, the attitude was that "that's good enough" and that further problems and complaints were just aboriginals being whiney. Especially since it's taken until now for so much as Rudd's halfassed apology (Seriously, sounded like he was apologizing for bumping into someone in an elevator).

Not an issue of who originally owned it, it was more to show how much they love to yell and shout that the stolen generation made it hard for their culture to continue. Their culture is so important, until money comes into the picture. Money is the only thing more important apparently. Even during the speech from the leader of the opposition party, he stated there would be no compensation, they let out a combined BOO and turned their backs on him.

They have to eat, too, and you can't eat culture, can you? And I would boo, too. 'Course, my particular group has pretty much given up on hte US government even thinking about an apology for the whole genocide thing, so...

I was giving you an argument against the idea that they want equality. I have no problem that my friend got a free ride, it sucked that i actually needed it more than he and i was unable, however, they need incentives to study. 4% is not much heading to university.

I'll bet you it was white guys who made that rule. How many aboriginals do you have in the Australian legislature?

I cannot blame a man for eating a free meal someone sets before him.

I was listening to the radio last night and an aborigine that was taken was talking. He said his bit and then finished with "yes i have had a much better life than i would have because of being stolen, i was able to study and become a doctor, but i never had the chance to learn my culture... that's why it is wrong."

Upon being questioned whether he actually went back to his tribe at any point to pursue his culture, he had no comment.

There's a large difference between being raised in your culture, and learning about it years later. I'm Choctaw, but I wasn't raised Choctaw. I know lots about Choctaw culture and tradition, but it's very abstract compared to some of the people raised with it. On some levels, it's rather embarrassing, being able to claim a cultural heritage, but largely being unable to be a part of that cultural heritage. It's a little hard to convey, perhaps, and honestly I wouldn't blame the guy for not commenting in such a case.

I guess the question comes, was the stolen generation actually a bad thing? Sure it was done the wrong way, but was the outcome far worse than the alternative of abuse and generally living in sub standard conditions.

It was. The poor living standards stem in great part from what we've been talking about here. There are a lot of factors going into the mess. Stealing the kids definitely did not help the matter. There may be a few notes of positivity from it - nothing is ever completely good or bad, but in this case, the ends do not justify the means, and there were doubtlessly numerous other, better, and actually cheaper ways it could have been handled - but since the australian government considered these people as animals, what they got was a forced adoption and cultural destruction program.

reply to post by Dock6

Because it would be a waste of everyones' time to wait for Aborigines (most of them being only 'part-Aborigine, even 1% Aborigine is good for 'payout' of course) to get off their backsides and start providing for themselves.

The American tribes nipped this in the bud a while back. You have to be able to trace your line with most tribes. Soem are more strict than others - the Lakota, if I recall, won't accept anyone who isn't of at least 1/2 Lakota descent. On the other hand, the Cherokee will accept anyone and everyone.

Which means we have about five million blonde white people in Minnesota who's grandparents still speak Norweigan, but that claim to be Cherokee. Joke's on them though - the only benefit the Cherokee get is a T-shirt and a membership card, I'm told.

[edit on 13-2-2008 by TheWalkingFox]

I don’t think that anyone should have to say sorry for something they didn’t personally do, it was in the past, why should I, or my government apologise for something I didn’t do.

Hey, seeing as this is how it’s going, maybe I can get the British Royal Family to apologise to me for invading my homeland hundreds of years ago (Ireland) and killing some of my ancestors somewhere along the line.

Nearly every country in history was invaded and had its locals killed, stolen etc (keep in mind that Aboriginals are actually originally from Indonesia, not Australia and arrived here 40 thousand years ago, they have not always been here. It's all in the past.

I say, build a bridge and get over it already! Nearly everyone else has!

Mikey

reply to post by Mikey84


Great logic. Murder is okay, because it's "in the past".

Oh wait, does this only apply when it's brown vs. white?

reply to post by Mikey84


I don't think you understand the seriousness of the issue. The Aboriginal community is 'STILL' suffering from the actions of our previous Government back then, many people have lost identities due to the stolen generation issue - they have no idea about where their true family ancestry comes from in some cases, especially since this beautiful race were one of the first people to live with the land and nature, without stuffing it all up like the rest of the civilisations at present. They are proud people and I respect them so much for that.

And FYI - Indonesia was part of Australia - and other close nations, it was a massive continent, and it was between 90,000 years and 60,000 years ago that they existed, not 40,000.

Thx

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Don’t put words in my mouth, when did I say murder was ok?

As for brown v’s white, that has nothing to do with it. You’re the one making this a race issue, look at England taking over Ireland, that was white and white, look at the Roman Empire, was that black v’s white? Get real.

It happened in almost every nation, regardless of colour. The Aboriginals are the only ones harping on about it, mainly with “compo” in their vision.
Why should anyone today apologise for somthing that happened in the past and for something that they did not do, and according to some people never actually happened!

Also, if the remote Aboriginal communities today are a reflection of what they where like 50 years ago then it’s no wonder the children where taken, just look at the Aboriginal communities today like Aurukun, where an innocent Aboriginal girl was raped repeatedly and the town allowed it, they girl was then taken into care, but for fear of being accused of “another stolen generation” was released back into her community, where she was raped repeatedly again, and this all happened in 2006! Not 50 years ago.

Disgusting!

Mikey.

reply to post by Im a Marty


Estimates range from 70,000 – 40,000 years ago, the general agreed term is 40,000 to 50,000. The earliest human remains found in Australia are only 40,000 years old - The Mungo Man.

Oh, and FYI – When Australia was joined to Indonesia, it was part of the super continent called Gondwana, which started to apart over 140 million years ago, long before any people where around.

And FYI – it’s also documented that the Aboriginal people actually destroyed some of the land.

Before spouting out “FYI”’ get the facts correct at least.

Mikey

Originally posted by Mikey84

The Aboriginals are the only ones harping on about it, mainly with “compo” in their vision.

You seem to be speaking for the whole Aboriginal community which is not the case, it is personal and individuals that would like compensation - many do not need or want it.

Why should anyone today apologise for somthing that happened in the past and for something that they did not do, and according to some people never actually happened!

Because it heals wounds. Sometimes its a genorous gesture to apolose for something when someone wants it to allow them to heal - for whatever reason. Many Aboriginies are now at peace.

Also, if the remote Aboriginal communities today are a reflection of what they where like 50 years ago then it’s no wonder the children where taken, just look at the Aboriginal communities today like Aurukun, where an innocent Aboriginal girl was raped repeatedly and the town allowed it, they girl was then taken into care, but for fear of being accused of “another stolen generation” was released back into her community, where she was raped repeatedly again, and this all happened in 2006! Not 50 years ago.

But its not a reflection of what they were like 50 years ago. Its a reflection of the personalities of the individual people involved. This happens everywhere - then and now with 'every' nation! Not just in Aboriginal Communities. Its the mentality of individual people that causes this - not a race. That issue is disgusting, yet so are other issues involving cases all over the world similar to this.

Also - 'modern' Aboriginal communities who have lost their true essence of 'tribal' life, due to westernisation of these people has caused issues as well. Aboriginals still living under Tribal Law are very wise and are a close nit community, still living off the land and living with nature.

The SAS military group of Western Australia were helped by Aboriginals of the 'old' ways, they were taught 'Aboriginal Lore', the essence of how it works during conflict and other natural phenominon. Aboriginies have lost their way and need to be returned to their true essence. For this I feel the apology was necessary too - it gives back respect and acknowledgement that they too - are Australian.

Originally posted by Mikey84
reply to post by Im a Marty

 

And FYI – it’s also documented that the Aboriginal people actually destroyed some of the land.

Before spouting out “FYI”’ get the facts correct at least.

Mikey

I do have my facts correct, if you're referring to destruction of land due to fire and destroying flora, that is similar to control fireburns of today, except it was to encourage regrowth.

I'll just have you know, babies are still being forcibly taken away from Aboriginal families to this day. In fact, a close relative of mine is a remote-area nurse, and she often files the reports that eventually lead to the child being taken away. She does it when there is a chance the child will die due to negligence or malnutrition or other such things. But I don't think this quite compares to the indiscrimate mass removal of babies that occurred in the past.
TheoOne, acknowledging that atrocities were committed by white Australians in the past by saying 'sorry' takes a lot of guts. As I said before, it's taken 41 Parliaments. If anything, it makes previous governments look weak and foolish by not being brave enough to stand up and say it.

reply to post by Im a Marty


Fare enough if they want to be true Aboriginals and live as they use to, but then that means giving back the white mans drink, the white mans government housing, the white mans money and benefits.

You can’t have it both ways, either they want to be equal or they don’t, it should be the same benefits and help for everyone, why should they get more just because they are black, talk about being racist!

The Australian government has apologised, it’s that’s all the Aboriginals wanted then maybe they should give back everything that the Australian Government has actually given them.


Mikey

Originally posted by Mikey84

Fare enough if they want to be true Aboriginals and live as they use to, but then that means giving back the white mans drink, the white mans government housing, the white mans money and benefits.

You can’t have it both ways, either they want to be equal or they don’t, it should be the same benefits and help for everyone, why should they get more just because they are black, talk about being racist!

The Australian government has apologised, it’s that’s all the Aboriginals wanted then maybe they should give back everything that the Australian Government has actually given them.


Mikey

well said Mikey, it's all about the modern disease, the desire to be victims (which is cult which excludes white heterosexual males).

These apologies are nonsensical, is he now saying this government is responsible for the economic problems of the 1930s, will he be discussing what went wrong with "this government" then.

The apology has been said, now lets just wait and see what new excuse comes up for these people who just wont accept responsibility for their own actions.

Lets see how long it is before the Compo claims start flying in, Lets see how long it is before Centrelink add a “Sorry Benefit” to the list of many other Benefits and programs available to ONLY Aboriginal people.

And for the record, can we not call them “Indigenous Australians” because in fact, ANYONE who was born in Australia is actually an “Indigenous Australian” regardless of colour.

Mikey

Originally posted by TheoOne
Doesn't saying "Sorry" from the government makes the government look weak?

hi theone. who cares how it makes the government look man. the government is weak already anyway. I think it's about time they apologized. In the USA, we should apologize to the blacks and the american indians and stop taxing them. the blacks should be given 10,000 each for pain and suffering, and given free land.

Yes, as usual someone is "sorry" AFTER the fact, and AFTER the atrocities are committed. What a wonderful thing eh?
To quote George Costanza ala Seinfeld "Stuff your sorries in a sack, mister."

Heck, When do the Native Americans Get their "Sorry" from the us government?
Like THAT will make up for it. It would be lovely if people knew more about how their country, be it AU, USA, wherever, was founded on the blood and corpses, rape and theft of some other indigenous people. It's easier for most to pretend it never happened though eh? "Oh it's columbus day? wow...he "discovered" america"...what a joke.