Australia apologizes to Aborigines

Australia apologizes to Aborigines

edition.cnn.com

The Australian government apologizes for years of "mistreatment" that inflicted "profound grief, suffering and loss" on the country's Aboriginal people. New Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said: "To the mothers and fathers, to the brothers and sisters we say sorry. And for the indignity and degradation inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture we say sorry."

(visit the link for the full news article)

definitely a step in the right direction! imo!

it's never too late to apologize and i think there are some other politicians around who could basically do the same thing just right now... i'd say they even have to...

edition.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Yes I agree.

It will be an emotional day for many.

Here is the transcript of the apology:

Transcript

I am watching the event Live at the moment on TV. Every single channel is covering it.

Originally posted by EBE154
it's never too late to apologize and i think there are some other politicians around who could basically do the same thing just right now... i'd say they even have to...

I completely disagree... and hence disagree with the government saying "Sorry". How is it possible for someone to apologise for someone else's wrong doing. This government did not commit the atrocities. The majority of people in our country today did not commit these atrocities. The government is meant to be the peoples representative, they are saying sorry on behalf of the population. Well i would have liked to have had my voice heard by at least them holding a referendum (have a country wide vote on the issue).

Why should i be made to feel guilty for something i didn't do?

Have we apologised to women for not letting them vote? Yes. We let them vote. Have we apologised to Aborigines for not let THEM vote? Yes. When we let them vote. Did we already apologise to Aborigines for taken them from their families when they honestly thought they were doing the right thing? Yes, when they stopped it in 1970.

Here is the live broadcast:

webcast.aph.gov.au...

Also for those who don't support the need to say sorry, here is an article that recounts one person's experiences and how this day impacts her.

Very interesting article to read.

Apology will help heal hurt Stolen Generation-Zita Wallace

I have never considered that saying sorry meant I took personal responsibility for what has happened in the past; However, I am sorry how the Indigenous Peoples' have been treated in the past. That is empathy

How can anyone not have empathy for the Indigenous Peoples'?

I would recommend the movie: Rabbit Proof Fence. This movie is based on the true account of Doris Pilkington Garimara.

Rabbit Proof Fence: That the story is based on an historically true events is not in doubt. The film tells the story from the point of view of the girls and its supporters argue that it is a fair dramatic representation of events as told in the book.

[edit on 12-2-2008 by Thurisaz]

This most definitely is not breaking news, considering it's been in the Aussie press for quite a few months, but it's not the OP's fault CNN is so inept, and there are also no other threads on this, so I won't close this.

While this a long awaited and much needed step forward towards reconciliation with regard to what 'we' did to those babies, it just annoys me how Rudd's having a PR field day with it. He used it as one of his main tipping points in the elections, that and the Kyoto Protocol among others, which he signed on his first day in office. Rudd is a smart, shrewd man, and is milking this but not making it too obvious. A sly statement I heard last night was "It's [saying sorry] taken 41 parliaments to get here," like he's saying 'and I'm the one doing it!' If Rudd stopped being so smug I would warm to him, but until then . . .
And although I agree with saying sorry, it seems no one stops to think why the Howard government refused to say it.

Originally posted by watch_the_rocks
And although I agree with saying sorry, it seems no one stops to think why the Howard government refused to say it.

My guess has always been the fear of pursuit from the Aborigines for compensation (of which we have already seen prior to the words being said). The word sorry infers guilt and admission of guilt, in a court of law these words may hold up.

I know the government says that there is to be no compensation, but you cannot admit you're wrong and not compensate.

I am very interested to see how this eventually pans out. I do hope that the Aborigines take the word 'Sorry' and leave it at that, NOT trying to pursue compensation like they have been asking for the last week.

Also, i thought it was disgusting that the ENTIRE crowd on the lawn outside parliament house Booed and turned their backs when the Dr. Nelson (Leader of the Opposition Party) began his response to the kRudd's speech. This was reported by Channel 7's Mel, who was on location.

reply to post by EBE154

Originally posted by EBE154

Australia apologizes to Aborigines

edition.cnn.com

The Australian government apologizes for years of "mistreatment" that inflicted "profound grief, suffering and loss" on the country's Aboriginal people. New Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said: "To the mothers and fathers, to the brothers and sisters we say sorry. And for the indignity and degradation inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture we say sorry."

(visit the link for the full news article)

Hi EBE154, thanks for making me aware of that statement, and what I say here below is directed to the Australian government only, so not to you in any way.

It is my personnel opinion, that it is very clear, that The Australian government hasn’t the slightest idea of what really happened with this original Australian landowners, the Aboriginal people so to speak.
And how could they?
They speak of years of "mistreatment" that inflicted "profound grief, suffering and loss", but in reality it are centuries.
And what I read here is really something else then "mistreatment" that inflicted "profound grief, suffering and loss",

en.wikipedia.org...

So, those “kind” Australian government words don’t cover in any way, and never can cover in any way the immense human suffering those people had to endure.
Sorry is the word civilised people use to excuse themselves for simple wrong behaviour.
But to use it in this context is in my personal opinion a disgrace.

I think its more symbolic.
We arent apologisiing for 'OUR actions, but we are recognising that bad things were done in the name of White Australia.

Howard should of done it a long time ago, spineless whimp.

Unfortunately, many Aboriginal communities will use it and try to reap finanical benefits. And once they are denied, the bitterness and anger will again flow to the top amongst young aboriginals.

But its regardless.. Todays YOUNG aboriginal population couldnt give a DAMN about sorry. they live today, alcohol, drugs and welfare.

Im not going to be able to walk the northbridge strip feeling safer...
This is a political move, one which was so easy.

Originally posted by SilentShadow
I completely disagree... and hence disagree with the government saying "Sorry". How is it possible for someone to apologise for someone else's wrong doing. This government did not commit the atrocities. The majority of people in our country today did not commit these atrocities. The government is meant to be the peoples representative, they are saying sorry on behalf of the population. Well i would have liked to have had my voice heard by at least them holding a referendum (have a country wide vote on the issue).

Has the nation of Australia ever been replaced by the government of another nation? If not, then an apology from the Australian government is deserved, as it was Australian governmental policy and support that led to the wrongs against the aboriginal people. The entity responsible - The Commonwealth of Australia, is still extant, and was responsibel for no shortage of wrongdoing. That different people are holding hte reigns of that state makes no difference.

There's also the more up-close and personal fact that every immigrant Australian benefitted from the crimes against the native peopls, through land acquisition, theft leading to economic wealth, and depopulation lending itself to stronger political power in the days after the abotiginal people were given full citizenship.

It wasn't until 1992 that the concept of terra nullius was rendered invalid in the Australian court system. Prior to that, the Aborigines were legally regarded as a non-entity, vagabonds on their own homeland. Men and women of the "Stolen Generation" still live, as do men and women responsible for that period. We aren't talking about ancient history here. Hell, it can barely be considered "history"

Why should i be made to feel guilty for something i didn't do?

Who's saying you should? However, I think you should at least recognize that you derived direct benefit from the situation.

Have we apologised to women for not letting them vote? Yes. We let them vote. Have we apologised to Aborigines for not let THEM vote? Yes. When we let them vote. Did we already apologise to Aborigines for taken them from their families when they honestly thought they were doing the right thing? Yes, when they stopped it in 1970.

And a formal apology hurts you how, by the way? Aside from causing an ache in your white entitlement?

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Has the nation of Australia ever been replaced by the government of another nation? If not, then an apology from the Australian government is deserved, as it was Australian governmental policy and support that led to the wrongs against the aboriginal people.

I do understand your point, however;

If a member of the 'Smith' family, killed your sibling. Then 30 years later the grandson of that person came and apologised. Do you think it was their responsibility to apologise for the wrong doing of their ancestor.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFoxWho's saying you should? However, I think you should at least recognize that you derived direct benefit from the situation.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
And a formal apology hurts you how, by the way? Aside from causing an ache in your white entitlement?

How did I benefit from the generations of aboriginals that were removed from their homes to be assimilated into society?

Originally posted by Thurisaz
That the story is based on an historically true events is not in doubt.

Not in doubt by Wikipedia and the loony left anyway.

Proof isn't required for small L liberal left wing causes. Which is fortunate, since Rabbit Proof Fence has nearly as much fact in it as the Pirates of the Caribbean series.

Kevin Rudd's national apology to Stolen Generation - News.com.au

Apology to indigenous Australians today
Claims compensation still possible

The Prime Minister used the word "sorry" three times in the 360 word statement read to parliament this morning.

Did anyone notice Kevin Rudd used exactly 360 words for his speech?

Implications of "We're going full circle" with this dillema. I thought it was very interesting.

Good on Rudd to finally do this on behalf of the supporting Australian population.



Thx

[edit on 12/2/2008 by Im a Marty]

The best way to say "sorry" is to make sure every Australian child learns about the real history and culture of the original Australians, without glossing over the genocide and stolen generation bits.

Doesn't saying "Sorry" from the government makes the government look weak?

Originally posted by SilentShadow
I do understand your point, however;

If a member of the 'Smith' family, killed your sibling. Then 30 years later the grandson of that person came and apologised. Do you think it was their responsibility to apologise for the wrong doing of their ancestor.

No - but it would be a damn fine gesture nevertheless.

We're talking about incorporated entities, not singular individuals, however. This isn't Kevin Rudd apologizing to Mandawuy Yunupingu. The Government of Australia is apologizing to the many tribes of Australian natives for the crimes perpetrated by the Government of Australia. it is the criminal apologizing for the crime, and in the scope of things, a lot more is probably owed.

We have the issue here in the United States regarding both Native Americans and americna blacks. While peopel always get up in arms at the idea of reparations, doing exactly as you are doing, "Why should I have to feel bad and pay for it, I didn't do it!" or my favorite, "That was the past, this is now!"

To answer the first, if the Native Americans (and in Australia's case, the aborigines) hadn't been killed and driven from their homes, their children abducted and cultures wiped out, White Americans (and white Australians) would have been a minority fringing the Eastern coasts of their respective continents. Since these people WERE the subject to ethnic cleansing, the European colonists were able to expand, and now their descendants are the beneficiaries of theft and murder. This isn't ancient history - both sides can trace the family lines a scant few generations to find ancestors responsible for this conflict or that. It's not like Mongolia apologizing to Poland for that whole "Golden Horde" thing or something.

To answer the second, the past - especially the recent past - has a very visible effect on the present and the future. When a people are subject to ethnic cleansing furthered by institutionalized non-personhood, as Australian aborgines, Native Americans, and American blacks were, it sets the whole population in a social time-freeze. While the people "above" them progress socially and economically, often on the labor of the under-class, that underclass is stuck with no power, socially and economically. Then when hte underclass is "liberated" it's always the elite segment's expectation that things are immediately equal, everything's perfectly balanced, and any complaints from the "ex-underclass" are totally unawarranted.

After you've claimed all the property, stacked the government, banked all the wealth, can you really expect the people you took it from to be on even footing with you at the drop of your hat?

Your statement that an apology was given when Aborigines were given the right to vote is rather offensive, by the way. This was not an act of generosity on the part of the Australian government, any more than a hostage-taker is generous for deciding to not shoot his captive after two days of holding a gun to their head. Participation in one's government is regarded as a basic right by Australia, isn't it? I know it is in America. Denying that right, and then granting it back, does not make everything okay. It fixes the immediate problem, but there's still the deed itself - denying that right - to answer for.

How did I benefit from the generations of aboriginals that were removed from their homes to be assimilated into society?

First, the obvious of land being "opened" for you. Second, by weakening the culture of your neighbors - kidnapping children and punishing them for adherence to their parents' culture - your own gains more relative power. Traumatize those kids enough, and they succumb to the mental diseases of emotional damage - alcoholism and other drug addictions, depression, self-destructive behaviors - and that in turn makes them easier to exploit.

I do realize you, personally, have not done this, and as I said, I wouldn't expect you to "Take responsibility" - but you are the beneficiary of the situation nevertheless, and recognition of this fact and interest in processes that could lead to full reconciliation and yes, real equality, would be a damn fine move.

reply to post by EBE154


This is great news. While these people may not have committed genocide, their relatives have.

I'd like to see a similar policy in America towards our ex-slaves and native genocide...

But, that probably won't happen with the current government in power.

There's more important things to worry about like invading Iran.

Carry on people, nothing to see here...

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Your statement that an apology was given when Aborigines were given the right to vote is rather offensive, by the way. This was not an act of generosity on the part of the Australian government, any more than a hostage-taker is generous for deciding to not shoot his captive after two days of holding a gun to their head. Participation in one's government is regarded as a basic right by Australia, isn't it? I know it is in America. Denying that right, and then granting it back, does not make everything okay. It fixes the immediate problem, but there's still the deed itself - denying that right - to answer for.

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.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFoxI do realize you, personally, have not done this, and as I said, I wouldn't expect you to "Take responsibility" - but you are the beneficiary of the situation nevertheless, and recognition of this fact and interest in processes that could lead to full reconciliation and yes, real equality, would be a damn fine move.

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).

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.

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.

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]

remember when clinton apologised for the tuskeegee men who were
infected with an STD during the early 1900's. there wasn't a dry eye
in the place...it was a great gesture. hell, i cried!!!!!! it never hurts to
be nice. it does good for the universe....

It may be of interest to learn that there are ten times the number of Aborigines in Australia now than when the First Fleet landed.

May be of interest to learn that the Aborigines' method of birth control when the First Fleet landed, was to bury the newborn in sand or whatever lay underfoot and walk away.

Marriages, prior to the landing of the First Fleet, were arranged between young children and senior citizens, in many instances. Ten year old girls and boys forced to be 'husband' and 'wife' to toothless old people.

And who here is aware that many who comprise the alleged 'stolen generation' were in fact saved from such perverse marriage by missionaries and clergy ... were placed in schools, provided food and board and education, training, etc. ?

Anyone know the number of whites who comprised the population landed on the barren rock Australia, by the First Fleet ? Answer: miniscule ! Miniscule compared to the Aborigine population which had the advantage of local knowledge. A few hundred whites disembarked from the First Fleet. 3 small ships, wasn't it ? And they'd just completed an incredibly arduous voyage of 6 months or more. Most of those whites had been confined below-decks for virtually the entire time. They were sick and weak before they'd boarded all those months ago in the UK.

Compare this straggling bunch of sick and exhausted creatures with hundreds of Aborigine tribes massed along the foreshores .. fit and healthy .. bristling with spears. The Aborigines were more than capable of repelling the whites. Would have been a matter of a few hours to accomplish. Aborigines eclipsed the number of whites on the continent for decades.

If the whites had wished to perpetrate genocide ... WHY did they remove seriously at-risk Aborigine children from the tribes and provide them with food, clothing, beds, shelter, education, training ? Or is that an inconvenient question ?

When you're clearing land by hand, in 40 degree Celsius heat, with only the hand tools you were able to bring on board before the life-threatening voyage to Australia .. if your own family was living in a tent or rough lean-to and hauling water in buckets from the stream half a kilometre away ... if your own family was surviving off the land and was malnourished .. when the nearest town or doctor were half a days horse-ride away ... WHY would you invest your precious remaining energy in ensuring Aborigine children received an education and opportunity .... if genocide was your aim ?

Anyone here lived amongst the Aborigine ? Anyone here in contact with what's these days described as the 'stolen generations' ? If so, how OLD are those people right now ? HOW old ? That's right. VERY old. As old as my neighbour ... in her late 80's.

My neighbour's name is Enid. She was born into a Northern Rivers tribe. She'd been raped by several Aborigine elders ('uncles') before she was ten. So had her sisters and virtually all the younger of the tribes. She told a school-teacher. YES .. a WHITE school-teacher who COULD have earned a comfortable living and lived a comfortable life in a civilized environment. Instead, he chose to devote his life to turning Aborigine savages into people equipped to survive in a rapidly changing world.

That teacher, a devout Christian, noted that Enid and her siblings (her mother had borne children to innumberable men just as her 'father' had impregnated innumerable female members of the tribe. Hence 'tribe') .. noted that Enid and the other Aborigine children suffered from (1) lice (2) scabies (3) were severely malnourished, surviving basically on flour and water cooked over an open fire by the children themselves, because their mothers were drunk and unconscious or absent altogether, having run away elsewhere (common). The teacher noted the Aborigine children were dressed in rags, were filthy, were covered in scabs and scars and open wounds from constant beating and 'tribe accidents'. Many of the children were being used sexually by older tribe members.

Enid considers herself TO THIS DAY to be one of the fortunate. The teacher arranged for her to be 'adopted' by a local white family. Hence 'Stolen'.

The white family had many children of their own (common in those days) yet they regularly 'adopted' Aborigine children like Enid. Enid was provided a clean room and bed .. simple but nourishing food .. bathing facilitiies ... and the opportunity to attend school. Enid still remembers sleeping in a real bed with real sheets. Remembers what it was like to be able to close her bedroom door at night and simply SLEEP .. instead of being kept awake by drunken tribal behaviours that had continued to dawn.

Enid remembers being told that her body was her own. That she had the right to keep her body for herself .. that she was not obliged to allow drunken Aborigines to rape her .. was not obliged to allow drunken Aborigines to beat her or sell her to others.

Enid was taken to church by the white family who'd adoped .. 'stolen' .. her. She was allowed to choose a new name for herself and she did .. she chose 'Enid'.

Enid walked to school with the children of the white family. Then walked home. She undertook the same chores as her new white siblings. She was taught to cook and clean, to sew and do basic math, to read and write. Enid flourished. When she was 16, the family she now calls 'hers' arranged for her to be employed locally and arranged for her to board with two elderly sisters, closer to town and employment. Enid saved her wages. She wanted to move to the 'city' ... Brisbane, in order to experience the life she'd seen portrayed in the newspapers.

Several times, members of the tribe demanded Enid give them her savings. She was beaten and raped by Aborigines, who believe they have the right to 'share' anything belonging to any other tribes-member. They dragged her back to the squalor of the tribe.

The elderly sisters reported her missing to her adoptive white family, who in turn told the police. Enid was saved from her own people .. 'stolen again' I suppose some would claim. Enid was grateful. She bore a child, result of the rapes. She didn't want to keep the child .. she was only 16. Arrangements were made for that child's adoption in a southern city .. another 'stolen child' I suppose some would say, these days, although Enid remains grateful she and her child were 'saved' (not stolen) from her own people.

Enid made it to the city. She gained good employment. She was ashamed of her own people, of their drunken filth and uselessness. The word Enid uses to describe the Aborigines .. her own people .. is 'useless'.

Enid married and had several children. She and her husband and family lived in the midst of whites in what is now one of Australia's premier tourist resorts. I used to pass Enid's house on my way to school. She was a respected and much loved member of the community .. a capable woman with strong opinions. Her children were my classmates for several years.

Years later, now an adult, I purchased a house in a new estate .. only to discover that my next door neighbour was Enid ! I'd paid full dollar for my house. Earned that money myself. Enid on the other hand, revealed that the State had 'given-her' her house.

Enid was disparaging regarding her own children. They were 'takers', she said .. the 'took' everything from the white population, but gave nothing in return. One daughter, for example, had been 'given' (at tax-payer expense) a luxury high-rise apartment overlooking the ocean. Her neighbours were self-made millionaires. She'd also been 'given' a retail store in a very upmarket marina shopping complex .. Versace's store was a neighbour. The store was stocked with 'made in Taiwan' Aboriginal artifacts .. Taiwanese made didgereedoos and kangaroo-skin handbags at several hundred dollars a pop. Cont.