A Sorry Saga, or the Saga of Sorry?

[Psyber]

Disagreed, I think its the first step in a long overdue healing process.
I know my old man will feel a bit better and he's one of the stolen generation who drives taxis for a living at the age of 68 so I'd hardly describe him as a psudo intellectual.
As the son of a stolen generation I'll feel better too and look forward to it.

Perhaps its the pseudo intellectuals that actually guess as to how others will feel whilst having no idea themselves and enjoy ramming their morals down others throats.

Perhaps I was a bit unclear with that agreement above Wedgie! I was agreeing with the idea that certain very public elements in the present campaign will lose interest in real long-term aboriginal welfare once the apology occurs, and I saw those as the "Pseudo-intellectuals" our fellow poster was referring to. I am concerned that once they have achieved that very public goal a lot of the protagonists will lose interest in the necessary follow up and move on to the next very public cause/protest they can embrace. I thought that was what Tassie meant too.

I want to see proper health care, welfare services, and educational opportunity provided for everyone in Australia and I think our aborigines have been shamefully neglected - the half-hearted superficial efforts of the last Labor government seemed to just put money into the hands of token aborigines who then ripped off their own people, as was eventually publicly revealed.

While I have previously argued that some of the "stolen generation" may have been validly rescued, and not by definition harmed by what happened, I accept that injustices and plain stupid errors may have occurred too, and I have no problem with an apology and even compensation for such proven cases.

The problem I have has been with the push to assert that all removals were unjustified and maliciously racist and there should be compo for all, which I see as driven by certain radical lawyers who stand to profit from it in both immediate cash returns and publicity.

I don't, and I doubt Tassie would, see your father as one of the pseudo-intellectuals. Part of the problem is that the real "pseuds" have polarised the debate and oversensitised us all so that we struggle to understand each other in the middle ground, and drift into an attack and counter-attack mentality.

[Wedgie]

Fair enough mate, that posts explains to me a lot more what you meant.

[am Bays]

Disagreed, I think its the first step in a long overdue healing process.
I know my old man will feel a bit better and he's one of the stolen generation who drives taxis for a living at the age of 68 so I'd hardly describe him as a psudo intellectual.
As the son of a stolen generation I'll feel better too and look forward to it.

Perhaps its the pseudo intellectuals that actually guess as to how others will feel whilst having no idea themselves and enjoy ramming their morals down others throats.

You and You're father Wedgie aren't the ones I'm aiming my argument at. I personally feel for your old man (based on my comprehension of your posts) as I've probably seen more ceremonies and sat around more campfires with the elders and heard their dreaming than he has. Given that he is a man of aboriginal decent it should've been teh other way around.

I personally can't handle the hypocrisey of white Australains who call for an apology who talk the talk but don't walk the walk

[Psyber]

Yes, I think there are a number who will decide it is all over once the words have been said, and want the apology made so they don't have to think about it any more.

[Andy #24]

An apology and aboriginal welfare are distinct enough for the apology not to affect further efforts. That's a silly argument anyway. Can you really imagine more being done for Aborigines if no apology was made? An apology costs nothing (you may say otherwise Pysber but you are wrong) and means something to at least one bloke we should just do it.


Aboroginal affairs aren't particularly lucrative for lawyers Psyber so I can't see them driving it. I can't believe that you said logic doesn't play a part in anyone's decision making. Maybe just not yours. You've portrayed a picture of the judiciary which is simply untrue. They are trained to view things objectively, dispassionately and without prejudice. Just because you can't do this does not mean it can't be done.

You've missed the point about he stolen generation aswell. It's not something that may or may not have been wrong on a case by case basis. The policy to remove children because of the colour of their skin is racism at its most basic and alienated people from their culture. Just because some people may have been treated well does not excuse this. If your children, or the children of all SAfooty posters were forcibly removed but brought up well by someone else, would that justify the decision?

[Psyber]

An apology and aboriginal welfare are distinct enough for the apology not to affect further efforts. That's a silly argument anyway. Can you really imagine more being done for Aborigines if no apology was made? An apology costs nothing (you may say otherwise Pysber but you are wrong) and means something to at least one bloke we should just do it.

Aboriginal affairs aren't particularly lucrative for lawyers Psyber so I can't see them driving it. I can't believe that you said logic doesn't play a part in anyone's decision making. Maybe just not yours. You've portrayed a picture of the judiciary which is simply untrue. They are trained to view things objectively, dispassionately and without prejudice. Just because you can't do this does not mean it can't be done.

You've missed the point about he stolen generation as well. It's not something that may or may not have been wrong on a case by case basis. The policy to remove children because of the colour of their skin is racism at its most basic and alienated people from their culture. Just because some people may have been treated well does not excuse this. If your children, or the children of all SAfooty posters were forcibly removed but brought up well by someone else, would that justify the decision?

Sorry Andy, I really think you are being just too naive for words:

I've spent 20 years working in close association with the legal system as an expert witness. I know it is not all logical and objective.
Class actions or multiple representations pay, if not in cash in publicity and future business.
I don't think an apology in itself will make much difference to what is done now. Some will say, "Job done!" and walk away congratulating themselves at that point.
Nobody does or can do things "objectively, dispassionately and without prejudice." Have you heard of unconscious psychological processes?
Removal wasn't just because of the colour of anyone's skin. I was alive in that era and later critically assessesed some cases retrospectively for health authorities.
Look at the recent publicised cases were kids were not removed because the colour of their skin made doing so politically unsafe and they were further abused.

I know I can't prove these things to your satisfaction, as I think you are being emotive, not logical.

[I suspect that if logic and objectivity dominated we would all reach the same conclusions and there would be no arguments! ]

[topsywaldron]

I personally can't handle the hypocrisey of white Australains who call for an apology who talk the talk but don't walk the walk

So it'd be better for all concerned not to apologise at all then?

[Psyber]

I personally can't handle the hypocrisey of white Australains who call for an apology who talk the talk but don't walk the walk

So it'd be better for all concerned not to apologise at all then?

I don't think anyone here has actually said that - just said the phrasing needs to be very careful.

The problem is likely to be those who got on the bandwagon yelling for the apology, and really don't care what happens in terms of welfare afterwards. I thinks that is what Tassie was on about.

By contrast, I have had reservations about "sorry" rather than "regret", but I have supported and argued on committees for better healthcare and education for our aborigines for over 25 years.

[Andy #24]

Sorry Andy, I really think you are being just too naive for words:

I've spent 20 years working in close association with the legal system as an expert witness. I know it is not all logical and objective.
Class actions or multiple representations pay, if not in cash in publicity and future business.
I don't think an apology in itself will make much difference to what is done now. Some will say, "Job done!" and walk away congratulating themselves at that point.
Nobody does or can do things "objectively, dispassionately and without prejudice." Have you heard of unconscious psychological processes?
Removal wasn't just because of the colour of anyone's skin. I was alive in that era and later critically assessesed some cases retrospectively for health authorities.
Look at the recent publicised cases were kids were not removed because the colour of their skin made doing so politically unsafe and they were further abused.

I know I can't prove these things to your satisfaction, as I think you are being emotive, not logical.

[I suspect that if logic and objectivity dominated we would all reach the same conclusions and there would be no arguments! ]

Maybe you don't think it's logical because you don't understand what's happening.

Removal wasn't based on the colour of someone's skin?

[RustyCage]

Sorry Andy, I really think you are being just too naive for words:

I've spent 20 years working in close association with the legal system as an expert witness. I know it is not all logical and objective.
Class actions or multiple representations pay, if not in cash in publicity and future business.
I don't think an apology in itself will make much difference to what is done now. Some will say, "Job done!" and walk away congratulating themselves at that point.
Nobody does or can do things "objectively, dispassionately and without prejudice." Have you heard of unconscious psychological processes?
Removal wasn't just because of the colour of anyone's skin. I was alive in that era and later critically assessesed some cases retrospectively for health authorities.
Look at the recent publicised cases were kids were not removed because the colour of their skin made doing so politically unsafe and they were further abused.

I know I can't prove these things to your satisfaction, as I think you are being emotive, not logical.

[I suspect that if logic and objectivity dominated we would all reach the same conclusions and there would be no arguments! ]

Maybe you don't think it's logical because you don't understand what's happening.

Removal wasn't based on the colour of someone's skin?

So you're saying Aboriginies were the only people removed?

[Punk Rooster]

what about the single mothers who gave birth, only to have their children adopted out because they weren't married?
This happened to all colours & races...

[Wedgie]

HUGE difference. Single mothers weren't forced, they were encouraged strongly.
Many single white mothers kept their children.
Mind you very hard in those days with the communitys attitude and no Sole Parent Pension but a completely different situation with different desired results.
ALSO children were not just removed from Aboriginal single parents. Children were removed from loving families and communities who had a lot of support in place.
Official government papers from the time admit wanting an eventual genocide trying to breed the black blood out of them.

I would suggest people read up more on the subject before making sweeping comments. I too was ignorant on the subject when a child.

[JK]

I've refrained from commenting on this topic because to be honest, I don't feel anywhere near informed enough on it ... Wedgie, any chance you could point me in the right direction on where I can hopefully get a better understanding of the practices that occurred in those days that have caused so much pain and division in today's society?

[Wedgie]

Yep, the most informitive reading is the 'Bringing them home report'.
Ive got a link on my work pc and have emailed it to my home addy so will post that tonight.
For those with a short attention span (as its long) its probably best just watching Rabbit Proof Fence. The most heart wrenching movie Ive ever watched.

[JK]

Cheers, I'll make sure I take a look at both of those.

[Wedgie]

Here ya go mate:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/index.html

[Psyber]

HUGE difference. Single mothers weren't forced, they were encouraged strongly..

That's a sweeping comment too mate. I've talked to quite a few non-aboriginal single mothers who certainly felt forced, even if not with actual physical violence!

[Dogwatcher]

Pseudo only entered this debate about law so he could tell us he's driven a Porsche

[Psyber]

Here ya go mate:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/index.html

I didn't have time to read every word, but as described the situation was certainly much worse than what I saw in the 1960s and 1970s. It appears that there has never been a generally agreed policy, only a majority view that has dominated, and that that view has gone through a transition from outright aims of extermination in the colonial years to the "assimilation" view, and then to the focus on "neglect", and the abuse by some involved groups of the term. As usual appalling things were justified inthe name of religion and godliness, and these were more appalling the further back one looks.

Most of the abuse described including sexual abuse has occurred to white kids removed from their parents too, but I suspect more commonly to the aboriginal children because they were less protected by general community attitudes - either because they were further away or because they didn't seem to matter as much the observers at the time! These very issues are involved in a case I just wrote a report on where a child is being poorly represeted by the child advocate because DHS staff are not getting around to doing the field work required, but the dispute between the separated parents over custody is proceding through the courts regardless of the lack of independent information, because the parents' lawyers are driving it, one claiming neglect by the mother, and one sexual abuse by the father. The Child's advocate is not pushing DHS to do their job, and presumably either can't be bothered or perhaps has no way of doing so.


This quote below suggests there have always been some people trying to do the right thing. But like in all bureaucracies the managerial people can only do so much and have to trust people below them, and there are always rotten apples in the group - hopefully the percentages have increased favourably over the years. Fudging records, or losing them, is common bureaucratic technique too.

QUOTE:
"Another Manager I did appoint, an ex-Missionary, and a good man too, I had to dismiss for chaining girls to table legs ... Indeed, it was found necessary to provide by regulation for the abolition of `degrading' and injurious punishments and the practice of holding inmates up to ridicule, such as dressing them in old sacks or shaving girls' heads (Neville 1947 pages 112-113)."


My perception of this issue has been shaped by my personal experience in the last 40 years. This document has given me a wider perspective. Thanks for posting the link.


This was topical - it still happens when people attend public Psychiatric facilities, regardless of creed or colour:

"There are other cases where a person has very obviously got a very serious psychotic disorder and they present to a hospital and if they smell of alcohol at all they might be refused admission. Or if they have committed a minor offence they might be refused admission."

[Wedgie]

HUGE difference. Single mothers weren't forced, they were encouraged strongly..

That's a sweeping comment too mate. I've talked to quite a few non-aboriginal single mothers who certainly felt forced, even if not with actual physical violence!

There's a big difference between feeling forced and actually having someone physically rip your child from your arms merely because of your colour. Encouraged strongly/felt forced, same thing in my book. Either way it implys they had the right of a choice which they did. Many single young ladies who had children held onto their children thanks to supportive families and friends.

My partner was adopted out when she was a baby, probably as a result of her mother feeling pressured to do so as a single parent 37 years ago BUT she was brought up in the same culture and same race of people she came from. She went on to meet her natural mother and we all catch up yearly (ironically at the footy).
Its a huge difference to my father and others who weren't adopted out but were institutionalised when they had parents quite willing to bring them up in a loving environment. Throw into the equation eventually moving them onto white parents, not telling him anything about his background and moving him to the other side of the country from his tribe.
Due to the Bringing them home report he finally had a chance to meet his mother in the 90s when he was in his late 50s.
A couple of months before he got up there she died.
My mum brought me up as a sole parent, its a shame my grandmother never had the same opportunity only because of the colour of her skin.
I think I've had a pretty good picture of both cases discussed.
Its chalk and cheese.

The statistics showing the amount of aboriginal children that were institutionalised, moved between areas, and how they are no better off (actually worse off if you look at the crimes comitted stat) are very damning.

Perhaps if some people are concerned about the tiny % of children who's mothers gave them up for adoption they can start another topic about it as the old "huge amount of black kids that were institutionalised and adopted, had their culture and history away from them as well as their parents and community physically by the goverment and were moved to the other side of the country" but that's OK and doesn't require any sort of apology or compensation because "a very small minority of white kids were adopted out because their mothers were pressured into giving them a better life by their family, friend and community" just doesn't sit well with me at all (and doesn't sit well with the stats either).
Anyway white people were wrong for both atrocities although one is on a much bigger scale and a lot more disgusting because of the when/where and whys to it being carried out.
Anyone comparing the two are absolute fools or completely uneducated on the matter of an apology from the government as the government was only involved with 1 and not the other.

Most of the abuse described including sexual abuse has occurred to white kids removed from their parents too, but I suspect more commonly to the aboriginal children because they were less protected by general community attitudes

Not really, the simple answer is because most aboriginal children were put in institutions where abuse was rife. Most white children were adopted straight out. Its not even worth comparing the numbers the difference is that huge.