Is the Australian Government Sorry Now?

[Andy #24]

I assume you'd be dead against the Age Pension then? As your generation didn't force those people to get old afterall?

I wasn't referring to the Age Pension, what I was referring too was the wrongs of yesteryear impacting on the generation today. Last I heard there was nothing wrong with getting old.

If I could believe the compensation would be used in the right manner, the right people get it and the money is used to the betterment of Australians I'd reserve judgement then but, there's just something ringing alarm bells in that article that smac posted...

What alarm bells? They were simply putting the case for compensation. Did alarm bells ring when you saw Bernie Banton on the news?

[Wedgie]

If I could believe the compensation would be used in the right manner, the right people get it and the money is used to the betterment of Australians I'd reserve judgement then but, there's just something ringing alarm bells in that article that smac posted...

lmao, so its OK for the average Joe Bloe to get any sort of compensation but Aborginals would never use it in the right manner would they? They'd just blow it on booze and petrol as that's all aboriginals do isn't it? They don't know how to use money for the betterment of themselves. Hey, why don't we take their kids away from them while we're telling them how to spend their money to really ensure things don't get out of hand amongst all those drunks and petrol sniffers.
You're digging yourself in deeper sunshine.

[Andy #24]

I'm not sure if I'm getting some points.

Are people saying the stolen generation don't deserve compensation, or are they objecting to the fact that it could be abused? Or is their simply the feeling that while they may deserve compensation it's not the present generations fault so we don't need to worry about it?

Can't see any argument for any of the above views.

[Andy #24]

If I could believe the compensation would be used in the right manner, the right people get it and the money is used to the betterment of Australians I'd reserve judgement then but, there's just something ringing alarm bells in that article that smac posted...

lmao, so its OK for the average Joe Bloe to get any sort of compensation but Aborginals would never use it in the right manner would they? They'd just blow it on booze and petrol as that's all aboriginals do isn't it? They don't know how to use money for the betterment of themselves. Hey, why don't we take their kids away from them while we're telling them how to spend their money to really ensure things don't get out of hand amongst all those drunks and petrol sniffer.
You're digging yourself in deeper sunshine.

You might have hit the nail on the head there Wedgie.

[Dirko]

Ahhh, Im with you now, there's nothing wrong with getting old but being aboriginal on the other hand.....

Wedgie, where is any of my posts did I mention it's wrong being an aboriginal ? I said it was wrong for what the government of the past did.
Do not take my quotes out of context as there has been no times where I have even stipluated what you have said.

lmao, so its OK for the average Joe Bloe to get any sort of compensation but Aborginals would never use it in the right manner would they? They'd just blow it on booze and petrol as that's all aboriginals do isn't it? They don't know how to use money for the betterment of themselves. Hey, why don't we take their kids away from them while we're telling them how to spend their money to really ensure things don't get out of hand amongst all those drunks and petrol sniffers.
You're digging yourself in deeper sunshine.

Right, who's making the assumptions here? Did I say anything about Aboriginals never using the money in the right manner.NO. Did I post anywhere what I think would happen to the money. NO. Did I make any statements about booze and petrol. NO. I have never made any comments about petrol sniffers or drunks. My point was, if there is a payout, I have no qualms with compensation as long as the money goes to the RIGHT people. By RIGHT people I mean the people who it directly affected, not lawers/hanger ons or any other vultures out there looking for quick money.

[Psyber]

The point of compensation is that it is recompense for those harmed by the neglectful or deliberately harmful actions of others, and it is yet to be assessed whether the removal of these children so long ago met these criteria.

Some may have benefitted. Certainly one young aboriginal girl I knew, raised as the younger sister of one of my sister's schoolfriends was not. She had a good childhood and was loved in the family of a man who worked in Physics at Adelaide Uni. She had a tertiary education herself, and last I heard was happily married to a Canadian and living in Canada.

There is a politically correct assumption floating around that all who were removed where harmed not saved, that the actions were malicious not well-intended, and therefore all should get oodles of cash as should their brothers and their sisters, and their aunts and every other hanger on in sight. This is basically an hysterical over-generalisation.

Sure a percentage may have been harmed and a percentage may have been removed maliciously rather than with the good intent [mistaken or not] to "save" them. That group should be compensated.

Some lawyers of course want bags of money for all because they will make sure they get a decent percentage.

[Andy #24]

The point of compensation is that it is recompense for those harmed by the neglectful or deliberately harmful actions of others, and it is yet to be assessed whether the removal of these children so long ago met these criteria.

Some may have benefitted. Certainly one young aboriginal girl I knew, raised as the younger sister of one of my sister's schoolfriends was not. She had a good childhood and was loved in the family of a man who worked in Physics at Adelaide Uni. She had a tertiary education herself, and last I heard was happily married to a Canadian and living in Canada.

There is a politically correct assumption floating around that all who were removed where harmed not saved, that the actions were malicious not well-intended, and therefore all should get oodles of cash as should their brothers and their sisters, and their aunts and every other hanger on in sight. This is basically an hysterical over-generalisation.

Sure a percentage may have been harmed and a percentage may have been removed maliciously rather than with the good intent [mistaken or not] to "save" them. That group should be compensated.

Some lawyers of course want bags of money for all because they will make sure they get a decent percentage.

I think it is accepted that the policies were made with good intentions, this doesn't stop it from being a ******* stupid decision. You are making a value judgement about cultures. A happy western upbringing is not any better than an aboriginal one.

I don't have the figures but the prevelance of depression and other social problems in the stolen generation is way above normal. Good intentions don't make up for that.

[Andy #24]

Right, who's making the assumptions here? Did I say anything about Aboriginals never using the money in the right manner.NO. Did I post anywhere what I think would happen to the money. NO. Did I make any statements about booze and petrol. NO. I have never made any comments about petrol sniffers or drunks. My point was, if there is a payout, I have no qualms with compensation as long as the money goes to the RIGHT people. By RIGHT people I mean the people who it directly affected, not lawers/hanger ons or any other vultures out there looking for quick money.

If I could believe the compensation would be used in the right manner, the right people get it and the money is used to the betterment of Australians.

Considering the crap Aborigines get about how they use their welfare money I can see were Wedgie was coming from. What else did you mean by the above statement?

[Psyber]

I think it is accepted that the policies were made with good intentions, this doesn't stop it from being a f****** stupid decision. (1.) You are making a value judgement about cultures. A happy western upbringing is not any better than an aboriginal one.
I don't have the figures but the (2.) prevelance of depression and other social problems in the stolen generation is way above normal. Good intentions don't make up for that.

1. No I did not say that - I said she was happy, and therefore not all removed children suffered for it. You overgeneralised - the common trap I referred to above.

2. That may be so, and it may reflect the removal, it may reflect the prior treatment of the child before removal, or it may reflect genetic factors that caused aberrant behaviour in the parents in the first place that triggered the child's removal, or which may manifest anyway in a child at puberty or later.

There is a gene predisposing to depression and OCD carried by 8% of the population, one predisposing to Bipolar Disorder carried by about 2%, and Schizophrenia epidemiology studies suggest that genetic factors, prenatal virus exposure, and possibly prenatal Vitamin D deficiency may all be factors. People with these problems tend to turn to alcohol or drug abuse, and this can cause aberrant behaviour and child abuse or neglect, which would increase the risk of them losing custody ot their children. Conditions like foetal alcohol syndrome lately in the news may also develop in this situation.

Please note, I have not said this is specific to our aboriginal fellow Australians - this is relevant all over the world!

[Psyber]

Right, who's making the assumptions here? Did I say anything about Aboriginals never using the money in the right manner.NO. Did I post anywhere what I think would happen to the money. NO. Did I make any statements about booze and petrol. NO. I have never made any comments about petrol sniffers or drunks. My point was, if there is a payout, I have no qualms with compensation as long as the money goes to the RIGHT people. By RIGHT people I mean the people who it directly affected, not lawers/hanger ons or any other vultures out there looking for quick money.

If I could believe the compensation would be used in the right manner, the right people get it and the money is used to the betterment of Australians.

Considering the crap Aborigines get about how they use their welfare money I can see were Wedgie was coming from. What else did you mean by the above statement?

I thought he bit I have highlighted made it pretty clear - the same group of exploiters I have mentioned.

[once_were_warriors]

[quote="Psyber"]
Some may have benefitted. Certainly one young aboriginal girl I knew, raised as the younger sister of one of my sister's schoolfriends was not. She had a good childhood and was loved in the family of a man who worked in Physics at Adelaide Uni. She had a tertiary education herself, and last I heard was happily married to a Canadian and living in Canada.


How do you analyse that as a benifit? You are making an assumption that if the girl had stayed with her parents then her life would have turned out worst. You can't make that judgement.

[JK]

Considering the crap Aborigines get about how they use their welfare money I can see were Wedgie was coming from. What else did you mean by the above statement?

At a guess I'd suggest he mean's using any money in a manner that avoids being harmful to a persons self, which is often the case when people of any colour or creed suffer from depression or the social issues that have been referred to in here??

[Psyber]

Some may have benefitted. Certainly one young aboriginal girl I knew, raised as the younger sister of one of my sister's schoolfriends was not. She had a good childhood and was loved in the family of a man who worked in Physics at Adelaide Uni. She had a tertiary education herself, and last I heard was happily married to a Canadian and living in Canada.

How do you analyse that as a benifit? You are making an assumption that if the girl had stayed with her parents then her life would have turned out worst. You can't make that judgement.

As I said above to Andy in 1. I made no value judgment I simply said she was happy and did not suffer so it is not absolute fact, as some assume, that all who were removed suffered because of it. Would she have finished up as happy or more so if not raised where she was? We cannot know and should not assume.

[once_were_warriors]

Some may have benefitted. Certainly one young aboriginal girl I knew, raised as the younger sister of one of my sister's schoolfriends was not. She had a good childhood and was loved in the family of a man who worked in Physics at Adelaide Uni. She had a tertiary education herself, and last I heard was happily married to a Canadian and living in Canada.

How do you analyse that as a benifit? You are making an assumption that if the girl had stayed with her parents then her life would have turned out worst. You can't make that judgement.

As I said above to Andy in 1. I made no value judgment I simply said she was happy and did not suffer so it is not absolute fact, as some assume, that all who were removed suffered because of it. Would she have finished up as happy or more so if not raised where she was? We cannot know and should not assume.

Its good that her life has worked out , but its not a supporting statement that would condone the actions of the goverment of the day and therefore negate the right of compensation of the parents and children involved, regardless of their perceived success and happiness in life.

[Psyber]

Some may have benefitted. Certainly one young aboriginal girl I knew, raised as the younger sister of one of my sister's schoolfriends was not. She had a good childhood and was loved in the family of a man who worked in Physics at Adelaide Uni. She had a tertiary education herself, and last I heard was happily married to a Canadian and living in Canada.

How do you analyse that as a benifit? You are making an assumption that if the girl had stayed with her parents then her life would have turned out worst. You can't make that judgement.

As I said above to Andy in 1. I made no value judgment I simply said she was happy and did not suffer so it is not absolute fact, as some assume, that all who were removed suffered because of it. Would she have finished up as happy or more so if not raised where she was? We cannot know and should not assume.

Its good that her life has worked out , but its not a supporting statement that would condone the actions of the goverment of the day and therefore negate the right of compensation of the parents and children involved, regardless of their perceived success and happiness in life.

I didn't say it supported or negated anything except the assumption that every child ever removed suffered as a result and therefore should be compensated. I have said several times that those removed unjustifiably or maliciously should be compensated, and some removed with good intent who suffered anyway may qualify as well - just not everyone who yells "Me too!" when they smell cash, nor those who seek to whip up hysteria and make money out of it.

Some of the children removed probably should have been removed regardless of the race of their parents.

[redandblack]

Psyber, I have to say my eyes glazed over reading your bit about gene percentages.

I just think it was wrong to take children away from their parents and family, however misguidedly well-meaning it was thought at the time.

We should acknowledge that and say sorry.

[Dirko]

Considering the crap Aborigines get about how they use their welfare money I can see were Wedgie was coming from. What else did you mean by the above statement?

At a guess I'd suggest he mean's using any money in a manner that avoids being harmful to a persons self, which is often the case when people of any colour or creed suffer from depression or the social issues that have been referred to in here??

Andy, I can't see where Wedgie was coming from, as IMO he has assumed that's what I was thinking which is far from the truth. If you read my post, I have no problems with compensation, as long as what Pysber says also, that the right people get it. By the right manner I hope whoever gets the money uses is for the betterment of themselves and the communities from where they come from. What I wouldn't like to see as I have said is all the vultures going for a bite of the cherry too. That is the part that will hurt this country if we pay out millions/billions and it doesn't get to the people that deserve it.

Unfortunately as CP also says there is a element where the money could be abused. Is that just in todays indigenous society. No. It is everywhere as CP suggests.

[Andy #24]

I think it is accepted that the policies were made with good intentions, this doesn't stop it from being a f****** stupid decision. (1.) You are making a value judgement about cultures. A happy western upbringing is not any better than an aboriginal one.
I don't have the figures but the (2.) prevelance of depression and other social problems in the stolen generation is way above normal. Good intentions don't make up for that.

1. No I did not say that - I said she was happy, and therefore not all removed children suffered for it. You overgeneralised - the common trap I referred to above.

2. That may be so, and it may reflect the removal, it may reflect the prior treatment of the child before removal, or it may reflect genetic factors that caused aberrant behaviour in the parents in the first place that triggered the child's removal, or which may manifest anyway in a child at puberty or later.

There is a gene predisposing to depression and OCD carried by 8% of the population, one predisposing to Bipolar Disorder carried by about 2%, and Schizophrenia epidemiology studies suggest that genetic factors, prenatal virus exposure, and possibly prenatal Vitamin D deficiency may all be factors. People with these problems tend to turn to alcohol or drug abuse, and this can cause aberrant behaviour and child abuse or neglect, which would increase the risk of them losing custody ot their children. Conditions like foetal alcohol syndrome lately in the news may also develop in this situation.

Please note, I have not said this is specific to our aboriginal fellow Australians - this is relevant all over the world!

The point you are trying to make if I'm not mistaken is that sufferring needs to be proven before compensation is allowed. You are completey right that you can't judge happiness against a life which never occurred, therefore this should be irrelevant. What is relevant is that these children know they were forcibly removed from their parents for no good reason and have suffered a loss of culture and identity.

Don't try and confuse people with mumbo jumbo about genes. I'm sure that the group is large enough that there is unlikely to be a statistical anomaly where these genes were more prevelant.

[Andy #24]

[ have no problems with compensation, as long as what Pysber says also, that the right people get it. By the right manner I hope whoever gets the money uses is for the betterment of themselves and the communities from where they come from. What I wouldn't like to see as I have said is all the vultures going for a bite of the cherry too. That is the part that will hurt this country if we pay out millions/billions and it doesn't get to the people that deserve it.

Unfortunately as CP also says there is a element where the money could be abused. Is that just in todays indigenous society. No. It is everywhere as CP suggests.

Regarding spending money in the right manner, no-one (unless there is some mental problem) who gets compensated gets told how to use their money. They can walk out of court into the casino and put it on red if they want to. Why should Aborigines be any different?

[smac]

I think it's been fairly clearly pointed out already Andy that the "used correctly" comment refers to not giving a large chunk to 'good meaning' lawyers and other leaches to the process - you are correct that how anyone spends their own money is up to them.

It would be nice to see at least an offer of financial guidance attached to any compensation payment though - that goes for anyone receiving any kind of payout. The number of retirees from Australia Post I saw whittle away $500k+ super payouts on the pokies in my previous employment was staggering as well as saddening.