A Sorry Saga, or the Saga of Sorry?

[redandblack]

Well written, Wedgie.

This is an issue where it's not remotely necessary to pontificate about lawyers getting richer or whether others suffered as well.

It's a simple matter of being mature enough to acknowledge an obvious wrong.

We're the better as a society for saying sorry and I fully support that.

[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!

There's a big difference between feeling forced and actually having someone physically rip your child from your arms merely because of your colour.....

I have no argument with that Wedgie, but I think you need to recognise too that even the brute force has happened to non-aboriginals too, and to not imply that only the coloured members of our community are ever ill-treated, either by brute force or [mere] coercion, or imply that this sort of abuse of power is only applied on the basis of colour.

Doing that tends to devalidate and undermine the credibilty of the arguments for the aboriginal cause you are espousing, by making you look prejudiced and narrow focussed.

I agreed in my other post above that the treatment of aboriginal people prior to the period of my experience, as described in the link you posted, was appalling, and I thanked you for posting it. It opened my eyes wider. But your perception can be as narrowed as I admit mine is sometimes - that is the emotional component of our thinking [as I recently debated with Andy] that affects us all.

I agree the past harm must been repaired - hopefully in a lasting way rather than only with a flamboyant gesture. But while an apology is a start, it is potentially short-lived even backed up with compo, and our real focus must be on long-term health care, realistic welfare, and education.

[Andy #24]

I have no argument with that Wedgie, but I think you need to recognise too that even the brute force has happened to non-aboriginals too, and to not imply that only the coloured members of our community are ever ill-treated, either by brute force or [mere] coercion, or imply that this sort of abuse of power is only applied on the basis of colour.

The jews weren't the only ones hurt by the Nazis, we should forget about them too. Psyber, no-one ever said that ill-treatment has been exclusive to aboriginal children, just that abuse was more prevelant among them and that being coloured was excuse enough to take them away.

[Psyber]

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.

Danger! Don't ever say that to those who have been in a Catholic orphanage - here or in Europe! They may disabuse you violently.

I don't disagree with you about the numbers. What I am saying is that the behavioural attitudes and patterns were those of the people of the bureaucracies and "do-gooders" of the time - they were applied to more aborigines on a percentage of population basis, perhaps, because there was less opposition and more opportunity, and yes, perhaps because some of them were racist. It is the supposition an assertion that it was all about race I dispute.

I accept that some will [and have] called me racist for not toeing the politically correct line all the way, but I have supported every move that has ever come up to provide for full constitutional rights and better health services for Aborgines, commensurate with those supplied to all Australians.

[Andy #24]

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

Do you mean Psyber? He also likes name dropping and telling us what societies he belongs to. Skull and bones will be the next one I think were Psyber was best mates with George W. The Porsche was the 4th reference to his wealth in the last couple of days.

[Psyber]

I have no argument with that Wedgie, but I think you need to recognise too that even the brute force has happened to non-aboriginals too, and to not imply that only the coloured members of our community are ever ill-treated, either by brute force or [mere] coercion, or imply that this sort of abuse of power is only applied on the basis of colour.

The jews weren't the only ones hurt by the Nazis, we should forget about them too. Psyber, no-one ever said that ill-treatment has been exclusive to aboriginal children, just that abuse was more prevelant among them and that being coloured was excuse enough to take them away.

And I have just said that I don't think all who did these things did so because of colour - I accept some did.
I think standing around yelling "All you white guys are Racist!" is RACIST.

[Andy #24]

Mate, the policy to take the children away was based on colour. There may have been other children being removed for other reasons at the same time, but the bottom line is children were taken away because they were aboriginal. I'm not sur if you understand this. It wasn't as if on a case by case basis some decisions were racist and some weren't, it was the policy which was screwed.

[Psyber]

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

Do you mean Psyber? He also likes name dropping and telling us what societies he belongs to. Skull and bones will be the next one I think were Psyber was best mates with George W. The Porsche was the 4th reference to his wealth in the last couple of days.

Are we moving on from "Racism" to "Wealthism" here?.
Are only those who cry poverty welcome?
Are only those who espouse drunken-ness, rather than responsible drinking acceptable to you?

It is difficult to debate some of the issues raised here without referring to one's different experiences and associations, and explaining where one is coming from.

I know you don't like to be disagreed with over any issues you post on, Andy, but your tendency to turn to sneaky personal attack elsewhere when challenged on a previous thread is a bit puerile. Take me on up front in the thread or shut up. Don't keep trying to sneak up from behind.

PS; I have no interest in GWB or Skull and Bones, I'm barracking for Barak! [To the limited extent of my interest in US politics.]

[Psyber]

Mate, the policy to take the children away was based on colour. There may have been other children being removed for other reasons at the same time, but the bottom line is children were taken away because they were aboriginal. I'm not sur if you understand this. It wasn't as if on a case by case basis some decisions were racist and some weren't, it was the policy which was screwed.

They would have done the same thing if our aborigines were as white as their European Caucasian cousins. The issue was a difference in culture, and asserting control of the country, much like the Saxons displaced the Celts, and the Normans the Saxons, or in ancient times the Israelites their Semitic cousins the Philistines.

Throughout history conquerers have displaced and dispersed former occupiers of land - sometimes murdering all the males and taking the women.

I am not saying it is, or ever was, right, but it is a pattern. It is Imperialism, not Racism. Hopefully, we have all outgrown it, and instead of fighting over past wrongs and compo, we can do something about real and lasting coexistance base on working together for a better and fairer future.

The alternative is to be like the Serbians and Croatians forever arguing over past wrongs - and in their case each claiming the other started it - and episodically reverting to open war. That approach doesn't help anyone.

[Andy #24]

Exactly right Psyber, that approach won't help anyone. That's why Big Kev is acknowledging a past Government did the wrong thing and apologising. The idea is so that we don't have to keep going over past wrongs and can move towards reconciliation.

When haven't I taken you on "up front"? It's just that every now and then going around in circles gets a bit boring. Thus when your examples of where you're coming from get a bit gratuitous, it's fun to have a laugh.

Here follows a sneaky personal attack:

[Andy #24]

I am a very silliy boy, Andy is right about everything

[Dogwatcher]

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

Do you mean Psyber? He also likes name dropping and telling us what societies he belongs to. Skull and bones will be the next one I think were Psyber was best mates with George W. The Porsche was the 4th reference to his wealth in the last couple of days.

Yes, I did mean Psyber, sorry Pseudo (I realised my mistake on my way home from work last night).

[topsywaldron]

It's a simple matter of being mature enough to acknowledge an obvious wrong.

We're the better as a society for saying sorry and I fully support that.

Even Janet Albrechtson (boo hiss) has come out in today's Oz supporting the apology for symbolic purposes.

[Psyber]

I am a very silly boy, Andy is right about everything [Like hell he did!]

At least this one is in the same thread!
Now if I could only believe you were joking when you put those words in my mouth.......

Seriously, I think deep down you and I don't disagree as much about the fundamentals of what should be done as we do about how things are presented in terms of political orientation and political correctness.

I support the principle of the symbolic apology being made, I just think the wording has to be careful so it cannot be exploited for purposes other than providing proper welfare services. I do think that potential is there in some of those clamouring, and so do others. That is why the form of the clamour has delayed the necessary work being done on welfare by making those politicians, who were not reckless, overcautious - thus dividing and destroying the middle ground by polarising it.

I have mentioned making money from the point of view of arguing that a boy from a poorer family in Adelaide's western suburbs can do so, so crying "Poor socially deprived me!" and not doing so is a cop out. I mentioned knowing Alexander Downer in the context of saying he is not the sort of person he was being called in a thread here, because that was declaring why I knew it wasn't so.

I concede that in my somewhat obsessional nature I do go into too much detail sometimes, but my writing style is shaped by preparing reports for courts, where you have to state each step and define the process of your thinking. I have tried to curb that in this setting, and I'll keep working on it.

However, sometimes I think someone has gone over the top and I'll be provocative back. Blind political correctness [or unbalanced political bias] is what I tend to have a go at, not individuals. I never call people names like w@nker etc. first.

[redandblack]

Psyber, perhaps sometimes while concentrating on your methodical detail, you might miss the bigger picture.

[Punk Rooster]

It's a simple matter of being mature enough to acknowledge an obvious wrong.

We're the better as a society for saying sorry and I fully support that.

let's hope all parties are mature about it then...

[Andy #24]

How's Brendan Nelson's form! He wants to apologise to the "forcibly removed" generation. I can't see how this would make a difference to even the most pedantic of people.

No doubt as a Porsche driving, card carrying member of the libs you would have a different opinion Psyber.

[smac]

Does Psyber drive a Porsche? Hadn't heard about it...

[Psyber]

How's Brendan Nelson's form! He wants to apologise to the "forcibly removed" generation. I can't see how this would make a difference to even the most pedantic of people.

No doubt as a Porsche driving, card carrying member of the libs you would have a different opinion Psyber.

1. I sold the last Porsche in 1996, and now drive a 12 year old Audi sports - I'm sure I've mentioned that here before too, yet no one seems to recall it - only that I said I have had the odd Porsche in the past. [Does the "12 year old Audi" not fit the way you want to categorise me in your prejudices? ]

2. I'm tossing up whether to renew membership of the Liberal Party at the moment, but they don't issue a "card". I have also said here prior to the election that I was entirely happy with them, and not sure I'd renew.

3. Yes I do have reservations about the word "stolen" for the same reasons others do - the implication of criminal intent. I agree that what was done was wrong, ill-judged, and stupid, seen in retrospect, but not that it was with criminal intent or based entirely on racism in most cases. Now, out of fear of being called "racist" we are leaving children in, or returning them to communities, to be abused as in several recent published cases - which is worse?

[smac]

To summarise then...

I'm tossing