A Sorry Saga, or the Saga of Sorry?

[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.

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?

If the policy is racist, how can most cases not be entirely based on racism?

[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?

If the policy is racist, how can most cases not be entirely based on racism?

I don't agree with your view that the policy was in itself "Racist". There may have been some racist elements active in its execution by some individuals, but as I said earlier I think it was primarily imperialist rather than racist, and culturally based and to some extent religiously based.

You can't use the circular argument that because racial differences were involved as a visible factor it was automatically Racist, and if it was Racist, by definition it was based on Racism. It could have been racist in part due to individuals' actions, while the policy itself was based on, and initiated because of, some misguided idealism based on the concept of a fully integrated society, for example. I wasn't there when the old legislation was framed, so I don't know for sure what it's intent was. That's why I say "could have" not "was".

People tend to assume that because there was visible a colour difference it was about race, but that is speculative and emotional. It is a bit like saying we try to beat the Indians at Cricket on a racist basis because of their colour, but it is not true - we try to beat everybody regardless of race!

We also treated inappropriately mult-generation Australians of German origin during WW1 - rounding them up into camps and changing the names of their sacred sites - Hahndorf to Ambleside, Blumberg to Birdwood etc.

[redandblack]

Psyber, taking children away from exclusively Aboriginal families was clearly a racist policy, no matter how many words you write.

[Psyber]

Psyber, taking children away from exclusively Aboriginal families was clearly a racist policy, no matter how many words you write.

Was it exclusive? Have you figures for the children taken away from non-aboriginal mothers over the same period particularly say from whilte single mothers or white families living in similar poverty? I don't. They may be revealing.

A lot of white Catholic girls for example possibly had their children "stolen" during that era, when it tended to be assumed single or abandoned mothers could not look after them regardless of either race or skin colour - remember Supporting Mothers Benefit did not exist prior the about 1972, so single mothers had to work and their children were therefore "neglected" in the terms of the day.

I didn't say there was NO racism involved - I expressed scepticism about it being purely racist as you assert is fact on a purely emotional and specultative basis it seems.
Note I keep saying "may" because I don't have absolute facts and don't claim what I want to believe IS fact.

[redandblack]

One was a deliberate policy based on race, Psyber. The other depended on individual circumstances according to the morality of the time.

Your obfuscation doesn't change the core principle.

[Psyber]

One was a deliberate policy based on race, Psyber. The other depended on individual circumstances according to the morality of the time.

Your obfuscation doesn't change the core principle.

How do you establish that to be truth, other than by saying it is so over and over again??
"Bringing them Home" by itself is not proof of this "truth". It quotes facts and figures about the events, but does not prove motivation.

Remember, I have said I think the policies were wrong looking at them in retrospect from today's perspective, and I am in favour of proper health and welfare services for our aborigines and have said elsewhere I have supported moves towards better health and welfare services for aborigines all my voting life.

I just don't like people playing victim and yelling "Racism" if they don't get exactly what they want - like the Pakistani and Indian cricket teams when they don't like the umpires decisions.

[redandblack]

We can only make a judgement about motivation based on our knowledge of the available facts. I have never argued that there were people making decisions on a well-meaning (but mistaken) idea of what they thought was right at the time. This is a separate argument to whether the overall policy was racist. Whether I repeat it or not is irrelevant - any policy based on separating children from their families based on race is racist. That doesn't mean that every person involved was a racist.

You have raised several other points, including Catholic single mothers and whether this will make lawyers rich. That's the obfuscation I'm referring to. It has nothing to do with the core principle here.

I support an apology because to me it's the least that can be done to recognise a wrong that has affected so many people. You argue the case from a legal basis, as is your right. My response is just based on what I think is just.

[Psyber]

Fair enough. I support an apology for the past errors of judgement too, just carefully worded to avoid implying criminal responsibilty, and massive liability for claims beyond the claims of those actually directly harmed.

I don't think those other issues are obfuscation - they are part of the issue because they are they reason there has been hesitation about saying "Sorry", and why it wasn't done long ago.

[Wedgie]

Crikey are you still posting on this topic, I think we got your opinion on the matter after your first post, no need for another dozen or two.

[Psyber]

I was about to post and suggest I was prepared to give this thread a rest if the other guys would - since we are not going to reach any agreement. I have tried to present a balanced response to emotive assertions, and have not questioned the wrongness of the events, just the motivation and root cause. I just wasn't prepared to be bullied into submission by constant repitition of the same populist viewpoint, so I kept responding to the successive shots. I'll not reply to it anymore of it, here at least.

Perhaps we shouldn't have race orientated threads. I wasn't convinced the Politics one was a good idea really when it was first introduced. Once you raise topics of this type you are stuck with accepting diverse points of view, unless you really want to admit to being undemocratic and drive dissenters, or anyone with a different point of view at all, out, and run a "one of us" club.

[Andy #24]

Fair enough. I support an apology for the past errors of judgement too, just carefully worded to avoid implying criminal responsibilty, and massive liability for claims beyond the claims of those actually directly harmed.

I don't think those other issues are obfuscation - they are part of the issue because they are they reason there has been hesitation about saying "Sorry", and why it wasn't done long ago.

I think I've told you a couple of times already, The apology will not give rise to any liability! If this is your only concern, don't worry about it.

Here's a suggestion Psyber, start a "Why Lawyers are Wankers" thread as this is obviously what you want to talk about. Here's some ideas to kick it off. The bloke in the 'tiser today complaining about the proposed anti-bikie laws, the QC who died in a hotel room full of drugs and hookers (I actually thought that wasn't a bad way to go), and anyone who dares suggest that Big Bad Mike Rann keep his nose where it belongs. Have fun.

[Psyber]

I was about to post and suggest I was prepared to give this thread a rest if the other guys would - since we are not going to reach any agreement. I have tried to present a balanced response to emotive assertions, and have not questioned the wrongness of the events, just the motivation and root cause. I just wasn't prepared to be bullied into submission by constant repitition of the same populist viewpoint, so I kept responding to the successive shots. I'll not reply to it anymore of it, here at least.

[Andy #24]

But I was suggesting you talk about something else.

[Psyber]

But I was suggesting you talk about something else.

Lawyers are a side issue - let's leave it! I think we are just wasting time and space, and boring others. Bait me somewhere else if you like!

No further comment from me in this thread. Wedgie is right.

[Wedgie]

But I was suggesting you talk about something else.

Lawyers are a side issue - let's leave it! I think we are just wasting time and space, and boring others. Bait me somewhere else if you like!

No further comment from me in this thread. Wedgie is right.

Not boring me mate, you're like a "pseudo" Wedgie in that you always present your point with a lot of back up dialogue and hate to let go of a good discussion. Ive been guilty of that dozens of times (if not hundreds).
This is probably the only topic on this site I will get emotional about as Im sure you and others understand so I do appreciate you letting it go like you have.

[redandblack]

I think the Politics board gives a proper outlet for discussion of these issues and is well worth having. There's plenty of discussion on various other boards which don't add much to anything and also cause a lot of angst, but posters still enjoy having the chance to debate.

I have to say, Psyber, that I'm not trying to bait you, but presenting yourself as giving balanced argument to counter others populist and emotive assertions is a bit naive and patronising, with respect.

[Andy #24]

Brendan Nelson was on the news last night, he is sick of Rudd consulting with Aboriginal leaders for tomorrow's apology. He says "the most important person Mr Rudd should be consulting with is me". What a bloody pratt! His other idea was that he should be sent to East Timor. I agree, with a target on his back.

[Andy #24]

Once again Brendan Nelson looks like a twat. He was speaking to his party rather than making an apology and sounded weak. Still trying to make excuses.

[Rik E Boy]

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.

I agree with you Wedgie on all points above. I even believe that this apology to the stolen generation will go down in history as Australia's equivalent event as the emancipation of the slaves by Abraham Lincoln. Splitting up families in order to dilute ethnicity is nothing short of genocide. As a non indigenous Australian I believe this to be a terrible wrong and that an apology is not only in order but long overdue.

This apology does not complete the reconcilliation process but merely marks the beginning. If Rudd and Nelson really can reduce the gap in Infant Mortality and life expectancy in particular, then today's apology really does mark a turning point in Australian history. Today I feel very proud to be an Australian.

If you don't think an apology is the way to go, I only have one question: How would you like YOUR kids or mother taken away from you? This destroys the old and disenfranchaises the young. I believe deep down this was the aim of the whole program.

regards,

REB

[Rik E Boy]

On Brisbane TV, national nine news ran a phone poll about whether people agree with the apology. Only 24% supported the apology! Before I get up on the soapbox with a 'typical bloody Queenslanders' rant I would like to know if a similar poll was run on SA TV last night and what the results were.

24 percent!

regards,

REB