Rudd Says Sorry

[Canumbler]

So faryg did you read the statement? (in full).

Or are you as shallow as you post implies.

 

[sinkas]

Its the most pivotal day in Australian history in my lifetime, falling not insignificantly behind Keatings excellent Redfern Address of 1993 ( one of the best speeches in history)

It depressess me that most Australian's are so poorly eductated and informed so as to find reason to criticize and serve to extractate themsleves from event such as this. This is about basic human decency, and the accepting of responsibility, to hide bind worries of compensation payouts, is selfish and phillistinic

The facts are,
The white people came and did some revolting thing for many years, this apology is realistically only the beginning, and I am elated at Rudd's motion to form the oddly quipped "War cabinet" on Aboriginal health, and more importantly on his dedication to have the indigenous people instated as the original land owners in the consitution.

The huge amout of wealth in this country, is a good reminder of the value of the country that the Aborigianl people sustianed for 60K years, I belive, and am willing to help to pay for the wrongs of the colonisers of this land, as its the least we can ******* do.

I was far prouder listeing the Rudd today, than I have ever been hearing about some aimless "aussie"sporting victory.

We forget our short , dark history, at our peril, and event's such as today's are a reminder that real change can actually occur, givin the right circumstances.

 

[Doogiechap]

I had tears in my eyes,
Very very happy with Kevin's gesture and sincerity.

 

[brettprevans]

despite my post about not wanting to weigh into the debate, it seems to some people that I did. but to remedy that I make no further commentary on the issue, other than to say that people will always disagree about some things. Im glad the aboriginal people are happy, and im glad the people who dont agree and arent happy can at least express their disapprovement over the subject. we live in a great country and it would be grand if everyone could get along (which on the whole I think happens in Australia). there will never be an easy solution to this problem. Currently spend is about $2.50 on aborginal health for every $1 on non-aboriginal health and it still isnt having the desired effect. A department of aboriginal affairs (the name escapes me) and it went corrupt and didnt have the desired effect. theres no easy solution.

Canumbler - I think you misread or didnt understand my post re the technicalities of declaring war on people/countries. its not a simple topic which is why taught over 1 full year at uni in conjuntion with 4 other 'cultural/indiginous diversity' subjects and law. I certainly never said what happened was right or wrong, as I wasnt entering into the debate, just making a comment about a related issue.

Maxt - If you read my post I was talking about unfit parents in general. I didnt specify any situation. I was commenting on the general idea/action. Im sure that not every aborginal child taken should have been. but I wasnt commenting on that situation. just the general idea of removing children for their safety. its not an easy action to take as it can very subjective. Glad your happy with the outcome.

Stuster - Your correct. I was simplifying things down and didnt go into every possible outcome. I meant to say in the orinal post that I was very much simplifying the issues, and of course with out pulling out text books and referencing exact wording, my post could be misunderstood.

If I offended anyone with my comments/discussion of the topic I apologise. For I was intending on making an unbiased discussion on the topic, raising some points for disucssion. not to take sides or offend anyone (not that I think I said anything that should offend anyone).

EDIT: bugger my post is almost PistolPatch length.

 

[Canumbler]

citymorgue2: the juxtaposition of your particular comments with context they were in makes your intended purpose very clear.

War could not have been declared on the indigenous population of australia as that would have violated the principles behind terra nullis.
A declaration of war implies an acknowledgement that the other side is human, meaning terra nullis can no longer be applied and the traditional rules of war come into play.
Many many things done to the indigenous population of australia would have violated the rules of war at the time they were done.

Although I wonder if people actually realise that all of this is only possible becuase the english were too lazy to sign a peice of paper stating that they formally declared war on the aboriginies. If they had of, it forms a legal document in which the 2 people are at war and whoever wins assiimilates the country/population into their ranks and there is no legal right to claim anything. this is the way things have happended for many hundreds of years with waring countries and colonisation.

This is a farce, the declaration of war comes with its own rules far and above what the white population of early australia observed in regards to the aborigines.
If war were to make assimilation/extermination legal would you care to explain the Nuremberg trials?

 

[brettprevans]

I make no further commentary on the issue......

....I meant to say in the orinal post that I was very much simplifying the issues....

If I offended anyone with my comments/discussion of the topic I apologise. For I was intending on making an unbiased discussion on the topic, raising some points for disucssion. not to take sides or offend anyone....

 

[bonj]

I say it's about time. Anyone who disagrees surely doesn't properly comprehend the issue.

I'm not ashamed to say I had tears running down my face when I watched it live on ABC.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Rudd's speach was great

Nelsons was terrible...he certainly didnt do himself any favours by dragging up details of previous cases of rape and murder. Put a bit of a dampener on the whole thing....he was trying to justify what Howard set in motion on the NT

 

[peas_and_corn]

...I am elated at Rudd's motion to form the oddly quipped "War cabinet" on Aboriginal health...

This is a quite common term to use in such circumstances. Security is a fickle term, open to large amounts of debate as to how to define it and what it encompasses. In the past few decades, the idea of "human security" has become somewhat popular- especially in Canada. This theory argues that it is wise to push security down to the individual level- my friend wrote his honours thesis on AIDS in China, and applied the human security paradigm to it, arguing that through the lens of human security, an AIDS pandemic would be a security risk as it threatens the human security of millions. It would be easy to transfer such a view to the Aboriginies; the biggest problem is that the problems of health et al threaten to destroy what little of their indigenous culture they have left. Human security proponents would argue that by framing actions within the language of security, it brings with it the urgency that any large scale security problem has. As a (philosophical) liberal, I can see the logic behind this.

 

[sinkas]

I had tears in my eyes,
Very very happy with Kevin's gesture and sincerity.

Me also,
My wife and I attended the viewing of the speech live at the Beck's music box in the Perth city, I have to say it was the first non-hostile Western Australian large scale gathering I have been to, It was a pleasure to be in such a loving and cohesive situation, hearing somthing postive rather than defensive, trite and platitudionous from the leader of the country.
Change has been initiated, we just need to each put some effort into ensuring it continues.