Rudd Says Sorry

Australia & New Zealand Homebrewing Forum

Help Support Australia & New Zealand Homebrewing Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

drag

Well-Known Member
Joined
4/10/07
Messages
99
Reaction score
0
While I have nothing against the aboriginal people, my thought of the government saying sorry to the stolen generation is that it opens up massive compensation arguments for them.
To say sorry is admitting liability, so where will it take us?
What are other peoples thoughts.
 
i agree with you there drag. while it was political suicide for Howard to do so, i think he was right in saying that he didnt need to apologise. apart from the liability thing, i just think that it is stupid to expect the leader of a country to apologise for something that your country did a hundred or so years ago. as much as what happened to them was a bad thing, is a belated apology really going to do anything?
 
Listen to the complete statement by Kevin Rudd and the response by Brendan Nelson.

There have been dreadful injustices.

It is time to move on and and take up the challenge of how to fix the problems. Health, eduction, incarceration, housing. Previous governments have thrown dollars at it and it is still there.

Kids were being removed up till the 1970's. That is only 30 years ago. John Howard was a member of the government in 1975.

The problems are ugly. Let us move forward and suggest decent solutions.
 
The government is an institution that has been around, in one form or another, for over 200 years now.

This institution has been responsible for many injustices. One of them has been the policies that gave rise to the 'stolen generation'. The government as an institution still exists, and should accept resposibility for it's actions regardless of the individuals now at the helm, or the people they now pretend to represent.

The government isnt apologising on behalf of the Australian people. The government, as an institution, is apologising for what it did.

Similar things have happened with corporations. Even quite recently companies like IBM and Volkswagen have been held to account for their part in the holocaust. Those events are even more remote than what the Australian government is apologising for, but they are held to account.
 
Good, about time.

The governments culpability re the stolen generation is fairly well documented and is not going to be modified by parliament saying sorry.
 
I'm with PoL. It's the only decent thing to do. What was done was wrong. It wasn't done by any of us, but the government bears responsibility for it. If it is determined that compensation needs to be paid by the courts, then that is what should happen. That's no different to any other compensation claim really.
 
ok, im gonna do a complete 180 on my original comments. i just had a listen to Rudd's apology on the radio, and i think that he has done a really good job of conveying the appropriate feelings and sympathy. also, i never really studied history at High School, so i was only guessing on the time span of when the stolen generation happened. i was of the idea that it was 100 or so years ago. i think that Rudd's apology was and will be one of the great, if not defining moments of Australian History.

Lobby
 
Good on ya, Lobsta. It's great that you can change your opinion like that when you get more info. :super:

I agree that it was an important speech. Very moving. The times they are a changing. :)
 
It wasnt only the blacks that had kids taken off of them. It happened to the whites also. There wasnt single mothers pension in the 50's and 60's.
 
... my thought of the government saying sorry to the stolen generation is that it opens up massive compensation arguments for them.

I think this is a fairly common misconception. There's never been any serious (i.e. non-fringe) suggestion that the stolen generations didn't exist. We knew before the apology that government policy and legislation led to many people being unfairly removed from their families.

I'm no lawyer, but when these compensation cases go through the courts (as they have, and will continue to), I don't think that' the kind of stuff that gets debated. The fact that Australians as a people are sorry that it happened neither raises nor lowers the bar for compensation claims.
 
It wasnt only the blacks that had kids taken off of them. It happened to the whites also. There wasnt single mothers pension in the 50's and 60's.

That's confusing two different issues. Children were (and still are) removed from parents if the parent is unable to provide a child with adequate care, regardless of race or whatever. But for about a century, aborigines were targeted for removal. The laws themselves were not based on a parent's ability to raise a child, but the child's ancestry. See here for the original act from 1869 (It's a bit hard to read, sorry).
 
I dont get why people are confused on this issue. The govt is apologising for past policies that amounted to attempted genocide. If you study our history and read some of the justifications for the actions that led to the legal removal of aboriginal children it was to remove the black from them. And as usual, religion was involved. Regardless of whether they thought it was right at the time it is/was and always will be a huge stain on this countries history. Saying sorry was a token gesture aimed to change attitudes and start the healing process. Did anyone see Nelsons face when told he would be leading the charge jointly with Rudd?

I dont cry. But damn i nearly lost it during Rudds speech particularly when he told stories of the past. For a brief moment i stood a little taller and was proud to be an Aussie.

And then Nelson open his mouth and brought me back down to earth in a thud. Too many aussies just dont get it.

Like the Frenzal Rhomb song says - "some of my best friends are racists".
 
Im not weighing into this debate. neither party has handled this issue well IMO. I have studied a hell of a lot in this area, health etc and have my opinions, but am not going to express them as this is a no win argument. 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.

Im not saying its right or wrong just pointing out what a simple signature can do. Hey the Dutch had have found the mainland and the aboriginies would have been a lot worse off. the dutch found tassie and wiped them all out.

personally I didnt do anything wrong, so im not apologising. if I do something wrong, I'll apologise.

and to anyone who thinks that childrens shouldnt be taken away from unfit parents (white balck, green or blue skin colour I dont give a shite), just read the papers where unfit parents are being tried in court for pulling out their couple month baby's fingernails or similar. its disgusting and an abomination. all because they havent had their kids taken away into safer environments. it makes me physically sick. if you dont agree then you dont have kids and you dont deserve them.
 
citymorgue2: I'm glad to know we were at WAR with the aboriginal population during the early 1970s, this is a revelation to me, could you cite your sources?

This:
Nanna Nungala Fejo, as she prefers to be called, was born in the late 1920s.

She remembers her earliest childhood days living with her family and her community in a bush camp just outside Tennant Creek.

She remembers the love and the warmth and the kinship of those days long ago, including traditional dancing around the camp fire at night.

She loved the dancing. She remembers once getting into strife when, as a four-year-old girl, she insisted on dancing with the male tribal elders rather than just sitting and watching the men, as the girls were supposed to do.

But then, sometime around 1932, when she was about four, she remembers the coming of the welfare men.

Her family had feared that day and had dug holes in the creek bank where the children could run and hide.

What they had not expected was that the white welfare men did not come alone. They brought a truck, two white men and an Aboriginal stockman on horseback cracking his stockwhip.

The kids were found; they ran for their mothers, screaming, but they could not get away. They were herded and piled onto the back of the truck.

Tears flowing, her mum tried clinging to the sides of the truck as her children were taken away to the Bungalow in Alice, all in the name of protection.

A few years later, government policy changed. Now the children would be handed over to the missions to be cared for by the churches. But which church would care for them?

The kids were simply told to line up in three lines. Nanna Fejo and her sister stood in the middle line, her older brother and cousin on her left. Those on the left were told that they had become Catholics, those in the middle Methodists and those on the right Church of England.

And then this:

But should there still be doubts as to why we must now act, let the Parliament reflect for a moment on the following facts: that, between 1910 and 1970, between 10 and 30% of indigenous children were forcibly taken from their mothers and fathers; that, as a result, up to 50,000 children were forcibly taken from their families; that this was the product
of the deliberate, calculated policies of the state as reflected in the explicit powers given to them under statute; that this policy was taken to such extremes by some in administrative authority that the forced extractions of children of so-called mixed lineage were seen as part of a broader policy of dealing with the problem of the Aboriginal population.

One of the most notorious examples of this approach was from the Northern Territory Protector of Natives, who stated: ''Generally by the fifth and invariably by the sixth generation, all native characteristics of the Australian Aborigine are eradicated. The problem of our half-castes'' - to quote the protector - ''will quickly be eliminated by the complete disappearance of the black race, and the swift submergence of their progeny in the white''.

The Western Australian Protector of Natives expressed not dissimilar views, expounding them at length in Canberra in 1937 at the first national conference on indigenous affairs that brought together the Commonwealth and state protectors of natives.

So up to 50,000 stories similar to the one at the top.

Personally, I couldn't be happier that he said sorry.
 
It wasnt only the blacks that had kids taken off of them. It happened to the whites also. There wasnt single mothers pension in the 50's and 60's.

Yeah, white kids got taken away, but that was not a systemic attempt to annihilate a race. Doesn not even compare

personally I didnt do anything wrong, so im not apologising. if I do something wrong, I'll apologise.

and to anyone who thinks that childrens shouldnt be taken away from unfit parents (white balck, green or blue skin colour I dont give a shite), just read the papers where unfit parents are being tried in court for pulling out their couple month baby's fingernails or similar. its disgusting and an abomination. all because they havent had their kids taken away into safer environments. it makes me physically sick. if you dont agree then you dont have kids and you dont deserve them.
So you are sure that EVERY child stolen from a black mother and father was unfit hey?

I am proud to be an Australian today. No one said were were apologising for something we persoanlly did. That's why we have representative govt. As a country we did shameful things to an entire race, who were here first!. Anyone who doesn't see that as a reason for an apology does not deserve to be in this great land, but instead should head back to their own ancestral lands.
And yeah, I am of Aboriginal hertiage.
Well done Kev, let's hops things get better from her4e.
 
Im not weighing into this debate. neither party has handled this issue well IMO. I have studied a hell of a lot in this area, health etc and have my opinions, but am not going to express them as this is a no win argument. 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.


Certainly not at all true. The reparation payments paid by Germany to the Allied powers after WWI come to mind (not that this worked out so well, but anyway). They were absolutely massive amounts and war had definitely been declared. :p
 
Well I myself dont really have an opinion on this whole thing..

But i bumped into one of my mates today he is Aboriginal.. He said in his own words, that he doesnt give a shite about what krudd said today, his mother was a stolen child and she may have gotten something out of today. He lives in a 2 story house in omally (one of the richest suburbs in canberra) in a house he has paid almost half off with the help of his well educated mother, she works at parlament house and he works as a software designer thanks to his schooling. He said he couldnt image life not being what it was and if he was still in the "outback" he would probably die, his words were something along the lines of "the flies i hate fukkin flies mate"

So he is happy with the way his life turned out as he noted his mother may have gotten something out of today but wasnt showing it to him.
Makes me wonder abit, what was done was bad and wrong because it was being done for the wrong reason in some cases, but darrol wouldnt be the man he is today without what happened and hes proud of it. Not demanding an appology, not demanding compensation although i doubt he would say no, it would help finish paying off his huge house.
 
I must admit I did not read all the above [ too painful], My Grandmother was born on a "reserve" of mixed "blood" , Bloomfield River NQ, removed from her family and Country, so this is to me is...............If you don't know or care is :( :( .
If you do, it's a first step.

I also was a member of the ADF for 20 years and when I joined My Grandmother [in early 1967] was a 'non voter' until later that year, her brothers and uncles fought in both 1st and 2nd "sh$t fights" and one in Korea and ..........It goes on and on, my son is the first to NOT serve in my family and I am pleased.

I had tears in my eyes, let's move on.

bindi,out
 
Two aboriginals came into the shop today (separately) and asked me if I agreed with the statement I said no.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top