Oceania Rabbit Proof Fence and our history.

Actually, Stinrab, it's a Masters.

But, and I honestly think this is important - have we seen claims for compensation made? No. Even Native Title act claims are minimal. What you must consider though, is this; is any amount of money worth the suffering they have had? No. But if people wish to attach a monetary value, why not? I mean, if Ansett workers can get a payout, which they deserve, how can we then say that the Aboriginal community doesn't deserve one? We can't. Besides, the current government wasted $10 mill on education about the GST [which they had also earlier said they wouldn't implement, but I'm not naive enough to believe a politician, esp. not a Liberal or Labor one], and more a gun buy-back campaign, why can't they recompensate Aborigines who were aggrieved by the same instituion (same ***t, different smell, IMHO ) as recent as 50 years ago? Remember that many German companies - Walther, BMW, Volkswagen etc - are paying compensation to slave workers. It's an issue of fairness and when some lawsuits for trivial issues award staggering payments, surely just issues WOULD deserve them?

Having said all this though, I'm completely neutral on the idea of compensation. I mean, I don't believe it's an issue, though I think it's a just cause, however I don't think it would help the problem of reconciliation. And from the Aboriginal political leaders I've heard speak, and read essays of, it doesn't seem to be on their agenda too. Certainly wasn't on the late Charlie Perkins agenda.

Ender

 

You mean that Charlie "burn Sydney burn" Perkins chap? Nice bloke

 

Yeah, that Charlie Perkins. Who, after seeing his people suffer so badly, got angry and said stuff he should have, but - well, I'm not excusing it but I understand that that kind of behavior comes from extreme frustration. Not the least of which was seeing your culture whored in front of the whole world for the Olympics when normally it's simply ignored. It's insulting to them and you still hear bits and pieces in the news about similar issues - didn't some people from the Tent embassy take down the coat of arms because of the use of the Emu and Kangaroo?
Besides, if the Aboriginal community is at the point where it's most vocal member - and dude, a little respect for a man who spent his whole life fighting for the rights of his people, may he rest in a peace he obviously couldn't find here - is advocating that doesn't it say to you we should do something about it lest we see actions replace words?

Ender

 

Sorry Ender i got a bit confused you're last statement can mean one of two things... what sort of actions in particular are you talking about

( I'm tired so don't get fustrated at me please)

 

Well, Pigalek, what Stinrab alluded to was Charlie Perkins pre-Olympics statement encouraging aborignies to riot during the Olympics to draw attention to their plight. I believe he said Sydney would burn. A stupid thing to do for two reasons:
1) It makes you look dangerous and extreme, and
2) it diverts attention away from the intended focus area, eg aboriginal welfare, to the more sensational aspects of Perkins speech.

What I meant was, instead of community leaders and activists making statements there could be organised marches and protests - good news to show the rest of the world how our once beautiful and much admired multicultural society poorly handles indigeous race issues. Let's face it, we're an awesome nation, and we're making ourselves look bad by poorly handling this issue. Once we actually solve the racial gap between the indigenous population and the white majority we can get down to other important issues. Welfare, research, medicine, keeping our economy growing as it has been, getting Russell Crowe more Oscars, and yes, refugees. Hey, why don't I start another controversial forum on refugees? I'm sure Stinrab would love that!

Oh, and Pigalek, being tired is ok. It was hot today.

Ender

 

Once we actually solve the racial gap between the indigenous population and the white majority

By referring to them like that ("the white majority" and "the indigenous population") you are, in fact, helping to widen that racial gap. We are all Australians; it doesn't matter what colour you are.


Anyway, back to the Stolen Generation, I think some of you so-called "enlightened ones" might enjoy this following article;

http://www.newaus.com.au/news151st.html

I'd be interested to see your "enlightened" opinions on it, anyway.

 

I think it's always been fairly obvious to all viewpoints that the media have given this issue quite close to the worst treatment possible.

And isn't it funny how many Aboriginal People take being called "black" as one of the greatest offenses possible, and media and government will make a fuss of it also, yet will willingly call the people of Australia who are of European descent "White" without even batting an eyelid, and never having a fuss made of it?
I think if political correctness is to be implemented proerly, it should be implemented fairly, don't you?

 

When I studied under him, Prof. Tatz gave us beautiful advice when dealing with denialists. He said, and I'm paraphrasing, that you ask them to prove it. He was referring to Holocaust denialism, but it applies to anyone who would deny genocide. He said, ask them to prove that the survivors testimony is a lie. Ask them to prove that the documents of the time which gave the official sanctioning or "go aheads" to genocide were forged. Prove that the journalistic records were influenced by someone bribing a journalist. Genocide crimes are so well documented, I guarantee you there is a world out there of documented evidence on Armenia, on the Stolen Generation, on Stalin's purge, which, is studied as genocide "in all but name", the Holocaust, Rwanda, Somalia, the Kurds in Iraq, Serbian massacre of ethnic Albians. And always someone,usually a right wing hate monger, who will deny them.
see more: http://www.w-a-r-n.org/articles/phil_of_truth.html
Australians and Australia aren't like that though; I don't imply that Stinrab is like Hando in Romper Stomper or even Derek Vinyard in American History X. We don't like to think we could committ this crime as a nation, it's just not us. Except it did happen, we didn't slaughter the indigenous population [this century], we just breached one of the other definition points. It's in the same way that sterilising people, as the Nazis did too, isn't the same as gassing them but it's still genocide.
But back to my point, it's an ugly thing which we did do wrong! Which again brings me to reiterate the importance of reconciliation.
And using black/white was necessary to highlight my point, I don't disagree it's divisive. It was 'for lack of better words.'
"In order to get beyond race, we must first consider race." US Justice Harry Blackmun.

E_S

 

Political correctness is a little out of hand, it lacks rational thought behind it. Blame America for that one.
Hey, here's a good way of looking at the "best intentions" of those who committed the Stolen Generation:
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it with religious conviction." Pascal
- and -
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary." A. Einstein


E_S

 

Oh, I agree with you, Ender-Sai, on the fact that the greatest crimes have been committed in the name of religion. That's why I myself hold no specific faith; it makes logic all the clearer.

However, stop it with this "we"! "We" (as I presume you refer to Australians of European descent) had absolutely nothing to do with the past, just as a modern day German has nothing to do with the war crimes committed during the Holocaust. Hell, had i lived at the time I would have disagreed with removing Aboriginal people from their tribes for the simple purpose of Catholic Brainwashing (mind you, that would primarily be because I'm very anti-Catholic, as far as their religious organisation and attempts at conversion of people). But I refuse to be constantly accused and and blamed for something that I had absolutely no part in whatsoever. It's like accusing someone of Afghani descent of being responsible for the events of September 11th - it's just plain racist.

 

Actually, really if anyone should have to apologize for the stolen generation, it should be the Catholic church.

 

I say we for the simple fact; it's our "debt", it's our legacy, and it's our stain. The international community will scrunitise AUSTRALIA's actions on this issue, and that don't include a difference between "us" [the current Australian population], and "them" [the Stolen Generation perpetrators].
Furthermore, I say we as a nation-state, not as a group of individuals. In a representative liberal democracy we are responsible for the government; hence why we vote, and they are accountable to us. That's why I say we, it's a national issue that we must take responsibilty for. We means you, I, Bob Carr, John Howard, and all in between.
As to punishing the Catholic Church - well, it was more the Anglican Church, you have to remember here that the Catholic Church has actually, at least pre-1950's, had a very strong connection to the left and Labor through the Irish immigrants. They were quite busy then trying to get the socialists out of the Labor party by influencing the DLP. I mean, the Holy See has issues it must deal with - large numbers of it's members did not lift a finger during the Holocaust despite having a largely Catholic Wehrmacht and SS. In fact, in the two instances where Bishops DID speak out, the SS could not arrest them for personal issues. Point? The Holy See has more to worry about than the Stolen Generation of which it was more a bystander than culprit.

E_S

And no, I'm not, nor ever have been Catholic.

 

In a representative liberal democracy we are responsible for the government; hence why we vote, and they are accountable to us.

I didn't vote for the government that did this. Those people were not representing us; they were representing the people of 50 years ago. "We" are not responsible

 

Exactly; I'm not even a votng citizen yet (I'm only 17 years old), so how can I possibly be forced to make up for something that, had I lived at the time, I would have disagreed with? As I said, it's like accusing a German of being responsible for the Holocaust. It's simply stupid to expect from anyone to apologize for something they had nothing to do with.

 

As I've said before, my family didn't arrive in this country until the 60's, and I wasn't able to vote until 1990, what happened before then is as much my responsibilty as it is Marvin the Martians.
You obviously have either a guilt complex, or a need to just stir racial issues. This isn't the place for either of those.

 

I honestly believe that if little Johnny Jackboots ever uttered the "S" word to the aborigines for what happened to them in the past, that nothing would change. It's just a damned word for god's sake, and is not nearly as significant as some might think.

Sure it would open up the potential for a flood of claims against the government (as suggested by someone in an earlier post many pages ago), but in actual fact nothing would really be different for aborigines after the "S" word was uttered. Everything said in this thread pointing out the present injustices the aboriginal people supposedly still endure would still exist, right?

I know many aboriginal people (from my time spent living in Redfern a while back) who really couldn't give a rat's ass whether Little Johhny Jackboots says sorry or not, and in fact basically say what I said above - saying 'Sorry' wouldn't change a damned thing for them anyway.

That said, I agree with Gecko and Magician above - why should I feel responsible for something I or my ancestors had absolutely nothing to do with? My immigrant family only arrived here in the 1940s and I only got to first vote in 1988 (stupid me - voted for the Greens when I had my first voting experience).

I feel horrible that indigenous people in this country were treated so atrociously in the past, but I refuse to feel guilty for it or lose any sleep over it. I have my own problems to deal with thank you, and I don't need to go into that here to prove anything to anyone. Suffice it to say I reiterate the sentiments from my initial post in this thread - sometimes the only person who can help you to your satisfaction is yourself.

Please accept my sincerest apologies for this slightly incoherent post but I am all doped up - this bloody weather has given me the damned flu ...

 

I don't mean you, I or anyone else is respobsbile to make the move of reconciliation; it is a just move that the government must do, on it's behalf. "we" the nation perhaps should motivate them...

E_S

 

I don't mean you, I or anyone else is respobsbile to make the move of reconciliation; it is a just move that the government must do, on it's behalf. "we" the nation perhaps should motivate them...

E_S

 

Before the Aborigines arrived, there was a group of people known as the Mungo Men. There isn't much known about them at this point, but we can see that they disappeared at about the same time that the Aborigines arrived. You can fill in the gaps on that one. So, is ATSIC going to apologize for this? Using your logic, they, as a people, are responsible.

 

Yeah, and using your logic I'd have disregard a large portion of anyone's argument. Difference is, these mungo men don't exist today. Difference is, the world isn't gonna scrutinize us as a nation for that.
What bothers me most is the lack of any clear compassion or conscience here. It's a wrong, we the people have a right to expect it to be fixed and the power to influence this so we can move on as a nation. But we don't. Hmmm... as Bill Hicks once said 'But, I'm a reader.'

E_S

 

Difference is, these mungo men don't exist today.

And the reason these mungo men don't exist today is? GENOCIDE. Your favourite word.
Ok, so because the Mungo men no longer exist it isn't an issue? So, under that logic, you'd be ok if the Aborigines were wiped out by the British? No longer an issue so don't worry about it. Pfft Poor logic. Seems to me that you're just stirring now (not that you weren't in the first place) as you seem to now only care about genocide if the race still exists. Yikes!


We have compassion. It just isn't on our conscience; we didn't do anything. I'm not going to lose sleep over something I did not do

 

It's got nothing to do with poor logic, if we tried to right ALL the world's wrongs we'd have to get rid of most arms of the US government, the Catholic Church, destroy the corporations and the communist governments in China etc etc etc. It does not diminish the reality of what happened, nor the complexity of the issue but before you address that you've got invalid Terra Nulius claims to refute and all that. We're talking one issue that has the potential to become a flashpoint with severe international scrutiny lurking in the wings, second to the contentiousness of it in our society and you want to try and trip me up?
The reality is dude we're gonna look real bad as this issue creates more of a divide. This isn't my primary concern but I figure you may have enough patriotism to care if the world gets a bad picture of us? Or do you like being poised to start getting the kind of antipathy once reserved for South Africa, 'cause we could go down that path too. And yeah, sitting round saying "Hell, it wasn't me, why should I do anything" is going to make it worse.
"Stirring." That's a defeatist point and you know it. If I was stirring, I'd make broad generalisations, I'd not substatiate my claims [hey is this sounding awful familiar?], and I'd then try and get off topic by making off topic remarks, then try and deflect attention from my poor arguement structure by making claims of stirring etc etc... Dang, why does this sound so familiar???
[And yeah, I'll concede that point was stirring. But at least I can substantiate it.]

Now, since this is my thread I made the rule, and the rule was, make a point, sustantiate it. Substantiate it in the same way a lawyer would an article of evidence, the way an academic would in an essay, you can use footnotes or whatever I'm not fussed. If you make an assertion, substantiate it with fact. Then we'll continue.

E_S

 

It was actually the Aboriginies that screwed up the environment of Australia to begin with. They were responsible for more extinctions of animals and plants than European settlers could ever be, and are in fact responsible for the harsh climate of this country - having set fire to so much of the land that massive fires were caused, burning out large portions of rainforest for the sole reason of better visibility while hunting.
So if all races are to pay for the sins of past generations, there is payment due from both sides, really. Both races owe this Land a great deal, if the wrongs of our ancestors are to be taken into account.

Ender_Sai - wouldn't your suggestion for righting all the "wrongs" of the past also be considered genocide?

 

Why would making wrongs right be genocide, pray tell? I suggested that doing so would have to result in that, but that's a subjective judgement call I made based off popular examples. I don't harbour any ill will towards the Holy See or US Govt, I just illustrated there's practicality and absurdity to be found dangling from the same slender thread.

E_S