Thread: Rudds apology

A big part of the problem was shown yesterday when people got up and turned their backs on Brendan Nelson. These included some of Rudd's press secretary staff.

These are the type of people who like to have a sook and whine about the plight of aborignal australia but when someone puts forward a point of view thay don't agree with they turn their back or do not avail themselves of the housing, the health care and the myriad of other things that the billions and billions of dollars have been spent on over the past fifty years for aboriginals.

I hope this is the start of the step forward for them and all australia but I fear that those back turners, being the ones that make a lot of decisions for their people will only continue to whinge and complain rather than try and look forward and improve their lot.

Originally Posted by wardy1

Well... here's my 2 bob's worth
I'm fRom England originally.... now we were invaded by just about everybody! The Vikings, The Moors, The Romans and so it goes. I'm pretty sure thAt my people were at some stages enslaved, slaughtered, raped and our lands were most certainly seized...... Do I get an apology?......no. Do I get compensation?

I for one think we should all get on with the future and use the past as what it really is...... HISTORY. We can't change it, no matter that it was right or wrong.

And are we allowed to ask the really politically incorrect question here?

Were at least some of the "Stolen Generation" not taken from appalling family conditions where sexual and physical abuse were very real concerns?

Do we not remove WHITE children from similar situations even now?

Oh SORRY.

This is part of the problem. They were taken FULL STOP. No abuse was needed etc it was done because they were aboroginal and the white population of the time new better. They were removed to be brought up "just like us"

I'm not big on the whole thing but the apology is appropriate and compensation, just like wrongly removed white children and their families have recieved is justified.

The English would want to be very careful about going down the path of "we were invaded" every country YOU invaded and tried to enforce your way of life etc has seen nothing but troubles. Go on name a country England Invaded... (sorry "settled") that worked. Africa? anyone want to discuss apartheid?

Originally Posted by Chenz

A big part of the problem was shown yesterday when people got up and turned their backs on Brendan Nelson. These included some of Rudd's press secretary staff.

These are the type of people who like to have a sook and whine about the plight of aborignal australia but when someone puts forward a point of view thay don't agree with they turn their back or do not avail themselves of the housing, the health care and the myriad of other things that the billions and billions of dollars have been spent on over the past fifty years for aboriginals.

I hope this is the start of the step forward for them and all australia but I fear that those back turners, being the ones that make a lot of decisions for their people will only continue to whinge and complain rather than try and look forward and improve their lot.

Or perhaps Brendon Nelson should have not tried to turn this in to political point scoring? His comments were inappropriate at that time.

As for Kevin Rudds staff I must be mistaken for thinking we live in a democracy? Since when does the leaders views DICTATE what a staff member can believe. There are also reportedly members of Brendon Nelsons staff who did the same thing. But of course that isn't newsworthy enough for our media to beat up. Yes they may have acted "inappropriately" but that is one of the basic rights of democracy.

Government sanctioned free flowing compensation is not going to happen thankfully.
If any victim wants damages for pain and suffering, they are going to have to take their chances within the legal system, that to me is fair enough. If the Stolen Generations (geez I hate that label) can prove their claims, they should be properly compensated.
I am only aware of one case whereby a Stolen Generation member has succeeded in receiving compensation under the legal system.
What am I to make of this statistic?

Lowitja O'Donoghue (who worked with Mr Rudd on the apology) first claimed to be stolen, but now admits that her father 'relinquished' her and her siblings.
I wonder how many more cases are such as this. I have no doubt kids were stolen, but 'Stolen', thanks to Mr Rudd, now covers any circumstance whereby a child was seperated from their parent(s).
And as for Generations, what a load of nonsense. We now have the world thinking we stole whole generations of Aboriginal kids from their parents.

Kyoto and the apology, are hardly two of the biggest challenges facing Australia. Tokenism at best.

And as for Generations, what a load of nonsense. We now have the world thinking we stole whole generations of Aboriginal kids from their parents....

50,000 kids removed over about 70 yrs, some of them "stolen" counts as generations.

Originally Posted by Rangier Rover

mother was a victom of this Stolen Generation. Fortunately she ended up with a good family who put her through uni and had a career for life and anded up with a nice family and a good home.

Surely in a case such as this, you couldn't really call her a victim? I am sure (although I obviously can't prove) her life turned out much better than had she not been rescued.

Just my opinion.

But does the end justify the means?

I'm sure what Hitler wasn't all so bad was it? A Blue Eyed Blonde haired race? Does the end result justify his method?

(Obviously this is an extreme example)

I would say that example is so ridiculous as to be completely pointless, but that is just my opinion .