Native Title Petition
Greg Winning
Graeme Campbell wrote in message <3700D4...@hotmail.com>...
>http://www.ludin.com.au/~campbell/public.html
>
>Australia is at the crossroads in how we develop as a nation. The
>Native Title judgements
>have added a new dimension to the future of Australian land title. This
>could potentially see
>vast amounts of land and resources made inaccessible to industry, and as
>a consequence
>
>regional development will stagnate.
Unavailable to industry or does it mean that industry will now have to
negotiate with aboriginies instead of the government about land use?
>This petition calls on the government to hold a referendum to abolish
>Native title.
>The confusion and lost opportunity being caused by native title is not
>offset by any pretense
>of Aboriginal advancement. In reality these judgements will have no
>bearing on the quality of
>life for Aboriginal people but they will drive down the standard of
>living for Australians as a
>whole.
If giving aborginial people some say finally in their future doesn't help
them what will? More interference by politicians? Do you have all the
answers?
>I fully support all measures that provide genuine assistance for
>Aboriginal advancement.
Like giving them back their self esteem. Having their culture ripped away
from them (land) means we now have to deal with a race of people lost.
Caught bewteen two cultutres they will never aspire to succeed in white
society when you must first have the drive to achieve. With no self respect
because they have no culture how is this ever going to turn around?
>The key to this is in the provision of housing, health, education,
>training and employment.
And a good dose of self respect which they'll never have without their
culture (land)
>These must be attacked simultaneously, for if one is not addressed then
>the whole lot will fail.
>Native title is not the answer.
>There was no need for the High Court to engage in all the social
>engineering that the Mabo
>judgments represent. The people of the Murray Islands were entitled to
>their land under the
>existing law of "adverse possession".
Is this 'social engineering' similar to the 'social engineering' of the
white Australia policy or the stolen generation?
>We must remember that the High Court found Native Title in Common Law,
>which means
>that Parliament can introduce Statute Law to override the Court.
>The government will not have the nerve to call a referendum on this
>issue. However if we can
>get enough signatures, it will send a strong message to the Australian
>Labor Party, it may put
>some backbone into the Liberal party, and will be a clear warning to the
>High Court.
>
>
>Given the economic uncertainty Australia is still facing, it has
>become an issue of national
>survival that we stop pandering to the machinations and greed
>of small minority groups.
Australia is not facing economic uncertainty due to minority groups Graeme,
it faces economic uncertainty because the world economic system has been
globalised. When big business doesn't pay its taxes (see Kerry Packer as one
example) and international money market players dictate to government what
policy should be then I think you're aiming your bow at the wrong target.
I've just finished reading a book by a guy who blamed minority groups for
all of his countries woes. It was called Mein Kampf.
>The Australian people have been let down by both the courts and supine
>politicians. We must
>act NOW to bring to heel "the servants who would be our masters".
They've lost control Graeme, you should know that. Big business tells
treasurers what to do. The IMF tells government what policies to implement.
>We need your help to gather these signatures. Print out a petition and
>get as many of your
>friends and family to sign it. Petitions presented to Parliament must
>have the original signature
>and faxed or e-mail copies are not acceptable. Please post your copies
>back to:
>
>
>"Native Title Petition" Box 10398 KALGOORLIE WA 6430
>
>
>Such a national campaign costs money, which we do not have much of. Any
>donation to
>cover postage, telephone, advertising etc. will make a substantial
>difference to this campaign.
>
>
> Thank you for your support
>
>
>
>GRAEME CAMPBELL
>
>Former Federal Member for
>
>Kalgoorlie
deadly
Want to kill off native title?
Just get a Federal Law passed that limits any claims or benefits
from Native Title claims to only tribal funds managed by tribal
elders, claims only to be lodged by tribal elders, and any funds
are restricted to being given to people whose totaly ancestry
is 50% Aboriginal or more.
That will kill off about 80% of claims and claimants.
Deadly
Alan Luchetti
deadly <deadl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:370d4d0c...@news.alphalink.com.au...
Just one drawback - if the 80% claim is true, it'll
cost 80% of the total value of native titles across
Australia. See s51(xxxi) of the Constitution,
deadly, and thereafter get real. No granted titles
are lost because they are inherited by the 'wrong'
race -- why do it to native title?
alan
L
\-/
Dave Garner
I was always given to understand that Aboriginals (except for the
wonderful Ubangi tribe) had, like the plains indians, no conception
of land OWNERSHIP.
Access is one thing. Sovereignty/ownership/title/etc are something
else entirely.
They do not accord with what we are told are Traditional Values
that aboriginal people are supposedly trying to reclaim. Well,
the noisey ones who live in cities claim they are anyway. Can't
ALL be decendents of the so-called "Stolen Generation"....
d.
Seppo Renfors
>
> G'day
>
> Want to kill off native title?
>
> Just get a Federal Law passed that limits any claims or benefits
> from Native Title claims to only tribal funds managed by tribal
> elders, claims only to be lodged by tribal elders, and any funds
> are restricted to being given to people whose totaly ancestry
> is 50% Aboriginal or more.
>
> That will kill off about 80% of claims and claimants.
BWWWWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAhahahahahhaa.....
--
SIR -Philosopher Unauthorised
------------------------------------------------------------------
" Don't resent getting old. A great many are denied that
privilege "
---------------------------------------------------------------
george blahusiak
>I am a bit puzzled by this whole thing.
>I was always given to understand that Aboriginals (except for the
>wonderful Ubangi tribe) had, like the plains indians, no conception
>of land OWNERSHIP.
Wrong. They had a common custodianship. I guess they're smarter than
the average European and know that you can't take it with you.
george blahusiak
>G'day
>Want to kill off native title?
>Just get a Federal Law passed that limits any claims or benefits
>from Native Title claims to only tribal funds managed by tribal
>elders, claims only to be lodged by tribal elders, and any funds
>are restricted to being given to people whose totaly ancestry
>is 50% Aboriginal or more.
Just goes to show further discrimination and thievery by Europeans.
The law, European law I might add, says that anyone who is considered
an Aboriginal and has Aboriginal ancestry, is Aboriginal regardless of
the percentage of Aboriginal parentage.
The reason is simple.
For over 200 years some people were discriminated against on the basis
of their Aboriginality. The were called half casts, and quadroons, and
octroons. Europeans called some people Aboriginal and they were
discriminated against, even if "there was [only] a bit of the tar
brush in there". That was how the Europans defined the law.
Now, when it comes time to give them their due it seems that some
people want to change the definition and say that you aren't
Aboriginal unless you are 50 percent Aboriginal or more.
What a disgrace that this should be considered, let alone allowed. It
demonstrates some peop[le's total racism and ignorance of the law.
Well, maybe one day Washington will come along and bomb Canberra for
its genocidal policies. Then we'll all be happy.
Hunter
> Just goes to show further discrimination and thievery by Europeans.
> The law, European law I might add, says that anyone who is considered
> an Aboriginal and has Aboriginal ancestry, is Aboriginal regardless of
> the percentage of Aboriginal parentage.
>
> The reason is simple.
>
> For over 200 years some people were discriminated against on the basis
> of their Aboriginality. The were called half casts, and quadroons, and
> octroons. Europeans called some people Aboriginal and they were
> discriminated against, even if "there was [only] a bit of the tar
> brush in there". That was how the Europans defined the law.
That's ok, I've at times been called a white boong by arseholes because I
spend quite a bit of time knocking around with nyungars. By your
justification because I have also experienced such "discrimination" I
should also be considered aboriginal by law huh?
I wish....
Shi Hwang Ti
IMHO White Australians have yet to really come to terms with how
badly they have treated the Natives of Australia in the last 200
years and no doubt the denial will continue and the healing won't
start.This is tragic really.
Read why Malcolm Frazer, ex PM of Australia, feels that Australia
should apologise to the Aborigines:
Wednesday 7 (The Melbourne Age)
April 1999
Why we must say sorry
By MALCOLM FRASER
FOR older Australians, whatever history we were
taught in schools and universities about the
earlier settlement of this land was partisan
and one-sided. We were largely told that it was
an empty land, with a few Aborigines in some
places where the clashes with white settlers
pressing outwards were relatively minor and
unimportant. That is not the way it was.
Facing the truth about our own past, when it is
contrary to that which we have been taught for
generations, is difficult. Unless
non-Aboriginal Australians are prepared to look
at the past honestly there will be no real
reconciliation with Aborigines.
The report on the ``stolen generation'' was
well received in some circles but with cynical
views in many others because it challenged our
own notions of ourselves. It challenged our
understanding of the past and painted our
ancestors in many ways less than admirably.
There was a concerted effort by many people to
denigrate the report. We were asked why, if the
children of drunk and inadequate non-Aboriginal
Australians are taken away and put in care,
that should not happen to Aboriginal children
in similar circumstances? There is, of course,
no reason why that should not happen if
circumstances were the same but, in most cases,
that was not the situation with the stolen generation.
The factual evidence provided in the report is
substantial, but we do not need to go to the
report to be able to understand what happened and why.
In 1937 in Canberra there was a meeting of
Aboriginal ``protectors'' - those responsible
for Aboriginal policy and its implementation in
the respective states. The Aboriginal
``protector'' for Western Australia, Mr A.O.
Neville, spelt out to the conference how the
Aboriginal problem should be dealt with. It was
assumed that full-blood Aborigines left to
themselves would die out because the theories
of the times suggested their genes were weak.
The real problem, according to Neville, was in
half-bloods, or half-castes as they were often
called at the time.
It was believed the mixture of white and
Aboriginal blood would strengthen the genes
and, if the progeny of such a union were
brought up in Aboriginal customs and practices,
then Aboriginal traditions would survive and
the problem would be perpetuated.
The key, therefore, was to take half-caste
children from their parents and bring them up
in a white environment. Nothing would then have
to be done about the full-bloods who, over
time, would disappear.
This describes the policy put in place to solve
the Aboriginal question. It ultimately led to
the report on the stolen generation. The
suggestion that this had any similarity with
policies applied to the children of drunken,
inadequate, non-Aboriginal Australians is
nonsense and hypocrisy at its worst.
Many Australians, especially of my generation,
find it difficult to accept this picture of our
past because it is so contrary to everything we
have been taught. But recognition of the past
is essential to the whole process. And that
begins to point the way to what should be done.
The living standards of current-day Aborigines
is still a national disgrace.
Third World diseases are rampant in parts of the Aboriginal
population almost 200 years after white settlement. There
is a suggestion that huge sums of money have been thrown at
these problems of inadequate health, education and housing.
Recent reports suggest that this is not
necessarily so and that, while there are some
examples of waste and extravagance and there
are examples of misuse of funds, in relation to
the size of the problem Australian governments
have not been overly generous.
For example, when all the money spent on health
is added together, for every dollar spent on
non-Aboriginal Australians, one dollar and
eight cents is spent on Aborigines. Thus, while
health expenditure per capita is roughly the
same, the mortality rate of Aborigines against
non-Aboriginals is three to one.
Improving the situation of Aborigines,
remedying the Third World poverty and hardship
seen in too many parts of Australia, is
obviously an important task. For some it is the
only task, but that view is misguided.
True reconciliation does not only involve
material things - it also involves matters of the spirit.
This is where the question of an apology for
past wrongs is relevant. An apology does not
say ``I am guilty''. It is recognition that our
society perpetuated a wrong and that we are
sorry it happened. The suggestion that an
apology can be the basis of legal claims is a nonsense.
The British Prime Minister, Tony Blair,
apologised for the British Government's failure
to intervene in the Irish famine. President
Bill Clinton apologised for what the US
Government did to Afro-American men in
Tuskegee, Alabama, in the 1930s. I also saw a
report in which Boris Yeltsin apologised to the
Romanovs when their bones were re-interred in Russia.
An apology is recognition, above all, that
something wrong was done and we regret that it
happened. It is perhaps the most important
thing we can do which is within our power, to
address matters of the spirit. There will never
be reconciliation with Aborigines and other
Australians unless we understand that there are
both material and spiritual issues involved.
An apology is not even a commentary on the
morality or ethics of the people involved in
policies at the time. An apology is a criticism
of the act much more than a criticism of the
people who lived in a different time with
different ideas. An apology says that, by
today's standards, these things should never have happened.
We can't undo the past but we can, in an
apology, recognise the fact that many actions
in the past did a grave injustice to the
Aboriginal population of Australia.
We have a commitment to recognise that and other past
injustices in walking together into a new future.
(Malcolm Fraser was the Liberal Prime Minister
from 1975-83. This is an edited version of an
article published in Walking Together, the newsletter
of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation.)
John Sefton
>
> Hunter wrote:
> >
> > george blahusiak wrote:
> >
> > > Just goes to show further discrimination and thievery by Europeans.
> > > The law, European law I might add, says that anyone who is considered
> > > an Aboriginal and has Aboriginal ancestry, is Aboriginal regardless of
> > > the percentage of Aboriginal parentage.
> > >
> > > The reason is simple.
> > >
> > > For over 200 years some people were discriminated against on the basis
> > > of their Aboriginality. The were called half casts, and quadroons, and
> > > octroons. Europeans called some people Aboriginal and they were
> > > discriminated against, even if "there was [only] a bit of the tar
> > > brush in there". That was how the Europans defined the law.
> >
> > That's ok, I've at times been called a white boong by arseholes because I
> > spend quite a bit of time knocking around with nyungars. By your
> > justification because I have also experienced such "discrimination" I
> > should also be considered aboriginal by law huh?
> > I wish....
>
> IMHO White Australians have yet to really come to terms with how
> badly they have treated the Natives of Australia in the last 200
> years and no doubt the denial will continue and the healing won't
> start.This is tragic really.
>
> Read why Malcolm Frazer, ex PM of Australia, feels that Australia
> should apologise to the Aborigines:
Fraser was PM for 8 years - surely enough time to apologise if he was
serious about it.
Hunter
> IMHO White Australians
You're racist? Or do you think there are only whites and aboriginals here?
> have yet to really come to terms with how
> badly they have treated the Natives of Australia in the last 200
> years
There aren't many 200 year old Australians...
> and no doubt the denial will continue and the healing won't
> start.This is tragic really.
People's use of rhetoric and lack of understanding is what is really tragic....
> Read why Malcolm Frazer, ex PM of Australia, feels that Australia
> should apologise to the Aborigines:
But why do you feel we should appologise? I personally cannot appologise for
things I had nothing to do with and had no control over anymore than you can
appologise to the aborignals for the same. Any living aboriginal that has been
wronged should take legal action.
(I notice you didn't bother to mention wether you thought I should be
considered aboriginal when you replied to my post. Would it shake your
perceived moral high ground would it?)
Allan-John Marsh
>
> Shi Hwang Ti wrote:
>
> > IMHO White Australians
>
> You're racist? Or do you think there are only whites and aboriginals here?
What is it with people! There is more to being racist that forgetting
to include Asian people too!! Racist is the act of hating people of
different races, thinking you're better than others based on race,
treating others differently, making assumptions on racial traits, and
elevating your own race to glory. It is not racist to speak of White
Australians when referring to Aboriginies, and forget Asians - PLEASE!
They call us British whingers! It seems that all other people do is
whinge "mwaaah, you looked at me funny - you're a racist"
Alan Luchetti
John Sefton <j...@spider.connectivity.net.au> wrote in message
news:370D21...@spider.connectivity.net.au...
> Shi Hwang Ti wrote:
> > Read why Malcolm Frazer, ex PM of Australia,
> > feels that Australia should apologise to the
> > Aborigines:
> Fraser was PM for 8 years - surely enough time
> to apologise if he was serious about it.
Frazer was PM from 1975-1983. The Wilson Report
came out over 10 years later. If he had been PM
when it came out, he'd have been less reactive
to it, diversive from it, and undermining of it
than Howard. He wouldn't have said 'I sympathise fundamentally with those
Australians who are
insulted when told we have a racist and bigoted
past', as Howard did. He would not have been
reflexively insulted by the truth -- as Howard is.
Howard has a sentimental love affair with the
national myths of his formative years. So
sentimental is he that the love affair continues
after the myth is exploded. It's downright
onanistic. Unlike Frazer, the man is impervious
to new information. He's like a Serb from Novy
Sad who is insulted by NATO 'propaganda' about
Kosovo. Some people even reckon that makes him
a true Australian patriot.
alan
L
\-/
David Addinall
Alan Luchetti wrote:
> John Sefton <j...@spider.connectivity.net.au> wrote in message
> news:370D21...@spider.connectivity.net.au...
>
> > Shi Hwang Ti wrote:
>
> > > Read why Malcolm Frazer, ex PM of Australia,
> > > feels that Australia should apologise to the
> > > Aborigines:
>
> > Fraser was PM for 8 years - surely enough time
> > to apologise if he was serious about it.
>
> Frazer was PM from 1975-1983. The Wilson Report
> came out over 10 years later. If he had been PM
> when it came out, he'd have been less reactive
> to it, diversive from it, and undermining of it
> than Howard. He wouldn't have said 'I sympathise fundamentally with those
> Australians who are
> insulted when told we have a racist and bigoted
> past', as Howard did. He would not have been
> reflexively insulted by the truth -- as Howard is.
>
> Howard has a sentimental love affair with the
> national myths of his formative years. So
> sentimental is he that the love affair continues
> after the myth is exploded. It's downright
> onanistic. Unlike Frazer, the man is impervious
> to new information. He's like a Serb from Novy
> Sad who is insulted by NATO 'propaganda' about
> Kosovo. Some people even reckon that makes him
> a true Australian patriot.
You and I have never agreed on much, given opposing side of the
park for so long. But the people who can still be (support the)
liberals is quite amazing.
I heard Buffhead address the press club this week. Geez I wish
he would kick howard and his playground mates into the sea
and get back to being a sensible party. I notice that he had some
pretty bloody good things to say about the state of play in
national health and some very good plans to improve the lot of the nation.
He dismissed Zero tolerance as foolish, bemoaned not being able
to run herion trials and understands the implications of the fact that
~= 80% of the people in our goals already are there due to some
drug related incident.
I wish buffhead was king instead of little john. Then
I could go to a liberal party meeting again.
Mark.
>
>
> alan
> L
> \-/
Shi Hwang Ti
>
> Shi Hwang Ti wrote:
>
> > IMHO White Australians
>
> You're racist? Or do you think there are only whites and aboriginals here?
Merely calling the caucasian settlers and their descendents
"white Australians" to distinguish them from non white Australians
can hardly be called a racist. If this is so then all historians
are racists according to your definition. Do I think there are
only whites and Aborigines in Australia? No. Not all Australians
are white obviously and not all Australians are Aboriginal also
obviously.
> > have yet to really come to terms with how
> > badly they have treated the Natives of Australia in the last 200
> > years
>
> There aren't many 200 year old Australians...
Do you need to be 200 years old to apologise for past wrongs &
injustices.
> > and no doubt the denial will continue and the healing won't
> > start.This is tragic really.
> People's use of rhetoric and lack of understanding is what is really tragic....
How can any healing start when some Aborigines are still living in
squalor in their own country? Since you have so much insight and
understanding do share with us why, when and to what extend do you
think the healing will start.
> > Read why Malcolm Frazer, ex PM of Australia, feels that Australia
> > should apologise to the Aborigines:
> But why do you feel we should appologise? I personally cannot appologise for
> things I had nothing to do with and had no control over anymore than you can
> appologise to the aborignals for the same. Any living aboriginal that has been
> wronged should take legal action.
No one is asking you to apologise. Fraser is asking *Australia* as
a nation to apologise ( I agree with his sentiments), just like Yeltsin
did to the Ramanovs, Blair's apology for the UK govt to intervene in
the great Irish famime, Clinton's apology for what they did to the
African Americans in Alabama.Just like the Emperor of Japan apologised
for the brutal treatment of allied troops in ww2, although Japan
has yet to apologise for the Rape of Nanjing.
As Fraser rightly wrote :
" We can't undo the past but we can, in an apology, recognise the
fact that many actions in the past did a grave injustice to the
Aboriginal population of Australia. We have a commitment to recognise
that and other past injustices in walking together into a new future."
> (I notice you didn't bother to mention wether you thought I should be
> considered aboriginal when you replied to my post. Would it shake your
> perceived moral high ground would it?)
You are important in your own community as an individual I am sure
Hunter but pardom me if I should say that you are not that important in
the net for me or anyone else for that matter to worry whether you are
white, blue or brindle. In the net I am only interested in your grey
matter.
Dave Garner
He's now head of a charity and says what is expected.
He was NEVER a statesman, and now he tries to act like
an ELDER Statesman.
He would not have CONSIDERED it as PM.
d.
Arthur
Shi Hwang Ti <Lot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:370D5F...@hotmail.com...
> No one is asking you to apologise. Fraser is asking *Australia* as
> a nation to apologise ( I agree with his sentiments), just like Yeltsin
> did to the Ramanovs, Blair's apology for the UK govt to intervene in
> the great Irish famime, Clinton's apology for what they did to the
> African Americans in Alabama.Just like the Emperor of Japan apologised
> for the brutal treatment of allied troops in ww2, although Japan
> has yet to apologise for the Rape of Nanjing.
>
I notice you don't include a Chinese apology for atrocities committed
against Mongolians nor for subjugation and , using the now fashionable (?)
definition, genocide against Tibetans.
The Shadow
<day....@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>Hunter wrote:
>>
>> Shi Hwang Ti wrote:
>>
>> > IMHO White Australians
>>
>> You're racist? Or do you think there are only whites and aboriginals here?
>
>What is it with people! There is more to being racist that forgetting
>to include Asian people too!! Racist is the act of hating people of
>different races, thinking you're better than others based on race,
>treating others differently, making assumptions on racial traits, and
>elevating your own race to glory. It is not racist to speak of White
>Australians when referring to Aboriginies, and forget Asians - PLEASE!
>They call us British whingers! It seems that all other people do is
>whinge "mwaaah, you looked at me funny - you're a racist"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Try telling THAT to Scott Chisholm!
-----------
The Shadow.
-----------
"Just another nation of great big knockers"
Senator Jeannie Ferris, Liberal SA.
PM (ABC Radio 26/3/99)
--------------
Drop John Howard for email
The Shadow
wrote:
>IMHO White Australians have yet to really come to terms with how
>badly they have treated the Natives of Australia in the last 200
>years and no doubt the denial will continue and the healing won't
>start.This is tragic really.
>
Perhaps you'd like to show a few examples of Australians aged 200, or
thereabouts.
Then, perhaps, you'd care to tell us who destroyed the civilisation of
"pygmy" aborigines in WA, several thousand years ago.
Then you'd like to write an essay for us on the four waves of black
migration to Asutralia and the effects that each succeeding wave had
on the previous ones.
Then, if you still think that today's Austrlains have anything to
apppologise for you can go and stick your head up a dead bear's cunt.
>R
Allan-John Marsh
Genocide - a term coined by an American Jew when referring to the German
ambition to completely wipe out the Jewish race. It has become
fashionable to take a word and broaden its meaning - racism includes
even giving a person of another race the evil eye, sexism means opening
the door for a female, ageism is refusing to sleep with a really old
person - let's not insult those who have actually suffered Genocide,
like the Jews and Armenians, by broadening this term too.
Shi Hwang Ti
>
> Shi Hwang Ti <Lot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:370D5F...@hotmail.com...
> > No one is asking you to apologise. Fraser is asking *Australia* as
> > a nation to apologise ( I agree with his sentiments), just like Yeltsin
> > did to the Ramanovs, Blair's apology for the UK govt to intervene in
> > the great Irish famime, Clinton's apology for what they did to the
> > African Americans in Alabama.Just like the Emperor of Japan apologised
> > for the brutal treatment of allied troops in ww2, although Japan
> > has yet to apologise for the Rape of Nanjing.
> >
> I notice you don't include a Chinese apology for atrocities committed
> against Mongolians nor for subjugation and , using the now fashionable (?)
> definition, genocide against Tibetans.
Sorry I am not aware of this episode against the Mongolians. Perhaps
you can amplify. But lest you forget the Mongolian hordes ravaged China,
the steppes of Asia,Afganistan, Pakistan, Samarkhan, Persia, etc right
to the Adriatic sea and the gates of Europe from the early 13th century
first by Genghis Khan and later by Kublai Khan and their sons and heirs
and committed unspeakable atrocities as their rogue armies conquered
nations after nations. The Mongols ruled northern china after breaching
the Great walls in the early 13th century and razed Beijing to the
ground and murdered, raped its citizens and committed unspeakable
attrocities and later ruled the whole of China under the Yuan Dynasty
from 1279 to 1368.
After the end of the Ming Dynasty in 1644 the Manchus, descendents of
the Mongols invaded (some say invited by the vanquished Ming Emperor)
and ruled China under the so called Ching Dynasty till 1911.
If you are asking for an apology for the Mongolian invaders IMHO its
like asking the victims to apologise to the invaders or the perpetrator
of the crime against humanity. As an analogy note that the Americans
dropped 2 atom bombs on Japan during the close of ww2, the first
time such holocaust bombs have ever been dropped on human beings. Would
you if you are an American apologise to Japan for the atrocities
committed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki especially when you remembered what
the Japanese did to your families during that day of infamy at Pearl
Harbour?
As for Tibet I think you are running away with a vivid immigination.
Was there a genocide? I dont think so. Sure there was a rebellion and
it was suppressed. The British invaded Tibet in 1904 trying to pry Tibet
away from a weakened China and killing a lot of citizens. Did they
apologise to China for it? I dont remember reading about it, did you?
Hey this thread is about why an apology should be given to the
Aborigines to start the healing so please dont side track.
Shi Hwang Ti
>
> On Fri, 09 Apr 1999 10:03:03 +0800, Shi Hwang Ti <Lot...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Hunter wrote:
> >>
> >> Shi Hwang Ti wrote:
> >>
> >> > IMHO White Australians
> >> You're racist? Or do you think there are only whites and aboriginals here?
> >Merely calling the caucasian settlers and their descendents
> >"white Australians" to distinguish them from non white Australians
> >can hardly be called a racist.
> It is classifying a group of people according to _your_ perception of
> their race for the purpose of linking them to specific activities.
> That is racist.
Only if there was malice. I used the term "white Australians" without
malice but as a term of reference. Does that make me a racist? If it
does then its something new to me and I wont hesitate to apologise
unreservedly to anyone who is so maligned.
> > If this is so then all historians
> >are racists according to your definition.
> Which historians would those be?
Any historian who uses the term "white Australians" in his thesis
I suppose , if using that term makes one a racist by your definition.
> *snip*
> Cheers,
> Geoff (geoffatiwsd.tcomd.tau)
> "Detestation of the high is the involuntary homage of the low."
> Charles Dickens, 'A Tale of Two Cities'
"You are old only when you feel like the morning after but you didn't
go anywhere the night before" George Burns.
Ian Lowery
>Shi Hwang Ti <Lot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:370D5F...@hotmail.com...
>> No one is asking you to apologise. Fraser is asking *Australia* as
>> a nation to apologise ( I agree with his sentiments), just like Yeltsin
>> did to the Ramanovs, Blair's apology for the UK govt to intervene in
>> the great Irish famime, Clinton's apology for what they did to the
>> African Americans in Alabama.Just like the Emperor of Japan apologised
>> for the brutal treatment of allied troops in ww2, although Japan
>> has yet to apologise for the Rape of Nanjing.
>I notice you don't include a Chinese apology for atrocities committed
>against Mongolians nor for subjugation and , using the now fashionable (?)
>definition, genocide against Tibetans.
No, she is talking about a national apology for genocide of
aboriginals.
If we want more apologies, let's try the USA for interfering in our
internal affairs (1972-1975), being party to the overthrow of a
democratically elected communist government (Chile), the invading of
and applying trade sanctions against Nicaragua, the illegal and
immoral intercession in the Vietnamese war of independence (against
imperialists), the illegal bombing of Laos, the illegal bombing of
Cambodia (allowing the takeover by the Khmer Rouge), the propping up
of an oppressive puppet regime in the Phillipines, the turning of a
blind eye to Pakistani atrocities in Bangladesh (the USA wanted
Pakistan as a staging post to Afghanistan), etcetera.
Ian Lowery
------------------------------------------------
To reply, remove "nospam" from my e-mail address.
Arthur
SNIP
> As for Tibet I think you are running away with a vivid immigination.
> Was there a genocide? I dont think so.
Well, it depends on what definition you use. If you take the definition used
by the UN and which includes policies designed to suppress the cultural
expression of ethnic moinorities, then "genocide" was practised, is being
practised, by China. This definition is the one that allows some to claim
that "genocide " was practised against Aborigines in Australia. I don't
accept the definition, but I do say that using whatever definition you like,
it is far more appropriate and applicable to China's murderous behaviour
than the well meaning, if misguided, attempts at assimilation practised in
Australia..
Sure there was a rebellion and
> it was suppressed.
Oh, do you follow the China official line that Tibet is irrevovably
a part of China and any display of independence, even cultural and religous
independence in some cases, is an internal insurrection justifying
"suppression" - a nice euphemism for bloody murder.
The British invaded Tibet in 1904 trying to pry Tibet
> away from a weakened China and killing a lot of citizens. Did they
> apologise to China for it? I dont remember reading about it, did you?
> Hey this thread is about why an apology should be given to the
> Aborigines to start the healing so please dont side track.
You brought up the issue of other nations and their culpability and it was
to that point that I addressed my reply. As a Chinese you seem very coy in
accepting China's murderous policies presently in force in Tibet. As a
Chinese who is critical of Australia's policies in treating minorities, a
record which by and large is not bettered by any other nation, you are open
to the charge of having a double standard since the nation to which you
bear allegiance has a very poor record indeed.
Arthur
From: Allan-John Marsh <day....@xtra.co.nz>
Newsgroups:
aus.politics,aus.general,soc.culture.australian,soc.culture.hongkong,soc.cul
ture.usa,soc.culture.japan
Sent: Friday, April 09, 1999 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: Why Australia Should Apologise to the Aborigines...........Was
Re: Native Title Petition
> Arthur wrote:
> >
> > Shi Hwang Ti <Lot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:370D5F...@hotmail.com...
> > > No one is asking you to apologise. Fraser is asking *Australia* as
> > > a nation to apologise ( I agree with his sentiments), just like
Yeltsin
> > > did to the Ramanovs, Blair's apology for the UK govt to intervene in
> > > the great Irish famime, Clinton's apology for what they did to the
> > > African Americans in Alabama.Just like the Emperor of Japan apologised
> > > for the brutal treatment of allied troops in ww2, although Japan
> > > has yet to apologise for the Rape of Nanjing.
> > >
> >
> > I notice you don't include a Chinese apology for atrocities committed
> > against Mongolians nor for subjugation and , using the now fashionable
(?)
> > definition, genocide against Tibetans.
>
> Genocide - a term coined by an American Jew when referring to the German
> ambition to completely wipe out the Jewish race. It has become
> fashionable to take a word and broaden its meaning - racism includes
> even giving a person of another race the evil eye, sexism means opening
> the door for a female, ageism is refusing to sleep with a really old
> person - let's not insult those who have actually suffered Genocide,
> like the Jews and Armenians, by broadening this term too.
Yeah, I strongly agree with you.
The UN has broadened this word to include not only the notion of mass
killing and racial extermination as the word has been commonly understood
to mean, but also policies that attempt in any way to undermine an ethnic
culture. From this definition it has been argued that Australia's practiced
"genocide' against Aborigines through its policy of removing half caste
children from dysfunctional Aboriginal families. An absurd broadening of the
definition that now serves to provide a sense of moral superiority among
those seeking further special privileges for Aborigines.
Bernard Rooney
<luch...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>John Sefton <j...@spider.connectivity.net.au> wrote in message
>news:370D21...@spider.connectivity.net.au...
>
>> Shi Hwang Ti wrote:
>
>> > Read why Malcolm Frazer, ex PM of Australia,
>> > feels that Australia should apologise to the
>> > Aborigines:
>
>> Fraser was PM for 8 years - surely enough time
>> to apologise if he was serious about it.
>
>Frazer was PM from 1975-1983. The Wilson Report
>came out over 10 years later. If he had been PM
>when it came out, he'd have been less reactive
>to it, diversive from it, and undermining of it
>than Howard. He wouldn't have said 'I sympathise fundamentally with those
>Australians who are
>insulted when told we have a racist and bigoted
>past', as Howard did. He would not have been
>reflexively insulted by the truth -- as Howard is.
>
>Howard has a sentimental love affair with the
>national myths of his formative years. So
>sentimental is he that the love affair continues
>after the myth is exploded. It's downright
>onanistic. Unlike Frazer, the man is impervious
>to new information. He's like a Serb from Novy
>Sad who is insulted by NATO 'propaganda' about
>Kosovo. Some people even reckon that makes him
>a true Australian patriot.
Howard seems to be a more or less unreconstructed 'White Australia' racist.
Look at the gut reaction of the Howard govt to the kosovo crisis -
described as the worst humanitarian crisis in Europe since the closing days
of WW2. The initial view was there was no room for any refugees in Aust.
Just as if Howard had said we have had a gutfull of wogs, refos, and
ethnics, it was a mistake letting any in in the post war era and we
certainly arent letting any more in now.
It was widely reported in the media that it was only when redneck talkback
radio started to say that that Australia should be ashamed that it clicked
with Howard and we saw the dramatic turnaround in policy, with immigration
minister and foreign minister left with egg on their faces. But note the
initial proposals from the govt - that the refugees would be housed in
camps in the desert. One has to wonder at what Howard's real feelings are
and how deep they run.
Of course Howard is long suspected of having a simply racist view towards
Asian people.
As for aborigines, Howard's defining moment has to be his harangue at the
reconciliation conference, about how he would not be abandoning his
constituency (white landholders), railing indignantly as if he expected any
part of his audience to share his feelings. Nothing more inappropriate (or
revealing) could be imagined. The man does not have a clue, or, as Barry
Jones said, he does not even begin to understand.
Finally there is his dangerous flirtation with Pauline Hanson. Hansonism
for him seems to be an opportunity for his unstated agenda to be advanced.
This is why he did not come down hard on her, despite the danger to his own
base.
Reg N. Pickford
Shi Hwang Ti wrote in message <370D5F...@hotmail.com>...
>Hunter wrote:
>Do you need to be 200 years old to apologise for past wrongs &
>injustices.
>
Is it healthy to encourage people to falsely exajerate the psychological
impact of events which occured outside of living memory. Therebye
handicapping these people in their near future?
>> > and no doubt the denial will continue and the healing won't
>> > start.This is tragic really.
>
>> People's use of rhetoric and lack of understanding is what is really
tragic....
>
>How can any healing start when some Aborigines are still living in
>squalor in their own country? Since you have so much insight and
>understanding do share with us why, when and to what extend do you
>think the healing will start.
I respect a fighter who does it the hard, honestly. Not a bum, begging on
their arse with their hand out, sooking about stuff which happened
lifetimes
ago.
>> > Read why Malcolm Frazer, ex PM of Australia, feels that Australia
>> > should apologise to the Aborigines:
>
>> But why do you feel we should appologise? I personally cannot appologise
for
>> things I had nothing to do with and had no control over anymore than you
can
>> appologise to the aborignals for the same. Any living aboriginal that has
been
>> wronged should take legal action.
>
>No one is asking you to apologise. Fraser is asking *Australia* as
>a nation to apologise ( I agree with his sentiments), just like Yeltsin
>did to the Ramanovs, Blair's apology for the UK govt to intervene in
>the great Irish famime, Clinton's apology for what they did to the
>African Americans in Alabama.Just like the Emperor of Japan apologised
>for the brutal treatment of allied troops in ww2, although Japan
>has yet to apologise for the Rape of Nanjing.
Then ask Mr Blair to apologise for events which occured while Australia was
a loose group of British colonies. While you are at it get him to apologise
for all the unjust and harsh treatment done to all the poor white trash that
were
dumped here as virtual slaves in bondage, though went on to become the
ancestors
of a considerable proportion of your `Caucasion' Australian population,
accumulate
wealth and deliver us where we are today.
>
>As Fraser rightly wrote :
>
>" We can't undo the past but we can, in an apology, recognise the
>fact that many actions in the past did a grave injustice to the
>Aboriginal population of Australia. We have a commitment to recognise
>that and other past injustices in walking together into a new future."
>
One of my ancestors was stripped of his assets, flogged and sentenced to
death for thieving a roll of cloth. This was commuted to seven years
bondage and lifetime exile. Comparing it to todays morals, I'd consider it a
grave injustice as well.
I don't suffer hereditary, perpetual depression as a result and I don't need
an apology to know it was unfair.
I do know *I* would not exist if these foul deeds had ~not~ been done.
>> (I notice you didn't bother to mention wether you thought I should be
>> considered aboriginal when you replied to my post. Would it shake your
>> perceived moral high ground would it?)
>
>You are important in your own community as an individual I am sure
>Hunter but pardom me if I should say that you are not that important in
>the net for me or anyone else for that matter to worry whether you are
>white, blue or brindle. In the net I am only interested in your grey
>matter.
I would suggest you widen your subject matter to get a better picture of the
`big'
picture. Look into the history of Port Arthur (Tassie) for starters ...
Then take your pick, Chinese on the Goldfields, White Australia Policy,
Kanuks in Queensland, Indonesians re: South Irian Jaya, Irish politicals
and starving faminers, Kraut and Eye-tie internee POW's during WWII
Japs as well? etc etc etc.
Martin Taylor
>Howard has a sentimental love affair with the
>national myths of his formative years. So
>sentimental is he that the love affair continues
>after the myth is exploded. It's downright
>onanistic. Unlike Frazer, the man is impervious
>to new information. He's like a Serb from Novy
>Sad who is insulted by NATO 'propaganda' about
>Kosovo. Some people even reckon that makes him
>a true Australian patriot.
What do you expect from someone who's been in politics as long as he has?
Living in the rarefied world of politics, he's lost touch with what is
happening out there. Fraser left when it was time to go. Howard should have
too. Fraser has done more since he left politics. Howard's a career
politician. I doubt very much he'd be a successful businessman or whatever
if he lost his seat tommorrow. I s'pose he could do the speaking circuit,
that is, if anyone would care to listen.
Martin
------------
Gippsland, Victoria, Australia
Replace "A3" with "a1" for email reply
Allan-John Marsh
>
> On Fri, 09 Apr 1999 11:08:02 +1200, Allan-John Marsh
>
> >Hunter wrote:
> >>
> >> Shi Hwang Ti wrote:
> >>
> >> > IMHO White Australians
> >>
> >> You're racist? Or do you think there are only whites and aboriginals here?
> >
> >to include Asian people too!! Racist is the act of hating people of
> >different races, thinking you're better than others based on race,
> >treating others differently, making assumptions on racial traits, and
> >elevating your own race to glory. It is not racist to speak of White
> >Australians when referring to Aboriginies, and forget Asians - PLEASE!
> >They call us British whingers! It seems that all other people do is
> >whinge "mwaaah, you looked at me funny - you're a racist"
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Try telling THAT to Scott Chisholm!
> The Shadow.
> -----------
>
> "Just another nation of great big knockers"
> Senator Jeannie Ferris, Liberal SA.
> PM (ABC Radio 26/3/99)
> --------------
>
> Drop John Howard for email
I'm sorry, but I don't know who Scott Chisholm is :-(
Allan-John Marsh
>
> I would suggest you widen your subject matter to get a better picture of the
> `big'
> picture. Look into the history of Port Arthur (Tassie) for starters ...
>
> Then take your pick, Chinese on the Goldfields, White Australia Policy,
> Kanuks in Queensland, Indonesians re: South Irian Jaya, Irish politicals
> and starving faminers, Kraut and Eye-tie internee POW's during WWII
> Japs as well? etc etc etc.
You make so much of a good point in this and I agree with you. We exist
because of what has happened before, and to apologise, as if to wipe the
slate clean, is to deny what has happened. I don't seek apologies from
Italy for the 500 years of Roman occupation in Britain, where thousands
of Britons were killed, wiped out, enslaved or surfed. I don't seek
apologies for the torment of Christians - I am here because of that, and
I don't look to justify what my ancestors did by saying "But but but, it
happened to us too" - this is now, we are here, we think for ourselves
and we exist.
george blahusiak
>Shi Hwang Ti wrote:
>> IMHO White Australians
>You're racist? Or do you think there are only whites and aboriginals here?
>> Read why Malcolm Frazer, ex PM of Australia, feels that Australia
>> should apologise to the Aborigines:
>But why do you feel we should appologise? I personally cannot appologise for
>things I had nothing to do with and had no control over anymore than you can
>appologise to the aborignals for the same. Any living aboriginal that has been
>wronged should take legal action.
Herewith we see the biggest lie perpetrated by Europeans to avoid
apologizing for European racist policies past and present.
The simple fact is that until all, repeat ALL (pardon my shouting) of
the damage caused by Europeans and their government, which government,
I might add, has been continuous since the First Fleet, has been
addressed, it is still your responsibility because in a democracy,
representative or not, YOU, the voter, are the government.
Shi Hwang Ti
>
> On Fri, 09 Apr 1999 00:44:42 +0800, Shi Hwang Ti <Lot...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >IMHO White Australians have yet to really come to terms with how
> >badly they have treated the Natives of Australia in the last 200
> >years and no doubt the denial will continue and the healing won't
> >start.This is tragic really.
> >
> thereabouts.
>
> Then, perhaps, you'd care to tell us who destroyed the civilisation of
> "pygmy" aborigines in WA, several thousand years ago.
>
> Then you'd like to write an essay for us on the four waves of black
> migration to Asutralia and the effects that each succeeding wave had
> on the previous ones.
>
> Then, if you still think that today's Austrlains have anything to
> apppologise for you can go and stick your head up a dead bear's cunt.
>
> >R
> -----------
> The Shadow.
I probably would if you consent to wash your foul mouth with
potassium cyanide first. One of the pillars of democracy is
free speech and freedom of expression which I can clearly see you
dont seem to subscribe at all, much less tolerate, you
sanctimonious hypocrite.
Alan Luchetti
Dave Garner <dav...@bombadil.apana.org.au> wrote ...
He more than considered passing the Aboriginal Land Rights
(Northern Territory) Act 1976 which Howard, via the Reeves
Inquiry, is out to gut. Whatever else you say about pre-Howard
Liberals, they were not ineffectual posturers on aboriginal
issues. Page 43 of todays' (10/4/99) SMH is definitely worth a
read in this regard.
There's no doubt the Wilson Report would have had a different
governmental reception under Frazer than it has under Howard.
There's no doubt the Frazer quotes you are reacting to are
genuine and that they reflect what he did as well as said while
in government and what he has said ever since. Differ with
Frazer and agree with Howard all you like, but don't deny
Frazer's seriousness about aboriginal issues.
alan
L
\-/
Alan Luchetti
Arthur <fae...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7em6me$651$1...@news2.kornet.net...
> The UN has broadened this word to include not only the notion of mass
> killing and racial extermination as the word has been commonly understood
> to mean, but also policies that attempt in any way to undermine an ethnic
> culture. From this definition it has been argued that Australia's
practiced
> "genocide' against Aborigines through its policy of removing half caste
> children from dysfunctional Aboriginal families. An absurd broadening of
the
> definition that now serves to provide a sense of moral superiority among
> those seeking further special privileges for Aborigines.
It is abundantly clear that merely being half-caste was "dysfunction"
enough to warrant separation of children from their parents, irrespective
of any real dysfunction. From
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/stol
en08.html#Heading22
"Merging and absorption
By the late nineteenth century it had become apparent that although the full
descent Indigenous population was declining, the mixed descent population
was increasing. `Most colonists saw them as being in a state of racial and
cultural limbo' (Haebich 1988 page 48). In social Darwinist terms they were
not regarded as near extinction. The fact that they had some European
`blood' meant that there was a place for them in non-Indigenous society,
albeit a very lowly one.
Furthermore, the prospect that this mixed descent population was growing
made it imperative to governments that mixed descent people be forced to
join the workforce instead of relying on government rations. In that way the
mixed descent population would be both self-supporting and satisfy the needs
of the developing Australian economy for cheap labour.
The reality that Indigenous people did not identify as Europeans, however
much European `blood' they had, was not taken into account. Nevertheless,
the difficulties of permanently distancing mixed descent children from their
Indigenous families was a matter of constant concern to government
officials. Clearly they recognised the strength of the family bonds they
were trying to break.
Unlike white children who came into the state's control, far greater care
was taken to ensure that [Aboriginal children] never saw their parents or
families again. They were often given new names, and the greater distances
involved in rural areas made it easier to prevent parents and children on
separate missions from tracing each other (van Krieken 1991 page 108).
Government officials theorised that by forcibly removing Indigenous children
from their families and sending them away from their communities to work for
non-Indigenous people, this mixed descent population would, over time,
`merge' with the non-Indigenous population. As Brisbane's Telegraph
newspaper reported in May 1937,
Mr Neville [the Chief Protector of WA] holds the view that within one
hundred years the pure black will be extinct. But the half-caste problem was
increasing every year. Therefore their idea was to keep the pure blacks
segregated and absorb the half-castes into the white population. Sixty years
ago, he said, there were over 60,000 full-blooded natives in Western
Australia. Today there are only 20,000. In time there would be none. Perhaps
it would take one hundred years, perhaps longer, but the race was dying. The
pure blooded Aboriginal was not a quick breeder. On the other hand the
half-caste was. In Western Australia there were half-caste families of
twenty and upwards. That showed the magnitude of the problem (quoted by Buti
1995 on page 35).
In Neville's view, skin colour was the key to absorption. Children with
lighter skin colour would automatically be accepted into non-Indigenous
society and lose their Aboriginal identity.
Assuming the theory to be correct, argument in government circles centred
around the optimum age for forced removal. At a Royal Commission in South
Australia in 1913 `experts' disagreed whether children should be removed at
birth or about two years old.
The `protectionist' legislation was generally used in preference to the
general child welfare legislation to remove Indigenous children. That way
government officials acting under the authority of the Chief Protector or
the Board could simply order the removal of an Indigenous child without
having to establish to a court's satisfaction that the child was neglected.
In Queensland and Western Australia the Chief Protector used his removal and
guardianship powers to force all Indigenous people onto large, highly
regulated government settlements and missions, to remove children from their
mothers at about the age of four years and place them in dormitories away
from their families and to send them off the missions and settlements at
about 14 to work. Indigenous girls who became pregnant were sent back to the
mission or dormitory to have their child. The removal process then repeated
itself.
Another method of forcing people of mixed descent away from their families
and communities and into non-Indigenous society was to change the definition
of `Aboriginality' in the protection legislation to fit the government's
current policy in relation to Aboriginal affairs. People with more than a
stipulated proportion of European `blood' were disqualified from living on
reserves with their families or receiving rations. This tactic of
`dispersing' Aboriginal camps was used in Victoria and New South Wales. An
analysis of the definition of `Aboriginality' has found more than 67
definitions in over 700 pieces of legislation (McCorquodale 1987 page 9).
However the notion that people forced off the reserves would merge with the
non-Indigenous population took no account of the discrimination they faced.
Unable to find work and denied the social security benefits that
non-Indigenous people were granted as of right, they lived in `shanty' towns
near the reserves or on the edges of non-Indigenous settlement.
In New South Wales, Western Australia and the Northern Territory many
children of mixed descent were totally separated from their families when
young and placed in segregated `training' institutions before being sent out
to work. In South Australia, where there was an uneasy relationship between
the government and missionaries in relation to the care of Indigenous
children, government officials sent Indigenous children to institutions
catering for non-Indigenous children while missionaries took in Indigenous
children and operated their own schools.
As the ultimate purpose of removal was to control the reproduction of
Indigenous people with a view to `merging' or `absorbing' them into the
non-Indigenous population, Indigenous girls were targeted for removal and
sent to work as domestics. Apart from satisfying a demand for cheap
servants, work increasingly eschewed by non-Indigenous females, it was
thought that the long hours and exhausting work would curb the sexual
promiscuity attributed to them by non-Indigenous people.
A common feature of the settlements, missions and institutions for
Indigenous families and children was that they received minimal funding. In
1938-39 the jurisdictions with the largest Indigenous populations - the
Northern Territory, Western Australia and Queensland - spent the least per
capita on Indigenous people. The Commonwealth's spending of [sterling]1 per
person per annum compared to [sterling]42.10s per annum on non-Indigenous
pensioners and [sterling]10,000 on the Governor-General's salary (Markus
1990 pages 9-10). The lack of funding for settlements, missions and
institutions meant that people forced to move to these places were
constantly hungry, denied basic facilities and medical treatment and as a
result were likely to die prematurely."
Rob
says...
>>> IMHO White Australians
As are all Australians, irrelevant of race. Yet ignorant souls such as yourself
continue to split the Australian people up into different racial groups.
Could you explain the point of getting a group of Australians (classified only
by race) to apologise for an act or acts that they had little to do with to
another group of Australians (once again, classified only be race) who also
have had little to do with the act or acts in question?
Until people realise that the best way towards reconciliation, multicultural
unity, etc is to stop treating people based on their racial features, then we
will continue to be split.
Just out of interest, what is your opinion towards those people that have
immigrated here during their lifetime? Should they apologise as well?
Allan-John Marsh
>
> >You're racist? Or do you think there are only whites and aboriginals here?
> >> Read why Malcolm Frazer, ex PM of Australia, feels that Australia
> >> should apologise to the Aborigines:
>
> >But why do you feel we should appologise? I personally cannot appologise for
> >things I had nothing to do with and had no control over anymore than you can
> >appologise to the aborignals for the same. Any living aboriginal that has been
> >wronged should take legal action.
>
> Herewith we see the biggest lie perpetrated by Europeans to avoid
> apologizing for European racist policies past and present.
>
> The simple fact is that until all, repeat ALL (pardon my shouting) of
> the damage caused by Europeans and their government, which government,
> I might add, has been continuous since the First Fleet, has been
> addressed, it is still your responsibility because in a democracy,
> representative or not, YOU, the voter, are the government.
But wouldn't that make Australians of a shade other than white
responsible too?
Shi Hwang Ti
> Shi Hwang Ti wrote:
> > > george blahusiak wrote:
> > > > Just goes to show further discrimination and thievery by Europeans.
> > > > The law, European law I might add, says that anyone who is considered
> > > > an Aboriginal and has Aboriginal ancestry, is Aboriginal regardless of
> > > > the percentage of Aboriginal parentage.
> > > > The reason is simple.
> > > > For over 200 years some people were discriminated against on the basis
> > > > of their Aboriginality. The were called half casts, and quadroons, and
> > > > octroons. Europeans called some people Aboriginal and they were
> > > > discriminated against, even if "there was [only] a bit of the tar
> > > > brush in there". That was how the Europans defined the law.
> > > That's ok, I've at times been called a white boong by arseholes because I
> > > spend quite a bit of time knocking around with nyungars. By your
> > > justification because I have also experienced such "discrimination" I
> > > should also be considered aboriginal by law huh?
> > > I wish....
> > IMHO White Australians have yet to really come to terms with how
> > badly they have treated the Natives of Australia in the last 200
> > years and no doubt the denial will continue and the healing won't
> > start.This is tragic really.
> > Read why Malcolm Frazer, ex PM of Australia, feels that Australia
> > should apologise to the Aborigines:
(snip)
> Fraser was PM for 8 years - surely enough time to apologise if he was
> serious about it.
I think Fraser hinted that, like most Australians, he too found it
difficult to take that step as he had been taught otherwise. He was
then probably also restrained by the color (no pun intended) of
Australian politics in the 70s and early 80s. But I must say he is
man enough to come to the right conclusion that an apology is the
first step to take for the healing to start. He said quote :
"Many Australians, especially of my generation, find it difficult to
accept this picture of our past because it is so contrary to
everything we have been taught. But recognition of the past is
essential to the whole process. And that begins to point the way
to what should be done."
Ian Lowery
>In article <8GAP2.263$JA6...@nswpull.telstra.net>, geo...@iexpress.net.au
>says...
>>The simple fact is that until all, repeat ALL (pardon my shouting) of
>>the damage caused by Europeans and their government, which government,
>>I might add, has been continuous since the First Fleet, has been
>>addressed, it is still your responsibility because in a democracy,
>>representative or not, YOU, the voter, are the government.
>As are all Australians, irrelevant of race. Yet ignorant souls such as yourself
>continue to split the Australian people up into different racial groups.
Ignorant souls such as yourself seem to have no understanding of
anthropology. Races have been split by birth and classification
systems. Like it or not, the aboriginals are NOT Caucasian.
What you and your ignorant buddies don't seem to realise that there
ARE race specific problems in this country when comparing the
aboriginals with other races. Compared with non-indigenous people, the
birth weight of aboriginals is significantly lower, life expectancy is
20 years less, the incidence of hepatitis in Queensland (1994) has
been 1,000 times that of the non-indiginous population, diabetes is
endemic among the aboriginal population and has been demonstrated in
many cases to be a consequence of the Western diet which forced upon
their society. The average aboriginal has aproximately $700 for
medical help spent on them per annum, whereas the average
non-indiginous person receives about $2,000 pa.
The story of racial inequality in this country is far from stopping
there.
>Until people realise that the best way towards reconciliation, multicultural
>unity, etc is to stop treating people based on their racial features, then we
>will continue to be split.
Until people realise that the aboriginals in this country, by any
reasonable standard, as a group, are seriously disadvantaged and have
special needs as a race, then there can be no reconciliation.
PC@noway
tri...@usa.DELETE_THISnet says...
>
>
>----------
>In article <370CDC...@hotmail.com>, Shi Hwang Ti <Lot...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>IMHO White Australians have yet to really come to terms with how
>>badly they have treated the Natives of Australia in the last 200
>>years and no doubt the denial will continue and the healing won't
>>start.This is tragic really.
>>
>>Read why Malcolm Frazer, ex PM of Australia, feels that Australia
>>should apologise to the Aborigines:
>
>tell Australians what we should do.
>
> I must admit though, last time I looked, I haven't been around for 200
>years. Why should I apologise for something I had no control over?
>Australians these days want equal treatment for the aboriginals. It's the
>aboriginals who want to be treated differently...but the funny thing is,
>they only want this different treatment when it is in their favour. The
>only problem is that you can't expect to be treated differently just part of
>the time.
>
> Australians are frustrated by the aboriginals' demand for an apology for
>what happened in the past, and for some form of compensation or another.
>Sure, the whites may have 'invaded' their land and 'conquored' the native
>inhabitants, but that was 200 years ago. Move on...the invaders aren't
>going to move out.
>
> ALL parties should forgive and forget, since there's nothing anyone can
>do to reverse what happened. I for one object to apologising for something
>that I had no control over, and for treating anyone differently. It's the
>1990's. A person born into poverty can work their way out and be successful
>if they have the determination. A person who is poor and unemployed doesn't
>HAVE to drink, take drugs or begin a life of crime to reduce the boredom.
>These are things that people often remind us that an aboriginal's life is
>reduced to. No-one is to blame for these problems but those people who
>partake in these activities. Should I apologise for someone's decision to
>take drugs...someone's decision to break into someone's house, or someone's
>decision to get drunk and beat up on some other poor person? I say NO!
>
> I started off as (half) white trash. My parents couldn't even afford to
>pay a $20 deposit on crutches when I was in a motor vehicle accident....let
>alone buy me good clothes and the like. I was emotionally and physically
>abused by my step-father, sexually abused by others. I have improved on
>that life by working and educating myself. I didn't rely on my aboriginal
>heritage to get assistance or special treatment. I just put in some effort.
> I have never taken illegal drugs -- not even trying marijuana -- and
>practically don't drink any alcohol at all. I had a brief stint as a
>criminal, yes...but that lasted all of one night. I have left my former
>life behind and am now being a productive member of society.
>
> Why should I apologise for that?
>
Good onya Trikky,.
it seems that Shi? had better practice up on his bowing and scraping
technique,and lead by example, because if the following is correct , it would
seem to be a case of "people in glass houses".
In 1953 Mao Zedong promised the
Dalai Lama the Chinese would leave Tibet once 'liberation' was complete.
Instead persecution by the Chinese led hundreds to head for the mountains to
join the guerrilla organization Chushi Gangdrug ('Four Rivers, Six Ranges').
In March 1959 Tibetan resistance exploded. Fearing a
Chinese plot to kidnap him, the Dalai Lama went into exile in India. The
Chinese cracked down hard. Chinese figures record 87,000 deaths while Tibetan
sources suggest as many as 430,000 were killed in the Uprising and subsequent
years of guerrilla warfare. Large-scale and systematic Chinese
brutality began, involving an arsenal of torture and humiliation methods.
Peasants and nomads lost freedom of movement and were ordered into communes.
Tens of thousands of Tibetans starved to death between 1959 and 1961 in the
famines that followed Mao's disastrous Great Leap Forward.
Tell us how many lost their lives in the Cultural Revolution as well.
BTW, Shi is suffering from delusions of being a re-incarnaton of a 2nd
century emperor, an oriental version of our Napolean fixation "cuckoo
cuckoo).
Dont pay him much mind.
Shi Hwang Ti
>
> george blahusiak wrote:
> > >Shi Hwang Ti wrote:
> > >> IMHO White Australians...
> > >You're racist? Or do you think there are only whites and aboriginals here?
> > >> Read why Malcolm Frazer, ex PM of Australia, feels that Australia
> > >> should apologise to the Aborigines:
> > >But why do you feel we should appologise? I personally cannot appologise for
> > >things I had nothing to do with and had no control over anymore than you can
> > >appologise to the aborignals for the same. Any living aboriginal that has been
> > >wronged should take legal action.
> > Herewith we see the biggest lie perpetrated by Europeans to avoid
> > apologizing for European racist policies past and present.
> > The simple fact is that until all, repeat ALL (pardon my shouting) of
> > the damage caused by Europeans and their government, which government,
> > I might add, has been continuous since the First Fleet, has been
> > addressed, it is still your responsibility because in a democracy,
> > representative or not, YOU, the voter, are the government.
> But wouldn't that make Australians of a shade other than white
> responsible too?
But an apology does not implicate any guilt on any Australian of any
melanin level. As Fraser rightly puts it, quote :
"This is where the question of an apology for past wrongs is relevant.
An apology does not say ``I am guilty''. It is recognition that our
society perpetuated a wrong and that we are sorry it happened. The
suggestion that an apology can be the basis of legal claims is a
nonsense."
Reg N. Pickford
Alan Luchetti wrote in message <7emoom$ad4$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au>...
>
>Arthur <fae...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:7em6me$651$1...@news2.kornet.net...
>
>> The UN has broadened this word to include not only the notion of mass
>> killing and racial extermination as the word has been commonly
understood
>> to mean, but also policies that attempt in any way to undermine an ethnic
>> culture. From this definition it has been argued that Australia's
>practiced
>> "genocide' against Aborigines through its policy of removing half caste
>> children from dysfunctional Aboriginal families. An absurd broadening of
>the
>> definition that now serves to provide a sense of moral superiority among
>> those seeking further special privileges for Aborigines.
>
>It is abundantly clear that merely being half-caste was "dysfunction"
>enough to warrant separation of children from their parents, irrespective
>of any real dysfunction. From
>http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/sto
l
<snip>
>Furthermore, the prospect that this mixed descent population was growing
>made it imperative to governments that mixed descent people be forced to
>join the workforce instead of relying on government rations. In that way
the
>mixed descent population would be both self-supporting and satisfy the
needs
>of the developing Australian economy for cheap labour.
So you believe and accept that a considerable reason behind the alleged
stolen generation was to supply cheap labor?
Gra1960
>it was suppressed. The British invaded Tibet in 1904 trying to pry Tibet
>away from a weakened China and killing a lot of citizens. Did they
>apologise to China for it? I dont remember reading about it, did you?
>Hey this thread is about why an apology should be given to the
>Aborigines to start the healing so please dont side track.
>
>
concerted attempt on the part of the Chinese government to water down the
Tibetan culture.
I think the main point in this and the aboriginal question, is that it is STILL
GOING ON NOW. Genghis Khan was quite a while back. To move on you've first got
to acknowledge what is wrong with the present situation.
Gra-gra
terry testicle
system of past prime ministers even though he is a multi.....
Arrrrrrrrrrrr lets screw the poor tax payer a bit more....life wasnt
meant to be easy........ but by the christ it is for me .....how about
another glass of champers Tammy honey.......
Malcolm Fraser
sometime when he was pm the prick
>Fuck Malcolm Fraser.
>
>He's now head of a charity and says what is expected.
>
>He was NEVER a statesman, and now he tries to act like
>an ELDER Statesman.
>
>He would not have CONSIDERED it as PM.
>
>d.
Fidge
>because of what has happened before,
I emphatically agree -
Demanding apologies for events that have no direct impact on the living
is part of why the world is so messed up today.
Look at Kosovo - The Serbs claim the right to the territory
because it was conquered by the ottoman empire 400 years ago...
I appreciate that it is hardly the cause of the current war, but it
certainly helped to spark it.
If only everybody could see just how insignificant they are in terms of
the whole human race, and how absolutely microscopic they are in terms
of the Universe. THEN perhaps people would start to treat each other
better and work towards common goals rather than fighting over pieces of
string.
It's naive
It's Idealistic
It will never happen unless there is forced space flight for every
person, or there is some global catastrophe of behemoth proportions.
Fidge
Fidge
>for the brutal treatment of allied troops in ww2
He has?
Last time I heard anything about it was when the emperor came over to
the UK and although he was "Deeply regretful" or something, he flatly
refused to actually _Apologise_ and even *think* about paying
compensation etc etc.
Have things happened since I last heard about it?
Cheers
Fidge
Dave Garner
>Herewith we see the biggest lie perpetrated by Europeans to avoid
>apologizing for European racist policies past and present.
>The simple fact is that until all, repeat ALL (pardon my shouting) of
>the damage caused by Europeans and their government, which government,
>I might add, has been continuous since the First Fleet, has been
>addressed, it is still your responsibility because in a democracy,
>representative or not, YOU, the voter, are the government.
And we choose NOT to. Happy? 8-)
d.
george blahusiak
>Shi Hwang Ti wrote:
>> IMHO White Australians
>You're racist? Or do you think there are only whites and aboriginals here?
>> have yet to really come to terms with how
>> badly they have treated the Natives of Australia in the last 200
>> years
>There aren't many 200 year old Australians...
Idiot!! Some of the events that transpired happened only 20 years ago,
some even more recently. There are lots of 20 yr old Australians, or,
if you want to be pedantic, 40 yr old Australians. But, and this is
the important bit, the Government that allowed these things to happen
still exists, and that means every person who has the right to vote
today is part and parcel of that same process.
>> and no doubt the denial will continue and the healing won't
>> start.This is tragic really.
>People's use of rhetoric and lack of understanding is what is really tragic....
No. What is tragic is that people cannot or will not admit that they
have a responsibility to make amends for the damage they have caused.
That they have not done anything about it demands an apology.
>But why do you feel we should appologise? I personally cannot appologise for
>things I had nothing to do with and had no control over anymore than you can
>appologise to the aborignals for the same. Any living aboriginal that has been
>wronged should take legal action.
Every person who has the right to vote has a share in the
responsibility to make amends for the damage that has been caused.
James Mullens
> From this definition it has been argued that Australia's practiced
> "genocide' against Aborigines through its policy of removing half caste
> children from dysfunctional Aboriginal families. An absurd broadening of the
> definition that now serves to provide a sense of moral superiority among
> those seeking further special privileges for Aborigines.
Ohh please, why don't you grow up and stop arguing nonsense semantics.
The argument at the time was not that the families were 'dysfunctional',
it was that the children would have 'a chance at a better life' with white
foster parents.
And don't back-talk me on this - I grew up in the '60's and that was
the explanation I was given on repeated occassions as a 5-10 year old
Fact is - there was a deliberate policy to remove aboriginal children
from their families as 'the race was dying out'. It had nothing to
do with social welfare, that argument is purely a 1970's rationalisation.
Noone can seriously doubt this (that is unless you happen to be the
current prime minister)
Get used to it. Bad things happened, they happened your name (and mine)
and our parents generation voted for it. (even though many - around
40% - were profoundly 'uncomfortable' with it, and a smaller number
opposed it outright.)
That's what an apology is about.
If you lack the moral fortitude to recognise basic facts - well ok - we
all have our problems.
On the other hand if you want to completely deny the facts and defend
the indefensible, hmm I think you need to think a few things over carefully.
Lastly, if you want to aggressively defend bull****, well .. what can I say.
James
Arthur
Alan Luchetti <luch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7emoom$ad4$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au...
> It is abundantly clear that merely being half-caste was "dysfunction"
> enough to warrant separation of children from their parents, irrespective
> of any real dysfunction. From
>
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/stol
Thanks for the information. It contained much material I, an expat living in
Asia, was unaware of. I had thought that these children were removed for
their protection just as children in dysfunctional families today are
removed by child protective services. I suggest howver that a very large
proportion of these famlilies were dysfunctional in the sense that we
presently understand the term, and did represent a danger to thier
children. This of course can't justify removal of children simply for being
half caste: a well meant, but misguided policy of assimilation. This policy
which was implemented for what was seen as being in the best interests of
these children, and which in a great number of cases clearly was, is not a
form of 'genocide' as I understand the term.
I have some concerns about objectivity of the article when it suggests that
the policy was a self supporting means of supplying cheap labour for the
Australian economy.
SNIP
Allan-John Marsh
Don't be so nasty! The guy wasn't arguing that point at all! Why do
you have to come in throwing your mouth off and shooting people down.
He was disagreeing with the way that the term "Genocide" has been
broadened to include events which placed alongside actual genocide are
really trivial. We were discussing the value and importance of
classifying events into their proper groups, without mixing them up so
that perceptions don't become blurred and will stay focussed when any
particular topic is discussed.
Shi Hwang Ti
> enich...@alpha2.curtin.edu.au (Rob) wrote:
> >geo...@iexpress.net.au says...
> >>The simple fact is that until all, repeat ALL (pardon my shouting) of
> >>the damage caused by Europeans and their government, which government,
> >>I might add, has been continuous since the First Fleet, has been
> >>addressed, it is still your responsibility because in a democracy,
> >>representative or not, YOU, the voter, are the government.
> >As are all Australians, irrelevant of race. Yet ignorant souls such as yourself
> >continue to split the Australian people up into different racial groups.
> Ignorant souls such as yourself seem to have no understanding of
> anthropology. Races have been split by birth and classification
> systems. Like it or not, the aboriginals are NOT Caucasian.
> What you and your ignorant buddies don't seem to realise that there
> ARE race specific problems in this country when comparing the
> aboriginals with other races. Compared with non-indigenous people, the
> birth weight of aboriginals is significantly lower, life expectancy is
> 20 years less, the incidence of hepatitis in Queensland (1994) has
> been 1,000 times that of the non-indiginous population, diabetes is
> endemic among the aboriginal population and has been demonstrated in
> many cases to be a consequence of the Western diet which forced upon
> their society. The average aboriginal has aproximately $700 for
> medical help spent on them per annum, whereas the average
> non-indiginous person receives about $2,000 pa.
> The story of racial inequality in this country is far from stopping
> there.
> >Until people realise that the best way towards reconciliation, > >multicultural unity, etc is to stop treating people based
> >on their racial features, then we will continue to be split.
> Until people realise that the aboriginals in this country, by any
> reasonable standard, as a group, are seriously disadvantaged and have
> special needs as a race, then there can be no reconciliation.
> Ian Lowery
Hear hear. You could not have said it better. The real tragedy is
that most people look but cant see the wood for the trees.
Shi Hwang Ti
Hear Hear. Well done. Why is it so difficult for some people to
accept that an apology to the Aborigines is not the end of the world?
Why is an apology to the Aborigines so abhorrent to some when instinctly
they will apologise to someone at the office oe elsewhere when they
brush the shoulder of someone unintentionally as it is the norm in a
civilised society? Anyone has any valid explantion?
Shi Hwang Ti
>
> >As for Tibet I think you are running away with a vivid immigination.
> >Was there a genocide? I dont think so. Sure there was a rebellion and
> >it was suppressed. The British invaded Tibet in 1904 trying to pry Tibet
> >away from a weakened China and killing a lot of citizens. Did they
> >apologise to China for it? I dont remember reading about it, did you?
> >Hey this thread is about why an apology should be given to the
> >Aborigines to start the healing so please dont side track.
> Nevertheless it is widely agreed that there is oppression in Tibet, and a
> concerted attempt on the part of the Chinese government to water down the
> Tibetan culture.
There is oppression all over the world but is it fair to term it as
genocide? Thats my point.
> I think the main point in this and the aboriginal question, is that it is STILL
> GOING ON NOW. Genghis Khan was quite a while back. To move on you've first got
> to acknowledge what is wrong with the present situation.
> Gra-gra
Give some examples please both in Tibet and Australia to stike a
balance.
Reg N. Pickford
Shi Hwang Ti wrote in message <371027...@hotmail.com>...
>Why is an apology to the Aborigines so abhorrent to some when instinctly
>they will apologise to someone at the office oe elsewhere when they
>brush the shoulder of someone unintentionally as it is the norm in a
>civilised society? Anyone has any valid explantion?
Because it is an honest apology and comes naturally.
Bruce
James Mullens <1002...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
<37109349...@compuserve.com>...
>Arthur wrote:
>> From this definition it has been argued that Australia's practiced
>> "genocide' against Aborigines through its policy of removing half caste
>> children from dysfunctional Aboriginal families. An absurd broadening of
the
>> definition that now serves to provide a sense of moral superiority among
>> those seeking further special privileges for Aborigines.
>
>Ohh please, why don't you grow up and stop arguing nonsense semantics.
>
>The argument at the time was not that the families were 'dysfunctional',
>it was that the children would have 'a chance at a better life' with white
>foster parents.
>
>And don't back-talk me on this - I grew up in the '60's and that was
>the explanation I was given on repeated occassions as a 5-10 year old
>
Who gave the explanation to the 5-10 year old?
>Fact is - there was a deliberate policy to remove aboriginal children
>from their families as 'the race was dying out'. It had nothing to
>do with social welfare, that argument is purely a 1970's rationalisation.
>
>Noone can seriously doubt this (that is unless you happen to be the
>current prime minister)
I do.
>
>Get used to it. Bad things happened, they happened your name (and mine)
>and our parents generation voted for it. (even though many - around
>40% - were profoundly 'uncomfortable' with it, and a smaller number
>opposed it outright.)
>
>That's what an apology is about.
What a load of rubbish. The recollections of a 5 y.o perhaps ?
>
>If you lack the moral fortitude to recognise basic >On the other hand if
you want to completely deny the facts and defend
>the indefensible, hmm I think you need to think a few things over
carefully.
>
Facts according to James.
>James
Rob
ia...@nospam.curie.dialix.com.au says...
>
>>>The simple fact is that until all, repeat ALL (pardon my shouting) of
>>>the damage caused by Europeans and their government, which government,
>>>I might add, has been continuous since the First Fleet, has been
>>>addressed, it is still your responsibility because in a democracy,
>>>representative or not, YOU, the voter, are the government.
>
>>As are all Australians, irrelevant of race. Yet ignorant souls such as
yourself
>>continue to split the Australian people up into different racial groups.
>
>Ignorant souls such as yourself seem to have no understanding of
>anthropology. Races have been split by birth and classification
>systems. Like it or not, the aboriginals are NOT Caucasian.
Well, whoop-de-doo.
>What you and your ignorant buddies don't seem to realise that there
>ARE race specific problems in this country when comparing the
>aboriginals with other races. Compared with non-indigenous people, the
>birth weight of aboriginals is significantly lower, life expectancy is
>20 years less, the incidence of hepatitis in Queensland (1994) has
>been 1,000 times that of the non-indiginous population, diabetes is
>endemic among the aboriginal population and has been demonstrated in
>many cases to be a consequence of the Western diet which forced upon
>their society.
How much of this is an aboriginal problem and how much as a lifestyle problem?
I would guarantee to you that if me and a bunch of my mates went and parked
myself out 100 km east of Roebourne and lived there for 10 years,my health
would be pretty poor as well. Alternatively, if an aboriginal community spent
10 years living in royal conditions in Peppermint Grove with access to all the
money in the world and all the professional medical assistance in the world,
their health would drastically improve.
In the end, people have got to want to help themselves. If you want better
access to first class health facilities, you have to move closer to them. it is
completely impractical to take them to the many aboriginal communities living
in third world conditions. I read a story in the media about 6 months ago where
the government offered a community better living conditions with full access to
essential services close to Port Hedland. It was refused on the basis that
they didn't like the people that lived nearby. Sure, the government could have
forced the community to move there which without doubt would have resulted in
an increase in their living standards leading to lower death rates, infant
mortality rates, etc etc. But instead they didn't, and let the community choose
to continue living in squalor about 100 miles from the nearest road. No doubt
had the government taken the former option people such as yourself would have
been furious about the government removing people's civil liberties.
>The average aboriginal has aproximately $700 for
>medical help spent on them per annum, whereas the average
>non-indiginous person receives about $2,000 pa.
I find that hard to believe, you'll have to provide a source.
If in fact it is true, it just demonstrates the sheer wastage of money in the
aboriginal industry. According to the minister, a whopping $1,9 billion is
spent on aboriginal specific programs every year, which is more than $5000 per
aboriginal person in this country, on top of all the other facilities that are
open to every other Australian. And you're saying that Aboriginal industry and
health department funding combined is only $700? If that's the case, ATSIC
should immediately be disbanded for starters.
>The story of racial inequality in this country is far from stopping
>there.
>
>>Until people realise that the best way towards reconciliation, multicultural
>>unity, etc is to stop treating people based on their racial features, then we
>>will continue to be split.
>
>Until people realise that the aboriginals in this country, by any
>reasonable standard, as a group, are seriously disadvantaged and have
>special needs as a race, then there can be no reconciliation.
Treat every case on it's merits and you don't need to classify people by their
race. If someone needs help, help them no matter what their race. I know it
might be a tad simplistic, but gosh darn it, it could just be worth trying out.
The Shadow
<day....@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>The Shadow wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 09 Apr 1999 11:08:02 +1200, Allan-John Marsh
>> <day....@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> >Hunter wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Shi Hwang Ti wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > IMHO White Australians
>> >>
>> >> You're racist? Or do you think there are only whites and aboriginals here?
>> >
>> >What is it with people! There is more to being racist that forgetting
>> >to include Asian people too!! Racist is the act of hating people of
>> >different races, thinking you're better than others based on race,
>> >treating others differently, making assumptions on racial traits, and
>> >elevating your own race to glory. It is not racist to speak of White
>> >Australians when referring to Aboriginies, and forget Asians - PLEASE!
>> >They call us British whingers! It seems that all other people do is
>> >whinge "mwaaah, you looked at me funny - you're a racist"
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> Try telling THAT to Scott Chisholm!
>> -----------
>> The Shadow.
>> -----------
>>
>> "Just another nation of great big knockers"
>> Senator Jeannie Ferris, Liberal SA.
>> PM (ABC Radio 26/3/99)
>> --------------
>>
>> Drop John Howard for email
>
>I'm sorry, but I don't know who Scott Chisholm is :-(
Not surprised.
A footballer, apparently called a black cunt, who then went mwaaah,
you looked at me funny - you're a racist" and complained to the AFL
tribunal.
In other words, just another whingeing blackfella.
-----------
The Shadow.
-----------
"Just another nation of great big knockers"
Senator Jeannie Ferris, Liberal SA.
PM (ABC Radio 26/3/99)
--------------
Drop John Howard for email
The Shadow
wrote:
>The Shadow wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 09 Apr 1999 00:44:42 +0800, Shi Hwang Ti <Lot...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >IMHO White Australians have yet to really come to terms with how
>> >badly they have treated the Natives of Australia in the last 200
>> >years and no doubt the denial will continue and the healing won't
>> >start.This is tragic really.
>> >
>> Perhaps you'd like to show a few examples of Australians aged 200, or
>> thereabouts.
>>
>> Then, perhaps, you'd care to tell us who destroyed the civilisation of
>> "pygmy" aborigines in WA, several thousand years ago.
>>
>> Then you'd like to write an essay for us on the four waves of black
>> migration to Asutralia and the effects that each succeeding wave had
>> on the previous ones.
>>
>> Then, if you still think that today's Austrlains have anything to
>> apppologise for you can go and stick your head up a dead bear's cunt.
>>
>> >R
>> -----------
>> The Shadow.
>
>
>I probably would if you consent to wash your foul mouth with
>potassium cyanide first. One of the pillars of democracy is
>free speech and freedom of expression which I can clearly see you
>dont seem to subscribe at all, much less tolerate, you
>sanctimonious hypocrite.
In waht way do you think I have tried to limit your, or anyone's,
right to free speech?
Stupid fucking cunt!
Alan Luchetti
> > enough to warrant separation of children from their parents,
irrespective
> > of any real dysfunction. From
> >
>
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/stol
>
>
in
> Asia, was unaware of. I had thought that these children were removed for
> their protection just as children in dysfunctional families today are
> removed by child protective services. I suggest howver that a very large
> proportion of these famlilies were dysfunctional in the sense that we
> presently understand the term, and did represent a danger to thier
> children. This of course can't justify removal of children simply for
being
> half caste: a well meant, but misguided policy of assimilation. This
policy
> which was implemented for what was seen as being in the best interests of
> these children, and which in a great number of cases clearly was, is not a
> form of 'genocide' as I understand the term.
Nor I.
> I have some concerns about objectivity of the article when it suggests
that
> the policy was a self supporting means of supplying cheap labour for the
> Australian economy.
a) It wasn't an article -- it was the report of a commission of Inquiry.
b) The report's words were "satisfied a need". I believe needs were
satisfied.
Alan Luchetti
Reg N. Pickford <regn.p...@hunterlink.net.au> wrote in message
news:7en67m$cv4$1...@ghostgum.hunterlink.net.au...
> >
> >> The UN has broadened this word to include not only the notion of mass
> >> killing and racial extermination as the word has been commonly
> understood
> >> to mean, but also policies that attempt in any way to undermine an
ethnic
> >practiced
> >> "genocide' against Aborigines through its policy of removing half caste
> >> children from dysfunctional Aboriginal families. An absurd broadening
of
> >the
> >> definition that now serves to provide a sense of moral superiority
among
> >> those seeking further special privileges for Aborigines.
> >It is abundantly clear that merely being half-caste was "dysfunction"
> >enough to warrant separation of children from their parents, irrespective
> >of any real dysfunction. From
>
>http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/sto
> l
>
>
> <snip>
>
> >Furthermore, the prospect that this mixed descent population was growing
> >made it imperative to governments that mixed descent people be forced to
> >join the workforce instead of relying on government rations. In that way
> the
> >mixed descent population would be both self-supporting and satisfy the
> needs
> >of the developing Australian economy for cheap labour.
> So you believe and accept that a considerable reason behind the alleged
> stolen generation was to supply cheap labor?
I believe that I quoted the Wilson Report which said "satisfy the
needs of the developing Australian economy for cheap labour".
I accept that those needs were satisfied -- in arrangements of
varying imbalance.
alan
L
\-/
PS "genocide" is a bit like "rape" -- too hot to be handled . That's
why we now just have grades of sexual assault.
Reg N. Pickford
Alan Luchetti wrote in message <7epsqd$2qt$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au>...
>
>
>
>> >It is abundantly clear that merely being half-caste was "dysfunction"
>> >enough to warrant separation of children from their parents,
irrespective
>> >of any real dysfunction. From
>>
>>http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/st
o
>> l
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >Furthermore, the prospect that this mixed descent population was growing
>> >made it imperative to governments that mixed descent people be forced to
>> >join the workforce instead of relying on government rations. In that way
>> the
>> >mixed descent population would be both self-supporting and satisfy the
>> needs
>> >of the developing Australian economy for cheap labour.
>
>> So you believe and accept that a considerable reason behind the alleged
>> stolen generation was to supply cheap labor?
>
>I believe that I quoted the Wilson Report which said "satisfy the
>needs of the developing Australian economy for cheap labour".
>I accept that those needs were satisfied -- in arrangements of
>varying imbalance.
That qualifier isn't mentioned in your origional post. Never the less, how
could
5000 kids allegedly removed from their families over nearly 100 years,
go anywhere near satisfying NSW needs for labour 1890 - 1960 odd ?
Hunter
> What is it with people! There is more to being racist that forgetting
> to include Asian people too!!
I just find it funny that the people who scream racist loudest are the ones who
always go on about the "whites" did this and the "whites" did that, which only
demonstrates their own racism and makes them look rather foolish at the same
time.
Hunter
> Merely calling the caucasian settlers and their descendents
> "white Australians" to distinguish them from non white Australians
> can hardly be called a racist.
No what is racist is the opinion that any white Australian is automatically
responsible for this, that and the other but not any other Australian of say Negro or
Asian descent. You are laying blame by race if you do so and are therefore racist.
> If this is so then all historians
> are racists according to your definition.
Oh really? What twist of logic did you follow to come to this conclusion?
> Do I think there are
> only whites and Aborigines in Australia? No. Not all Australians
> are white obviously and not all Australians are Aboriginal also
> obviously.
So why lay the blame on "white" Australians then?
> Do you need to be 200 years old to apologise for past wrongs &
> injustices.
I don't appologise for Hitler's sins because they had nothing to do with me. Do you
appologise for Hitler? If not I suppose it'd make you a bit of a hypocrit wouldn't
it?
> How can any healing start when some Aborigines are still living in
> squalor in their own country?
So are some white people. No one in this country has to live in poverty. The amount
of money paid to people with no employment in this country is enough to live
comfortably. If people want to piss that money against the wall, be they white, black
or orange, that's a personal choice and is a choice that you have to live with.
> Since you have so much insight and
> understanding do share with us why, when and to what extend do you
> think the healing will start.
I know quite a few aboriginals that work and live quite happily. Do you think they're
freaks or something? I think they'd laugh if I started appologising to them for the
actions of the poms 200 years ago.
> No one is asking you to apologise. Fraser is asking *Australia* as
> a nation to apologise ( I agree with his sentiments), just like Yeltsin
> did to the Ramanovs, Blair's apology for the UK govt to intervene in
> the great Irish famime, Clinton's apology for what they did to the
> African Americans in Alabama.Just like the Emperor of Japan apologised
> for the brutal treatment of allied troops in ww2, although Japan
> has yet to apologise for the Rape of Nanjing.
A bunch of token crap really, but if that's the sort of thing that shakes your willy
wouldn't it make more sense for the pommy government to be asked to appolgise?
> As Fraser rightly wrote :
>
> " We can't undo the past but we can, in an apology, recognise the
> fact that many actions in the past did a grave injustice to the
> Aboriginal population of Australia. We have a commitment to recognise
> that and other past injustices in walking together into a new future."
You can regret the past and make the point you don't agree with what happened, but to
appolgise for actions of others you look like a bit of a prat.
> You are important in your own community as an individual I am sure
> Hunter but pardom me if I should say that you are not that important in
> the net for me or anyone else for that matter to worry whether you are
> white, blue or brindle. In the net I am only interested in your grey
> matter.
In other words you can't answer what I asked.
Hunter
> Herewith we see the biggest lie perpetrated by Europeans to avoid
> apologizing for European racist policies past and present.
>
> The simple fact is that until all, repeat ALL (pardon my shouting) of
> the damage caused by Europeans and their government, which government,
> I might add, has been continuous since the First Fleet, has been
> addressed, it is still your responsibility because in a democracy,
> representative or not, YOU, the voter, are the government.
Who is the government of the Europeans dude? ROFL.
Hunter
> Treat every case on it's merits and you don't need to classify people by their
> race. If someone needs help, help them no matter what their race. I know it
> might be a tad simplistic, but gosh darn it, it could just be worth trying out.
That'd just be too sensible though....
Hunter
> But an apology does not implicate any guilt on any Australian of any
> melanin level. As Fraser rightly puts it, quote :
So why did you single out white Australians then?
Hunter
> Idiot!!
Don't blame me if you don't have the required IQ to understand English.
> Some of the events that transpired happened only 20 years ago,
> some even more recently. There are lots of 20 yr old Australians, or,
> if you want to be pedantic, 40 yr old Australians. But, and this is
> the important bit, the Government that allowed these things to happen
> still exists, and that means every person who has the right to vote
> today is part and parcel of that same process.
So when should we start claiming compo from the Italians for the sins of the Roman
empire then?
> No. What is tragic is that people cannot or will not admit that they
> have a responsibility to make amends for the damage they have caused.
And what damage have I caused?
> That they have not done anything about it demands an apology.
Can't do anything about something I haven't done.
> Every person who has the right to vote has a share in the
> responsibility to make amends for the damage that has been caused.
Ok, when we get that compo from the Italians we should probably pass it on then.
Che_Guava
Reg N. Pickford wrote in message
<7emftl$qfn$1...@ghostgum.hunterlink.net.au>...
>
>One of my ancestors was stripped of his assets, flogged and sentenced to
>death for thieving a roll of cloth. This was commuted to seven years
>bondage and lifetime exile. Comparing it to todays morals, I'd consider it
a
>grave injustice as well.
Sounds like the Dave Moss 'Drug-war' proposal is far from original!
Raymot
>The average aboriginal has aproximately $700 for
>medical help spent on them per annum, whereas the average
>non-indiginous person receives about $2,000 pa.
[...]
>Ian Lowery
Are you sure the $2,000 pa. is not for the average Australian,
and that the $700 pa is not extra for the Aborigines?
Medicare is universal, for example. I'm not aware of any health
services that are funded for non-Aborigines alone.
Could you list a few?
Raymot
======
Brisbane, Australia
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
Raymot
>
>So when should we start claiming compo from the Italians for the sins of the Roman
>empire then?
Damn right! And what did the Roman's ever do for us?!
Raymot
[[[[[[[[
Allan-John Marsh
Apart from roads, education, law and order, irrigation, public hygiene,
effective taxation, NOTHING!!!!
Raymot
>
>Shi Hwang Ti wrote:
>> As Fraser rightly wrote :
>>
>> " We can't undo the past but we can, in an apology, recognise the
>> fact that many actions in the past did a grave injustice to the
>> Aboriginal population of Australia. We have a commitment to recognise
>> that and other past injustices in walking together into a new future."
>
>You can regret the past and make the point you don't agree with what happened, but to
>appolgise for actions of others you look like a bit of a prat.
There are different definitions of "apology" and "to apologise".
The most commonly one understood in Australia is to say sorry
for some wrong that one has done.
However, another definition (which Fraser is using) is expressed in
the Macquarie Dictionary as "an expression of regret"
I can see no problem with the Government expressing regret that
the policies of previous governments (even if well-intentioned)
have caused offence and injury to Aborigines.
In fact, it is always regretful when harm is done by well-meaning
people.
The main problem I can see here is that Fraser's definition of
an apology is not the most commonly understood one. It needs selling.
I am happy and willing to extend my expression of regret for past
wrongs or perceived wrongs to the Aboriginal people, but as long as
they want me and others to say "Sorry" for things other people did,
they're asking for something that's impossible to give.
Raymot
=======
Brisbane, Australia
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
Raymot
>
>>Just like the Emperor of Japan apologised
>>for the brutal treatment of allied troops in ww2
>
>
>Last time I heard anything about it was when the emperor came over to
>the UK and although he was "Deeply regretful" or something, he flatly
>refused to actually _Apologise_ and even *think* about paying
>compensation etc etc.
>
>Have things happened since I last heard about it?
>
>Cheers
>
>Fidge
Yes, apparently Fraser has re-defined "apology" to mean
"express regret". I, also, was unaware of this until recently,
and it certainly puts a new slant upon things.
But are Aborigines asking for an expression of regret, or do
they want more?
Is there some official statement somewhere of how "aborigines"
actually want this "apology" to be worded?
Raymot
=======
Brisbane, Australia
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
Alan Luchetti
Reg N. Pickford <regn.p...@hunterlink.net.au> wrote ...
> Alan Luchetti wrote in message <7epsqd$2qt$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au>...
> >Reg N. Pickford <regn.p...@hunterlink.net.au> wrote ...
[snip]
> >> So you believe and accept that a considerable
> >> reason behind the alleged stolen generation
> >> was to supply cheap labor?
> >I believe that I quoted the Wilson Report which
> >said "satisfy the needs of the developing
> >Australian economy for cheap labour".
> >I accept that those needs were satisfied -- in
> >arrangements of varying imbalance.
> That qualifier isn't mentioned in your origional
> post.
It's not a qualifier which subtracts from the
contention; it's a mollifier which explains that
the contention is no big deal. You are reacting
as if every low-paid job was alleged to be an act
of genocide in itself.
> Never the less, how could 5000 kids allegedly
> removed from their families over nearly 100 years,
> go anywhere near satisfying NSW needs for labour
> 1890 - 1960 odd ?
The words were "satisfy the needs of the developing Australian economy for
cheap labour" -- not
"completely satisfy the needs of the developing Australian economy for cheap
labour".
Why do people who played no part in past doings
defend the people concerned as if they were
defending themselves? What are we dealing with
here -- a form of ancestor worship? We could
certainly do with a less tribal view of our
history.
In particular, we could do without a PM who feeds
the tribal view with hokum like 'I sympathise
fundamentally with Australians who are insulted
when we are told we have a racist, bigoted past'.
How can the country even begin to clearly address
this stuff when muddle-headed emotion has the
Prime Ministerial imprimatur?
alan
L
\-/
Alan Luchetti
Raymot <rmot...@powerup.com.au> wrote
> But are Aborigines asking for an expression
> of regret, or do they want more? Is there some
> official statement somewhere of how "aborigines"
> actually want this "apology" to be worded?
No. They know they can't write it for the nation.
They know that its wording can't be settled until
the denial phase is over. They know that the
current government is prolonging the denial
phase because it has a fair slab of us pegged
as insecure chauvinistic reactionaries and
because its denials of how some of its present
policies are anti-aboriginal would be undermined
by its recognition of how most of our past
policies were anti-aboriginal.
alan
L
\-/
Shi Hwang Ti
> On Sat, 10 Apr 1999 01:26:03 +0800, Shi Hwang Ti <Lot...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >Geoff wrote:
> >> On Fri, 09 Apr 1999 10:03:03 +0800, Shi Hwang Ti <Lot...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >Hunter wrote:
> >> >> Shi Hwang Ti wrote:
> >> >> > IMHO White Australians
> >> >> You're racist? Or do you think there are only whites and aboriginals here?
> >> >Merely calling the caucasian settlers and their descendents
> >> >"white Australians" to distinguish them from non white Australians
> >> >can hardly be called a racist.
> >> It is classifying a group of people according to _your_ perception of
> >> their race for the purpose of linking them to specific activities.
> >> That is racist.
> >Only if there was malice. I used the term "white Australians" without
> >malice but as a term of reference. Does that make me a racist? If it
> >does then its something new to me and I wont hesitate to apologise
> >unreservedly to anyone who is so maligned.
> It is classifying a group of people according to _your_ perception of
> their race for the purpose of linking them to specific activities.
> That is racist. Motivation is irrelevant - classification is
> separation.
Mens rea is almost always relevant to prove guilt. Another possible
defence is to rely on the common law doctrine of mistake. How can
someone be guilty of any offence if he makes a genuine mistake without
intention or malice? There are two major protagonists in the 200
year saga. If the conquest and subsequent settlement are not
responsible for the Aborigines' present day dysfunction and
dislocation then what is?
> > If this is so then all historians
> >are racists according to your definition.
> >> Which historians would those be?
> >Any historian who uses the term "white Australians" in his thesis
> >I suppose , if using that term makes one a racist by your definition.
> Unless you have a reference, what you actually meant was 'no
> historians are racist'. Why didn't you just say that in the first
> place?
Are you implying no historian is a racist until he uses that term?
> Cheers,
> Geoff (geoffatiwsd.tcomd.tau)
> "Detestation of the high is the involuntary homage of the low."
> Charles Dickens, 'A Tale of Two Cities'
"The first 30 years of your working life are the hardest, after
that you are ready to retire." A Cynic.
Ian Lowery
>In article <3711ffeb...@news.curie.dialix.com.au>, ia...@nospam.curie.dialix.com.au says...
>
>>The average aboriginal has aproximately $700 for
>>medical help spent on them per annum, whereas the average
>>non-indiginous person receives about $2,000 pa.
>Are you sure the $2,000 pa. is not for the average Australian,
>and that the $700 pa is not extra for the Aborigines?
The most recent source of this information was the last head of the
AMA. The figures are about $3,000 for war vetrerans, $2,000 for
non-indigenous people, $700 for aboriginals.
Ian Lowery
------------------------------------------------
To reply, remove "nospam" from my e-mail address.
Col Clark
wrote:
>Shi Hwang Ti wrote:
>
>> Merely calling the caucasian settlers and their descendents
>> "white Australians" to distinguish them from non white Australians
>> can hardly be called a racist.
>
>No what is racist is the opinion that any white Australian is automatically
>responsible for this, that and the other but not any other Australian of say Negro or
>Asian descent. You are laying blame by race if you do so and are therefore racist.
I remember listening to gAyBC talkback radio whilst driving in country
Qld about 13 months ago when a caller referred to a "negro" whilst
making some point. The politically correct cockhead hosting the
show told him to refer to them as "African Americans". No amount of
explaining that he was not referring to American negros but African
negros could penetrate the politically correct cockhead radio host's
skull. In the end, the caller was disconnected with comments about
insulting language not being tolerated.
I wonder if the politically correct cockhead radio announcer realised
that he had insulted negros by claiming that the word negro was an
insult.
Col
ICQ 250276
Dave Garner
>Hear Hear. Well done. Why is it so difficult for some people to
>accept that an apology to the Aborigines is not the end of the world?
Any admission of responsibility will be seized upon and used in
local or international courts as a basis for Monetary Compensation,
which is all that the WHITE Aboriginals are interested in.
>Why is an apology to the Aborigines so abhorrent to some when instinctly
>they will apologise to someone at the office oe elsewhere when they
>brush the shoulder of someone unintentionally as it is the norm in a
>civilised society? Anyone has any valid explantion?
Yes, if YOU bumped someone, then YOU were personally responsible
for bumping them.
To take your silly analogy a step further, if somone spilled
coffee on an employee twenty years before you started work at
that company, would you personally appologise for it?
d.
Raymot
>
>rmot...@powerup.com.au (Raymot) wrote:
>
>>In article <3711ffeb...@news.curie.dialix.com.au>, ia...@nospam.curie.dialix.com.au says...
>>
>>>The average aboriginal has aproximately $700 for
>>>medical help spent on them per annum, whereas the average
>>>non-indiginous person receives about $2,000 pa.
>
>>Are you sure the $2,000 pa. is not for the average Australian,
>>and that the $700 pa is not extra for the Aborigines?
>
>The most recent source of this information was the last head of the
>AMA. The figures are about $3,000 for war vetrerans, $2,000 for
>non-indigenous people, $700 for aboriginals.
>
>Ian Lowery
Do you have a reference?
Raymot
[[[[[[[[
Shi Hwang Ti
> Shi Hwang Ti <Lot...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >Hear Hear. Well done. Why is it so difficult for some people to
> >accept that an apology to the Aborigines is not the end of the world?
> Any admission of responsibility will be seized upon and used in
> local or international courts as a basis for Monetary Compensation,
> which is all that the WHITE Aboriginals are interested in.
Ah but the wording of the apology can be crafted as such that no
guilt is attached and as Fraser says " The suggestion that an apology
can be the basis of legal claims is a nonsense."
> >Why is an apology to the Aborigines so abhorrent to some when instinctly
> >they will apologise to someone at the office oe elsewhere when they
> >brush the shoulder of someone unintentionally as it is the norm in a
> >civilised society? Anyone has any valid explantion?
> Yes, if YOU bumped someone, then YOU were personally responsible
> for bumping them.
But the Govt is a legal body that perpetuates thoughout the centuries
unless of course Australia is invaded and occupied by a foreign
country in the intervening years. Therefore it is the govt that should
table the apology not any current citizens.
> To take your silly analogy a step further, if somone spilled
> coffee on an employee twenty years before you started work at
> that company, would you personally appologise for it?
> d.
A better analogy is this REAL case in America where a McDonald's
employee split hot coffee on the lap on a customer when serving her.
Guess who had to apologise and was sued for some ridiculous sums
($1.5 mil?) of money. But that was under a tortious act of negligence.
Peter Mackay
hg...@zip.com.au (Bernard Rooney) wrote:
> Finally there is his dangerous flirtation with Pauline Hanson. Hansonism
> for him seems to be an opportunity for his unstated agenda to be advanced.
> This is why he did not come down hard on her, despite the danger to his own
> base.
I'm sorry? You must have been asleep for the last year. Trust me, we in One
Nation felt the weight of the Coalition coming down very heavily indeed.
But perhaps you were thinking of sending in the stormtroopers?
~ m
u U Cheers!
\|
|> -Peter Mackay
/ \
_\ /_ Personal opinion only
James Mullens
>
>
> Frazer was PM from 1975-1983. The Wilson Report
> came out over 10 years later. If he had been PM
> when it came out, he'd have been less reactive
> to it, diversive from it, and undermining of it
> than Howard. He wouldn't have said 'I sympathise fundamentally with those
> Australians who are
> insulted when told we have a racist and bigoted
> past', as Howard did. He would not have been
> reflexively insulted by the truth -- as Howard is.
Amen. Credit where credit is due.
I carry not the slightest brief for M. Fraser, but
the man is clean on this one - he single handley forced
the conservatives to accept the land rights legislation
of the Whitlam government.
Of all legislation left over in early '96 what survived?
Yep - land rights.
Who opposed it?
The National Party and huge slabs of the Liberal party,
but Fraser used his authority to force land rights through.
Mabo simply completed the process.
Take your hat off. Land rights were going to be hit
and miss under Labor, and were just gonna go backwards
under the conservatives.
Fraser made the difference.
As I say - I have no time for the man otherwise, but for
this one he deserves credit.
> Howard has a sentimental love affair with the
> national myths of his formative years.
Small in stature, smaller in voice, smallest in mind.
> Unlike Frazer, the man is impervious
> to new information.
Got it one. Amazing, we never knew how
lucky we were - come back Malcolm, all is forgiven
James
Hunter
> Ah but the wording of the apology can be crafted as such that no
> guilt is attached
In that case why not call it an expression of regret then?
> and as Fraser says " The suggestion that an apology
> can be the basis of legal claims is a nonsense."
Mad magazine once said "how much dope does a dope dealer deal when a dope
dealer does deal dope?".
> But the Govt is a legal body that perpetuates thoughout the centuries
> unless of course Australia is invaded and occupied by a foreign
> country in the intervening years. Therefore it is the govt that should
> table the apology not any current citizens.
In that case shouldn't it be the UK that should be held accountable?
We are really governed by a body that took over from the Pommy administration.
> A better analogy is this REAL case in America where a McDonald's
> employee split hot coffee on the lap on a customer when serving her.
> Guess who had to apologise and was sued for some ridiculous sums
> ($1.5 mil?) of money. But that was under a tortious act of negligence.
The country where a man can do a Schrodinger' cat and be guilty and innocent of
murdering his wife at the same time, where rock'n'wrestling weirdos run for
office, where actors are quite often elected into office even though the idea
of someone who had a job of pretending to be what he's not becoming a world
leader should be disturbing... Nothing surprises me about that place... Pity we
seem to be slowly drifting the same way.
Rob
>
>> Any admission of responsibility will be seized upon and used in
>> local or international courts as a basis for Monetary Compensation,
>> which is all that the WHITE Aboriginals are interested in.
>
>can be the basis of legal claims is a nonsense."
Howard has done that. He said something to the effect of 'I am personally
sorry....'. Not good enough. The industry are after an admission of guilt.
Alan Luchetti
Peter Mackay <pete...@dynamite.com.au> wrote ...
> hg...@zip.com.au (Bernard Rooney) wrote:
> > Finally there is his dangerous flirtation with
> > Pauline Hanson. Hansonism for him seems to be
> > an opportunity for his unstated agenda to be
> > advanced. This is why he did not come down
> > hard on her, despite the danger to his own
> > base.
> I'm sorry? You must have been asleep for the last
> year. Trust me, we in One Nation felt the weight
> of the Coalition coming down very heavily indeed.
You felt the weight of the coalition because they
did a fair job of competing with you for the anti-aboriginal and anti-ethnic
(so that we may discuss
politics and not morality, please take this as an
assessment of electoral appeal, not innate party
attitude).
Things may be easier for you next election because
the coalition is currently weighing up the benefit
from competing with you against the resultant cost
to its attempt to compete with ALP/Dem/Green.
They have already learned (in Queensland) that
preferencing ON is counterproductive for this
reason. They have since learned (federally and in
NSW) that competing with you for rural votes comes
at the cost of lost city votes.
OTOH, because you are a chance of the odd upper
house seat, you can bet that the majors' anti-
aboriginal and anti-ethnic bark will be worse than
their bite at election times.
> But perhaps you were thinking of sending in the
> stormtroopers?
Yeah, right. And if that doesn't work we'll nuke
the Corso. People will stop at nothing to persecute
ON. But you already knew that, eh?
alan
L
\-/
Shi Hwang Ti
> Shi Hwang Ti wrote:
> > guilt is attached
Regret is a lower form of apology just like what the PM of Japan
Obuchi expressed recently to China. I dont know if the protagonists
will accept this. If they do then let the healing start on both
sides I 'd say.
> > and as Fraser says " The suggestion that an apology
> > can be the basis of legal claims is a nonsense."
> Mad magazine once said "how much dope does a dope dealer deal when a dope
> dealer does deal dope?".
Huh? Sounds like rope a dope Indian rope trick to me. A real tongue
twister.
> > But the Govt is a legal body that perpetuates thoughout the centuries
> > unless of course Australia is invaded and occupied by a foreign
> > country in the intervening years. Therefore it is the govt that should
> > table the apology not any current citizens.
> In that case shouldn't it be the UK that should be held accountable?
> We are really governed by a body that took over from the Pommy administration.
Maybe thats not a bad idea at all. Since the Queen is the Head of
State of Australia and Howard is so reticent and meek on such matters,
perhaps the Queen can kill (no pun intended) two birds with one stone,
by reading the apology. That way an apology is also seen to be made by
the real perpetrator of the acts for which an apology is now necessary
and no one Down Under gets to lose any face nor have to face any suit.
> > A better analogy is this REAL case in America where a McDonald's
> > employee split hot coffee on the lap on a customer when serving her.
> > Guess who had to apologise and was sued for some ridiculous sums
> > ($1.5 mil?) of money. But that was under a tortious act of negligence.
> The country where a man can do a Schrodinger' cat and be guilty and innocent of
> murdering his wife at the same time, where rock'n'wrestling weirdos run for
> office, where actors are quite often elected into office even though the idea
> of someone who had a job of pretending to be what he's not becoming a world
> leader should be disturbing... Nothing surprises me about that place... Pity we
> seem to be slowly drifting the same way.
And where a president lies under oath he is cited only for contempt
and fined when the more serious charge is perjury ; and when he is
impeached everyone votes on party line and he gets away scot free
with a token slap on the wrist; where law enforcement officers
shoot an unarmed street vendor 49 times on mere suspicion; where an
unrepentent supremist drags a person with higher melanin level
behind his car until the victim's head is separated from his body and
some of hisbody parts are strewn all over the road at the time when the
US touts its human rights records all over the world and chastises other
nations; where you have a fat chance of being elected president if you
have a campaign war chest with less then $20 million. I often wonder if
poor Abe Lincoln stands a ghost of chance at the 2000 primary if he is
alive today.
Shi Hwang Ti
> >> Any admission of responsibility will be seized upon and used in
> >> local or international courts as a basis for Monetary Compensation,
> >> which is all that the WHITE Aboriginals are interested in.
> >Ah but the wording of the apology can be crafted as such that no
> >guilt is attached and as Fraser says " The suggestion that an apology
> >can be the basis of legal claims is a nonsense."
> Howard has done that. He said something to the effect of 'I am personally
> sorry....'. Not good enough. The industry are after an admission of guilt.
I think if legal minds on both sides get together and craft such a
document that there can be no margin for legal opportunists it may
work to Australia's long term interests and stature in the world
stage. But I doubt if Howard has the will or temerity to turn such an
historic page in the great Australia Story.
Rob
>I think if legal minds on both sides get together and craft such a
>document that there can be no margin for legal opportunists it may
>work to Australia's long term interests and stature in the world
>stage. But I doubt if Howard has the will or temerity to turn such an
>historic page in the great Australia Story.
I think you are right in that a heap of lawyers could craft an apology while
not admitting guilt. But you miss the point. What the industry is after is for
the government to accept guilt, because there are millions of dollars at stake.
And until they get that, they will continue to push for it.
Peter Mackay
Shi Hwang Ti <Lot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Mens rea is almost always relevant to prove guilt. Another possible
> defence is to rely on the common law doctrine of mistake. How can
> someone be guilty of any offence if he makes a genuine mistake without
> intention or malice? There are two major protagonists in the 200
> year saga. If the conquest and subsequent settlement are not
> responsible for the Aborigines' present day dysfunction and
> dislocation then what is?
Your theory only makes sense if it applies to *all* Aboriginal Australians.
Clearly, there are some who are doing very well indeed, and thus your
thoery is useless. Try again, please.
Bernard Rooney
pete...@dynamite.com.au (Peter Mackay) wrote:
>In article <hgnsw-ya02408000...@news.zip.com.au>,
>hg...@zip.com.au (Bernard Rooney) wrote:
>
>> Finally there is his dangerous flirtation with Pauline Hanson. Hansonism
>> for him seems to be an opportunity for his unstated agenda to be advanced.
>> This is why he did not come down hard on her, despite the danger to his own
>> base.
>
>I'm sorry? You must have been asleep for the last year. Trust me, we in One
>Nation felt the weight of the Coalition coming down very heavily indeed.
Peter, Howard let Hanson run and run, because she was expressing, in cruder
fashion, what Howard himself believes.
It was only the shock of the Qld result that forced him to act.
Craig
I think you miss the point. The leader of a tolerant democratic country let a
legal party express their views. The fact that you or anyone else doesn't agree
with them is irrelevant. If the One Nation party had been inciting violence then
the government would have reacted quickly. If you want ideas like One Nations
silenced then you condone your own views being silenced, remember "I disagree with
what you say but I will defend you to the death for the right to say it" or
something like that. In other words if you squash any idea and expression then you
impinge on everyone's rights.
Dave Garner
>They know that its wording can't be settled until
>the denial phase is over. They know that the
>current government is prolonging the denial
>phase because it has a fair slab of us pegged
>as insecure chauvinistic reactionaries and
>because its denials of how some of its present
>policies are anti-aboriginal would be undermined
>by its recognition of how most of our past
>policies were anti-aboriginal.
Well, no chauvenism here, Al! 8-)
If they trotted out iron clad evidence tomorrow
that SOMEONE dragged these 60,000 kids away from
their mothers, it still has NOTHING to do with
me as far as I'm concerned, and, feeling no genuine
responsiblity or regret, I would not like the
GOVERNMENT to post an insincere appology on my
behalf.
d.
Martin Taylor
>Apart from roads, education, law and order, irrigation, public hygiene,
>effective taxation, NOTHING!!!!
You forgot the aquaduct......
------------
Gippsland, Victoria, Australia
Replace "A3" with "a1" for email reply
Martin Taylor
>A better analogy is this REAL case in America where a McDonald's
>employee split hot coffee on the lap on a customer when serving her.
>Guess who had to apologise and was sued for some ridiculous sums
>($1.5 mil?) of money. But that was under a tortious act of negligence.
I heard that the woman bought a coffee at the drive through window. When
she opened it whilst driving she spilt it. She then sued based on the
coffee being too hot to be safely handled.
And she won, what's more...
And in today's Herald-Sun, we are the second worst litigous country behind
the US, and we're catching up. Therefore, I tend to say, before we go
hanging shit on the Americans, we're getting as bad.
My wife is from the US. When she came here in 89, she told me that the
sueing business was getting out of hand. She said then, "pray that
Australia never goes down the path of contigency fee lawyers, or it will
become as bad here." Then guess what? Mobs like Slater and Gordon started
popping up, advertising "pay only if you win". The rest is history.
Alan Luchetti
Raymot <rmot...@powerup.com.au> wrote ...
> >> As Fraser rightly wrote :
> >>
> >> " We can't undo the past but we can, in an apology,
> >> recognise the fact that many actions in the past did
> >> a grave injustice to the Aboriginal population of
> >> Australia. We have a commitment to recognise that
> >> and other past injustices in walking together into a
> >> new future."
> >You can regret the past and make the point you don't
> >agree with what happened, but to appolgise for actions
> >of others you look like a bit of a prat.
> There are different definitions of "apology" and "to
> apologise". The most commonly one understood in
> Australia is to say sorry for some wrong that one has
> done. However, another definition (which Fraser is
> using) is expressed in the Macquarie Dictionary as
> "an expression of regret". I can see no problem with the
> Government expressing regret that the policies of previous
> governments (even if well-intentioned) have caused
> offence and injury to Aborigines. In fact, it is always
> regretful when harm is done by well-meaning people.
> The main problem I can see here is that Fraser's definition
> of an apology is not the most commonly understood one.
> It needs selling.
>
> I am happy and willing to extend my expression of regret
> for past wrongs or perceived wrongs to the Aboriginal
> people, but as long as they want me and others to say
> "Sorry" for things other people did, they're asking for
> something that's impossible to give.
Well written, Ray. I just want to stress Frazer's words
"recognise the fact". Once the facts are recognised, the
rest will fall into place. Our real problem is not the
misperception of an impossible demand to apologise for
doing what one didn't do; it is reluctance to recognise what
was done and is still, to a lesser degree, being done.
The biggest bar to reconciliation is current anti-aboriginal
discrimination (eg NT Amendment Act 1998). The next-
biggest bar is resistance-reinforcement like the PM's
'I sympathise fundamentally with those Australians who are
insulted when told we have a racist and bigoted past' or his
favourite historian's famous phrase 'the black arm band
view of history'. We should be big enough to acknowledge
our history's depths as readily as we celebrate its heights.
When we achieve that degree of national maturity, the
appropriate apology will come naturally and we will then be
able to move on.
Alan Luchetti
Dave Garner <dav...@bombadil.apana.org.au> wrote ...
> "Alan Luchetti" <luch...@hotmail.com> writes:
I share your abhorrence of insincerity and I give the PM
full credit for his sincerity on the national apology issue.
Short of a Paulian conversion, I'd hate to see him even
attempt an apology. His preamble's 'obligatory' words
on the subject of aboriginals were cringeworthy enough.
alan
L
\-/
Bernard Rooney
>Bernard
>
>I think you miss the point. The leader of a tolerant democratic country let a
>legal party express their views. The fact that you or anyone else doesn't agree
>with them is irrelevant. If the One Nation party had been inciting
violence then
>the government would have reacted quickly. If you want ideas like One Nations
>silenced then you condone your own views being silenced, remember "I
disagree with
>what you say but I will defend you to the death for the right to say it" or
>something like that. In other words if you squash any idea and expression
then you
>impinge on everyone's rights.
This is a good example of an appalling confusion oft repeated by one nation
supporters.
Condemnation of one nation and its views is seen as 'silencing' or
'squashing' their views, an attack on freedom of speech.
But denunciation of hanson is not a squashing of speech, it is an
*expression* of freedom of speech.
Howard and hanson and all of us have these rights, thank god. Howard's
cowardice in not denouncing hanson springs from him secretly sharing her
views, not from him standing up for free speech.
The idea expressed by you above that attacking hanson would be suppressing
freedom of speech seems to spring from the public shaming and social fear
that closet racists felt in the Labor era of political correctness at any
public expression of their real views.
This is all very understandable, we know little Johnny howard himself got
squashed years ago when he made the mistake of giving voice to his
anti-asian feelings.
But it is a far cry from real attacks on freedom of speech. This consists
of harassment and jailing of speakers, or plain murder as in the case of
the Belgrade journalist recently.
I guess people in Australia have had it so good for so long they dont know
what tyranny is. Poor ignorant, naive hanson may have been entirely sincere
when she complained that public ridicule of her ideas was 'suppression of
freedom of speech'.
Anthea
>And in today's Herald-Sun, we are the second worst litigous country behind
>the US, and we're catching up. Therefore, I tend to say, before we go
>hanging shit on the Americans, we're getting as bad.
Yep.
Some years ago, I worked in the careers area, and a favourite statistic
being bandied around by the Unis was : "there are currently as many people
at Uni studying law, as there are practising lawyers".
Well, that was about 4 years ago!
I guess they have moved into contingency work as there are more of them at
the trough. It does make things tricky: our legal system is still expensive
for "ordinary" people, and civil suits, for instance, can be used to great
effect by those wealthy enough to risk court.
ant
Craig
Bernard Rooney wrote:
> In article <37130917...@ibm.net>, Craig <cr...@ibm.net> wrote:
>
> >Bernard
> >
> >I think you miss the point. The leader of a tolerant democratic country let a
> >legal party express their views. The fact that you or anyone else doesn't agree
> >with them is irrelevant. If the One Nation party had been inciting
> violence then
> >the government would have reacted quickly. If you want ideas like One Nations
> >silenced then you condone your own views being silenced, remember "I
> disagree with
> >what you say but I will defend you to the death for the right to say it" or
> >something like that. In other words if you squash any idea and expression
> then you
> >impinge on everyone's rights.
>
> This is a good example of an appalling confusion oft repeated by one nation
> supporters.
>
Number one I'm not and never have been a One Nation supporter. I didn't say that the
rest of Australia shouldn't voice their displeasure with racist views, far from it.
The leader of a nation is in somewhat of a different situation. The leader is their
to represent all Australians irrespective of Race, religion, sexual persuasion etc
and must moderate to maintain overall tolerance. I believe this is what John
Howard's motives were.
>
> Condemnation of one nation and its views is seen as 'silencing' or
> 'squashing' their views, an attack on freedom of speech.
>
Condemnation of One Nations views is part of free speech, but to incite violence
against One Nation is just as dangerous as their views.
>
> But denunciation of hanson is not a squashing of speech, it is an
> *expression* of freedom of speech.
>
True and you and I have every right to do just that. To specifically ask the leader
of this nation to do it for you and if it reflects every Australian is dangerous. If
you don't like a religious point of view do you want John Howard to denounce that
to, just remember more people have died in the name of religion than any race
dispute.
>
> Howard and hanson and all of us have these rights, thank god. Howard's
> cowardice in not denouncing hanson springs from him secretly sharing her
> views, not from him standing up for free speech.
Please provide some facts, the policies implemented or not implemented in Australia
by successive governments seem fairly balanced. I think you are dead wrong on this,
John Howard has never done anything that would suggest he is basing legislation on
anything but overall fairness to all sections of Australia.
>
>
> The idea expressed by you above that attacking hanson would be suppressing
> freedom of speech seems to spring from the public shaming and social fear
> that closet racists felt in the Labor era of political correctness at any
> public expression of their real views.
What a load of rubbish. I believe that any Australian should have the right to
express their views on any subject as long as it doesn't incite violence against a
group or result in inciting persecution.
>
>
> This is all very understandable, we know little Johnny howard himself got
> squashed years ago when he made the mistake of giving voice to his
> anti-asian feelings.
>
>
> But it is a far cry from real attacks on freedom of speech. This consists
> of harassment and jailing of speakers, or plain murder as in the case of
> the Belgrade journalist recently.
This is an argument about continuum, at what point does it become an infringement.
>
>
> I guess people in Australia have had it so good for so long they dont know
> what tyranny is. Poor ignorant, naive hanson may have been entirely sincere
> when she complained that public ridicule of her ideas was 'suppression of
> freedom of speech'.
>
Australia is a multicultural society and yes we have lived in a very easy going
society. I believe Australians can understand tyranny and would act to stop it.