The Apology

[mstakenidentity]

I don't think there has been a moment since 9am in which I have not had tears in my eyes.

I am so indescribably happy that the government has done this.

I am proud.

Comments

[sajee.livejournal.com]

Me too.

Good start, Primeminister.

[makale-83.livejournal.com]

What happened? (I haven't seen thew news)

[mstakenidentity.livejournal.com]

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd apologised on behalf of the government and parliament to the Stolen Generation

The Stolen Generation were children of indigenous descent who were forcibly taken from their homes in Aboriginal villages and tribes between 1910 and the early 1970s and put in missions and other institutions. Many were abused physically, mentally, and sexually. For the past decade the government has refused to make an apology, particularly to use the word "sorry" (a heavily weighted word for aboriginies). Our new PM made it the first order of business on the opening day of Parliament.

[makale-83.livejournal.com]

AH, I never knew that.

[mstakenidentity.livejournal.com]

It was just amazingly moving. People were weeping openly. It's an important step for race relations and well past due.

[makale-83.livejournal.com]

Thats really good to hear, its always the best to look back on the past - acknowledge and accept it and learn from it.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_bounce_/]

I"m actually proud of our government today.

[ristin.livejournal.com]

Generations overdue. Well it's a start. I hope "both sides" can put aside past differences and past grievances. Finally we have a foundation that can be built upon, not a rift keeping people divided and mired in the past.

[vox-diabolica.livejournal.com]

Quote:

Generations overdue

Do you have a lot of teenage mothers in your lineage?

[ristin.livejournal.com]

The Stolen Generation were children of indigenous descent who were forcibly taken from their homes in Aboriginal villages and tribes between 1910 and the early 1970s and put in missions and other institutions.

This started 98 years ago. Was your mother a hundred when she had you?

[vox-diabolica.livejournal.com]

Thanks, Factoid Furry! But my question still remains. If it is generations overdue, one would expect it to be more than one generation over due. There have only been two in that time (a generation is typically about fifty years). So either it's been a generation overdue or you have lots of generations in your tumbleweed family tree.

Take your pick.

[ristin.livejournal.com]

Fifty years to a generation? Okay then, if you say so. So by your heavily infated duration for a 'generation' that makes it two generations and still "generations" plural.

Judging by your other comments though you're just in this for the argument, but that's fine by me. As long as we're both enjoying ourselves. ^_^

[vox-diabolica.livejournal.com]

Quote:

So by your heavily infated duration for a 'generation' that makes it two generations and still "generations" plural.

'Infated' isn't a word, moron. I didn't realise that there was nobody alive who was older than fifty years.

[(Anonymous)]

a generation is typically about fiftytwenty years

there, fixed that for you.

[vox-diabolica.livejournal.com]

Gee, thanks, Anonymous! Anonymous appears to be from a family who breeds rapidly.

I'm sorry. I should have contextualised this. I was talking about civilised generations, which are about 50 years apart (usually known as the 'grandfather' unit). In your caravan park by the desert, I'm sure that there's only 20 years between you and your grandparents.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, so you're conveniently using a form of the word generation that doesn't actually mean generation as it is commonly defined.

In this day and age the definition of generation may be somewhat greater than the traditional 20 year span, but it is certainly no higher than mid thirties, most defnine it now as 30-33 years.

Your use of a so-called grandfather unit does not, therefore, invalidate the claim made that the apology is generations overdue, as the poster did not say "generations in grandfather units" overdue. They were referring to the standard definition of generation which is between 20 and 35 years.

You are an odd person, mate. You get upset over typos, redefine words to suit your arguments and then resort to personal attacks because I don't want to log into livejournal on a public computer.

[vox-diabolica.livejournal.com]

Quote:

Oh, so you're conveniently using a form of the word generation that doesn't actually mean generation as it is commonly defined.

No. That was you back in this comment (http://mstakenidentity.livejournal.com/440593.html?thread=2596881#t2596881).

Quote:

In this day and age the definition of generation may be somewhat greater than the traditional 20 year span, but it is certainly no higher than mid thirties, most defnine it now as 30-33 years.

You are talking complete and utter nonsense. The definition I'm using is - amazingly enough - common to both biologists and anthropologists. You are talking garbage. This definition of 'generation' has been in use since the early 1900s. Go read a book.

You're even stranger in that you're getting responses from this post sent to your email address. Did arguing really mean that much to you?

[dozingquinn.livejournal.com]

I too can't wait to hear from all the people who have been wrongfully stolen so we can hear their stories and apologise to them.

It's been decades... surely someone will come forward... so we can apologise to them. There's a whole generation out there right. Should be easy.

Mr Rudd said 'there are thousands of them, (stories of stolen kids) tens of thousands of them'. I'd love to hear about 1 or 2 that were *wrongfully* taken.

[mstakenidentity.livejournal.com]

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/social_justice/bth_report/report/index.html

[vox-diabolica.livejournal.com]

You don't expect him to read that, do you?

[mc-shamo.livejournal.com]

It's more than 1 A4 page long, he won't read it.....

[vox-diabolica.livejournal.com]

Are you playing Humpty Dumpty with the term 'wrongfully'? Yes. The kids were torn away from their parents legitimately. The kids were torn away from their parents lawfully. The kids were torn away from their parents with full support of the law.

That's exactly the reason why there was an apology today.

[mise-en-abyme.livejournal.com]

The government has done what? Crushed onions near your house to put tears in your eyes? There is no pride in vegetables. Oh, wait, no, you're a vegetarian. Pah.

[blinvisible.livejournal.com]

What a great day, we can now resume our lives safe in the knowledge that we have done all we can and hopefully in 50 years someone can apologise for the things we are doing wrong now.

I know my white middle class guilt weighs a bit less today.

[vox-diabolica.livejournal.com]

Le whut?

[blinvisible.livejournal.com]

I fear that having made this gesture, Indigenous issues will be cast aside at a time when they are still relevant. It is very easy to get people to a "Sorry" rally, not so easy to campaign for needed resources. It just doesn't resonate the same.

Blah blah symbols are important apparently.

[vox-diabolica.livejournal.com]

Gosh, you don't think that's why the apology came with a plan to drastically improve early childhood education?

[dozingquinn.livejournal.com]

The one thing that's dangerous about this issue is that it involves race - and Australian's are always very hesitant to question things which may make them seem racist. It's better off just to let it go.

We have seen much information on why we should say sorry - however there has been very little balanced media on why we perhaps shouldn't say sorry. Australia prides itself on being one of the few countries that offer editorial freedom of speech.

Viewing mstakenidentity's article - it does document some sad tales - but all are given by undisclosed or censored sources and as such they are hard to verify. We wouldn't accept this kind of evidence to sway us normally, so why accept it now?

A very interesting article on the issue can be found here:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/stolen_generations_my_writers_festival_speech/
.

Many of you may have issues with Andrew Bolt, but disregarding his well researched comments means you're playing the man rather than the ball.

If there was a racist organised effort to round up Aboriginal children and take them away from their capable loving parents it would be horrible. But if it's a stretched truth to justify some an indigenous department getting their annual funding then that should also be exposed.

[vox-diabolica.livejournal.com]

The Hun?! Andrew Bolt?! Interesting?! You've made a category error somewhere.

Quote:

however there has been very little balanced media on why we perhaps shouldn't say sorry

And there's been very little balanced media on why we shouldn't shoot Asians in the head. Do you think that this lack of balance is because the alternative is moronic?

Quote:

We wouldn't accept this kind of evidence to sway us normally, so why accept it now?

Because it was a Royal Commission and the evidence was tabled accordingly. Do you have any idea how these things work? Any idea at all?

Quote:

but disregarding his well researched comments means you're playing the man rather than the ball

True. Fortunately, his well researched comments don't exist.

Quote:

If there was a racist organised effort to round up Aboriginal children and take them away from their capable loving parents it would be horrible

Wow! That's exactly what happened! You must be some sort of psychic!

[reallyedbrown.livejournal.com]

Helluva job, then, convincing so many people to make up stories so a department can get more money...

But I know where you're coming from, though. And I too wish the jews would stop pretending that 'holocaust' thing happened...





That last line was sarcasm, just so everyone knows.

"Many of you may have issues with Andrew Bolt, but disregarding his well researched comments means you're playing the man rather than the ball."
Perhaps, but believing anything Andrew Bolt says makes me feel conservative and makes me want to bash myself to death with a frozen pineapple.

"Viewing mstakenidentity's article ... all are given by undisclosed or censored sources and as such they are hard to verify."
Wrong. It was an in depth national inquiry, over two years, interviewing in person 535 Aboriginal Australians, and received submissions of evidence from over 600 more. As for the 'undisclosed or censored sources', to quote the report: "The names and other identifying details have been changed in the case of Indigenous witnesses who provided evidence or submissions in confidence to protect their privacy and that of the people of whom they spoke."

The actual people aside, the fact remains that laws and policies existed, at both a state and federal level, for the forcible removal of Aboriginal children from their parents. And that in itself is worth an apology.

[vox-diabolica.livejournal.com]

Gosh. You and your woolly-headed, fact-based thinking. He's not going to listen to you! He has awesome fact-finders like Andrew Bolt. We only have Royal Commissions! He's clearly correct!

I wonder if he thinks that David Irving has well researched comments? It wouldn't surprise me.

[mc-shamo.livejournal.com]

Sworn testemony????

You'd take that as "Evidence"?

I'd much rather take the word of a man in the pay of Rupert Murdoch.....

[http://users.livejournal.com/_bounce_/]

Since you disregard the evidence in the Bringing Them Home report, here's some more for you.

The Aborigines Act, 1905 "enabled the removal of anyone deemed “Aboriginal native” to a Reserve and any child under 1[6] deemed “Aboriginal native” to a State institution" [1] which brought about a plan to "breed out the colour" in "half-caste" children through forced removal and assimilation. It was hoped that they would grow up not knowing they were Aboriginal. Neville, Protector of the Aborigines in West Australia stated that "the success of [this] plan of assimilation is so allied with the question of who shall marry whom, and because colour plays so great a part in the scheme of things, that we must encourage approach towards the white rather than the black, through marriage."[2]

"The poilicy of assimilation was likely to be assisted by transferring out of the Territory and into suitable institutions in the southern states 'those light-coloured children ... in the terriotory''". [3]

The most conservative estimates state that "one in six Aboriginal children in Queensland were separated from their natural families as a result of past policies". [3]


You might also want to look at Warwick. The Cultivation of Whiteness: Science, Health and Racial Destiny in Australia. 2003 and McGregor, Imagined Destinies. Aboriginal Australians and the Doomed Race Theory, 1900-1972, Melbourne: MUP, 1997, Manne, In Denial The Stolen Generations and the Right, The Australian Quarterly Essay, Vol 1, Issue 1. Just as a start, you know? I can find a whole lot more than this, pretty damn easily.



[1] A Trans-Generational Effect of The Aborigines Act 1905 (WA): The Making of the Fringedwellers in the South-West of Western Australia, Sharon Delmege, E Law, Vol 12, No 1 and 2 http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v12n1_2/Delmege12_1.html#The%20Aborigines%20Act%201905_T

[2] Neville wrote a book called Australia's Coloured Minority. Its Place in the Community, Sydney Currawong Publishing Co., 1948

[3] Hasluck, quoting himself in Shades of Darkness, Melbourne 1988.

[4] Copland, Thesis: Calculating Lives: The Numbers and Narratives of Forced Removals in Queensland 1859 - 1972, Griffith University, 2005.

[mc-shamo.livejournal.com]

Hi David, thought might to hear the other side of this story Interesting to note that Professor Robert Manne actually provided Mr. Bolt with a list of 250 names not 20.

*Deleted and re-posted due to crappy HTML on my part