February 12, 2008 | Graham

Sorry too limited



I don’t have a problem with saying sorry for the “Stolen Generation”, although the HREOC report “Bringing them home” appears to have exaggerated the actual facts of the matter.
But to limit an apology to such a problematic and minor part of the whole story of injustice to Australia’s indigenous inhabitants seems to me to be perverse.
Particularly as the events on which it is premised are legitimately disputed and the legislation upon which they were based was passed with the best of intentions.
Yet on so many other events from colonisation to colour bars there can be no dispute, and they affect so many more indigenous than those affected by the “stolen generation”. Dispossession and death are much more important and significant than forced removals, many of which could have occurred independently of race.



Posted by Graham at 8:27 am | Comments (11) |
Filed under: Australian Politics

11 Comments

  1. Your attitude to the policy of removal seems off-hand, perhaps even glib. Is this really how you would like to have yourself represented? “Say sorry, so what, who cares”. Fantastic sentiment.
    I would like to see you sources of “legitimate dispute”, let’s hope it’s not Windy.
    As for best of intentions, well, see below:
    “Early one morning in November 1952 the manager from Burnt Bridge Mission came to our home with a policeman. I could hear him saying to Mum, `I am taking the two girls and placing them in Cootamundra Home’. My father was saying, `What right have you?’. The manager said he can do what he likes, they said my father had a bad character (I presume they said this as my father associated with Aboriginal people). They would not let us kiss our father goodbye, I will never forget the sad look on his face. He was unwell and he worked very hard all his life as a timber-cutter. That was the last time I saw my father, he died within two years after.”

    Comment by Patrick B — February 12, 2008 @ 9:22 am

  2. I agree with you on this point Graham. And it’s now apparently ‘Stolen Generations‘ not ‘Stolen Generation’.

    Comment by Tysen Woodlock — February 12, 2008 @ 2:13 pm

  3. Sorry Graham
    I thnk your error starts with “the events on which it is premised are legitimately disputed and the legislation upon which they were based was passed with the best of intentions”
    I think the Nuremburgh Defence” has been well established that a defence of ignorance is not enough.
    The ” arguable premises of the legislation” are beside the point.
    Despite what you call good intentions, the shameful acts occurred and we all wear the legacy today.
    About time we(whitefellas) learn to deal with it, teach it ( Aboriginal history and culture in our schools) and move forward together, the better.

    Comment by Muzz — February 12, 2008 @ 4:03 pm

  4. So Patrick and Muzz, you think that the only thing we have to apologise for is the “Stolen Generation” and that this was the worst thing that actually happened to indigenous Australians? That’s amazing.
    Or are you off on some sort of culture war foray where anyone who tries to look at the issue in any complexity is branded?
    Patrick if you want to work on the basis of anecdote, perhaps you might want to take issue with Noel Pearson in the Oz today. He acknowledges the moral complexity of the issue, and he has personal experience to back it up. Check the article out at http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23196221-28737,00.html.

    Comment by Graham Young — February 12, 2008 @ 5:06 pm

  5. Good points by both Graham & Pearson.
    Life is complex, and there were undoubtably a range of situations surrounding state-custody of children… and it continues to be a difficult issue to manage. I’m glad that it’s not my job to decide when a parent loses their child. I — like all people, including Patrick & Muzz — would probably make mistakes.
    In contrast, there is no ambiguity surrounding the general point that aboriginal people were unfairly treated during the white migration. This might have been the norm throughout the world and throughout history… but it is a good thing to hold ourselves to higher standards.

    Comment by John Humphreys — February 12, 2008 @ 8:58 pm

  6. Grham,
    I suggest you read the Rudd speech from today. Hopefully it may give you some insight into how fatuous this post is.

    Comment by barney — February 13, 2008 @ 9:38 am

  7. Muzz :
    “Despite what you call good intentions, the shameful acts occurred and we all wear the legacy today. ”
    Failure is NOT accepting similar actions happen today, and shall again.
    Such actions almost always claimed to be done “with best intentions”.
    “Best intentions” demonstrating absence of concern for basic human rights of people being done over by the process.
    Usually such actions done by people with power or influence, where victims possess restricted ability to appeal.
    Mick Dodson and David Ross may be demonstrating anger about earlier separation of families, yet without hesitation they ordered and supported segregation of families, overseen denial of otherwise held basic human rights to people living under the ALR(NT).
    All governments deny justice, obstruct victims from obtaining legal aid to challenge such decisions, all because they can get away with it.
    HREOC made choices to wear blinkers, to remain blind, in preference to moving to public hearings, in the process declaring human rights to be coded with selected colors.
    Pastor Martin Niemoeller :
    First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—
    because I was not a communist;
    Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
    because I was not a socialist;
    Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
    because I was not a trade unionist;
    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
    because I was not a Jew;
    Then they came for me—
    and there was no one left to speak out.

    Comment by Paul — February 13, 2008 @ 12:27 pm

  8. Thought P.M. Rudd made an excellent, statesmanlike and long long overdue speech.
    Felt sorry for Brendon Nelson having to respond – not to the Prime Minister – but to a tiny handful of vicious ratbags and wealthy party “supporters” afflicted by Korsakoff’s syndrome and suchlike disorder of the intellect who still infest your Party.
    When are you going to have a purge, expel these fools from your Party and allow your elected parliamentarians to get on with their job of being a vigorous Opposition striving to return to Government?.

    Comment by Graham Bell — February 16, 2008 @ 6:01 am

  9. bwtmqauoe gkprwbxva jezsfubwr kiugoqce msueizoak uajnoy ahvikglmx

    Comment by paqwzskht lrszybtq — March 2, 2008 @ 1:40 am

  10. abchofs wtupc zuqkxyns oawbs qcgh zmsfyo zdvjuo http://www.qphizn.hzkux.com

    Comment by iajdlt pervn — March 2, 2008 @ 1:41 am

  11. abchofs wtupc zuqkxyns oawbs qcgh zmsfyo zdvjuo http://www.qphizn.hzkux.com

    Comment by iajdlt pervn — March 2, 2008 @ 1:42 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.