Sorry is on my behalf

There will always be a small fringe of Australian society opposed to an apology. People like Keith Windschuttle and Andrew Bolt ignore the inconvenient parts of history so they can write their articles and be controversial. It's a democracy and they're entitled to be dishonest. But I am satisfied with the accuracy of the heavily researched Bringing Them Home Report and am far more likely to trust it than Andrew "I think I'm a master of all trades even though I have training in none" Bolt.

I'm with you on this, and your comments about Keith and Andrew. Keith in particular is a loathsome little toad who doesn't even manipulate facts; what he manipulates is unmentionable on a blog with a general readership.

I can't say I really feel 'sorry' in the conventional sense of the word - I don't feel guilty and a sense that I should atone for the hideous things various people like me did in the past - but I do think saying sorry is a good first step, because I think it's unlikely Kevin is going to say that Australia was bitterly disappointed in the actions of our ancestors, which is how I personally feel.

Disappointed, disgusted and a little angry.

But caring about it isn't enough any more.

What this country needs is competence on aboriginal matters, and I hope Big Kev has what it takes.

If you feel the need to apologize, and it has some kind of healing properties for you, I'd never say don't do it.  However, I've never really understood the concept of feeling guilt for the crimes of someone else.

Here in The United States the same sort of national guilt is inflicted on us.  Everything from what the White Man did to the Aboriginal people of this continent to the Nisei (Japanese Americans put into camps during WWII) and slavery of the Africans.

Yes, I think all those kinds of situations bring shame to the nation's passed, but do they bring shame to each individual of the nation forever?

Both your nation and my own have brought great things in the way of freedom and human rights to the world.  If the attrocities never happened, neither would the freedoms and human rights.  Do we consider WWII a mistake?  If we do then we are just as guilty for what we would have let continue in Europe and Japan.

I don't think either of our nations are ever going to heal as long as we continue to pull the scabs off the woulds, leaving them open to fester through time.

Instead of wallowing in national shame for the passed, we should look to the present and the future.

I admit, I know little to nothing about what is happening with the Aboriginals in Australia, but I do know about the tribes here in the U.S.

Our national guilt has done nothing more than perpetuated the "White Man's Burdon".  Reservations are little more than ghettos.  But why are they?  Because, like the inner city ghettos, generation after generation of people have been taught that the U.S. government owes them a living because of the crimes of the past.   In other words, generation after generation of people are being taught that they have no responsibilities in how their lives are.  Life owes them a living.

Meanwhile many of the tribes are making billions in casino revenues that aren't going to the tribes, but to a few leaders of each tribe.   No one dares question this because it isn't the job of the tribal leaders to see that the members of their tribe are "taken care of", that is the burdon of the U.S. Department of Interior.

As long as any people are separated from the responsibilities of living, they seal their own fate.

Apologize if you feel the need,  but between the sackcloth and the ashes, think about something... did you commit any of those crimes?  What can your nation do to help remove the whole "White Man's Burdon" bullcrap from future decisions?

 

Yes, I think all those kinds of situations bring shame to the nation's passed, but do they bring shame to each individual of the nation forever?

Ted, it brings shame when there has to be an apology because of how the people are living in today's era. While some of the blame is the people at fault, (referring to how some people are here in the US, not Australia as I no nothing in details about them) how they live, how they are, etc., the blame does lie in what happened in the past. I think everyone who has ever had a moment in their lives when everything seems to go wrong and nothing ever seems to go right and getting themselves on their feet and the stuggles that comes with that, and how much of a 'handicap' some people face because they can't seem to move beyond 'that' moment, is testimony to that!

Meanwhile many of the tribes are making billions in casino revenues that aren't going to the tribes, but to a few leaders of each tribe. No one dares question this because it isn't the job of the tribal leaders to see that the members of their tribe are "taken care of", that is the burdon of the U.S. Department of Interior.As long as any people are separated from the responsibilities of living, they seal their own fate.

And how would you say this all started? The goverment started this type of situation. Instead of letting the people empower themselves or doing something that will enable them to, they give 'presents' out of guilt in an effort to make it all go away no doubt and make themselves feel better and look better, but only put a bandaid on the wounds of the past, not visualizing how this would be in the future, meaning today's society!

FS:

Total BS borderlining on racist.

I know many people from all sorts of tribes who don't live in squalor. Why? Because they chose not to. The people living in the reservations CHOOSE to live there. Yes there was a time when their ancestors were forced onto reservations, but not one person living there today has been.

Expecting handouts because of the crimes of the past is nothing more than punishing the people of today for the sins of yesterday.

Government programs that take responsibility from the individual do more to hold people down than the wild dreams of the most bigoted hatemonger.

I have no Aboriginal blood, but I consider myself lucky to include in my Australian heritage the proud history and traditions of the indigenous people of Australia.

Neither do I and I agree completely with this statement. Well said...

Expecting handouts because of the crimes of the past is nothing more than punishing the people of today for the sins of yesterday.

Like I said before,

And how would you say this all started? The goverment started this type of situation. Instead of letting the people empower themselves or doing something that will enable them to, they give 'presents' out of guilt in an effort to make it all go away no doubt and make themselves feel better and look better, but only put a bandaid on the wounds of the past, not visualizing how this would be in the future, meaning today's society!

Why shouldn't they expect something when it has been freely given and was started by the Government?

I know many people from all sorts of tribes who don't live in squalor

Where in my statement did I say anyone is living in squalor?

Total BS borderlining on racist.

Why would my statement be borderline rascist or BS? My point is that our goverment, the US government did what they did out of guilt, they didn't try to find something more useful and effective, they just put bandaid on the wounds. Then everyone cries foul just because these people are trying to empower themselves using what was given to them. Then, as you stated:

Meanwhile many of the tribes are making billions in casino revenues that aren't going to the tribes, but to a few leaders of each tribe. No one dares question this because it isn't the job of the tribal leaders to see that the members of their tribe are "taken care of", that is the burdon of the U.S. Department of Interior.

Obviosly there's no 'policing' to ensure that this doesn't happen.

Is feeling shame for the actions of others, on par with feeling shame for our own actions?

Is feeling sorry for the actions of others, the same as feeling sorry for our own actions?

Both our nations have a checkered past (and I would bet that all nations are thus condemned).  It is good that we can now see the crimes of the past for what they were, and make progress in ensuring they do not happen in the future.

And there is the issue of righting the wrongs (not wronging the wrongs).  That which was taken, where possible, should be restored.  We can hardly give back life times to those so deprived of them through either willful or ignorant polices of our ancestors or fellow countrymen.  We can correct, at the point we "woke up", the damage done.  And so we should.

And we can "regret" what happened, but to say we "are" sorry is condescending to the ones suffering from the injustices.  We can no more appologize for others than we can control them. (If we do control them, that is another issue.)

WHile I understand the contrition that you, and many here as well as your nation, want to perform, the truth is they are really empty words.  Factum non verba.  What you do to right the wrongs of others speaks more loudly than any contrition, which when examined closely, are a way to salve our perceived guilt, not ameliorate the injustices.

You should be proud of most of your history, as I am in mine.  And we should take the injustices that are a part of our history, and not celebrate them, but remember them.  And use them to ensure that such things do not happen in the future either in our land, or others. But we should not appologize for the actions of others.  We had no control over them, or of the people performing them.  We can only vow to make sure they do not happen again.

Agreed, not sure either side has it but hope both can find it. Good idea for the joint committee too, though I wonder how long it will last.

I must say Bolt the Dolt looks more a fool day by day, but anything to sell a paper I guess.

The apology is a good start, but unless concrete measures make progress addressing the issues faced by indigenous communities, in the years to come it may well come to be regarded in the same way the policies it was apologising for: "well it was well intentioned, but..."

I can't say I really feel 'sorry' in the conventional sense of the word

There is more than one conventional sense. last funeral I went to, I said sorry. But I didn't take personal responsibility. That said, this is more than just sympathy. I have taken on the Australian identity and all that goes with that history.

We have now as a nation taken the time to acknowledge what happened.

However, I've never really understood the concept of feeling guilt for the crimes of someone else.

I don't see how it's any harder to understand than taking pride in the actions of someone else?

If you feel the need to apologize, and it has some kind of healing properties for you, I'd never say don't do it.

It has profound healing effects for the living members of the Stolen Generations and their descendants. Anyone who witnessed yesterday's outpouring of emotion would have to recognise that.

I don't think either of our nations are ever going to heal as long as we continue to pull the scabs off the woulds, leaving them open to fester through time.

I don't think our nation was ever going to have a chance of healing while this crime remained something that our Government wanted to deny. The apology was the day we acknowledged what happened. We are now more hopeful of being able to move on. We have restored some trust between our peoples.

Neither do I and I agree completely with this statement. Well said...

Thanks maso.

And we can "regret" what happened, but to say we "are" sorry is condescending to the ones suffering from the injustices. We can no more appologize for others than we can control them.

It is not condescending in the slightest. Our refusal to say sorry up to now has been mean-spirited at best. This simple word has been what the Stolen Generations have asked for and wanted to hear for 10 long years. At last, they have heard it. And I echo the Prime Minister's sentiments. For the first time in 11 years I feel proud of my country again and I have hope that we can move forward as a nation. To define sorry in the way you have defined it, quite frankly is ridiculous. No one thinks I have taken personal responsibility for the actions of the past. But I am deeply sorry that my ancestors did this.

WHile I understand the contrition that you, and many here as well as your nation, want to perform, the truth is they are really empty words. Factum non verba. What you do to right the wrongs of others speaks more loudly than any contrition, which when examined closely, are a way to salve our perceived guilt, not ameliorate the injustices.

We've had a PM try to argue that for 10 years. He was never able to achieve anything on indigenous affairs, and one of the main reasons was that his lack of apology removed any trust between him and the indigenous people. Already, the new PM has announced practical measures to build on the new goodwill that was created yesterday. You cannot work with a people if you do not establish a mutual respect first. That has been sorely lacking for a decade. It was restored yesterday.

I must say Bolt the Dolt looks more a fool day by day, but anything to sell a paper I guess.

. Agreed.

That all being said, no one has ever actually been proven to have been stolen simply for being Aboriginal. Sure, they've been removed for safety; things like sexual abuse and severe neglect but don't let that spoil the Sorry Party.

And the "small fringe" you refer to appears to be at least two thirds of the Australian public.

Already, the new PM has announced practical measures to build on the new goodwill that was created yesterday.

I read Maso's article (and Rudd's comments) after writing my comment here, and I would rather have said what Cikomyr or even Maso said than the long ramble I wrote.  But you caught the nut of what I was trying to say with the line quoted above.  However, when Maso said "we must never forget the past, but we must not dwell upon it", that was the best line.

I believe Sorry still is a weak word, UNLESS it is backed up by deeds.  That is what I was trying to say with all the gibberish, and having read Rudd's comments, I think he hit a home run.

Champas:

I agree with you hear, denial of past attrocities is just as destructive as perpetuating the guilt through generations.



Because it is better to celebrate heros than grovel with criminals.

I don't understand that either unless you were in/directly responsible in some way in their success.

How can you feel proud when you did nothing to make the pride-creating event happen?

You can read Bruce Trevorrow's sad story here: WWW Link

QED

Darth, did you even read that judgment or did you just listen to the mob?

Bruce was taken into care because, quite reasonably at the time, authorities thought that he was in danger. Here are the notes from the hospital file:

110 The Children’s Hospital notes record that the plaintiff was admitted on Christmas Day, 1957. The records note that the plaintiff was a "neglected child – without parents". The records also contained an entry of "malnutrition" and a diagnosis of "infective diarrhoea". The following note appears on the history sheet:

Brought up by Mr and Mrs R Evans, Meningie.
Child unwell ... Apparently been in the Tailem Bend Hosp. For abdominal trouble previously. He is one of 3 1/4 cast children. The other two children are neglected. Mother has cleared out and father is boozing. Apparently father is nourishing the children with alcohol (could almoner please investigate).


The compo was paid because the person who took Bruce did so in direct contrary to the governments policies. The case actually proves there was no policy of removal in South Australia

I read the judgement.



This is inconsistent with what the judge said:

422 Evidence placed before the Court demonstrates, that the South Australian Government, during the early to mid 20th century, engaged in the policy and practice of removing Aboriginal children from their families and communities with a view to absorbing the Aboriginal population into the remainder of the community.



The view taken by the authorities was in fact unreasonable and incorrect:

1077 As earlier observed, it appears that Mrs Angas, when new to the Aborigines Department, took "on board" adverse information from an un-referenced source about the plaintiff’s parents and acted on that information without further adequate inquiry. A simple recording in the hospital notes from an unidentified source that the child was neglected without parents did not provide sufficient reason for the removal and fostering of the plaintiff. Mrs Angas was aware from Sergeant Liebing’s August 1957 report that the plaintiff was then living with his parents and that Joseph was in regular employment. At the very least Mrs Angas became aware, as did the APB and the department through the report of Mr Weightman, that the Trevorrow family continued as a family in March 1958. The most rudimentary direct inquiry would have revealed the true facts. On matters of concern being raised there could have been a proper investigation. Mrs Angas’ determination to see that the severing of mother-child attachment was complete was evidenced by her August 1958 letter falsely advising that Thora’s baby was not fit to come home. It is apparent that no inquiry was made about the circumstances of the plaintiff being sent to the Children’s Hospital before the fostering arrangement was effected. No attempt was made to contact the plaintiff’s family at the time to assess the situation and provide support if difficulties were identified. No direct inquiry was made about the Trevorrow family circumstances until well after the fostering had taken place. Later inquires disclosed a factual position that did not justify the steps taken. This is a clear case of a breach of a duty to take care in regard to the removal of a child. Proper inquiry would have disclosed no cause to remove.

Point 422 was stating the evidence placed before the court, in this case presumably by the plaintiff, it was not saying that was what happened.

The view taken was entirely reasonable at the time, unless you think it's fine to have a father boozing, mother missing and a child malnourished. Yes, it was later proved to be incorrect but at the time that's all they knew. That was largely the result of one womans actions (Mrs Angas) and the reason that the breach occurred. That is why compo was paid.

As for proof that there was no policy at the time there are notes all throughout that the departments had no authority to remove children without their parents consent, no matter how bad it was. For proof see points 92, 358, 909, 1215, 1217 - 1219, 1221 and for that matter, the whole damn part entitled "findings."

The evidence includes statements by public servants at the time, who presumably have some idea of what it is they are doing:

"The commitment of the Commonwealth and the States to the policy of assimilation was reaffirmed at the Native Welfare Conference of 1963.

429 In a minute from the secretary of the APB to the Minister of Works dated 9 January 1961, the secretary described the policy of assimilation in the following terms:

In the State of South Australia, the [APB] defines assimilation as "to grow or become similar, or to bring to a likeness".
The Board accepts this definition which implies that to be assimilated the aborigines must be similar to the balance of the community in culture, religious beliefs, standards of living, personal cleanliness, hygiene, etc. Perhaps this policy could best be referred to as "social assimilation".
The Board is also aware of the possibility of biological assimilation, and know that already numbers of aborigines have been absorbed in the community in this manner but the total is insignificant when compared with the rapidly increasing population. There has been a number of marriages of our women to New Australians which may increase the possibility of more rapid assimilation by this means.
It should be noted that aborigines can be and have been assimilated but it does not mean that they are necessarily "accepted" by everyone. I feel that much nonsense is spoken and written about the acceptance of aborigines. Few of us are accepted in all stratas of society, nor would we want to be. What is important for the aborigine is that he and his family are accepted by those with whom they normally associate.
In some States it would appear that the term "assimilation" is accepted to mean aborigines living in groups within a community in a manner somewhat similar to other than aborigines but retaining some of their tribal beliefs and customs. This definition is not acceptable to my Board as this to us is a form of segregation. It is understood that when the policy of assimilation was approved by all Governments in 1951, the policy of assimilation was expected to result in a manner opposite and opposed to segregation.
The secretary then continued to discuss the methods adopted by the APB for advancing the policy of assimilation, which included the following with respect to Aboriginal children:

In this State we are advancing the policy by educating the children and taking care that they bathe and dress in clean clothes each day while attending school where they are taught something of the need of thrift and hygiene and are encouraged to improve their personal appearance. In this manner, the children of primitive or near-primitive aborigines are being prepared towards their ultimate assimilation."



I'm fully aware of why the compensation was paid. The child was taken in breach of the State's duty of care. However if, as you contend the child wasn't taken because it was Aboriginal, and it certainly wasn't returned after the APB were made aware that there was no risk of neglect shortly after, then why wasn't the child returned for nearly a decade?



That there is no law authorising certain actions doesn't mean they don't exist, it simply means the policy is illegal:

"In a letter dated 16 October 1958 to his counterpart in the State of Victoria, the Superintendent of Aborigines Welfare, the secretary of the APB responded to a number of inquiries made by the Victorian Aborigines Welfare Board regarding the practices and policy for the care and protection of Aboriginal people in South Australia. In relation to Aboriginal children, the secretary of the APB wrote:

...Again in confidence, for some years without legal authority, the Board have taken charge of many aboriginal children, some are placed in Aboriginal Institutions, which by the way I very much dislike, and others are placed with foster parents, all at the cost of the Board. At the present time I think there are approximately 300 children so placed, and the cost of maintaining these children during this financial year will be over [sterling]30,000."

Fishhead, I realise that you and Andrew Bolt will never be convinced, but according to Newspoll, 70% of Australians agreed with the apology. Rudd's approval rating went up the week following the apology. The majority of Australians disagree with you. That doesn't make them right, but I fail to see where Bolt has made up this 2/3s stat from.

As far as the proof goes, I've read large sections of the Bringing Them Home report. I've spoken to Aboriginal people who were affected by these policies. And I've read Windschuttle's dissertations on the subject.

Windschuttle's articles are poor historical books. I'm not a historian, but my mother is and we could both easily see that Windschuttle is either naive about how history works or deliberately misleading. I personally believe he is the latter because he wants to make a name for himself, because he found that being a historian without making controversial comments didn't earn him a lot of limelight or money. There are gaping holes in his articles and they are not worth the time of day.

Windschuttle seems to think that records were kept as meticulously back then for these things as they would be now. That simply is not the case. We live in a very meticulous record keeping age. Things were done differently. Instead we look to the Government policy of the day and the weight of evidence in the Bringing Them Home Report to ascertain what happened. For the majority of Australians and for historians in general, this is how you gain a picture of what happened in the past.

The weight of evidence in the Bringing Them Home report is overwhelming. These stories do not come from one tribe or even one state of Aboriginal people. They are spread across the country across the decades. Bolt seems to have some paranoid delusions that there is a widespread evil Left conspiracy to swindle him of his money.

There are stories in there where the authorities have come, but only taken half of a mother's kids. They took the half castes and left the full bloods (I hate these terms but for the purpose of argument). If the mother was neglectful, then they would take them all. What's more this fits with the Government policy at the time and the widespread community beliefs about Aborigines.

There are many stories there where quite clearly the children were not being neglected, yet were very heavily abused when they were removed to the missions. That alone deserves and apology.

I have spoken to people who were affected by this policy. They had no reason to lie to me. We were just talking in a friendly environment. A lady at work told me of how when she was a kid they would all run for the hills when the authorities came and paint her sister with charcoal because her sister was paler skinned than she was and they knew she would be taken if they didn't do this. Practices like that were widespread and they happened for a reason.

For the majority of Australians, we are convinced. And on February 13 2008, there was no "Sorry party", but a chance to pause and say sorry. And I am proud that that moment came.

 

That's all they knew, because that's all they chose to find out. If you were Aboriginal or half-caste, that was all that was needed. You excuse the inexcusable Fishhead. But this is just one case of many. I think there are many better cases than this one to prove what happened, but I don't deny that Bruve was a victim of this horrific policy.