Australia apologizes to Indigenous

[AlkaSeltzer]

Link.

Australia had a history of taking Indigenous people and children out of communities, to get rid of their "Pure" Aboriginal gene.

Argument One:

We were helping them when we took them out of their communities. They were drunk, uncivilized and poor. We Helped them. No apology needed

Argument Two:

How could we possibly take children out of families against their will. This is sick. This shows how White people think they are superior all the way up to the 1970's.

What do you guys think, I know most of you are Americans. But what do you think. Would you apologize to Hawaiin natives or Native Americans?

[SadisticMonkey]

At 2/13/08 01:22 AM, JarrodK wrote: How could we possibly take children out of families against their will. This is sick. This shows how White people think they are superior all the way up to the 1970's.

It was the government that took them, not the common people. Which is why the government apologized on behalf of the government, and no one else.

And you're an idiot if you think we should give them compensation.

[AlkaSeltzer]

It's not my opinion, but the two generic public responses. We in no way should pay any damn compensation.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 2/13/08 02:25 AM, JarrodK wrote: We in no way should pay any damn compensation.

Good lad.

[BuddhaGeo]

Why aren't the Mongols paying compensation for all the atrocities and barbarism that they had committed?

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 2/13/08 03:37 AM, BuddhaGeo wrote: Why aren't the Mongols paying compensation for all the atrocities and barbarism that they had committed?

I wasn't aware the Mongols WHERE committing any atrocities in the 1970s.

[isuckblood]

At 2/13/08 01:22 AM, JarrodK wrote: Link.

Australia had a history of taking Indigenous people and children out of communities, to get rid of their "Pure" Aboriginal gene.

Argument One:

We were helping them when we took them out of their communities. They were drunk, uncivilized and poor. We Helped them. No apology needed

Exactly, why apologise for helping them out. (Why do unpopular beliefs end up correct?)

[fli]

At 2/13/08 04:57 AM, isuckblood wrote:

At 2/13/08 01:22 AM, JarrodK wrote: We were helping them when we took them out of their communities. They were drunk, uncivilized and poor. We Helped them. No apology needed

Exactly, why apologise for helping them out. (Why do unpopular beliefs end up correct?)

Mmm--
Helping them out?

Friends like you-- who needs enemies?

*eye rollie*
People alway making excuses to invade and destroy peoples...

[SadisticMonkey]

At 2/13/08 05:02 AM, fli wrote: *eye rollie*
People alway making excuses to invade and destroy peoples...

You do realise that "the stolen generation" has nothing to do England colonising Australia, right?

[JudgeDredd]

At 2/13/08 05:47 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 2/13/08 05:02 AM, fli wrote: *eye rollie*
People alway making excuses to invade and destroy peoples...

You do realise that "the stolen generation" has nothing to do England colonising Australia, right?

Thou, if only a few generations removed.

Let's see, did it have anything to do with kids being torn from their families (adopted out to whites, or raised in dorms) ..replacing the oppressive poverty trap of a loving family with the mental torture of suspecting your entire family and culture has been wiped from the earth like common genocide.

Damn, just saying "sorry" is a bargain at any rate.

[AapoJoki]

I heard the Australian PM's speech on the news.

It reminded me of "We're sorry, our bad", from South Park.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 2/13/08 07:05 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: Thou, if only a few generations removed.

What are you talking about?

The removing of children from their families is not directly related to the English moving to Australia. That was my point, but I'm not sure what yours is.

[LemonJelly]

I think it's a bit silly when people (not the government) apologize to people that have been wronged by their ancestors, like when a white person apologizes for his plantation-owning great grandfather. "Sorry" doesn't undo years of injustice.

[BuddhaGeo]

At 2/13/08 04:07 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 2/13/08 03:37 AM, BuddhaGeo wrote: Why aren't the Mongols paying compensation for all the atrocities and barbarism that they had committed?

I wasn't aware the Mongols WHERE committing any atrocities in the 1970s.

When did I mention the Mongols in the 20th century?
I mean, in the 12th and 13th century, they completely terrorized my country, and as a result, ceased the "golden age" that was taking place at that time. If not those horse-riding fuckers, my country would have been so much wealthier than now, and not so undivided and geographically broken.
Why aren't those fuckers paying us the money?

[JudgeDredd]

At 2/13/08 07:03 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 2/13/08 07:05 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: Thou, if only a few generations removed.

The removing of children from their families is not directly related to the English moving to Australia. That was my point, but I'm not sure what yours is.

You're sliding behind the term "not directly". You're "not directly" involved. English colonization is "not directly" the cause. The re-emergance of the issue following Howard's crackdown on indigenous communities is perhaps "not directly" your problem, because you're "not directly" old enough to vote. Maybe you're "not directly" sorry, because it "not directly" implies compensation. You tell me.

[ErwinR0mmel]

At 2/14/08 02:02 PM, BuddhaGeo wrote:
When did I mention the Mongols in the 20th century?
I mean, in the 12th and 13th century, they completely terrorized my country, and as a result, ceased the "golden age" that was taking place at that time. If not those horse-riding fuckers, my country would have been so much wealthier than now, and not so undivided and geographically broken.
Why aren't those fuckers paying us the money?

That's the problem. Back in those days everyone was doing it and the Mongols were just the most successful at it. Somewhere around the 19th century empires started forming a conscience.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 2/13/08 05:02 AM, fli wrote:

At 2/13/08 04:57 AM, isuckblood wrote:

At 2/13/08 01:22 AM, JarrodK wrote:

People alway making excuses to invade and destroy peoples...

Thats life.

All people have done it, at least some will sugercoat it before they shove it down your throat.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 2/14/08 06:09 PM, JudgeDredd wrote: You tell me.

You're missing my point.

Fli is making it sound as though the colonization and stolen generation were the same thing.
Granted, if we hadn't come over here in the first place there would have been no stolen generation, but they are separate things.
What a lot of people don't seem to know is that the first settlers of Australia were actually very respectful to it's indigenous population, and it was not until decades later until leaders started going apeshit.

Mind you, I'm not saying it was right/wrong to colonize Australia in the first place.

[SolInvictus]

At 2/14/08 06:43 PM, ErwinR0mmel wrote: That's the problem. Back in those days everyone was doing it and the Mongols were just the most successful at it. Somewhere around the 19th century empires started forming a conscience.

but unlike modern colonisation generally no one was trying to replace indigenous populations with their own.

and the Mongols did considerably more damage to the Middle-East and Persia than to the Far East.

[Musician]

Lmao, America apologize?

Do you know the sheer improbability of what you're asking?

[AlkaSeltzer]

Heh, Mr. Rudd got allot of respect from that speech. There were tributes from all the newspapers. even from the liberal based/biased ones.

[The-evil-bucket]

Wait, you presented two different sides of an argument, neither of which made sense, talked about Australia's aboriginal people, and then said something about Native Hawaiians.

Again please, and don't leave out half of it.