John Howard says Sorry

Published on August 18, 2004 By Champas Socialist In Politics

He's done it! John Howard has said the words that we and the Aborignal people have been waiting years to hear:

"I'm very sorry..." - Prime Minister John Howard

John Howard has taken the first step towards Reconciliation by finally saying Sorry. The next step is to say it to the Aborigines who were forcibly taken from their mothers and fathers by our Government, instead of just saying it to Opposition Leader Mark Latham. How is it that Howard can't find it in himself to say sorry for attempted genocide, but a whitefeller gets a bout of pancreatitis and suddenly he comes over all emotional?

Personally I can't even find an expression of extreme regret for Latho. I guess Johnny must be a more compassionate man than I. Apparently pancreatitis can be caused by too much alcohol. Bob Hawke was talking to Latho when he got the pancreatitis, so I'd say there was enough alcohol in the air to get most of the nation pissed (drunk)!

Well done Johnny, I knew you could do it!

Comments

Muggaz

on Aug 18, 2004

- These elections are going to be ever so interesting.... with the children overboard farce continuing, and Mark Latham admitting himself to a public ward in a public hospital, it will be very close indeed....

Good Blog

BAM!!!

FishHead

on Aug 25, 2004

Hey man, just a quick question... what exactly is he supposed to be apologising for?

on Aug 25, 2004

If I remember right, aussies tried to elimimate the Aborignal people by taking all children and adopting them to white people, therefore there are no such thing as Aborignal people.

Please correct me if I got wrong country, reason, etc.

cactoblasta

on Aug 25, 2004

If I remember right, aussies tried to elimimate the Aborignal people by taking all children and adopting them to white people, therefore there are no such thing as Aborignal people.

Only the part-Aboriginals I think, and not very successfully. There are still around 300,000 people claiming Aboriginal status, and that number's only going to increase over time, especially with interbreeding.

Champas Socialist

on Aug 26, 2004

"what exactly is he supposed to be apologising for?"

Now? Nothing imo. We had a chance in that moment to move forward together as a nation or to get bogged down in semantics and cement the rift our ancestors initiated between our races. Some of us took the opportunity, others focussed on creating division. Any aplogy from a racist such as Howard would now come across as hollow.

What WAS he supposed to apologise for? I'm probably not the best exponent of this argument but I'll give it a crack.

As a representative of the Australian Parliament, he should have apologised for the racist crimes committed against the Aboriginal people by that institution (the Australian Parliament) on behalf of Australian white people.

As a man who came of voting age in 1957, he should personally apologise for having voted for a series of Governments to represent him, who, as his representative, carried out the infamous separation policies. As a man who sat idly by and watched his people perpetuate inequality and racial differences, making absolutely no effort to have this period of shame for our contry end, he should say sorry.
White Australian people created bgarriers between our races. White Australian people created the idea that there is an Aboriginal race, a race who who should all be treated the same as each other, by white people who are superior. It is not enough to expect such a deeply ingrained aspect of culture to disappear just because most of our people have stopped spreading the racist discourse. Our ancestors have created a culture of hierarchy that we have inherited and it has thus become our duty to rid our country of this.

JH talks about this as though it is ancient history. It continued (and arguably continues) whilst he was still in Parliament and whilst most of our current population were of voting age.

trina_p

on Aug 26, 2004

Wouldn't the most appropriate time to have apologised been "National Sorry Day" 28th May 2000

From my trivial pursuit box
*Why did 200, 000 people walk across Sydney Harbour Bridge on 28 May 2000 ** In support of Aboriginal reconcilliation
*Who was the most senior government minister to walk for Aboriginal reconcilliation in 2000 ** Peter Costello

Incidently who does stuff like that - who's decision is a national day for something - daffidol day, red nose day, jeans for genes day, sorry day -- who makes that decision

FishHead

on Aug 30, 2004

Maybe, just maybe the media got the whole "Stolen Generation" thing wrong... Maybe, just maybe the number of "stolen" kids has been so greatly exaggerated that it's now ridiculous. Maybe those kids weren’t stolen but actually put into families that would love them and give them a future compared to being in slums waiting to die. Odd that we still take kids away from parents who don’t deserve them.

I’m not saying nobody was stolen, but the facts don’t support the myth. There was no stolen generation; even prominent supporters of the myth admit that the numbers only go as high as low tens of thousands. Further to that not one “stolen” aboriginal has come forward or been uncovered. And whatever you do, don’t try and use Molly and co from Rabbit Proof Fence as an example or I’ll shoot that movie to pieces, needless to say it was a pack of lies.

FishHead

on Aug 30, 2004

"Our ancestors have created a culture of hierarchy that we have inherited and it has thus become our duty to rid our country of this." I agree, lets get the aboriginals who do nothing and get between to 50 and 100 percent more handouts from the government on to equally billing with white bums. Currently the government is racist towards white people if anything.

Champas Socialist

on Aug 30, 2004

Well it's good to see you're well informed on the issue FishHead. I suppose the holocaust didn't happen either. Only a Liberal could see these people as numbers. Because that's all the Liberal Party can ever deal with is numbers. People's lives are not numbers.

"Maybe, just maybe the media got the whole "Stolen Generation" thing wrong"

Quite frankly I don't give two rats about the media's perspective on it. What I care about are the real stories that you would know about if you didn't have your computer locked on the Sun Herald and hotmail.

"Maybe those kids weren’t stolen but actually put into families that would love them and give them a future compared to being in slums waiting to die."

And maybe they were taken into families where they were abused physically and sexually. And maybe they were taken onto missions where they were told they had to forget their black ways because they were evil and they instead had to learn new white Christian ways. Maybe this was the action of a Social Darwinist Government who believed the inferior Aboriginal race was going to die out soon enough anyway. Maybe the authorities took these kids away and didn't tell the parents where they were so that all ties were cut off. Even John Howard has not denied that it happened, and Costello had the guts to even apologise. The justification given for why these people could not look after their children were that they were black. Despite the fact that the Aboriginal people had raised their children perfectly effectively for thousands of years, suddenly it was decided that only white people can raise children. Why? Because white culture and the white race was infintely superior. The white race has its merits, but it is no better or worse than any other in my estimation.

FishHead, may I suggest you stick to the issues you know a little about. You are normally to be disagreed with, but you normally at least know something and present yourself in some sort of intelligent manner. You have shown yourself to be so ridiculously uninformed about this issue that I am starting to see you as less informed and more bigoted than Andrew Bolt.

I will note that I am very tempted to remove your KKK-esque rant about your own racial superiority, because I don't believe people should abuse their right to free speech. However, I will leave it here, possibly against my own better judgment, in the interests of open debate and keeping this issue on the agenda.

FishHead

on Aug 31, 2004

Just a quick reply, i'll go more indepth at a later date. It's a fact that there were no "stolen" kids, well maybe a couple but the facts show that any kids taken were taken with the permission of the parents. The abuse factor is a problem with the foster system, not specifically aboriginals. And are you telling me that you think aboriginals deserve more money for doing nothing then another non-aboriginal does?

You say you care about the real stories? Where are they? If i'm uniformed, inform me. In the real world people have tried to prove it and failed. I'll say this, if i'm wrong please correct me, there has been no legit "stolen" aboriginal ever discovered.

FishHead

on Sep 01, 2004

The only number I spoke of was the low tens of thousands that supporters claim were stolen. The first guy to phrase the term "stolen generation" found four supposed stolen kids and then theorised that there was thousands more. Those four cases were laten proven to be incorrect. The Federal Court of Australia has even ruled against the stolen generation myth (linkage provided if needed, but it would be good if you could look into it yourself).

And maybe they were taken onto missions where they were told they had to forget their black ways because they were evil and they instead had to learn new white Christian ways.

Simply put, that's not true. In the same judgement mentioned above (or the second case involving the stolen generation myth) it was proven that wasn't the case, they were even encouraged in the Moore River Native Settlement to perform corroborees.

Maybe the authorities took these kids away and didn't tell the parents where they were so that all ties were cut off

If so never proven, starting to sound like a conspiracy theory.

Even John Howard has not denied that it happened

If he did the idiots who don't look into the facts would blast him. It'd be a stupid political move. The truth never makes the public happy.

The justification given for why these people could not look after their children were that they were black. Despite the fact that the Aboriginal people had raised their children perfectly effectively for thousands of years, suddenly it was decided that only white people can raise children.

Negative that. If that was the case then all black children would have been taken, but they weren't. I know you are trying to pigeon hole yourself into left wing theology but you really gotta think things through.

FishHead, may I suggest you stick to the issues you know a little about. You are normally to be disagreed with, but you normally at least know something and present yourself in some sort of intelligent manner. You have shown yourself to be so ridiculously uninformed about this issue that I am starting to see you as less informed and more bigoted than Andrew Bolt.

I've just given a few points to show that I do indeed know something about it and have shown some of your points to be incorrect. I don't get into stuff I know nothing about, I like winning.

I will note that I am very tempted to remove your KKK-esque rant about your own racial superiority, because I don't believe people should abuse their right to free speech. However, I will leave it here, possibly against my own better judgment, in the interests of open debate and keeping this issue on the agenda.

Racial superiority? I said that we're treated not as equals but that they are given more handouts and asked for equality.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!