PDA

View Full Version : Are you sorry?



arosar
13-02-2008, 06:31 AM
On this important and momentous day, we might as well have a thread to it.

Igor_Goldenberg
13-02-2008, 08:47 AM
Sorry for what?
Some aboriginal children were dumped by their parents. Some were abused and/or assaulted by their parents and/or relatives and placed in a foster care.
Should I feel sorry that my predecessors weren't among people that provided shelters and/or foster families for the children? Maybe, but I don't think it was possible for then anyway.

What else should I feel sorry for?

MichaelBaron
13-02-2008, 09:03 AM
I am terribly sorry for all the Aboriginal children who suffered the injustice (even though as Igor pointed out -some of them were not adopted against parents' will). Furthermore, I am sorry about all the misfortunes that happened to the Aboriginal communities. I am sorry to see extremely high levels of drug and alcohol abuse in the Aboriginal communities and i am am sorry and disappointed to see all the massive funds allocated towards dealing with Aboriginal welfare issues to go down the drain.

However....

1) I do not feel personally responsible for the plight of Aboriginal people
2) I do not want my tax money to fund alchohol and drug abuse in the aboriginal communities (and once the Goverment says sorry - payouts will be inevitable to follow)
3) I am sorry that I have to say sorry for something that I have not done!

Sunshine
13-02-2008, 10:02 AM
I am definitely sorry about the plight of the aboriginal community.

I believe the attitudes and policies of previous Australian Governments have greatly contributed to the current situation.

The government of the day must accept responsibility for this and do what it can to rectify the damage.

It is a bit like the James Hardie issue - the current management is responsible for the damage previous management inflicted on its employees and customers.

The Government saying sorry obviously cannot be a personal thing - but it is the first step in the process.

So yes, I am sorry even if I was not personally responsible.

Garvinator
13-02-2008, 10:17 AM
It is a bit like the James Hardie issue - the current management is responsible for the damage previous management inflicted on its employees and customers.
James Hardie and asbestos was very different. James Hardie at the time made business decisions which placed the health of the workers in danger, all for the sake of profits.

The company then traded on these profits to make more profits, which is where they stand today.

The 'stolen' generations is a very different story. A Government believed that removing aboriginal children from 'harmful' situations was in the best interests of the child and so placed them with white foster carers.

Yes, some were wrongfully removed, but I do not see how this demands a national apology to a whole generation.

Also, since the policy of removal was removed, self determination has worked real well. How is Aurukun doing again?

I feel more sorry for the invasion 220 years ago.

Capablanca-Fan
13-02-2008, 10:38 AM
We apologise for giving you doctors and free medical care, which allows you to survive and multiply so that you can demand apologies.

We apologise for helping you to read and teaching you the English language and thus we opened up to you the entire European civilisation, thought and enterprise.

We feel that we must apologise for building hundreds of homes for you, which you have vandalised and destroyed.

We apologise for giving you law and order which has helped prevent you from slaughtering one another and using the unfortunate for food purposes.

We apologise for developing large farms and properties, which today feed you people, where before, you had the benefits of living off the land and starving during droughts.

We apologise for providing you with warm clothing made of fabric to replace that animal skins you used before.

We apologise for building roads and railway tracks between cities and building cars so that you no longer have to walk over harsh terrain.

We apologise for paying off your vehicle when you fail to pay the installments

We apologise for giving you free travel anywhere, whenever.

We apologise for giving each and every member of your family $100.00 and free travel to attend an aboriginal funeral.

We apologise for not charging you rent on any lands when white people have to pay.

We apologise for giving you interest free loans.

We apologise for developing oil wells and minerals, including gold and diamonds which you never used and had no idea of their value.

We apologise for developing Ayers rock and Kakadu, and handing them over to you so that you get all the money.

We apologise for allowing taxpayers money paid towards daughters’ wedding ($8,000.00 each daughter)

We apologise for giving you $1.7 billion per year for your 250,000 people, which is $48,000.00 per aboriginal man, woman and child.

We apologise for working hard to pay taxes that finance your welfare, medical care, education, etc to the tune of $1.2 billion each year.

We apologise for you having to approach the aboriginal affairs department to verify the above figures. For the trouble you will have identifying the “uncle toms” in your own community who are getting richer and leaving some of you living in squalor and poverty.

We do apologise. We really do.

We humbly beg your forgiveness for all the above sins.

We are only too happy to take back all the above and return you to the paradise of the “outback”, whenever you are ready.

Sunshine
13-02-2008, 10:51 AM
James Hardie and asbestos was very different.

Obviously the situation is not identical - the similarity I was going with a different set of physical people being responsible for something done by a previous set of people.

The Australian Government and community can still be responsible even though they were not personally involved in the process.

I think there is a lot to be sorry for - if the Sultan of Brunei forcefully removed my children, because he believed he could give them a better life, there would never be forgiveness.

The Australian Government destroyed a lot of lives with its belief about what was better for Aboriginal children.

Sunshine
13-02-2008, 10:54 AM
We are only too happy to take back all the above and return you to the paradise of the “outback”, whenever you are ready.

Jono, I thought you were a spiritual man.

The aboriginal race has been stripped of all its dignity and respect.

It is hard to recover from there no matter how much support you are given.

Capablanca-Fan
13-02-2008, 11:14 AM
Jono, I thought you were a spiritual man.
I am a Christian anyway; whether that counts as "spiritual" I can't tell you.


The aboriginal race has been stripped of all its dignity and respect.
That remains to be demonstrated, as well as how exactly they were stripped. Aboriginal Noel Pearson argues that welfare has poisoned his people. Others were stripped of dignity by their own people, i.e. sexually abused, and at least back then they were rescued from abusive situations. Now social workers are afraid to remove kids from dangerous situations in case they are accused of foisting another "stolen generation".


It is hard to recover from there no matter how much support you are given.
Strange how many immigrants came here with nothing, received no government welfare, and have prospered through hard work. These immigrants included Jews, who were often stripped of dignity in their home countries to a far worse extent.

Capablanca-Fan
13-02-2008, 11:16 AM
The Australian Government destroyed a lot of lives with its belief about what was better for Aboriginal children.
Yes, back then, unlike now, they believed that it was better for Aboriginal children to be removed if they were being sexually abused.

As Andrew Bolt has pointed out:


“I’ve asked, for instance, why I’d say sorry to Lowitja O’Donoghue, the Stolen Generations Alliance’s co-patron. O’Donoghue in fact was dumped at a children’s home by her footloose Irish father, to be educated by missionaries. For what should I say sorry to Peter Gunner, who sought compensation in the Federal Court for being ‘stolen’? Gunner, in fact, was sent to a home in Alice Springs with the written permission of his mother, to get a schooling. For what should I say sorry to Topsy, named by Manne as a ‘stolen’ child? Topsy, in fact, was just 12 when she was found, riddled with syphilis and far from hospitals, schools or police, with her parents unknown. For what should I say sorry to Mary Hooker, another Stolen Generations Alliance spokeswoman? Hooker, in fact, was removed with three of her 11 siblings because welfare officers thought she was neglected and ‘I was raped by my brother’.”

“For what should I say sorry to Lorna Cubillo, who claimed compensation? Cubillo, in fact, was just seven, with no parents or even known guardian when she was found at a missionary-run ration camp in the bush, and sent to a home and school in Darwin. For what should I say sorry to Molly, portrayed in Rabbit Proof Fence as a girl stolen to ‘breed out the colour’? Molly in fact was taken into care with the agreement of her tribal chief after warnings that she was in danger of sexual abuse and had been ostracised as a half-caste by her tribe. For what should I say sorry to Archie Roach, famous for his song Took the Children Away? Roach, in fact, said yesterday he was removed when he was three because ‘word got around’ he was neglected — his parents weren’t there, and his sister was trying to care for him. For what should I say sorry to all the ‘stolen children’ like these - activist Robert Riley, whose mother dumped him at a home; author Mudrooroo Narogin, who turned out to be neither stolen nor Aboriginal; claimant Joy Williams, whose mother gave away her illegitimate girl; bureaucrat Charlie Perkins, whose mother asked a boarding school to help her gifted boy; and ‘stolen generations’ leader Annette Peardon, whose mother was jailed for three months for neglecting her children.”

arosar
13-02-2008, 11:30 AM
Strange how many immigrants came here with nothing, received no government welfare, and have prospered through hard work. These immigrants included Jews, who were often stripped of dignity in their home countries to a far worse extent.

Exactly Jono! This is partly my problem. Some FOB could land on Bondi beach today and within a decade own a successful business, a house or two, a car and even have kids in the Ivy League.

Plus, being a blow-in I am disturbed by the notion of apologising for things I had not done.

AR

MichaelBaron
13-02-2008, 11:31 AM
We apologise for giving you doctors and free medical care, which allows you to survive and multiply so that you can demand apologies.

We apologise for helping you to read and teaching you the English language and thus we opened up to you the entire European civilisation, thought and enterprise.

We feel that we must apologise for building hundreds of homes for you, which you have vandalised and destroyed.

We apologise for giving you law and order which has helped prevent you from slaughtering one another and using the unfortunate for food purposes.

We apologise for developing large farms and properties, which today feed you people, where before, you had the benefits of living off the land and starving during droughts.

We apologise for providing you with warm clothing made of fabric to replace that animal skins you used before.

We apologise for building roads and railway tracks between cities and building cars so that you no longer have to walk over harsh terrain.

We apologise for paying off your vehicle when you fail to pay the installments

We apologise for giving you free travel anywhere, whenever.

We apologise for giving each and every member of your family $100.00 and free travel to attend an aboriginal funeral.

We apologise for not charging you rent on any lands when white people have to pay.

We apologise for giving you interest free loans.

We apologise for developing oil wells and minerals, including gold and diamonds which you never used and had no idea of their value.

We apologise for developing Ayers rock and Kakadu, and handing them over to you so that you get all the money.

We apologise for allowing taxpayers money paid towards daughters’ wedding ($8,000.00 each daughter)

We apologise for giving you $1.7 billion per year for your 250,000 people, which is $48,000.00 per aboriginal man, woman and child.

We apologise for working hard to pay taxes that finance your welfare, medical care, education, etc to the tune of $1.2 billion each year.

We apologise for you having to approach the aboriginal affairs department to verify the above figures. For the trouble you will have identifying the “uncle toms” in your own community who are getting richer and leaving some of you living in squalor and poverty.

We do apologise. We really do.

We humbly beg your forgiveness for all the above sins.

We are only too happy to take back all the above and return you to the paradise of the “outback”, whenever you are ready.

exellent post :clap:

Phil Bourke
13-02-2008, 12:00 PM
Jono only misses one very salient point, before 1788 the 'outback' stretched all over the land, the idea that Aboriginals lived in outback desert regions is a legacy of European settlement that drove them further inland to escape persecution.
I feel for the Aboriginals and any misjustice that befell them, just the same as I feel sorry for my ancestors who were deported to this land as punishment for stealing bread to feed themselves, just the same as I feel sorry for any refugee that has to leave their home country to escape persecution.
But to to say sorry for all of this isn't my responsibility, neither do I wish to be held financially responsible in any shape or form, what I will say is that I will do my utmost to see everyone get a fair go and not suffer the same injustice as some of our predecessors did. I think there is even an element among the Aboriginal community that feels that the government should be saying sorry for creating the welfare community that has made things worse not better. All the same though, there are white and black members of that welfare community, so perhaps this isn't a race issue after all.

eclipse
13-02-2008, 12:30 PM
We apologise for helping you to read and teaching you the English language and thus we opened up to you the entire European civilisation, thought and enterprise.

...

We apologise for giving you law and order which has helped prevent you from slaughtering one another and using the unfortunate for food purposes.


I take it Jono that you are arguing that the indigenous people's way of life before 1788 was inferior to European civilisation.

The belief that one's own culture / religion / etc. is superior to others has been the cause of many of the genocides in history. It is unfortunate that the 'thought and enterprise' bestowed by European civilisation has not resulted in people being more open-minded and accepting of difference.

Furthermore, your suggestion that indigenous people have a predisposition to slaughtering each other is insulting. The unfortunate occurrence of people killing each other is common to all of humankind. You certainly cannot blame the indigenous people for the millions of people killed in the World Wars, or the scores of people who are murdered in Australia each year.

Capablanca-Fan
13-02-2008, 01:07 PM
I take it Jono that you are arguing that the indigenous people's way of life before 1788 was inferior to European civilisation.
Of course. Why do you think that Aborigines are using European categories and technology to travel and broadcast their demands for monetary compensation?

I also think that the Nazi culture of racism and antisemitism and denial of human rights was inferior to the culture of the allies. I think that the Southern US culture that had Jim Crow Laws was inferior. Pretending to respect all cultures are equal is nonsensical, and means that "respect" loses all meaning.

This is a totally different thing from claiming that the European race is superior. Check out the books Race and Culture and Conquests and Culture by Thomas Sowell, himself black. He points out that cultural capital is the most important factor in explaining successes and failures of different people groups.

Race is clearly not a factor, given that the Chinese were the most advanced civilization in Marco Polo's time, but were well behind Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries, although the racial composition was unchanged. Also, while Southern blacks had lower IQ scores when enlisting for the US Army in WW1, Southern whites had lower scores than Northern blacks; here again it was the Northern culture that was most conducive to education.


The belief that one's own culture / religion / etc. is superior to others has been the cause of many of the genocides in history.
Name some.

But the recognition by the Scots after Culloden and the 19th century Japanese that their own cultures were backward compared to England and America led to their advancement, since they were determined to do something about it. The Scots became world leaders in economics, technology, and medicine; and the Japanese grew rapidly to become powerful enough to defeat the Russians at Tsushima in 1905. Conversely, China fell behind while convinced that their culture was superior.


It is unfortunate that the 'thought and enterprise' bestowed by European civilisation has not resulted in people being more open-minded and accepting of difference.
Actually, you are using terms like "open-minded and accepting of difference" that were only found in the Western culture you denigrate. Such ideas were foreign to other cultures, including the Aboriginal tribal culture. So you are unwittingly supporting the superiority of Western civilization in your very acts of denying it: leftist self-refutation is most amusing to behold.

Many Asian countries have far stricter immigration policies, and Malaysia practises apartheid against the Chinese in their bumi-putra laws.


Furthermore, your suggestion that indigenous people have a predisposition to slaughtering each other is insulting. The unfortunate occurrence of people killing each other is common to all of humankind.
Yes it is. So we should investigate why Western civilization, which is politically correct to denigrate, overcame many of these problems, most notable slavery. Instead, the Black Armband activists blame the West for problems that were ubiquitous, i.e. doing exactly what you profess to decry.

It is not enough to say that it became the most powerful civilization without understanding why. Rodney Stark explains in his books For The Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the End of Slavery (reviewed in The biblical origins of science) and The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/)(2005, reviewed in Christianity as progress (http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_3/j20_3_26-28.pdf)).

It's notable that slavery was first abolished in the West thanks to people like Wilberforce (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4932/), who would be denounced as "religious right" today, funded by businessment, then imposed on the rest of the world through the imperialist British navy imposing their anti-slavery morality.


You certainly cannot blame the indigenous people for the millions of people killed in the World Wars,
I don't know anyone who does.


or the scores of people who are murdered in Australia each year.
But who should we blame for the widespread sexual abuse and alcoholism in Aboriginal communities? No white people are forcing aboriginals to abuse children or drink themselves silly.

Capablanca-Fan
13-02-2008, 01:17 PM
See also A sorry day—with an unlikely twist (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5631): The draft of the national apology by Australia’s Prime Minister had some surprising but revealing truths about the links between Charles Darwin and racism, but that has been removed.

Igor_Goldenberg
13-02-2008, 01:31 PM
Exactly Jono! This is partly my problem. Some FOB could land on Bondi beach today and within a decade own a successful business, a house or two, a car and even have kids in the Ivy League.

Plus, being a blow-in I am disturbed by the notion of apologising for things I had not done.

AR
What is FOB?

Igor_Goldenberg
13-02-2008, 01:36 PM
Aboriginal Noel Pearson argues that welfare has poisoned his people.
I agree, and I think that is what Australian government should be sorry for.

Zwischenzug
13-02-2008, 01:37 PM
What is FOB?

Fresh Off Boat. Basically someone that recently migrated here.

pax
13-02-2008, 01:46 PM
We apologise for not charging you rent on any lands when white people have to pay.
Just have a think about that one for a minute..

Rincewind
13-02-2008, 02:24 PM
See also A sorry day—with an unlikely twist (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5631): The draft of the national apology by Australia’s Prime Minister had some surprising but revealing truths about the links between Charles Darwin and racism, but that has been removed.

What a lot of drivel.

Capablanca-Fan
13-02-2008, 02:33 PM
What a lot of drivel.
Do you have an objection of any substance for a change?

Basil
13-02-2008, 02:59 PM
So yes, I am sorry even if I was not personally responsible.
Is that an expression of deep regret? :wall:

Sunshine
13-02-2008, 03:30 PM
Is that an expression of deep regret? :wall:



Your are correct - on reflection, I agree with the Government being sorry, and I feel deep regret.

I should also add that is a subject I've largely ignored - so perhaps I should have stayed quiet and stuck to the chess.

Rincewind
13-02-2008, 03:54 PM
Do you have an objection of any substance for a change?

No just a general description. It is just a regurgitation of the usual drivel pathopistisists have been sprouting for decades.

Basil
13-02-2008, 03:59 PM
... so perhaps I should have stayed quiet and stuck to the chess.
Oh I wouldn't worry about that ... it's certainly a concept that seldom slows me up ;)

TheJoker
13-02-2008, 04:25 PM
Isn't the title of the thread and the poll a bit "off target".

The way I read the aplogy was that the government was apologising for the mis-management of aboriginal affairs and for any laws or policies that caused undue suffereing.

I didn't think it was supposed to represent a personal apology from individual Australians. I see no reason why individual Australians are required to apologise, unless off course they have personally done something wrong.

I think the poll should do read, do you think the governement should have apologised for its (or past governments) mis-management of aboriginal affairs.

TheJoker
13-02-2008, 04:31 PM
Aboriginal Noel Pearson argues that welfare has poisoned his people.

For those that aren't familiar Noel Pearson is calling for welfare reform and not the abolishment of welfare. He argues that the way in which the welfare has been implemented (not the idea of welfare itself) has been the cause of many of the problems (mis-management).

Capablanca-Fan
13-02-2008, 05:28 PM
For those that aren't familiar Noel Pearson is calling for welfare reform and not the abolishment of welfare.
That's what I advocate as well, with negative taxation that would not penalize those on welfare who return to the workforce, and also not subject them to the Centrelink Gestapo.


He argues that the way in which the welfare has been implemented (not the idea of welfare itself) has been the cause of many of the problems (mis-management).
He does point out the main problem: paying people not to work and not rewarding those who try to return to the workforce.

Ian Murray
13-02-2008, 08:06 PM
The Governor-General at the time of the Bringing them Home report:

It should, I think, be apparent to all well-meaning people that true reconciliation between the Australian nation and its indigenous peoples is not achievable in the absence of acknowledgment by the nation of the wrongfulness of the past dispossession, oppression and degradation of the Aboriginal peoples. That is not to say that individual Australians who had no part in what was done in the past should feel or acknowledge personal guilt. It is simply to assert our identity as a nation and the basic fact that national shame, as well as national pride, can and should exist in relation to past acts and omissions, at least when done or made in the name of the community or with the authority of government …

The present plight, in terms of health, employment, education, living conditions and self-esteem, of so many Aborigines must be acknowledged as largely flowing from what happened in the past. The dispossession, the destruction of hunting fields and the devastation of lives were all related. The new diseases, the alcohol and the new pressures of living were all introduced. True acknowledgment cannot stop short of recognition of the extent to which present disadvantage flows from past injustice and oppression …

Theoretically, there could be national reconciliation without any redress at all of the dispossession and other wrongs sustained by the Aborigines. As a practical matter, however, it is apparent that recognition of the need for appropriate redress for present disadvantage flowing from past injustice and oppression is a pre-requisite of reconciliation. There is, I believe, widespread acceptance of such a need

- Sir William Deane 1996

Hear, hear

Basil
13-02-2008, 08:27 PM
Yes hear hear. I think we're all on the same page there, mate. An expression of deep and profound regret acceptable?

Ian Murray
13-02-2008, 08:33 PM
Yes hear hear. I think we're all on the same page there, mate. An expression of deep and profound regret acceptable?
The word you're looking for is 'sorry'

Basil
13-02-2008, 08:37 PM
The word you're looking for is 'sorry'
Apparently.

Personally I couldn't give a faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa which phrase is used. I was happy for the deep and profound regret. I was happy for sorry. The intentions of all sides were clear - and the diff is little more than semantics.

What I object(ed) to (yet again) was the bleeding heart lobby (that would be you) howling and yelping and marching and whining and goodness knows what until we said it 'your' way. And now we have.

Now, please answer my question: Was an expression of deep and profound regret acceptable?

Capablanca-Fan
13-02-2008, 09:09 PM
The Governor-General at the time of the Bringing them Home report:
Then name just 10! All the most vocal Aboriginals looking for a handout in the Stolen Generation lobby were not in fact stolen.


The present plight, in terms of health, employment, education, living conditions and self-esteem, of so many Aborigines must be acknowledged as largely flowing from what happened in the past.
The Jews were treated immensely worse, but have become successful anyway, because they refuse to play the role of perpetual victim. Noel Pearson advises his fellow Aborigines to do the same.


The dispossession, the destruction of hunting fields and the devastation of lives were all related. The new diseases, the alcohol and the new pressures of living were all introduced.
Oh yeah, Big Bad Whitey held the aboriginals down and poured the alcohol down their throats. And they forced Aboriginals to abuse their children.


- Sir William Deane 1996

Hear, hear
Deane was just a bleeding heart lefty who swallowed the fraudulent "Stolen Generations" hoax. He should have stuck to his role as an apolitical Governor General.

Yes, I am sorry for what happened: the patronizing poison of welfare, refusal to rescue Aboriginal children from abuse, bureaucrats who didn't care about lack of schooling or health and instead got rid of whistleblowers who were concerned at the sorry plight of the kids, judges who refuse to jail child rapists ...

pax
13-02-2008, 09:18 PM
Do you have an objection of any substance for a change?
If there was any substance in the article, one might object to some :hand: :hand:

Kevin Bonham
13-02-2008, 09:19 PM
Well, I'm certainly sorry - in the sense that I frequently say that I am sorry something has occurred even if I am not personally to blame for it.

As well as being sorry about the so-called Stolen Generation (the past fate of which being something I have no control over) I am sorry that Dr Nelson used his reply speech today to play politics with the Northern Territory intervention and to make political capital out of the issue of child sexual abuse, when the relationship of these things to the Stolen Generation issue is indirect at best. Some of what he said needs saying but there could not have been a sillier time to say it, and anyway, it has already been said.

I am also sorry that Jono chooses to mark the occasion by posting some ways (I cannot vouch for the accuracy of his source) in which the Aboriginal population has been assisted by the nation without, in the same post, balancing the ledger a little by acknowledging the far greater harm done by the emerging nation prior to that.

I am sorry that Michael Baron quotes same in full for a one-line reply without realising it is not original but has been posted on many other forums and is hence just another piece of viral internet flotsam. I am sorry that I am not aware of the original source as I suspect it is somewhere murky and unpleasant.

And I am sorry that Jono chooses to play up the role of primitive racist misconceptions of evolution in a way that implies that Darwin himself was a racist, when I have not spent any part of this day playing up the role of some members of the clergy in child abuse and using that as a stick to bash Christianity.

Ian Murray
13-02-2008, 09:36 PM
...Deane was just a bleeding heart lefty who swallowed the fraudulent "Stolen Generations" hoax. He should have stuck to his role as an apolitical Governor General.
Read Bringing them Home in full - www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen
Then, like the true Christian you profess to be, dismiss all the pain and grief with some more of your platitudes

Rincewind
13-02-2008, 09:42 PM
Then, like the true Christian you profess to be, dismiss all the pain and grief with some more of your platitudes

Forget it Ian. That would require giving up preconceived dogma and thinking. Something Jono seems completely unable to achieve.

Capablanca-Fan
14-02-2008, 09:40 AM
Read Bringing them Home in full - www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolenRead Windschuttle's The Fabrication of Aboriginal History.

Then NAME JUST 10! I.e. 10 genuinely stolen for white racist reasons, not being rescued from sexual abuse, justified fear of racism by full-blooded aborigines against half-bloods, or voluntarily given away by a parent.


Then, like the true Christian you profess to be, dismiss all the pain and grief with some more of your platitudes
What does an atheopath like you care about Christianity anyway?

A real Christian would prefer actions to solve the problems rather than platitudinous apologies to a non-existent stolen generation, as already mentioned in the thread. And we would want children removed from abusive situations, not have fear of another "stolen generation" leaving bureaucrats fearful to act and sacking whistleblowers.

Capablanca-Fan
14-02-2008, 09:42 AM
Forget it Ian. That would require giving up preconceived dogma and thinking. Something Jono seems completely unable to achieve.
How atheopaths who believe that they are rearranged pond scum can even justofy rational thought is a question in itself. That collection of chemicals they call a brain evolved merely for survival advantage under their worldview, not for rational thought.

Capablanca-Fan
14-02-2008, 09:52 AM
Well, I'm certainly sorry - in the sense that I frequently say that I am sorry something has occurred even if I am not personally to blame for it.
I am sorry for what occurred but I am not responsible. I am not sorry about what did NOT occur, given that many of the leaders of the Stolen Generation lobby were NOT stolen.


As well as being sorry about the so-called Stolen Generation (the past fate of which being something I have no control over) I am sorry that Dr Nelson used his reply speech today to play politics with the Northern Territory intervention and to make political capital out of the issue of child sexual abuse, when the relationship of these things to the Stolen Generation issue is indirect at best.
Andrew Bolt, with good reason, argues that the Stolen Generation myth is preventing abused Aboriginal kids from being removed today.


Some of what he said needs saying but there could not have been a sillier time to say it, and anyway, it has already been said.
Not nearly enough, evidently. And the immense discourtesy shown to Dr Nelson is a disgrace. Rudd should have allowed the Opposition to see the text of the proposed apology much sooner instead of playing politics.


I am also sorry that Jono chooses to mark the occasion by posting some ways (I cannot vouch for the accuracy of his source) in which the Aboriginal population has been assisted by the nation without, in the same post, balancing the ledger a little by acknowledging the far greater harm done by the emerging nation prior to that.
It's obvious that they used Western concepts of justice and Western technology to make their claim. It is similar to what Thomas Sowell said: his ancestors were worse of having been captured from Africa as slaves; he himself is far better off being a slave descendant in America than most people living in Africa today whose ancestors were not captured.


I am sorry that Michael Baron quotes same in full for a one-line reply without realising it is not original but has been posted on many other forums and is hence just another piece of viral internet flotsam. I am sorry that I am not aware of the original source as I suspect it is somewhere murky and unpleasant.
I never claimed originality, and I know not the source. It's still valid, and whinging about the occasion to post it is not


And I am sorry that Jono chooses to play up the role of primitive racist misconceptions of evolution in a way that implies that Darwin himself was a racist, when I have not spent any part of this day playing up the role of some members of the clergy in child abuse and using that as a stick to bash Christianity.
I'm sorry that Kevin is sorry that the truth is revealed. Even Kevin Rudd claimed in the original draft that attitudes changes with the publication of Darwin's Origin. There is far more sexual abuse in the secular schools than the Church, and it has more to do with the obvious fact that those with a tendency to abuse kids will gravitate to positions where they have power over them.

Capablanca-Fan
14-02-2008, 09:54 AM
If there was any substance in the article, one might object to some :hand: :hand:
Since it was Rudd's original speech, there should have been some. Or the secular writer Richard Glover [How we came to the present, with all its problems (http://www.smh.com.au/news/richard-glover/how-we-came-to-the-present/2008/02/08/1202234157703.html?page=fullpage), The Sydney Morning Herald, 9 February 2008]:


‘Later, at university, I became fascinated with this conflict. In particular, how Darwinism and evolutionary theory had been used by the Europeans to excuse their dispossession of Aboriginal Australians. The logic went this way: under evolutionary theory, the stronger race would inevitably dominate the weaker. Aboriginal Australians were a transitional form, somewhere between ape and European, and would thus automatically "fade away".’

Or Noel Pearson who is widely respected ...

Ian Murray
14-02-2008, 10:23 AM
Apparently.

Personally I couldn't give a faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa which phrase is used. I was happy for the deep and profound regret. I was happy for sorry. The intentions of all sides were clear - and the diff is little more than semantics.

What I object(ed) to (yet again) was the bleeding heart lobby (that would be you) howling and yelping and marching and whining and goodness knows what until we said it 'your' way. And now we have.

Now, please answer my question: Was an expression of deep and profound regret acceptable?
Hi Howard

Depends on context. John Howard was prepared to express regret but not apologise for past wrongs, for purely political reasons (although his views were not shared by everyone in his party room).

It is noteworthy that every living former Prime Minister was in Parliament yesterday, except Howard.

Basil
14-02-2008, 10:37 AM
Hi Ian

John Howard was prepared to express regret but not apologise for past wrongs, for purely political reasons.
How can you say that? Is it not possible that he was expressing a genuinely-held belief, as I am right now?


It is noteworthy that every living former Prime Minister was in Parliament yesterday, except Howard.
I think it is noteworthy that you have mentioned every living former Prime Minister's presence at the ceremony in the same post as raising the spectre of political 'expediency' (gauche but sufficient paraphrase).

Capablanca-Fan
14-02-2008, 10:45 AM
How can you say that? Is it not possible that he was expressing a genuinely-held belief, as I am right now?

Once again, Lefties always manage to turn questions of fact into questions of unworthy motive.


I think it is noteworthy that you have mentioned every living former Prime Minister's presence at the ceremony in the same post as raising the spectre of political 'expediency' (gauche but sufficient paraphrase).
That is more likely. As David Moore said (and quoted on this site here (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=7675)):


The Whitlam and the Fraser governments, which championed policies that were never going to work (and in some cases still do), should apologise. While they railed, rightly, against an apartheid system in South Africa, they created one in Australia. Instead of moralising and commentating, they should face up to their share of the responsibility.

...

And which reporter dared today to ask Malcolm Fraser, Gough Whitlam, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating — all of whom emoted at the sorry ceremony — this question: If stealing Aboriginal children was so obvious, so common, so disastrous and so racist, why did you not apologise for it long, long ago?

DanielBell
14-02-2008, 11:31 AM
Darwin didn't support the application of his theory to social situations, social Darwinism is an idea constructed by the likes of Spencer.

Ian Murray
14-02-2008, 12:31 PM
Read Windschuttle's The Fabrication of Aboriginal History.

Then NAME JUST 10! I.e. 10 genuinely stolen for white racist reasons, not being rescued from sexual abuse, justified fear of racism by full-blooded aborigines against half-bloods, or voluntarily given away by a parent.
535 indigeneous Australians gave evidence before the Stolen Generations inquiry (see www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/bth_report/report/index.html)

You'll find 10+ names and their stories at www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/bth_report/about/personal_stories.html

The 'protection' policies were not in fact aimed at rescuing children from harm, as modern-day revisionists would have us believe, but to permanently solve the 'Aboriginal problem':
The final episode of the ABC series Frontier program, which concerned the relations between Aborigines and Europeans in Australia, had reached the 1930s. It revealed how a number of the most powerful figures in Aboriginal affairs had arrived at what they thought of as a long-term plan for the solution to the Aboriginal problem.

Such men were convinced that the “full-blood” tribal Aborigine was destined, no matter what policy Europeans might adopt, to die out. Their thinking focused on the future of the “half-caste”, whose number was growing alarmingly. They believed in a policy of biological assimilation, that is to say that the solution to the problem of the half-caste was a policy of breeding out. The prospects for a solution such as this were excellent. Dr Cook, the Protector in the Northern Territory, believed that within six generations of mating between natives and Europeans every trace of Aboriginal blood could be removed. The program quoted a sentence from a speech A.O. Neville, the Commissioner of Native Affairs in Western Australia, made to the first national conference of Aboriginal administrators, held in Canberra in April 1937: “Fifty years hence … are we going to have a population of one million blacks in the Commonwealth, or are we going to merge them into our white community and eventually forget that there were any Aborigines in Australia?’

There's a word for that. It's called genocide. While Jews experienced the same government policy, albeit more brutally enforced, there the similarity ends. Jews are not an indigenous race overwhelmed by European settlement. A more relevant comparison is the plight of other native peoples like the Amerindians, Inuit and Yanomamo in the Amazon basin.


What does an atheopath like you care about Christianity anyway?

A real Christian would prefer actions to solve the problems rather than platitudinous apologies to a non-existent stolen generation, as already mentioned in the thread. And we would want children removed from abusive situations, not have fear of another "stolen generation" leaving bureaucrats fearful to act and sacking whistleblowers.
I don't see a lot of compassion in your posts, rather denial that that the stolen generations even exist. Does the love thy neighbour and do unto others bit only apply to white Australians?

Ian Murray
14-02-2008, 01:15 PM
Hi Ian

How can you say that? Is it not possible that he was expressing a genuinely-held belief, as I am right now?
That's not the way it was received - see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asia-pacific/430512.stm

From one of the companion pieces:
The government of conservative federal Prime Minister John Howard has repeatedly denied any responsibility, saying that the present generation should not have to make amends for past deeds.

He offered a personal apology earlier this year but was advised by the attorney-general's office not to give a national one amid fears it would open the floodgates to hundreds of lawsuits.

Like I say, political reasons

Basil
14-02-2008, 02:09 PM
Thanks Ian.

I have no idea what you think you have proved. Or for that matter, refuted. If you believe your point is self-evident, I'm happy to leave it there.

Cheers
H

Spiny Norman
14-02-2008, 03:29 PM
I'm sorry that bad things happened to the kids. I'm sorry about that regardless of their race, because bad things happen all the time to kids generally, not just to aboriginal kids. If government policies of the time contributed, then I'm also sorry about that ... perhaps things could have been different. But:

I will apologise and make restitution to those I have harmed, but I will not say “sorry” for things I have not done, nor will I cover up, over-analyse or take personal responsibility for the shortcomings of others.

I find the tendency of some to regard all cultures as equal as indefensible. Some cultures are better/worse than others. I know only a little about Aboriginal culture, but what little I do know doesn't give cause for much hope. I think their culture has to change to survive. I also think their culture has to change in order to give their kids some hope of a better tomorrow.

e.g. abandon a handout mentality and get the kids into school and properly educated (or consign their kids to never-ending unemployment), make sure home environments are well cared for and clean (or consign themselves to having poorer health outcomes).

I don't see how health outcomes, economic outcomes, employment outcomes, etc can improve unless something changes. Whilst we continue to laud their culture as "noble and ancient" and encourage them to do the same, they will continue to reap the outcomes of that culture, which is seemingly rooted in a nomadic/hunter-gatherer approach.

But I really hope we, as a country, find a way out of this mess ... a way that helps Aboriginal people achieve all that they want to achieve in life, whatever that means for them.

Capablanca-Fan
14-02-2008, 03:31 PM
That's not the way it was received - see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asia-pacific/430512.stm
Oh yeah, the BBC, a typical taxpayer-funded lefty broadcaster, thus the epitome of objectivity for lefties. Yet conservatives at the BBC are about as rare as blacks at a KKK rally (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=436794&in_page_id=1770), and BBC executives recently admitted its leftist chrisophobic PC bias (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770).


From one of the companion pieces:

The government of conservative federal Prime Minister John Howard has repeatedly denied any responsibility, saying that the present generation should not have to make amends for past deeds.
A reasonable principle that only those who committed wrongs should have to apologize for them.




He offered a personal apology earlier this year but was advised by the attorney-general's office not to give a national one amid fears it would open the floodgates to hundreds of lawsuits.
And that's exactly what's happening!


Like I say, political reasons
Well, when there is a politically motivated apology, then expect those of the opposite political persuasion to stay away.

Capablanca-Fan
14-02-2008, 04:04 PM
535 indigeneous Australians gave evidence before the Stolen Generations inquiry (see www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/bth_report/report/index.html)

You'll find 10+ names and their stories at www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/bth_report/about/personal_stories.html
Once these are actually examined, the evidence quickly dries up. That's why Manne is incapable of meeting bolt's challenge. Manne's great trophy case as a ‘stolen’ child, Topsy, was in fact, was just 12 when she was found, riddled with syphilis and far from hospitals, schools or police, with her parents unknown.


The 'protection' policies were not in fact aimed at rescuing children from harm, as modern-day revisionists would have us believe,
What nonsense: so many of the most prominent "stolen children" really were rescued from harm, as I've already documented. And none of these evil White people gang-raped a 10yo, although evil white Lefties let these vile scum off without a jail sentence. None of these white people are responsible for fetal alcohol syndrome or the rampant child sexual abuse, which amounts to a self-inflicted genocide.


but to permanently solve the 'Aboriginal problem':
The ABC is just as lefty (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_your_abc_of_bias/)as the BBC.


Such men were convinced that the “full-blood” tribal Aborigine was destined, no matter what policy Europeans might adopt, to die out. Their thinking focused on the future of the “half-caste”, whose number was growing alarmingly.
There is ample evidence that the “half-caste” were persecuted by the “full-bloods”.

I'm not denying some brutality. E.g. on the CMI site, there is an article Evolutionary racism (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/781/) by Carl Wieland that cites the book Aborigines in White Australia: A Documentary History of the Attitudes Affecting Official Policy and the Australian Aborigine 1697–1973:


‘In 1859 Charles Darwin’s book On the Origin of Species popularized the notion of biological (and therefore social) evolution. Scholars began to discuss civilization as a unilinear process with races able to ascend or descend a graduated scale. The European was … the “fittest to survive” … [The Aboriginal] was doomed to die out according to a “natural law”, like the dodo and the dinosaur. This theory, supported by the facts at hand [i.e. that Aborigines were dying out, which was due to ill-treatment and disease — C.W.] continued to be quoted until well into the twentieth century when it was noticed that the dark-skinned race was multiplying. Until that time it could be used to justify neglect and murder.’


I don't see a lot of compassion in your posts, rather denial that that the stolen generations even exist.
Of course I will deny it when its proponents can't even NAME JUST 10! And when the leaders of this "Stolen Generation" lobby were clearly NOT stolen, e.g. (from Andrew Bolt: The ABC’s “stolen” generation (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_abcs_stolen_generation/), 13 Feb 08):


Lowitja O’Donoghue

But here is O’Donoghue confessing to me seven years ago that she’d in fact been abandoned at a mission home:


“(My father) didn’t want to be straddled with five kids,” the former Australian of the Year said, sobbing. “I haven’t forgiven him…

“I don’t like the word ‘stolen’ and it’s perhaps true that I’ve used the word loosely at times… I would see myself as a removed child, and not necessarily stolen.”

Asked whether it would be better to state clearly that she wasn’t a member of the stolen generation, Dr O’Donoghue said: “I am prepared to make that concession.”
Here is one of Jon Faine’s examples:

Mary Hooker

Here is Hooker’s real story:

Hooker’s mother was in fact taken to hospital unconscious from an overdose of pills, and Hooker says she didn’t wake up for two weeks.

She left behind her 12 children in a house that welfare officers found had plenty of rubbish but little food: “The only food available was three sausages and a small piece of steak.”

There is no mention of any man in the house, but the documents show the dad of seven of the children was a prisoner at the Mount Mitchell Afforestation Camp, a low-security jail.

There is also no mention of abuse in what documents I could read, but Hooker last week admitted on ABC radio “there was also abuse going on in the community”, and that she had been “raped"…

These documents confirm Hooker and three of her 11 siblings were removed not because they were Aboriginal, but because a magistrate found proven a complaint that ”they were neglected” and without a guardian.


Does the love thy neighbour and do unto others bit only apply to white Australians?
Nope it applies to all, as well you know. Hence the Christian creationist doctor Lara Wieland (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2745/) was hailed by your own newspaper in a front page article as "The Angel of the Cape" for her work with Aboriginal children (Brisbane’s Courier Mail, 21st December 2002). I.e. helping concretely rather than with empty words from Rudd who did absolutely nothing for aborigines while he was the head QLD Labor bureaucrat (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/jensen_explains_why_he_wasnt_sorry/). But how was she rewarded by the QLD Labor Government bureaucrats for raising her concerns about the high rate of fetal alcohol syndrome and sexual abuse? By being sacked, according to the article Abuse victims become predators (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23094398-5013172,00.html), The Australian 23 Jan 2007. So how about an apology from these corrupt bureacrats who left the children in abusive situations and instead shot the messenger? Much better than a generic apology for what most people didn't do.

Capablanca-Fan
14-02-2008, 04:05 PM
Darwin didn't support the application of his theory to social situations, social Darwinism is an idea constructed by the likes of Spencer.
Not so. See Darwin and eugenics: Darwin was indeed a ‘Social Darwinist’ (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5085/).

pax
14-02-2008, 04:34 PM
Oh yeah, the BBC, a typical taxpayer-funded lefty broadcaster, thus the epitome of objectivity for lefties. Yet conservatives at the BBC are about as rare as blacks at a KKK rally (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=436794&in_page_id=1770), and BBC executives recently admitted its leftist chrisophobic PC bias (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770).

It's ironic that you choose to mention this leaked report by linking to a rabidly anti-left conservative rag like the Daily Mail.

Trent Parker
14-02-2008, 04:37 PM
I dont think the Government should have said sorry. It was the governents of the past that did these crimes. I'm not sorry about anything in regards to the "stolen" generation. And now.... on one of the morning shows this morning i saw this w!@#er that said that the government left the door open for compensation and that there might have to be a "sorry" tax to cover this amount.

Why should I pay for what previous generations had done? Instead lets bankrupt all those parliamentarians of that time who allowed that to happen.


Lets conjure up a lawsuit to sue the British government for dumping the convicts here shall we? :rolleyes:

I'm sorry that the government said sorry. Watch the lawsuits now!

pax
14-02-2008, 04:43 PM
What nonsense: so many of the most prominent "stolen children" really were rescued from harm, as I've already documented.
There is ample evidence that it was policy to remove half-caste children from full blood parents. Do you think this was appropriate, cases of neglect aside? Do you think removed children (whether for reasons of welfare or otherwise) should have been split from siblings, and prevented from seeing their parents ever again?

pax
14-02-2008, 04:45 PM
I'm sorry that the government said sorry. Watch the lawsuits now!
Legal advice has apparently been very clear that Rudd's apology does not open the government to legal action.

Capablanca-Fan
14-02-2008, 05:00 PM
Legal advice has apparently been very clear that Rudd's apology does not open the government to legal action.
What about morally? As Noel Pearson argues (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23196221-28737,00.html):


Which is more sincere: to say "we will not apologise to the Stolen Generations and we won't pay compensation", or "we will apologise but we won't pay compensation"?

The infamous Bringing Them Home report recommended compensation.

Capablanca-Fan
14-02-2008, 05:05 PM
It's ironic that you choose to mention this leaked report by linking to a rabidly anti-left conservative rag like the Daily Mail.
Is it? I wouldn't know, although you would describe anyone to the right of Bob Brown that way. OK, what about The Evening Standard (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23371706-details/Yes,%20we%20are%20biased%20on%20religion%20and%20p olitics,%20admit%20BBC%20executives/article.do) or Israel News (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3318582,00.html), or perhaps the BBC site itself that admitted, BBC 'must become more impartial' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6763205.stm).

pax
14-02-2008, 05:08 PM
Is it? I wouldn't know, although you would describe anyone to the right of Bob Brown that way. OK, what about The Evening Standard (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23371706-details/Yes,%20we%20are%20biased%20on%20religion%20and%20p olitics,%20admit%20BBC%20executives/article.do) or Israel News (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3318582,00.html), or perhaps the BBC site itself that admitted, BBC 'must become more impartial' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6763205.stm).
Better.. Completely lacking in irony!

Kevin Bonham
14-02-2008, 07:31 PM
Andrew Bolt, with good reason, argues that the Stolen Generation myth is preventing abused Aboriginal kids from being removed today.

But it's not a myth that transplanting children into a totally different culture, even to remove them from abuse, can cause them further harm. Indeed in the recent abuse case which started another thread here, the girl in question was visiting her community for a funeral and insisted on staying there even though she had already been abused there.


Not nearly enough, evidently. And the immense discourtesy shown to Dr Nelson is a disgrace.

The discourtesy was initially Dr Nelson's.


Rudd should have allowed the Opposition to see the text of the proposed apology much sooner instead of playing politics.

Whether that is true or not, it is no excuse for Dr Nelson raising irrelevant and politically divisive issues at a sensitive moment in a way that came across as blaming Aboriginal communities for them.


It's obvious that they used Western concepts of justice and Western technology to make their claim.

I can't see what on earth that has to do with anything; did they have any alternative?


It is similar to what Thomas Sowell said: his ancestors were worse of having been captured from Africa as slaves; he himself is far better off being a slave descendant in America than most people living in Africa today whose ancestors were not captured.

It is not similar to what Thomas Sowell said at all because he is several generations down the line from the impact. Or, to the extent it is similar, it supports the case for an apology, because those taken away from their families are in many ways worse off - even if several generations down the line their descendents benefit as a result.


I never claimed originality, and I know not the source. It's still valid, and whinging about the occasion to post it is not

I didn't say you claimed originality, I was commenting on Michael's reaction to it; it seemed like he did not realise it was copied.

And I don't think you're in a good position to ditch out the whinging card here given that the piece you copied and pasted was itself just one big whinge about the apology and about government policies for assisting Aboriginal people. Furthermore, my point is not about whether or not the piece is factually valid, but about its abject and rationally incontestable failure to tell the whole story.


I'm sorry that Kevin is sorry that the truth is revealed.

But it wasn't revealed at all - the creationist page you linked to (and similar ones leading from it) use numerous examples of distortion, ambit claims and loaded language to suggest that Darwin himself was a racist, rather than those who misunderstood and misapplied his work.

And of course, at any other time, you would be only too pleased to pick at Rudd's unfortunate habit for employing armchair intellectualism to support his case. Although I am not a capitalist and my dim view of the previous PM is well known, I criticised Rudd for inappropriately labelling Howard a Hayekite, because it was incorrect and an intellectually sloppy thing to do. But now when it looks like Rudd was going to be a tryhard intellectual on the issue of Darwinism as well (until he or his scriptwriters realised just how badly worded his putative contribution was), Creationists who normally would not give Rudd the time of day are all over it like a rash using Rudd's authority to try to support their case.


Even Kevin Rudd claimed in the original draft that attitudes changes with the publication of Darwin's Origin.

Indeed and I have no problem with the idea that the misconstruing of Darwin's theories led to a lot of racist pseudoscience. But this does not justify Wieland's article which persistently confuses misunderstandings of Darwinism with Darwinism itself, even accusing Darwin of being a social Darwinist when in fact he vigorously rejected social Darwinist policies.


There is far more sexual abuse in the secular schools than the Church,

We have little idea where there is far more sexual abuse than where else because the vast majority of it is never reported.

Kevin Bonham
14-02-2008, 07:37 PM
As for the compensation issue, I'm all for the State paying compensation to any person who can prove they have been harmed by grossly inappropriate policies of that State in the past. However, that should go for people of all races, and we should bear in mind that the practice of rehabilitating children from certain circumstances against their will was far from confined to the Aboriginal peoples. For instance, until not that long ago it was not unknown for children born to very young mothers out of wedlock to be adopted out with the mothers being wrongly told their children had died.

Basil
14-02-2008, 07:59 PM
And the immense discourtesy shown to Dr Nelson is a disgrace.
The discourtesy was initially Dr Nelson's.
Kevin, are you arguing two wrongs make a right or that a prior wrong justifies a further one?


Rudd should have allowed the Opposition to see the text of the proposed apology much sooner instead of playing politics.
Whether that is true or not, it is no excuse for Dr Nelson raising irrelevant and politically divisive issues at a sensitive moment in a way that came across as blaming Aboriginal communities for them.
Kevin, this is the ongoing problem that I and others have with this entire exercise. It is quite clear that the Australian people are not united on this issue. As I have said previously, the differences between the two sides are largely of semantics. Nonetheless, the left has
-- rejected a positive statement of regret
-- vilified the proposer of a genuine statement of regret (John Howard)
-- demanded that nothing short of sorry will suffice
-- imposed the will of sorry where it is clear that the sentiment is not universal
-- rejected any possibility of compensation

Who the bloody hell do they think they are? OK, they are the government, but they have acted just as the Howard Govt did - and the only difference is 'sorry' and 'regret'. Yet to decipher the sanctimonious high ground and allegations of out of touch and so forth, the Labor Party and its supporters are both deluded and guilty of the thuggery and double standards of which they have always been accused.

I neither deny the right of any government to act as this one has done, nor do I deny the need to act universally when unilateral agreement is not possible. However, I am bewildered at the ability of the left to enact the above (vilify, accept, demand, reject) at will and at the same time claim the sanctimonious high ground.

I believe Dr Nelson has done a great job at enabling detente (however when the Krudd Bunch were in opposition nothing of the sort happened (visualise mealy-mouthed divisive outrage)). All Dr Nelson has done IMO is speak for the Australians who are not entirely unified behind this movement.

What do you want? Meek compliance? What a cheek! The left didn't afford that to the Libs when the same issue was raised. Come on you lot - get a clue and drop the double standards.

Capablanca-Fan
14-02-2008, 08:04 PM
But it's not a myth that transplanting children into a totally different culture, even to remove them from abuse, can cause them further harm.
All this shows is that there is no perfect solution, only trade-offs.


The discourtesy was initially Dr Nelson's.
Really? KRudd couldn't resist politicizing it by praising his predecessor Keating while getting some barbs in at the Howard government.


Whether that is true or not, it is no excuse for Dr Nelson raising irrelevant and politically divisive issues at a sensitive moment in a way that came across as blaming Aboriginal communities for them.
Even though the blame is entirely justified when it comes to fetal alcohol syndrome and child abuse?


I can't see what on earth that has to do with anything; did they have any alternative?
It has everything to do with showing the bankruptcy of the Bash Western Civilization / Noble Savage brigade.


And I don't think you're in a good position to ditch out the whinging card here given that the piece you copied and pasted was itself just one big whinge about the apology and about government policies for assisting Aboriginal people. Furthermore, my point is not about whether or not the piece is factually valid, but about its abject and rationally incontestable failure to tell the whole story.
It's perfectly reasonable given that the Leftmedia are giving only the Black Armband side of the story, and parading "Stolen" children who were demonstrably not stolen.


But it wasn't revealed at all - the creationist page you linked to (and similar ones leading from it) use numerous examples of distortion, ambit claims and loaded language to suggest that Darwin himself was a racist,
Nothing wrong with that, as Darwin was indeed a ‘Social Darwinist’ (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5085/), and his son and cousin were only too happy to use his views to support eugenics.


rather than those who misunderstood and misapplied his work.
The page cited reliable secular sources, not only KRudd's original draft.


And of course, at any other time, you would be only too pleased to pick at Rudd's unfortunate habit for employing armchair intellectualism to support his case. Although I am not a capitalist and my dim view of the previous PM is well known, I criticised Rudd for inappropriately labelling Howard a Hayekite, because it was incorrect and an intellectually sloppy thing to do.
Yes, that was commendable.


We have little idea where there is far more sexual abuse than where else because the vast majority of it is never reported.
We can go only by the evidence. The leftist claim that there is not really more crime but just more reported crime might be remotely plausible for sexual abuse but can't work for murder.

ElevatorEscapee
14-02-2008, 08:13 PM
I personally support the apology to the Aboriginal people, especially so the word "Sorry" which carries a far deeper meaning of compassion and understanding, and a far lesser apportionment of 'blame' in Aboriginal languages than it does in English.

Aboriginal people have every right under common law in Australia to sue for compensation if they feel they have been unjustly treated. An apology by the Australian government doesn't change this.

It is not a question of "opening the floodgates" for these people, but rather provide them with at least a small form of emotional comfort.

I agree that there is much more that needs to be done to help the Aboriginal people of Australia obtain the health care and other societal benefits that they deserve as citizens of this country. The apology, I believe, is in some ways only the 'first step' in this 'healing process'.

For those espouting the 'sorry myths', or indeed who are unsure as to what to believe, I urge them to read the following, attached pdf file: "busting the sorry myths".

(PS: and yes, to the "wowsers", I find myself pretty much agreeing with every point made by Kevin Bonham on this particular issue! ;) )

Kevin Bonham
14-02-2008, 08:15 PM
Kevin, are you arguing two wrongs make a right or that a prior wrong justifies a further one?

I am arguing that discourtesy is the appropriate response to discourtesy. I think you will be familiar with the concept. :lol:


Kevin, this is the ongoing problem that I and others have with this entire exercise. It is quite clear that the Australian people are not united on this issue. As I have said previously, the differences between the two sides are largely of semantics. Nonetheless, the left has
-- rejected a positive statement of regret
-- vilified the proposer of a genuine statement of regret (John Howard)
-- demanded that nothing short of sorry will suffice
-- imposed the will of sorry where it is clear that the sentiment is not universal
-- rejected any possibility of compensation

Concerning the fourth, Aboriginal people having the vote was clearly not a universal sentiment either when overwhelmingly endorsed by referendum, yet was imposed (and correctly so, of course).

Of course there are always many leftists in whose thought one can find contradictions but if the Liberals genuinely believed the apology was wrong they could have said so. It would have been electorally disastrous to do so, so they did not dare.


I believe Dr Nelson has done a great job at enabling detente (however when the Krudd Bunch were in opposition nothing of the sort happened (visualise mealy-mouthed divisive outrage)). All Dr Nelson has done IMO is speak for the Australians who are not entirely unified behind this movement.

I don't see how he spoke for them. He fully supported the apology and then went off on a tangent. Those "not entirely unified behind this movement" often have deep reservations about the apology in the first place.

I would have been okay with it had he stuck to just endorsing the apology while stressing the mitigating factors (which is basically the way his speech commenced.) So long as it was not too hopelessly overdone, that would have been a dignified course which would have differentiated his stance from the Opposition's.

Kevin Bonham
14-02-2008, 08:42 PM
Even though the blame is entirely justified when it comes to fetal alcohol syndrome and child abuse?

Gee, it must be nice to find things that morally simple. I don't. I find it very difficult to say to what extent you should blame an impoverished, culturally damaged and poorly educated community for its high rates of these things, and to what extent individuals even in such circumstances should still be blamed for failing to lift themselves out of them. Many of these things are vicious cycles with contributing factors that probably go back generations.


It has everything to do with showing the bankruptcy of the Bash Western Civilization / Noble Savage brigade.

Not disagreeing with that but you don't have to be a Western civilisation basher or noble savage believer to accept that serious mistakes worthy of a national apology have been made.


It's perfectly reasonable given that the Leftmedia are giving only the Black Armband side of the story, and parading "Stolen" children who were demonstrably not stolen.

No it isn't. At best the piece, and any unqualified endorsement thereof, lowers itself to the so-called "Leftmedia"'s level instead of striving to improve on it.


Nothing wrong with that, as Darwin was indeed a ‘Social Darwinist’ (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5085/),

All irrelevant. Darwin was aware that his theories might have implications for the explanation of events in human society but he was opposed to advocative policies like eugenics of the type that make up "social Darwinism" as the term is now most often used.


and his son and cousin were only too happy to use his views to support eugenics.

The actions of such family members are irrelevant, as you yourself argued concerning Tanya Milat (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=172877&postcount=353).

Igor_Goldenberg
14-02-2008, 09:08 PM
535 indigeneous Australians gave evidence before the Stolen Generations inquiry (see www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/bth_report/report/index.html)

You'll find 10+ names and their stories at www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/bth_report/about/personal_stories.html



While I have no doubts there were aboriginal children unfairly removed from their family (as is still the case sometimes with some non-aboriginal families), the validity of those 535 cases has to be closely examined, given false claims by some leaders of "Stolen generation".

Exterminations of Tasmanian aborigines is the real crime, yet no investigation or even an apology to my knowledge.

Capablanca-Fan
14-02-2008, 09:25 PM
I am arguing that discourtesy is the appropriate response to discourtesy.
Then why whinge at Nelson for responding to KRudd's politicized apology?


Concerning the fourth, Aboriginal people having the vote was clearly not a universal sentiment either when overwhelmingly endorsed by referendum, yet was imposed (and correctly so, of course).
Denying Aboriginal people the vote is clearly racist, and the referendum overwhelmingly supported giving them the vote and rightly so. Denying that there was a stolen generation is not racist, but a question of fact. And the support for the Labor Government was far less than the support for Aboriginal suffrage.


I don't see how he spoke for them. He fully supported the apology and then went off on a tangent. Those "not entirely unified behind this movement" often have deep reservations about the apology in the first place.
KRudd could have released the text far sooner, instead of springing his anti-Howard barbs and absurd praise for Keating.

Kevin Bonham
14-02-2008, 09:52 PM
Then why whinge at Nelson for responding to KRudd's politicized apology?

Actually I'm laughing at Nelson more than whinging at him. :lol:

There were ways he could have responded to any politicisation he perceived in Rudd's speech without getting sidetracked onto issues irrelevant to the Stolen Generation issue. I have mentioned one of them already.


Denying Aboriginal people the vote is clearly racist, and the referendum overwhelmingly supported giving them the vote and rightly so. Denying that there was a stolen generation is not racist, but a question of fact.

The term "stolen generation" is, as taken literally, hyperbolic, given that not every member of the generation was stolen. But no significant figure in the debate is saying they were.

Do you disagree that a significant number of Aboriginal children were removed from their parents against the will of the parent and without the support of the infant?

Actually I find it hard to determine whether you're trying to say it didn't happen to any significant extent or trying to say it did happen while blaming it on Darwinism.


And the support for the Labor Government was far less than the support for Aboriginal suffrage.

Irrelevant because the Opposition has endorsed the apology motion. The combined support level for all parties that will vote in favour of the motion probably exceeds even the support for Aboriginal suffrage.


KRudd could have released the text far sooner, instead of springing his anti-Howard barbs and absurd praise for Keating.

Again irrelevant. If Nelson felt that Rudd was discourteous to him by not releasing the text sooner, then it is to Rudd that he could have been discourteous in response. Instead he endorsed Rudd's apology but made irrelevant and loaded references to other Aboriginal issues.

Kevin Bonham
14-02-2008, 10:03 PM
Exterminations of Tasmanian aborigines is the real crime, yet no investigation or even an apology to my knowledge.

The Tasmanian Parliament apologised to the Tasmanian members of the "stolen generation" in 1997 and has moved to financially compensate them following the re-election of the Lennon Government in 2006. I don't believe there has been one with respect to other aspects such as the "Black Wars" in the 1820s (the actual extent of which is a hotly disputed topic).

Southpaw Jim
14-02-2008, 10:25 PM
All I'm going to say on this thread is: I agree with Kevin.

On pretty much every point.

Rincewind
14-02-2008, 10:39 PM
All I'm going to say on this thread is: I agree with Kevin.

Bonham or Rudd?

ER
14-02-2008, 10:44 PM
I just want to be there and watch the reaction of a bunch of trendy hangeroner, flag waving, slogan shouting, cafe late and/or herbal tea sipping type of "sorry" advocating characters when one day a group of aboriginees turns up in their house and firmly demands from them to clear off because that piece of land is a sacred place and they have no right to be there!

I think they would do what I would do. They wouldn't pack up and leave saying "ok guys, this land belongs to you and to your ancestor spirits, we don't belong here, cheers and see yous later"! They (as I) would call the cops to protect their (my) property, their (my) societal order, their (my) way of life.

The real apology to the aboriginees would be the (unrealistic) option to give them sovereignty to their land.
The rest belongs to the "feeling sorry for the poor buggers" category and is absolutely hogwash crap made in order to provide the group of trendy hangeroners mentioned in the first paragraph with some sort of pseudo middle class bourgois kind of sence of justice.

So please stop the crocodile sobbing bullshit and give up trying to convince me about the validity of your silly circus pantomime of collective guilt and magnanimus cathartic reconciliation motions!

You don't really say sorry to the indigenous people of this land, you just feel sorry for them!
Cheers and good luck!

pax
14-02-2008, 11:39 PM
I just want to be there and watch the reaction of a bunch of trendy hangeroner, flag waving, slogan shouting, cafe late and/or herbal tea sipping type of "sorry" advocating characters when one day a group of aboriginees turns up in their house and firmly demands from them to clear off because that piece of land is a sacred place and they have no right to be there!
That's the most ridiculous thing anyone has come up with yet on this thread. Congratulations.

Any other piece of Pauline Hanson FUD you want to raise here?

Capablanca-Fan
14-02-2008, 11:47 PM
I think they would do what I would do. They wouldn't pack up and leave saying "ok guys, this land belongs to you and to your ancestor spirits, we don't belong here, cheers and see yous later"! They (as I) would call the cops to protect their (my) property, their (my) societal order, their (my) way of life.
Of course. Just as white leftists in power who impose racist affirmative action policies that penalize young white people are never going to give up their own precious jobs or or hurt their own kids' careers.


You don't really say sorry to the indigenous people of this land, you just feel sorry for them!
I certainly do, with leftist welfare and tolerance of abuse in their communities.

Capablanca-Fan
14-02-2008, 11:53 PM
The term "stolen generation" is, as taken literally, hyperbolic, given that not every member of the generation was stolen. But no significant figure in the debate is saying they were.
I'm saying that the leading spokespeople were not.


Do you disagree that a significant number of Aboriginal children were removed from their parents against the will of the parent and without the support of the infant?
Not sure. Some of the Stolen Generation were given away willingly by their parents. Some of them should have been removed if they were being sexually abused.


Actually I find it hard to determine whether you're trying to say it didn't happen to any significant extent or trying to say it did happen while blaming it on Darwinism.
Not sure if the Darwinism was reflected in stealing children in the sense of the Stolen Generation claims.


Irrelevant because the Opposition has endorsed the apology motion.
But with the understanding that they would be consulted, but KRudd refused to release it.


The combined support level for all parties that will vote in favour of the motion probably exceeds even the support for Aboriginal suffrage.
So do all Coalition voters actually support this apology, even if their leader doesn't know that an Opposition is supposed to Oppose sometimes.


Again irrelevant. If Nelson felt that Rudd was discourteous to him by not releasing the text sooner, then it is to Rudd that he could have been discourteous in response. Instead he endorsed Rudd's apology but made irrelevant and loaded references to other Aboriginal issues.
So what actual errors did Nelson make?

ER
15-02-2008, 12:17 AM
That's the most ridiculous thing anyone has come up with yet on this thread. Congratulations.

Any other piece of Pauline Hanson FUD you want to raise here?

Whatever suits you Pax, I had no intention to hurt your feelings! Cheers and good luck!
PS Your property is safe as well, no indigenous people would ever claim sovereignty over it. After all you said "sorry" didn't you? :)

pax
15-02-2008, 12:19 AM
Whatever suits you Pax, I had no intention to hurt your feelings! Cheers and good luck!
Why would my feelings be hurt?

ER
15-02-2008, 12:35 AM
Why would my feelings be hurt?

Because I made it very clear that the only way to express your sorrow to the indigenous people is to recognise their sovereignty over their own land!
Cheers and good luck!

PS Now if Pauline said such bad things, please consider me as a Hansonite! :P

Kevin Bonham
15-02-2008, 12:42 AM
I'm saying that the leading spokespeople were not.

All of them?


Not sure. Some of the Stolen Generation were given away willingly by their parents. Some of them should have been removed if they were being sexually abused.

Two "somes" is hardly sufficient to show that the number was not, as claimed, significant. As for the latter, was this even being investigated to any great degree at the time? (I don't know.)


But with the understanding that they would be consulted, but KRudd refused to release it.

No, they clearly (and correctly) made noises to the effect that they liked the idea in principle but wanted to see the text before deciding whether to endorse. They did not commit themselves to definitely voting in favour before the text had been seen.


So do all Coalition voters actually support this apology,

Oh, certainly not. And not all Labor voters support it either. I was just pointing out that if you're going to compare the number voting Labor with the number supporting giving Aboriginal people the vote, then you should be considering the fact that Labor is not alone in supporting the apology, at which point your argument collapses. The actual support level for the apology, while high, would be a lot lower than for the vote referendum.

I know there has been one poll on the issue, by Galaxy, commissioned by Get Up! The commissioning agency not being neutral, I take it with a degree of caution, but it showed 55% in favour 36% against - at which level a referendum on the issue would almost certainly pass.


even if their leader doesn't know that an Opposition is supposed to Oppose sometimes.

I'm sure he does know that and was perhaps overly desperate to find a way to show it without appearing completely stuck in the past. But he's in a difficult spot at the moment - his party has just been walloped at the polls and needs to work out what things it can oppose on usefully without risking further damage.


So what actual errors did Nelson make?

In my view it was an error to discuss in detail aspects of the Aboriginal situation without linking (or being able to link) them to the Stolen Generations issue. Something simple along the lines of that while the apology is significant, we should not lose sight of the many other serious (indeed far more pressing) issues facing Aboriginal communities, would have been OK.

It was an even more serious error to, at the same time as endorsing an apology for a past intervention, argue the case for another one (the one recently started by Howard) - especially as some aspects of that new intervention are contentious in themselves. It comes across as "we interfered and we did it the wrong way, now we're saying sorry because we are under pressure to do so, but we're still going to interfere even though some people say we might not have this one entirely right either".

How it will play out electorally is anyone's guess. I'm guessing it won't work all that well because it was a bit too subtle for the average racist - and anything praised as brilliant by Tony Abbott has got to be doomed.

Basil
15-02-2008, 12:49 AM
Kevin, are you arguing two wrongs make a right or that a prior wrong justifies a further one?
I am arguing that discourtesy is the appropriate response to discourtesy.
OK. Is it your position that Nelson, in his speech (being entirely supportive of the outcome but offering partial contrary considerations for the public record) was deserving of the treatment he received? Was the treatment of Nelson proportionate and appropriate?

Basil
15-02-2008, 12:50 AM
Kevin, do you accept the existence of the whopping double-standard (from some parts and supporters) of the left which I referred outlined in post #63?

pax
15-02-2008, 01:06 AM
Because I made it very clear that the only way to express your sorrow to the indigenous people is to recognise their sovereignty over their own land!
Recognizing sovereignty is one thing. Handing over suburban homes is quite another.


PS Now if Pauline said such bad things, please consider me as a Hansonite!
You are just buying into the whole Hansonite fear mongering that a bunch of Aboriginals are going to turn up at your house and demand that you hand it over. It's a grossly misrepresented view of what native title is about.

Kevin Bonham
15-02-2008, 01:14 AM
OK. Is it your position that Nelson in his response (being entirely supportive of the outcome but offering partial contrary considerations for the public record) was deserving of the treatment he received? Was the treatment of Nelson proportionate and appropriate?

He was not offering any contrary considerations on the question of whether an apology should be offered. He was accepting the apology wholeheartedly and grandstanding on other Aboriginal issues at the same time.

Whether the reaction was proportionate/appropriate or not (and I first heard it described on radio and have still not seen lengthy visuals of the reaction), I have no doubt that he brought it on himself.


Kevin, do you accept the existence of the whopping double-standard (from some parts and supporters) of the left which I referred outlined in post #63?

Of course; whopping double standards are to be found among some partisans on both sides on pretty much any issue.

Basil
15-02-2008, 01:30 AM
He was not offering any contrary considerations on the question of whether an apology should be offered.
Right. He was in no way obstructing the course of the unilateral apology being shoved through by Krudd and Ko.

However, as there had been no discussion, no referendum - nothing!, Nelson was was taking his ONE chance for eternity and noting the balanced position of the opposition on this momentous day. Absolutely nothing wrong.

IMO you and the back-turners and slow clappers are treading an untenable line. One that says:

-- We want the sorry
-- We want it now without a referendum
-- We know there are counter-positions, but there will be no debate
-- Here are the words. The Parliament will use these words.
-- The words will be released one day before-hand
-- The opposition will not have a voice

and when the Opposition dares to state its piece - totally appropriate in my opinion - (when else was the Opposition going to state it in this strangled process? , the slow hand-clap and back turning starts.

And you defend this? Or try and neutralise it? :hand:


Of course; whopping double standards are to be found among some partisans on both sides on pretty much any issue.
Fair enough. So we are agreed (for the sake of the myopically teat-sucking leftists who require being told how to think) - Labor has acted with a double-standard; one that had the Libs adopted, there would have been apoplectic outrage.

In fact I'll go further. Had Howard done what Rudd has just done, Howard's act would have been added to the mindless and small but exaggerated list of why the Howard government had to leave office.

The double standards apply to Krudd & Ko as well as some of the left supporters.

ER
15-02-2008, 01:33 AM
Recognizing sovereignty is one thing. Handing over suburban homes is quite another.

You are just buying into the whole Hansonite fear mongering that a bunch of Aboriginals are going to turn up at your house and demand that you hand it over. It's a grossly misrepresented view of what native title is about.

Pax, please read my lips and go through my original post with the care I think it deserves. The first paragraph is just an hypothetical example to show the apathy, indifference and absolute hypocricy of people who, on the one hand verbally support indigenous rights etc and on the other hand, do absolutely nothing about the real issues faced by our aboriginal nations (I think "communities" is not the right term here) throughout the continent and the islands.
I understand that we might have some difference of opinion on this matter, but please do not judge me so wrongly! :)
For your information, I have worked with aboriginees for a number of years in the past and I have never been branded by them as a patronising white... followed by some rather non publishable explicits used to describe some representatives of state authorities. On the contrary, I believe I am considered as being a not such a bad fat (*) bastard and even as a good fella!:)
If you ever come down to Melbourne, we can go for a drink down at Fitzroy or St Kilda and you will understand what I mean.
Cheers and good luck
(*) Of course they don't call me "fat bastard" these days! They have adjusted it to "that fat bastard who lost weight" but they always make sure to point out that I am not such a bad bloke!

Kevin Bonham
15-02-2008, 01:43 AM
IMO you and the back-turners and slow clappers are treading an untenable line. One that says:

-- We want the sorry
-- We want it now without a referendum
-- We know there are counter-positions, but there will be no debate
-- Here are the words. The Parliament will use these words.
-- The words will be released one day before-hand
-- The opposition will not have a voice

IMO your claim of an untenable line that I am part of is itself (logically) untenable.

The government has a mandate for an apology having been easily elected with it as a policy.

The debate has been going on for over a decade.

A referendum would be an absolutely ludicrous waste of money. Referendums are something you do to change the Constitution because that is the way that that is done. Under almost all other circumstances they should be avoided like the plague.

The Opposition had plenty of voice on the issue. It could have voted against the apology (however the backlash from voters would have most likely been enormous even without the media and activists needing to fan it). It could have voted for the apology while sticking to emphasising the extent to which people who did the "wrong" thing were trying to do the "right" thing. (Indeed when Nelson started on that tack I thought he was going to get it right. He didn't.)

Once again, the issue which I am raising and you are persistently not addressing is that Nelson's speech covered irrelevant and inflammatory material in a way that was unnecessary and offensive.


Fair enough. So we are agreed (for the sake of the myopically teat sucking leftists who require being told how to think) that Labor has acted with a double-standard;

I did not agree to that at all.

You did not ask me about Labor in general; you asked me about "some parts and supporters" of the "left".


Had Howard done what Rudd has just done, it would have been added to the mindless and small but exaggerated list of why the Howard government had to leave office.

Had Howard done what Rudd has just done and done it several years ago it is possible he would not have had to leave!

(Yes, I know he offered his personal expression of regret, but he was doing it in a my-view-as-an-individual-citizen sense, which hardly fitted the bill.)

Basil
15-02-2008, 02:15 AM
The government has a mandate for an apology having been easily elected with it as a policy.
Oh come on Kevin. The government doesn't have a mandate for every position it held in the run-up to the election. If you persist in arguing that position, you must equally argue that the Howard government had a mandate for not saying sorry when it was re-elected, and as such, the left had no right opposing that stance. And the government had a mandate for war and the government had a mandate for children over-board. Now stop being silly.


A referendum would be an absolutely ludicrous waste of money.
They all are - so?


Referendums are something you do to change the Constitution because that is the way that that is done. Under almost all other circumstances they should be avoided like the plague.
Says who? Kevin Bonham (now that he's had his way with the 'sorry'?) I note the use of 'almost' in your sentence. This issue would surely qualify as worthy.


It could have voted for the apology while sticking to emphasising the extent to which people who did the "wrong" thing were trying to do the "right" thing. (Indeed when Nelson started on that tack I thought he was going to get it right. He didn't.)
How did he get it so wrong? He got it exactly right.


Once again, the issue which I am raising and you are persistently not addressing is that Nelson's speech covered irrelevant and inflammatory material in a way that was unnecessary and offensive.
I have addressed it. I have disagreed that Nelson was inflammatory. I have disagreed that Nelson was outside his rights. As for the so-called 'offence', we've got people taking offence at everything all of the time (think fg and EE ;)). As far as I am concerned, Nelson was highly INoffensive.

ER
15-02-2008, 02:47 AM
the worm ^ up top shows a slight inclination toward the "sorry" mob, the "no sorry" mob has lost ground after initial gains!
Cheers and good luck

Capablanca-Fan
15-02-2008, 09:35 AM
the worm ^ up top shows a slight inclination toward the "sorry" mob, the "no sorry" mob has lost ground after initial gains!
Cheers and good luck
Hardly an overwhelming majority, unlike the poll showing a strong preference for late nights over early mornings which the Anointed in tournament organization will explain away, or even a hypothetical poll showing support for Aboriginal suffrage which would be overwhelmingly positive.

ER
15-02-2008, 09:52 AM
Hardly an overwhelming majority, unlike the poll showing a strong preference for late nights over early mornings which the Anointed in tournament organization will explain away, or even a hypothetical poll showing support for Aboriginal suffrage which would be overwhelmingly positive.

Dr Sarfati, I only referred to it as a "Slight inclination toward" :) ops now it gets closer again! I wish I knew when do the polls close? Cheers and good luck!

pax
15-02-2008, 10:09 AM
Hardly an overwhelming majority, unlike the poll showing a strong preference for late nights over early mornings which the Anointed in tournament organization will explain away, or even a hypothetical poll showing support for Aboriginal suffrage which would be overwhelmingly positive.
The significance of any voluntary online poll is approximately zero, even if the margin is large. Just ask Ron Paul (who aparently won every online poll and every debate and yet still couldn't win a primary).

Capablanca-Fan
15-02-2008, 11:01 AM
The significance of any voluntary online poll is approximately zero, even if the margin is large.
What have you got that's better?

Capablanca-Fan
15-02-2008, 11:02 AM
Dr Sarfati, I only referred to it as a "Slight inclination toward" :)
I know, I was supporting your point. As IG says below, your points are well made: it's easy to say nice words when it's other people's property at risk. And "compassion" to a Lefty always means generosity with other people's money, and "affirmative action" always means that other white people are discriminated against, but the Lefties never bear the costs of the policies they impose upon others.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-02-2008, 11:10 AM
Recognizing sovereignty is one thing. Handing over suburban homes is quite another.
Why? If you use different definition of sovereignty, please enlighten us.

BTW, is using different definition of the same thing in different circumstances called hypocrisy? Given that English isn't my native language, I might miss something.



You are just buying into the whole Hansonite fear mongering that a bunch of Aboriginals are going to turn up at your house and demand that you hand it over. It's a grossly misrepresented view of what native title is about.

See above

Capablanca-Fan
15-02-2008, 11:10 AM
Two "somes" is hardly sufficient to show that the number was not, as claimed, significant. As for the latter, was this even being investigated to any great degree at the time? (I don't know.)
I was saying that there are different reasons for different cases. But NONE of the Stolen Generation lobbyists were stolen for white racist reasons. The reasons include being sent away by their parents, rescued with no parents in sight and riddled with syphilis, neglected and raped by her brother, taken with agreement of her tribal chief because of danger of racism against half-bloods by full-bloods and sexual abuse, dumped at a home by her irresponsible Irish father ... See my post Why should we apologize to these "stolen" Aborigines? (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=182454&postcount=53)


Oh, certainly not. And not all Labor voters support it either. I was just pointing out that if you're going to compare the number voting Labor with the number supporting giving Aboriginal people the vote, then you should be considering the fact that Labor is not alone in supporting the apology, at which point your argument collapses.
But would they have supported the apology that KRudd sprung on them?


I'm sure he does know that and was perhaps overly desperate to find a way to show it without appearing completely stuck in the past. But he's in a difficult spot at the moment - his party has just been walloped at the polls and needs to work out what things it can oppose on usefully without risking further damage.
And so far hasn't learned from previous debacles by ostensibly conservative parties who abandon principles for power and end up with neither.


How it will play out electorally is anyone's guess. I'm guessing it won't work all that well because it was a bit too subtle for the average racist - and anything praised as brilliant by Tony Abbott has got to be doomed.
And it's doubtful that there are many racists in Australia, despite the Black Armband viewmongers.

Capablanca-Fan
15-02-2008, 11:15 AM
Gee, it must be nice to find things that morally simple. I don't.
I do, because some things really ARE morally simple, such as "it's wrong to gang rape a 10yo girl".


I find it very difficult to say to what extent you should blame an impoverished, culturally damaged and poorly educated community for its high rates of these things, and to what extent individuals even in such circumstances should still be blamed for failing to lift themselves out of them.
Conversely, I find it very easy to say that things won't change as long as people try to make excuses for unacceptable behaviour that no-one has forced on them.


The actions of such family members are irrelevant, as you yourself argued concerning Tanya Milat (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=172877&postcount=353).
Tanya Milat didn't support her relatives, and her relatives didn't appeal to her theories to justify their crimes.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-02-2008, 11:16 AM
I just want to be there and watch the reaction of a bunch of trendy hangeroner, flag waving, slogan shouting, cafe late and/or herbal tea sipping type of "sorry" advocating characters when one day a group of aboriginees turns up in their house and firmly demands from them to clear off because that piece of land is a sacred place and they have no right to be there!

I think they would do what I would do. They wouldn't pack up and leave saying "ok guys, this land belongs to you and to your ancestor spirits, we don't belong here, cheers and see yous later"! They (as I) would call the cops to protect their (my) property, their (my) societal order, their (my) way of life.

The real apology to the aboriginees would be the (unrealistic) option to give them sovereignty to their land.
The rest belongs to the "feeling sorry for the poor buggers" category and is absolutely hogwash crap made in order to provide the group of trendy hangeroners mentioned in the first paragraph with some sort of pseudo middle class bourgois kind of sence of justice.

So please stop the crocodile sobbing bullshit and give up trying to convince me about the validity of your silly circus pantomime of collective guilt and magnanimus cathartic reconciliation motions!

You don't really say sorry to the indigenous people of this land, you just feel sorry for them!
Cheers and good luck!

I think you nailed it on the head.
Isn't it great to be compassionate without having to do anything yourself or paying with your own money?

Igor_Goldenberg
15-02-2008, 11:18 AM
The significance of any voluntary online poll is approximately zero, even if the margin is large. Just ask Ron Paul (who aparently won every online poll and every debate and yet still couldn't win a primary).
It is indeed zero if if does not support your view.
It is of paramount importance if it does support your view

Capablanca-Fan
15-02-2008, 06:38 PM
Oh come on Kevin. The government doesn't have a mandate for every position it held in the run-up to the election. If you persist in arguing that position, you must equally argue that the Howard government had a mandate for not saying sorry when it was re-elected, and as such, the left had no right opposing that stance. And the government had a mandate for war and the government had a mandate for children over-board. Now stop being silly.
Well, the Left still whinges about the GST although Howard didn't introduce it until after went to the polls with the explicit promise to do so. It's plausible to argue that Howard had a mandate for Work Choices to get rid of Union Compulsion.


I have addressed it. I have disagreed that Nelson was inflammatory. I have disagreed that Nelson was outside his rights. As for the so-called 'offence', we've got people taking offence at everything all of the time (think fg and EE ;)). As far as I am concerned, Nelson was highly INoffensive.
But the one inference that defines the PC crowd is "I am offended, therefore you are wrong!" Never mind that Nelson was in his rights as an Opposition leader to oppose, and that what he said was true.

Kevin Bonham
15-02-2008, 07:12 PM
Oh come on Kevin. The government doesn't have a mandate for every position it held in the run-up to the election. If you persist in arguing that position, you must equally argue that the Howard government had a mandate for not saying sorry when it was re-elected, and as such, the left had no right opposing that stance.

The "and as such ..." bit is where your argument collapses because the analogy completely breaks down. I am certainly not arguing that the opposition has no right opposing the Government's stance. What I am arguing is that calls for exceptional measures such as referendums are ludicrous, and that there is nothing out of the ordinary about a government getting on with implementing policies it has taken to the people and been elected on in the circumstances.


And the government had a mandate for war and the government had a mandate for children over-board. Now stop being silly.

The government did have a mandate for continuing the occupation in Iraq as it was decisively elected in 2004 with its continuation as a policy, while the defeated Latham opposition had a different approach. I opposed the occupation (and I also opposed the Latham approach to ending it, FWIW) but you will nowhere find me having called for a referendum over the issue following the 2004 poll.

Concerning "children overboard", exactly what policy are you saying the government went to the people with on that matter? At the time of the 2001 election not all the evidence was in, and I don't recall the government prominently advising of its intention to manufacture new refugee fiascos if re-elected in the leadup to 2004. :wall:


They all are - so?

Says who? Kevin Bonham (now that he's had his way with the 'sorry'?) I note the use of 'almost' in your sentence. This issue would surely qualify as worthy.

Why this issue and not virtually any other contentious issue not requiring constitutional change of the last 30 years?

In the whole of Australia's history since federation, the number of times a measure other than constitutional change has been put to the Australian people for a nationwide vote stands at three. These were the conscription plebescites of 1916 and 1917 and the national song plebescite of 1977. (The latter was held at the same time as a constitutional referendum so created far less extra cost.)

Re the rest of your post, nothing to add that I haven't already said.

pax
15-02-2008, 07:41 PM
What have you got that's better?
Nothing, unless you go to a random poll. I'm just pointing out that such results cannot be taken to be representative.

pax
15-02-2008, 07:42 PM
It is indeed zero if if does not support your view.
It is of paramount importance if it does support your view
No, it is zero in both cases. This poll (currently) supports my view, but I do not believe it is representative of chess player, internet users or the general public.

Kevin Bonham
15-02-2008, 07:51 PM
But would they have supported the apology that KRudd sprung on them?

Would who have? The parties? We can see their reactions to it from the way that they vote on it in the parliament.


And it's doubtful that there are many racists in Australia, despite the Black Armband viewmongers.

Your use of the term "Black Armband" here is unusual. Its normal use is to refer to a particular view of Australia's past history. One can hold that view of Australia's past history while denying that there are many racists in Australia, and one can criticise that view of Australia's past history while agreeing that there are many racists in Australia.

Not being a historian I don't have a strong view either way on the debate about the "black armband" view of history. I do, however, believe that while racists are a minority in Australia, they are a substantial and concerning one.


I do, because some things really ARE morally simple, such as "it's wrong to gang rape a 10yo girl".

Conversely, I find it very easy to say that things won't change as long as people try to make excuses for unacceptable behaviour that no-one has forced on them.

But now you are referring to blaming the individual. The original context was as follows: I wrote -

Whether that is true or not, it is no excuse for Dr Nelson raising irrelevant and politically divisive issues at a sensitive moment in a way that came across as blaming Aboriginal communities for them.

then you replied

Even though the blame is entirely justified when it comes to fetal alcohol syndrome and child abuse?

then I wrote the bit that you quoted. The issue of whether individuals are to blame for their own actions is a different one to the issue of whether impoverished communities are to blame for the actions of individuals in them.

It's true I covered the issue of individual blame when I wrote

and to what extent individuals even in such circumstances should still be blamed for failing to lift themselves out of them.

... but that is not to say those individuals themselves are not to blame at all - it is to say that the division of blame between the individual and the factors producing their circumstances is a tricky one.


Tanya Milat didn't support her relatives,

And Darwin, while praising aspects of Galton's empirical views, nonetheless gave the thumbs down to advocative eugenics.

Sure, Darwin held the view that aboriginal peoples were likely to either become assimilated or else disappear (which is the seed of the original Ruddism). And on the evidence of his time there was a lot of reason to believe that was the case. What has changed is the willingness of occupying cultures to actively discriminate in favour of the previous inhabitants if that is what is necessary to give their culture a much better chance of survival. Ironically, it is that same willingness that you so strongly oppose. You want to say Darwin was wrong and offensive while at the same time opposing the social policies that have often helped render his predictions incorrect!


and her relatives didn't appeal to her theories to justify their crimes.

Irrelevant. If Ivan Milat issued a statement supporting the LDP's policies on gun control and saying that he would have killed even more people had he been able to get guns that easily, would you hold that against Tanya Milat?

Basil
15-02-2008, 08:21 PM
Concerning "children overboard", exactly what policy are you saying the government went to the people with on that matter?
Sarcasm. Illustrating the point that blanket mandates do not exist once a government is elected.


Re the rest of your post, nothing to add that I haven't already said.
Ditto.

pax
15-02-2008, 08:33 PM
It's plausible to argue that Howard had a mandate for Work Choices to get rid of Union Compulsion.
How do you figure that, when industrial relations reform was not a part of the coalition's re-election agenda?

Kevin Bonham
15-02-2008, 08:39 PM
Sarcasm. Illustrating the point that blanket mandates do not exist once a government is elected.

I didn't say a government has a mandate to do whatever it likes. The concept of the mandate relates to policies taken to an election that is duly won.

(FWIW I believe a government is entitled to attempt policy it has no mandate for, a la Work Choices. There are cases where a government needs to do so. But it is at very great risk of being thrown out over it if that policy is divisive and there was no reason other than the potential backlash that it could not have been taken to the people.)

Capablanca-Fan
16-02-2008, 02:13 AM
I do, however, believe that while racists are a minority in Australia, they are a substantial and concerning one.
They must be a very small minority indeed since we hardly hear any concrete evidence of them.


Sure, Darwin held the view that aboriginal peoples were likely to either become assimilated or else disappear (which is the seed of the original Ruddism). And on the evidence of his time there was a lot of reason to believe that was the case.
Only because of an evolutionary view that the white races were more evolved.


What has changed is the willingness of occupying cultures to actively discriminate in favour of the previous inhabitants if that is what is necessary to give their culture a much better chance of survival. Ironically, it is that same willingness that you so strongly oppose. You want to say Darwin was wrong and offensive while at the same time opposing the social policies that have often helped render his predictions incorrect!
When do you think affirmative action has ever helped anyone? The evidence from all around the world is that it's a massive failure, as has been covered on other threads (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=7273&page=5). It's also notable that US blacks made their greatest advances before the "civil rights" legislation.

Capablanca-Fan
16-02-2008, 10:45 AM
I didn't say a government has a mandate to do whatever it likes. The concept of the mandate relates to policies taken to an election that is duly won.
Mandate? Only three months ago, KRudd wasn’t sure at all that saying the “sorry” word was necessary. Rudd dodged four specific questions on that from 3AW’s Neil Mitchell, refusing again and again to answer if his apology would contain the word “sorry”. (http://www.mytalk.com.au/aspx/pages/mediaplayer.aspx?t=audio&w=4613) Laurie Oakes noted (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23221698-2,00.html) that he was indifferent 9 months ago to the whole thing. He did absolutely nothing for Aborigines when he was head QLD Bureaucrat (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/jensen_explains_why_he_wasnt_sorry/).

Ian Murray
16-02-2008, 02:47 PM
The 'protection' policies were not in fact aimed at rescuing children from harm, as modern-day revisionists would have us believe, but to permanently solve the 'Aboriginal problem'


What nonsense: so many of the most prominent "stolen children" really were rescued from harm, as I've already documented.
It is also well documented that Aboriginals were widely believed to be an inferior race up until mid-20th century. Their extinction by assimilation was state government policy, epitomised by those responsible for their 'protection':
"We have power under the act to take any child from its mother at any stage of its life... Are we going to have a population of one million blacks in the Commonwealth or are we going to merge them into our white community and eventually forget that there were ever any Aborigines in Australia?"

A O Neville, Chief Protector of Aborigines, WA
Native Welfare Conference, 1937

"Generally by the fifth and invariably by the sixth generation, all native characteristics of the Australian aborigine are eradicated. The problem of our half-castes will quickly be eliminated by the complete disappearance of the black race, and the swift submergence of their progeny in the white."

Dr. Cecil Cook, NT Chief Protector 1927-39
(quoted from http://hsc.csu.edu.au/ab_studies/heritage/heritage_and_identity/hipolicies.htm
repeated in numerous sources)

While it seems neglect was not mentioned when the 1937 conference endorsed the assimilation policy, it was the common legal grounds used for removing children from their parents. However the definition of neglect was very rubbery:

"...The (NSW Aborigine Welfare) Board received its first legislative powers over Aboriginal children under the Aborigines Protection Act 1909 (NSW). It was empowered to enforce apprenticeship schemes and to remove children without parental consent if they were found to be `neglected'.[6] For the Board the most useful aspect of the definition of `neglect' was that it included children having `no visible lawful means of support or . . . fixed place of abode'.[7] However, the Board wished to remove children who did not fall within the definition of `neglected' and a series of cases based on this ground failed. Magistrates reasoned that otherwise well-cared for children could not be `neglected' simply because they lived in tents.[8] The Board, complaining its powers were inadequate, successfully lobbied for an expansion and convinced both the public and Parliament that Aboriginal parenting was by definition negligent.[9] The 1915 amending legislation's social control policy had two purposes. First, physical separation between full-blooded and mixed-race Aborigines was to be maintained. Second, pubertal Aboriginal girls were to be removed from their communities in an attempt to reduce the birthrate of the Aboriginal population.[10] This was a policy of `attempted genocide', under which approximately 1600 children were removed in New South Wales alone.[11] This was a fourfold increase in the number of removals between 1909 and 1916...."
(Australasian Legal Information Institute (www.austlii.edu.au) report - full text at www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AboriginalLB/1995/8.html)


And when the leaders of this "Stolen Generation" lobby were clearly NOT stolen
There is no imperative that a spokesperson for a group must be a member of the group. I regularly represent junior chessplayers, although I was never a junior player

Kevin Bonham
16-02-2008, 03:33 PM
They must be a very small minority indeed since we hardly hear any concrete evidence of them.

You must have missed the Cronulla riots. :rolleyes:

(Among other things. I find racism in Australia is more evident in the response of voters to racially loaded politics than in direct expressions thereof.)


Only because of an evolutionary view that the white races were more evolved.

No; that "evolutionary" view developed from the fact that aboriginal peoples were having a hard time of it. For instance, by the time Darwin was writing, there were very few pureblood Tasmanian Aboriginals remaining.


When do you think affirmative action has ever helped anyone? The evidence from all around the world is that it's a massive failure, as has been covered on other threads (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=7273&page=5).

I found only a couple of posts on that thread dealing with the issue. #61 argues against affirmative action in the area of employment in India (and I agree with that one; people should be employed on merit for a particular task) and #15, which simply lists a number of stated disadvantages of AA prorgrammes, without stating whether they have advantages. Far from comprehensive evidence of "massive failure".


It's also notable that US blacks made their greatest advances before the "civil rights" legislation.

Which may show that they are still getting a raw deal now and explain why Obama is so popular despite supposedly being such a screaming lefty?

Capablanca-Fan
16-02-2008, 03:43 PM
It is also well documented that Aboriginals were widely believed to be an inferior race up until mid-20th century.
Thanx largely to the Darwinian ideas you have so much blind faith in.


"...The (NSW Aborigine Welfare) Board received its first legislative powers over Aboriginal children under the Aborigines Protection Act 1909 (NSW). It was empowered to enforce apprenticeship schemes and to remove children without parental consent if they were found to be `neglected'.[6] For the Board the most useful aspect of the definition of `neglect' was that it included children having `no visible lawful means of support or . . . fixed place of abode'.[7] However, the Board wished to remove children who did not fall within the definition of `neglected' and a series of cases based on this ground failed. Magistrates reasoned that otherwise well-cared for children could not be `neglected' simply because they lived in tents.[8] The Board, complaining its powers were inadequate, successfully lobbied for an expansion and convinced both the public and Parliament that Aboriginal parenting was by definition negligent.[9] The 1915 amending legislation's social control policy had two purposes. First, physical separation between full-blooded and mixed-race Aborigines was to be maintained. Second, pubertal Aboriginal girls were to be removed from their communities in an attempt to reduce the birthrate of the Aboriginal population.[10] This was a policy of `attempted genocide', under which approximately 1600 children were removed in New South Wales alone.[11] This was a fourfold increase in the number of removals between 1909 and 1916...."
(Australasian Legal Information Institute (www.austlii.edu.au) report - full text at www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AboriginalLB/1995/8.html)
Seems like modern PC lefty lawyers trying to read things back into the actual text of the laws. The same sort of lefties who fire doctors who report concerns about child sexual abuse, let a gang who raped a 10yo girl off without a jail sentence and now is allowing a pedophile teacher to try to find cultural support.


There is no imperative that a spokesperson for a group must be a member of the group.
How come so many of them were not stolen? How come so many trophy cases were not stolen? How come you can't even name just 10! as opposed to blindly swallowing the "bringing them home" hoax.

Kevin Bonham
16-02-2008, 03:49 PM
Mandate? Only three months ago, KRudd wasn’t sure at all that saying the “sorry” word was necessary. Rudd dodged four specific questions on that from 3AW’s Neil Mitchell, refusing again and again to answer if his apology would contain the word “sorry”. (http://www.mytalk.com.au/aspx/pages/mediaplayer.aspx?t=audio&w=4613) Laurie Oakes noted (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23221698-2,00.html) that he was indifferent 9 months ago to the whole thing. He did absolutely nothing for Aborigines when he was head QLD Bureaucrat (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/jensen_explains_why_he_wasnt_sorry/).

All irrelevant to the question of mandate - concerning which the government went to the election with a policy of apologising, and that is sufficient.

I don't even see any real difference between the use of "I am sorry" and the alternative "I apologise."

Capablanca-Fan
16-02-2008, 03:52 PM
You must have missed the Cronulla riots. :rolleyes:
And what percentage of Australia was involved?


(Among other things. I find racism in Australia is more evident in the response of voters to racially loaded politics than in direct expressions thereof.)
For example?


I found only a couple of posts on that thread dealing with the issue. #61 argues against affirmative action in the area of employment in India (and I agree with that one; people should be employed on merit for a particular task) and #15, which simply lists a number of stated disadvantages of AA prorgrammes, without stating whether they have advantages. Far from comprehensive evidence of "massive failure".
Well, where are the advantages or evidence that such racist policies have actually worked? I've cited plenty of proven cases where they increase strife.


Which may show that they are still getting a raw deal now
Actually they don't have a raw deal at all, when compared like for like. The poverty rate for white married couples and black married couples is roughly equally low, and roughly equally high for homes headed by single parents. The problem is that there is a lower rate of marriage among blacks now than in the generations closer to slavery. Racism is not to blame; welfare and victimitis incited by racist hustlers like Je$$e JAck$son and Al $harpton is.


and explain why Obama is so popular despite supposedly being such a screaming lefty?
Because his campaigning hardly ever mentions that it's just discredited leftism of Jimmy Carter and Teddy Kennedy promoted by a youngish white/black man instead of an old white man. He was rated #1 lefty in the Senate. But all we hear about him is airheaded demagogery about "unity" and "change".

Capablanca-Fan
16-02-2008, 04:00 PM
Gee, it must be nice to find things that morally simple. I don't. I find it very difficult to say to what extent you should blame an impoverished, culturally damaged and poorly educated community for its high rates of these things, and to what extent individuals even in such circumstances should still be blamed for failing to lift themselves out of them. Many of these things are vicious cycles with contributing factors that probably go back generations.
What you say might be supported to some extent by an article in today's Australian, Break the cycle of dysfunction (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23222116-5013172,00.html), by Dr Lara Wieland, "a north Queensland doctor who has spent years eight working with indigenous people in remote Cape York communities":


I can see now what I couldn’t understand before — why a person could feed their child hardly at all, sporadically send them to school, yell at them, criticise them, beat them and then still genuinely be heartbroken, despairing and confused when their child is removed from them. Some people, in their heart, really didn’t realise that what they were doing was so bad. In fact, you’ll often hear someone say, “But why did I lose my kid for that when I know many other families who are doing the same or worse?”

Dysfunction is so entrenched that large swaths of the population’s children could meet the definition for removal because of abuse and/or neglect. It is impossible to remove all the children who would meet the criteria for removal. Certainly, children who are at immediate risk or who are in an unsafe situation must be removed immediately, and away from the community…

If we don’t act urgently, it will be too late for this generation, who will be incapable of functioning in anything other than the surreal world of a dysfunctional community, if that can be called functioning. Children in the middle years — say, Year 4 onwards — need to be given a chance to have a good academic, social and family education… This could be achieved by offering homestays during the school term with loving, functional families — someone has suggested that there must be hundreds of good, functional indigenous families in towns who could take a child during school terms and make a difference.

Non-indigenous families could also contribute to this. Before people start expressing their horror, I cannot tell you how many times I have been begged by people from the communities to take their young children to live with us to give them a better life …

Kevin Bonham
16-02-2008, 04:12 PM
And what percentage of Australia was involved?

What percentage of Australia is no fair test; you hardly expect a racist from Tennant Creek (assuming there are racists there) to hot-foot it over to Cronulla just to go toe-to-toe with a few non-whites, or even a racist from the other side of Sydney to do so. There were, nonetheless, several thousand people involved, which of those with the means and the opportunity to be involved easily might be pushing one percent. And those who will come out and be violent publicly are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of those who might be prepared to support racist policies.

I reckon roughly one in 100 Australians is a genuine racist, and roughly one in ten has racist tendencies which are strong enough to potentially influence the individual's voting behaviour.


For example?

Primarily the high support level (until her party proved to be a totally unstable rabble) for Hanson. If you take away the race element from her politics there is no reason why she should have got more than a few percent anywhere.



Well, where are the advantages or evidence that such racist policies have actually worked?

Curious to have someone with a New Zealand background ask this - isn't it the case that the Maori in NZ have actually done reasonably well out of the benefits available to them (including their own parliamentary seats!)?


Actually they don't have a raw deal at all, when compared like for like. The poverty rate for white married couples and black married couples is roughly equally low, and roughly equally high for homes headed by single parents. The problem is that there is a lower rate of marriage among blacks now than in the generations closer to slavery. Racism is not to blame; welfare and victimitis incited by racist hustlers like Je$$e JAck$son and Al $harpton is.

Since you tend to use the phrase ipse dixit a lot, what's your evidence for the above?


Because his campaigning hardly ever mentions that it's just discredited leftism of Jimmy Carter and Teddy Kennedy promoted by a youngish white/black man instead of an old white man. He was rated #1 lefty in the Senate. But all we hear about him is airheaded demagogery about "unity" and "change".

The #1 lefty in the Senate business has been shown not to be the whole story on the Next President thread.

If it's just discredited leftism, then why does saying so in the media appear to have hardly any traction with at least the Democrat-voting public? And why is Obama looking competitive as a Presidential candidate? eg if Kucinich was the Democrats' candidate for President he would not get 35%.

Capablanca-Fan
16-02-2008, 04:36 PM
I reckon roughly one in 100 Australians is a genuine racist, and roughly one in ten has racist tendencies which are strong enough to potentially influence the individual's voting behaviour.
Not all of these racists are white by any means.


Primarily the high support level (until her party proved to be a totally unstable rabble) for Hanson.
What was racist about advocating the same laws and privileges for every Australian, regardless of race? It's very convenient for the Anointed to dismiss the Benighted as "racists" for daring to question the PC policies our betters impose upon us. Misguided protectionist, certainly; xenophobic, possibly; but racist, most unlikely.


Curious to have someone with a New Zealand background ask this — isn't it the case that the Maori in NZ have actually done reasonably well out of the benefits available to them (including their own parliamentary seats!)?
No it's not. There are Maoris like Alan Duff who argue that playing the victim has hurt his people. And for years, the Labour Party took the Maoris for granted since the four Maori seats were among the safest, like today's American Blacks voting for the Dems.


Since you tend to use the phrase ipse dixit a lot,
Gives unimaginative atheopaths like RW a new phrase to play with. :P :lol:


what's your evidence for the above?
For example, Dr Walter Williams, an economist at George Mason Uni, and himself black, wrote in How Not To Be Poor (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4223):


In 1999, the Bureau of the Census reported that 33.1 percent of black children lived in poverty compared with 13.5 percent of white children. It turns out that race per se has little to do with the difference. Instead, it's welfare and single parenthood. When black children are compared to white children living in identical circumstances, mainly in a two-parent household, both children will have the same probability of being poor.

And in Ammunition for poverty pimps (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams102705.asp), Dr Williams says:


Though I grow weary of pointing it out, let's do it again. Let's examine some numbers readily available from the Census Bureau's 2004 Current Population Survey and ask some questions. There's one segment of the black population that suffers only a 9.9 percent poverty rate, and only 13.7 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor.

There's another segment that suffers a 39.5 percent poverty rate, and 58.1 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. Among whites, one segment suffers a 6 percent poverty rate, and only 9.9 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. The other segment suffers a 26.4 percent poverty rate, and 52 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. What do you think distinguishes the high and low poverty populations among blacks?

Would you buy an explanation that it's because white people practice discrimination against one segment of the black population and not the other or one segment had a history of slavery and not the other? You'd have to be a lunatic to buy such an explanation. The only distinction between both the black and white populations is marriage — lower poverty in married-couple families.

In 1960 , only 28 percent of black females ages 15 to 44 were never married and illegitimacy among blacks was 22 percent. Today, the never-married rate is 56 percent and illegitimacy stands at 70 percent. If today's black family structure were what it was in 1960, the overall black poverty rate would be in or near single digits. The weakening of the black family structure, and its devastating consequences, have nothing to do with the history of slavery or racial discrimination.

Another black economist, Dr Thomas Sowell, with whom you're already familiar, documented it in his book Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?, e.g. that uni-educated black women were out-earning uni-educated white women by 1960, four years before the Civil Rights Act. And he writes in American History vs. Affirmative Action Hogwash (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=1713):


From time to time someone tells me that I would not have been able to do this or that without affirmative action. But everything that I have done was done by other blacks before me — and therefore long before the civil rights revolution of the 1960s or affirmative action.

My academic career began before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but I was by no means the first black professor at a white institution or even the first black economist in the Ivy League. Nobel Prize-winning black economist W. Arthur Lewis taught at Princeton before I taught at Cornell. The first black faculty member at a major university was Allison Davis at the University of Chicago in 1940.

There was no affirmative action when I was admitted as a student at Harvard College in 1955 but, even if there had been and even if I had been admitted because of it, what about all the blacks who went to Harvard before me? The first black man graduated from Harvard in 1870 — about a century before affirmative action.

It is not just a handful of individuals who advanced without the supposedly indispensable black "leaders." Most of the reduction in the number of black families in poverty occurred in the 1940s and 1950s — before any major civil rights legislation. Black males doubled their years of schooling during that time. When you double your education, your income tends to go up — with or without Jesse Jackson or other black "leaders."

People who look for sinister or melodramatic explanations for the belated emergence of blacks in sizable numbers in a variety of high-level positions often ignore the crucial question of the number of blacks qualified for such positions. As of 1940, the average black adult had not completed an elementary school education.

As the number of blacks with higher qualifications increased, their numbers in occupations requiring those qualifications also increased. Indeed, the numbers increased at a faster rate during the 5 years preceding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than in the 5 years afterward. But no one wants to talk about this because it would undermine the myth that the government and black "leaders" are responsible for the advancement of the black population.

One of the consequences of that myth is that, while most blacks lifted themselves out of poverty, the public image is that government programs were responsible. This has left many whites wondering why blacks can't advance themselves by their own efforts, like other minorities — and left many blacks likewise convinced that without government programs they would be lost.

Such myths help race hustlers but hurt the race that they claim to be leading.


[i]If it's just discredited leftism, then why does saying so in the media appear to have hardly any traction with at least the Democrat-voting public?
The Leftmedia know that extreme leftism is a turnoff to most Americans. Klinton pretended to be a moderate too.


And why is Obama looking competitive as a Presidential candidate?
As I've said, all his rhetoric about change and unity. His policies are nothing new though.

Rincewind
16-02-2008, 04:39 PM
Gives unimaginative atheopaths like RW a new phrase to play with.

Ironic coming from the guy with no formal training in logic. :lol:

Kevin Bonham
16-02-2008, 05:29 PM
Not all of these racists are white by any means.

Agreed.


What was racist about advocating the same laws and privileges for every Australian, regardless of race? It's very convenient for the Anointed to dismiss the Benighted as "racists" for daring to question the PC policies our betters impose upon us. Misguided protectionist, certainly; xenophobic, possibly; but racist, most unlikely.

Xenophobia appeals to racists. And I think some of Hanson's comments about migrants living here were most likely flat-out racist.


And for years, the Labour Party took the Maoris for granted since the four Maori seats were among the safest, like today's American Blacks voting for the Dems.

And today's Australian Aborigines voting ALP? There's got to be some reason for this pattern.

What I meant with my comment about the Maori is that while they remain extremely disadvantaged on many indicators, they seem to be in a less bad position than Australia's equivalents.

I've got no problem with Sowell arguing that you don't really need affirmative action in campus employment (for instance) and that having it there only gives you problems. But I do think that directing government resources towards improving the lot of poor communities is worth doing - of course this needs to be tied to outcomes and not just people feeling good about having thrown money away.

As for Dr Williams's stats, while they show a strong link between poverty (as measured) and living alone, they also show that married blacks are almost twice as likely to be poor as married whites, and ditto for single blacks.

Capablanca-Fan
16-02-2008, 06:26 PM
And today's Australian Aborigines voting ALP? There's got to be some reason for this pattern.
The majority of Aborigines, Maoris and African Americans indeed believe that the left parties are more likely to help them. And leftists are more likely to claim that these groups are victims and can't advance without government help.


What I meant with my comment about the Maori is that while they remain extremely disadvantaged on many indicators, they seem to be in a less bad position than Australia's equivalents.
Agreed, but I doubt that it's the Maori seats.


I've got no problem with Sowell arguing that you don't really need affirmative action in campus employment (for instance) and that having it there only gives you problems. But I do think that directing government resources towards improving the lot of poor communities is worth doing - of course this needs to be tied to outcomes and not just people feeling good about having thrown money away.
I think any assistance should be tied to need. But affirmative action usually helps those in the favoured groups who are already well off, and harms the poorest in the disfavoured groups.


As for Dr Williams's stats, while they show a strong link between poverty (as measured) and living alone, they also show that married blacks are almost twice as likely to be poor as married whites, and ditto for single blacks.
But the gap was much less than between married and single. Also, stats show that Asian Americans are wealthier than White Americans, and that can't be put down to discrimination.

Kevin Bonham
16-02-2008, 06:49 PM
The majority of Aborigines, Maoris and African Americans indeed believe that the left parties are more likely to help them.

I'm sure the rhetoric from the right-wing parties on issues relating to them does absolutely nothing to strengthen this perception. :lol:


Agreed, but I doubt that it's the Maori seats.

That was just one example. What would you put it down to? Unusually fierce resistance towards the colonising forces?


I think any assistance should be tied to need.

Sure, but some of the items pilloried in that rather callous piece of internet flotsam you copied-and-pasted without attribution in #6 do address the issue of "need" as most people would consider it. Homes to live in, health care and basic education would not be considered luxuries by most people.


But the gap was much less than between married and single. Also, stats show that Asian Americans are wealthier than White Americans, and that can't be put down to discrimination.

Perhaps it can be put down to those Asians most likely to be successful being the most likely to migrate to America?

Capablanca-Fan
16-02-2008, 07:29 PM
I'm sure the rhetoric from the right-wing parties on issues relating to them does absolutely nothing to strengthen this perception. :lol:
Probably true: the right tends to believe that individual responsibility will do more to help them out of poverty than government. And the evidence from before the Civil Rights laws would support that.


That was just one example. What would you put it down to? Unusually fierce resistance towards the colonising forces?
Not sure. Perhaps because Maori leaders decades ago insisted that their kids learn English.


Sure, but some of the items pilloried in that rather callous piece of internet flotsam you copied-and-pasted without attribution in #6 do address the issue of "need" as most people would consider it.
Nothing "callous" about puncturing the PC black armband rhetoric.


Homes to live in, health care and basic education would not be considered luxuries by most people.
Sure, but it doesn't mean that they have a right to demand them without working for them.


Perhaps it can be put down to those Asians most likely to be successful being the most likely to migrate to America?
The point is, the exact same analysis that purports to demonstrate discriminate against Blacks in respect to Whites would also "prove" discrimination against Whites in favour of Asians.

Some of the Asians migrated as refugees with not even the shirts on their backs.

Kevin Bonham
16-02-2008, 08:14 PM
Probably true: the right tends to believe that individual responsibility will do more to help them out of poverty than government.

But not consistently. Many aspects of the Howard intervention were illiberal, as I have noted before.


Nothing "callous" about puncturing the PC black armband rhetoric.

The callousness lies in the telling of only one side of the story and also in the sarcastic nature of the tone. It certainly reads to me as making negative generalisations about the entire race.


Sure, but it doesn't mean that they have a right to demand them without working for them.

Well do you support assistance on the basis of "need" or don't you? How do you define a person as needing the assistance of the State?


The point is, the exact same analysis that purports to demonstrate discriminate against Blacks in respect to Whites would also "prove" discrimination against Whites in favour of Asians.

But poor outcomes for African-Americans today don't necessarily demonstrate existing racism. Rather they may be a legacy of past discrimination, in which case there can still be a case for doing something about it.


Some of the Asians migrated as refugees with not even the shirts on their backs.

Some of them doubtless did, just as some people white and black alike go from rags to riches and others from riches to rags. None of this helps much in establishing the causes of general patterns.

Capablanca-Fan
16-02-2008, 08:34 PM
But not consistently. Many aspects of the Howard intervention were illiberal, as I have noted before.
How so? But most of his ideas emphasized individual responsibility, and stepped in when parents were not exercising it.


The callousness lies in the telling of only one side of the story and also in the sarcastic nature of the tone. It certainly reads to me as making negative generalisations about the entire race.
More like balancing the steady diet of "Stolen Generations" and the Black Armband that permeates the Labor Governments, the Leftmedia and Educracy. The suffocating PC contributed greatly to the rise of Hansonism as well.


Well do you support assistance on the basis of "need" or don't you? How do you define a person as needing the assistance of the State?
On how much they have and how much they earn, not on race, and the 30/30 taxation system would help.


But poor outcomes for African-Americans today don't necessarily demonstrate existing racism. Rather they may be a legacy of past discrimination, in which case there can still be a case for doing something about it.
The stats don't demonstrate this. Indeed, they demonstrate the opposite, since there were far more intact families closer to the time of slavery and in the era of the Jim Crow Laws when there was far more racism than now.


Some of them doubtless did, just as some people white and black alike go from rags to riches and others from riches to rags. None of this helps much in establishing the causes of general patterns.
Dr Williams shows that there is a general pattern that homes headed by married couples do better than single parent families.

Kevin Bonham
16-02-2008, 09:10 PM
How so?

There were restrictions on alcohol and pornography that exceeded those applying to the nation generally, and furthermore, while you have previously argued that quarantining welfare money isn't illiberal, the quarantining was also applied to partners of welfare recipients.


More like balancing the steady diet of "Stolen Generations" and the Black Armband that permeates the Labor Governments, the Leftmedia and Educracy. The suffocating PC contributed greatly to the rise of Hansonism as well.

Even if that piece was going the same distance from the truth in the opposite direction, it is not "balance" to counter something overly favourable to the interests of a group with something overly detrimental, especially not if that group is already disadvantaged.


The stats don't demonstrate this. Indeed, they demonstrate the opposite, since there were far more intact families closer to the time of slavery and in the era of the Jim Crow Laws when there was far more racism than now.

And that was the case for white families too, so by itself it doesn't prove anything.

If a section of the population is already disadvantaged then it is likely to be more so by any further disadvantaging factors that might emerge.


Dr Williams shows that there is a general pattern that homes headed by married couples do better than single parent families.

That's hardly rocket science in terms of the economic advantages of people living together, and I suspect the same would apply for homes headed by other forms of partnership, of equal standing, that were not marriages.

Though I am a little bit surprised by the strength of the connection - enough to wonder how "poverty" is defined between the two groups (coupled vs single).

Ian Murray
16-02-2008, 09:52 PM
(Australasian Legal Information Institute) Seems like modern PC lefty lawyers trying to read things back into the actual text of the laws
Hardly a bunch of lefty lawyers. "AustLII provides free internet access to Australasian legal materials and is one of the largest sources of legal materials on the net, with over 20 gigabytes of raw text materials and over 4 million searchable documents. AustLII publishes public legal information: that is, primary legal materials (legislation, treaties and decisions of courts and tribunals); and secondary legal materials created by public bodies for purposes of public access (law reform and royal commission reports etc). AustLII's policy agenda is to convince parliaments, governments, courts, law reform bodies and other public institutions to make legal materials they control available free via the Internet.

The AustLII collection contains full-text databases of most Australian decisions and legislation. Current databases include Commonwealth, ACT, Northern Teritory, Victorian, Tasmanian, Western Australian, NSW and South Australian legislation and regulations, most federal courts (High Court, Federal Court, Family Court, AAT etc) and most state courts and tribunals. AustLII also includes a number of more specialised (subject specific) databases, an extensive law reform collection, a growing law journal collection as well as the most comprehensive index to Australian law on the Net.

AustLII is used by over 80,000 people who access over 600,000 pages per day (as at February 2007). Our usage statistics indicate that AustLII's users span the whole community, including educational institutions (about 30%), the legal profession and business (25%), community organisations (15%), government (10%), and 20% from overseas.

AustLII is operated jointly by the Faculties of Law at the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS) and the University of New South Wales (UNSW) and funded by 21 universities and academic institutions, 11 Government agencies, 24 Courts and Tribunals, 19 organisations from business and industry, 142 organisations and individuals from the legal profession, two Law Students' Associations, two community and non-profit organisations, and many other small contributors" - see list at www.austlii.edu.au/austlii/sponsors.

Plenty of conservative bodies among them, but radical organisations are conspicuously absent.


How come so many of them were not stolen? How come so many trophy cases were not stolen? How come you can't even name just 10! as opposed to blindly swallowing the "bringing them home" hoax.
I gave you 18 names at Post 47

pax
16-02-2008, 10:19 PM
Dr Williams shows that there is a general pattern that homes headed by married couples do better than single parent families.
Hold the front page!

pax
16-02-2008, 10:23 PM
That's hardly rocket science in terms of the economic advantages of people living together, and I suspect the same would apply for homes headed by other forms of partnership, of equal standing, that were not marriages.

Come to think of it, gay couples are probably very high on the socioeconomic scale. I wonder if Jono would like to ponder the consequences of that?

Capablanca-Fan
16-02-2008, 11:13 PM
Hold the front page!
As well you should. The greater poverty among blacks is almost completely down to the lower rate of marriage, not racism.

Capablanca-Fan
16-02-2008, 11:19 PM
Hardly a bunch of lefty lawyers.
If it looks like a lefty, talks like a lefty, then it probably is a lefty. Even the quoted material points out its connection with universities, and Howard voters on uni faculties are rarer than blacks at a KKK convention.


Plenty of conservative bodies among them, but radical organisations are conspicuously absent.
Name one.


I gave you 18 names at Post 47
None would stand up in court, as has been proven. And they are conspicuous by their absense among the Stolen Generation spokesmen who were NOT stolen.

Kevin Bonham
17-02-2008, 12:50 PM
Ironic coming from the guy with no formal training in logic. :lol:

After allowing Jono's original swing and this reply from RW, all remaining banter about Jono's training in logic has taken a walk over here (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=6418&page=5).

pax
17-02-2008, 12:58 PM
As well you should. The greater poverty among blacks is almost completely down to the lower rate of marriage, not racism.
Rubbish. Kevin has already pointed out that blacks are generally worse off even when you compare marital status separately.

Capablanca-Fan
17-02-2008, 01:29 PM
Rubbish. Kevin has already pointed out that blacks are generally worse off even when you compare marital status separately.
The difference is very small, and comparable to the lead that Asians have over whites, as I've pointed out. By far the biggest difference is with married v single-parent.

I've also pointed out that blacks made greater advances before affirmative action programs, when they were closer to the time of slavery and there were still disgusting Jim Crow laws. Sowell is old enough to remember real racism, such as separate loos for blacks.

ER
17-02-2008, 01:29 PM
After allowing Jono's original swing and this reply from RW, all remaining banter about Jono's training in logic has taken a walk over here (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=6418&page=5).

logical!!! :clap:
Cheers and good luck!

Kevin Bonham
17-02-2008, 01:31 PM
The difference is very small,

The poverty rate is almost doubled in each category (single v married) according to the stats you posted.

Capablanca-Fan
17-02-2008, 02:02 PM
The poverty rate is almost doubled in each category (single v married) according to the stats you posted.

What do you mean?

Percentages of people under the poverty line:

White: married 6, U-5 9.9; singles 26.4, U-5 52
Black: married 9.9, U-5 13.7; singles 39.5 U-5 58.1

Kevin Bonham
17-02-2008, 02:21 PM
What do you mean?

Percentages of people under the poverty line:

White: married 6, U-5 9.9; singles 26.4, U-5 52
Black: married 9.9, U-5 13.7; singles 39.5 U-5 58.1

Actually "almost doubled" was a touch exaggerated through being too lazy to crunch one set of numbers, but of the adult rates 9.9 is 65% larger than 6 and 39.5 is 49.6% larger than 26.4. Those aren't trivial differences.

The child poverty rates are a bit of a mystery to me because of their difference to the adult ones; is this suggesting a poor-people-breed-like-rabbits thing?

Capablanca-Fan
17-02-2008, 03:14 PM
Actually "almost doubled" was a touch exaggerated through being too lazy to crunch one set of numbers, but of the adult rates 9.9 is 65% larger than 6 and 39.5 is 49.6% larger than 26.4. Those aren't trivial differences.
But far less so than between married and single, and not too different from white v Asian.


The child poverty rates are a bit of a mystery to me because of their difference to the adult ones; is this suggesting a poor-people-breed-like-rabbits thing?
I couldn't tell you.

Kevin Bonham
17-02-2008, 04:05 PM
But far less so than between married and single, and not too different from white v Asian.

Both these aspects have already been explored and do nothing to refute the idea that past discrimination is a significant factor in an increased likelihood of disadvantage for certain groups.

Re the child poverty thing, it is very interesting to me that the ratio of poor children to poor adults is higher for single whites (1.97) than single blacks (1.47) and also higher for married whites (1.65) than married blacks (1.38).

Capablanca-Fan
17-02-2008, 06:42 PM
Both these aspects have already been explored and do nothing to refute the idea that past discrimination is a significant factor in an increased likelihood of disadvantage for certain groups.
Then why not prove it? Mere stats won't be enough if exactly the same analysis would prove discrimination against whites in favour of Asians.

And it makes sense to look at the factors that are proven to be far more relevant than race, as the married v single stats show.


Re the child poverty thing, it is very interesting to me that the ratio of poor children to poor adults is higher for single whites (1.97) than single blacks (1.47) and also higher for married whites (1.65) than married blacks (1.38).
What do you think is the cause then?

pax
18-02-2008, 12:05 AM
And it makes sense to look at the factors that are proven to be far more relevant than race, as the married v single stats show.
Perhaps you'd like to inform us of what you would do about this proven factor of single vs married? Abolish divorce?

Capablanca-Fan
18-02-2008, 12:52 AM
Perhaps you'd like to inform us of what you would do about this proven factor of single vs married? Abolish divorce?
What would you do? Ignore this and still spruik on about blaming racism?

How about a welfare system that rewards single motherhood, or a rapping culture that encourages young black men to impregnate lots of women? It's notable that black families had a higher rate of marriage before civil rights legislation, in the Jim Crow era and even shortly after slavery was abolished than now. How about dethroning race-baiters like Je$$e Jack$on and Al $harpton feeding the victimitis instead of encouraging personal responsibility as per Bill Cosby, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas.

Kevin Bonham
18-02-2008, 01:11 AM
Then why not prove it?

Proving virtually anything involving cause and effect in social sciences is exceedingly difficult.


Mere stats won't be enough if exactly the same analysis would prove discrimination against whites in favour of Asians.

Mere stats do not prove anything, but they are consistent with the hypothesis that I advanced - a hypothesis which would not apply to Asians because they did not generally have the same history of past subjugation and discrimination.


And it makes sense to look at the factors that are proven to be far more relevant than race, as the married v single stats show.

Look at them all you like but they don't change the fact that even with them controlled for, there is a big racial difference in poverty levels.

Much of what the married/single difference shows is that if you have children but only one parent brings them up, then both child and parent are likely to be financially poor. Hardly a revelation there.

Apparently there is something in it even without children in the picture, but that probably just reflects financial advantages of living together (or could even reflect that those more inclined to work high-income jobs were more inclined to want to get married.)


What do you think is the cause then?

Of those ratios I mentioned? No idea.

Basil
18-02-2008, 04:48 AM
... or a rapping culture that encourages young black men to impregnate lots of women?
I find this interesting. I think you're wide of the mark here, Jono. If rapping culture promotes this life style, then no more so than rock 'n roll culture. Basically it's about the music and banal messages (and gullible recipients); not about race. I could demonstrate this in a trice.

Capablanca-Fan
18-02-2008, 09:41 AM
I find this interesting. I think you're wide of the mark here, Jono. If rapping culture promotes this life style, then no more so than rock 'n roll culture. Basically it's about the music and banal messages (and gullible recipients); not about race. I could demonstrate this in a trice.
Gunner, I was talking about some of the blatant misogyny in some of the rap lyrics such as "bitch", "ho" (http://hmblog.wordpress.com/2007/04/24/russell-simmons-get-rid-of-bitch-ho-nigger-in-rap-music/) and various things that should be done to them (http://www.seeingblack.com/2005/x042905/spittin_acid.shtml).

The problem remains that the main class of poor people is not blacks but single-parent families. And blacks have a higher rate of these than whites, and this rate is higher now than when there were racist Jim Crow laws. Maybe it's not rap then, but it is something.

pax
18-02-2008, 10:41 AM
What would you do? Ignore this and still spruik on about blaming racism?

How about a welfare system that rewards single motherhood, or a rapping culture that encourages young black men to impregnate lots of women? It's notable that black families had a higher rate of marriage before civil rights legislation, in the Jim Crow era and even shortly after slavery was abolished than now. How about dethroning race-baiters like Je$$e Jack$on and Al $harpton feeding the victimitis instead of encouraging personal responsibility as per Bill Cosby, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas.

So what would you do. As in government policy?

Capablanca-Fan
18-02-2008, 11:28 AM
Proving virtually anything involving cause and effect in social sciences is exceedingly difficult.
Doesn't stop those who want to assert that racism is the major cause of problems in the black community.


Mere stats do not prove anything, but they are consistent with the hypothesis that I advanced — a hypothesis which would not apply to Asians because they did not generally have the same history of past subjugation and discrimination.
Many Asians and Jews suffered worse than American Blacks, not all of whom are descendants of slaves. And if the hypothesis makes little sense when black families were more intact when there was legalized racism and they were closer in time to slavery. Proponents of black victimitis either ignore or explain away these anomalies .


Look at them all you like but they don't change the fact that even with them controlled for, there is a big racial difference in poverty levels.
But when race is controlled for, there is a much bigger difference between married and single.


Much of what the married/single difference shows is that if you have children but only one parent brings them up, then both child and parent are likely to be financially poor. Hardly a revelation there.
Yet the rate of single parenthood is much higher in the black communities, so that is a problem to be addressed, not excused by blaming it on racism.

Capablanca-Fan
18-02-2008, 11:28 AM
So what would you do. As in government policy?
Stop feeding the victim mentality, and stop rewarding harmful behaviour.

TheJoker
18-02-2008, 11:57 AM
And it makes sense to look at the factors that are proven to be far more relevant than race, as the married v single stats show.

No point in looking at that since it is a no-brainer, there is much less financial pressure on a dual income household than a single income household. Unless you want to force singles into cooperative living arrangements (a bit too much like communism too me) then there is nothing that can be done about this.

If you don't want to target Aboriginal poverty in policy then, you could always target the particular communities with highest rates of poverty, either way you will be focusing on the same group of people, and it might appeal to politically correct folk like Jono who find it racist to specifically target any policy on a particular race.

Capablanca-Fan
18-02-2008, 12:07 PM
No point in looking at that since it is a no-brainer, there is much less financial pressure on a dual income household than a single income household. Unless you want to force singles into cooperative living arrangements (a bit too much like communism too me) then there is nothing that can be done about this.
Stop encouraging or even rewarding the behaviour that leads to single parenting.


If you don't want to target Aboriginal poverty in policy then, you could always target the particular communities with highest rates of poverty,
I've tried, with the 30/30 reform that would reward the poorest community, the unemployed, for seeking work, instead of the current system that gouges 60–90% of any money earned.


either way you will be focusing on the same group of people, and it might appeal to politically correct folk like Jono who find it racist to specifically target any policy on a particular race.
Oh yeah, I find it racist to discriminate on basis of race. That used to be the definition.

TheJoker
18-02-2008, 12:33 PM
Stop encouraging or even rewarding the behaviour that leads to single parenting.

Could you be more specific. What encouragments and rewards?


Oh yeah, I find it racist to discriminate on basis of race. That used to be the definition.

Yes but apart from the politcally correct folk like you, most of don't care if a policy is technically racist as long as delivers the outcomes we are seeking. That is a reduction of poverty in the areas it is most needed (aboriginal communities).

Capablanca-Fan
18-02-2008, 12:41 PM
Could you be more specific. What encouragments and rewards?
Encouragement: culture that encourages young black men to impregnate lots of women and absolves them of responsibility. Rewards: single parent payments to unmarried mothers.


Yes but apart from the politcally correct folk like you, most of don't care if a policy is technically racist as long as delivers the outcomes we are seeking.
I would rather a policy targeted on basis of need not race. As we have already discussed, race based "affirmative action" tends to help the better off in the worse-off group at the expense of the worst off in the better-off group. So the unjust process doesn't even produce the just outcomes it is ostensibly supposed to deliver.


That is a reduction of poverty in the areas it is most needed (aboriginal communities).
A targeted relief for the unemployed, in the form of rewarding them when they help themselves, would automatically help the aboriginals in that group.

pax
18-02-2008, 12:52 PM
Stop feeding the victim mentality, and stop rewarding harmful behaviour.
Specifically?

TheJoker
18-02-2008, 12:59 PM
Encouragement: culture that encourages young black men to impregnate lots of women and absolves them of responsibility.

You are stating that aboriginal culture encourages this practice what is your source, since I am sure your knowledge of aboriginal culture wouldn't qualify you to make such a statement.



Rewards: single parent payments to unmarried mothers.

So by taking away those payments you are going to reduce poverty? Won't it increase poverty by denying welfare to those most in need, as opposed to married parents who are less in need as their partner can work.

I doubt a significant number of women go about getting pregnant in order to collect the single parents benefits. I mean we all agree that a single mother on welfare is at a significant risk of falling below the poverty line. WHy would someone willing put themselves in this position.




I would rather a policy targeted on basis of need not race.

Yes but when they are one and the same (i.e. Aboriginal people are the most in need) then it is just a case of being politically correct objecting to use of Aboriginal in the policy.



A targeted relief for the unemployed, in the form of rewarding them when they help themselves, would automatically help the aboriginals in that group.

Most certainly. I don't think anyone is going to argue with you on that point.

Capablanca-Fan
18-02-2008, 01:40 PM
You are stating that aboriginal culture encourages this practice what is your source, since I am sure your knowledge of aboriginal culture wouldn't qualify you to make such a statement.
I was talking about American blacks in that one. But there is certainly a highly disfunctional element in Aboriginal culture that's even worse, since there is rampant child abuse.


So by taking away those payments you are going to reduce poverty?
How about an incentive to avoid this behaviour in the first place? Also, there are many childless families who would be happy to adopt and give the child a far better chance of a good life, and at no taxpayer expense.

Walter Williams once flabbergasted Ted Koppel when a woman on welfare said that she didn't have enough money to take care of all her children and Dr Williams replied: "Did you ever consider that you might have had too many children for the money?" He is very generous with his own money and time, but doesn't want governments to take his money and absorb into bureaucratic monstrosities that do more harm than good.

Also, it's worth returning to Frédérick Bastiat’s 19th century work The Law. His sensible theory on the limits of government is as follows: How can you determine whether there’s been legalized plunder? See if government does something that, if a person did the same thing privately, he would go to jail.

Say you see a woman with three children by different fathers struggling. Then filled with 'compassion', and you put a gun to my head and demanded, say, $300 dollars from my last paycheck, that would have gone to needed improvements on the home of me and my wife, and paid her food bills. That would be a criminal offense. But the government effectively puts a gun to my head and demands the same amount of money from me to subsidise her irresponsible behaviour, and that's supposedly OK.


Won't it increase poverty by denying welfare to those most in need, as opposed to married parents who are less in need as their partner can work.
Rather, we should encourage people to do things that make them less needy. The 30/30 reform would not discriminate.


I doubt a significant number of women go about getting pregnant in order to collect the single parents benefits.
There are enough girls who do exactly that. My father is a psychiatrist who sometimes worked in the prison system and he encountered many girls with that attitude. And many of those who are not doing it consciously are still less responsible because they know that the government will support them if they do become pregnant. This irresponsibility also affects male behaviour.


I mean we all agree that a single mother on welfare is at a significant risk of falling below the poverty line. WHy would someone willing put themselves in this position.
Lots of people do things for short term gains but result in long-term harm.


Most certainly. I don't think anyone is going to argue with you on that point.
Yet you and Pax would prefer to keep the current tax/welfare system with its 60–90% marginal tax rates on work by unemployed.

TheJoker
18-02-2008, 01:53 PM
Yet you and Pax would prefer to keep the current tax/welfare system with its 60–90% marginal tax rates on work by unemployed.

Actually what I said was that the 30/30 plan needed an independant economic feasability study, to see if the numbers stack up. Because my initial scan of the specific numbers gave me cause for concern.

That is not to say that I don't support the "negative taxation" idea a replacement current system. I did object specifically to the abolishment of public healthcare and education. IIRC the 30/30 plan required the abolishment of both of these to be replaced with some sort of voucher system. Anyway we already have a thread for the 30/30 plan so no need to discuss it further here. All those interested should see the "Free Markets" thread.

Kevin Bonham
21-02-2008, 12:03 AM
Newspoll result on Rudd's apology taken early this week: 69% in favour (44% strongly, 25% somewhat), 26% opposed, 5% uncommitted.

However, only 30% support financial compensation, 64% oppose, 6% uncommitted.


Doesn't stop those who want to assert that racism is the major cause of problems in the black community. [my bold - KB]

Has anyone asserted that here?


Many Asians and Jews suffered worse than American Blacks,

Of those currently living in the US and of working age, in what way?

And are the superior outcomes for Asians that you mention age-adjusted?


And if the hypothesis makes little sense when black families were more intact when there was legalized racism and they were closer in time to slavery. Proponents of black victimitis either ignore or explain away these anomalies .

It doesn't necessarily follow that a vulnerable subpopulation becomes less vulnerable solely on account of removal of a factor causing that vulnerability. Indeed, by virtue of being in a weak position in the first place, it may be at more risk of going backwards when some new cause of poverty comes along.


Yet the rate of single parenthood is much higher in the black communities, so that is a problem to be addressed, not excused by blaming it on racism.

We don't know for sure that past "racism" (or at least, subjugation) plays no causal part in that situation. I would be interested to see detailed discussion of the nexus between single parenthood and poverty - obviously, single parenthood leads to a greater chance of poverty but also, poor people are more likely to become single parents; why?

You head for the typical Rightmedia (:lol: ) explanations of the situation (welfare dependency and culture of promiscuity) but if welfare dependency is such a big issue then why is there a much higher ratio of poor white children to poor white adults than there is for blacks (as I mentioned above)? It looks like if anyone is abusing the system to breed to excess in a single-parent family situation it's the proverbial "white trash" much more than poor blacks. I suspect that the situation actually has a great many causes, and that determining whether the roots of past injustices are still present in the current situation (or not) is not easy.

Basil
21-02-2008, 02:24 AM
Newspoll result on Rudd's apology taken early this week: 69% in favour (44% strongly, 25% somewhat), 26% opposed, 5% uncommitted.
Somewhat agree? That to me suggests "in principal" or "on balance" or concepts of that ilk. I'd probably fall "somewhat" into that category if I were being pestered to drop into a pigeon hole.

I also strongly agree that the nation should agree on what is being written in stone/ honoured in our parliament / tied around our national and collective necks.

I note that a minority appear to wholeheartedly "strongly" support the events of this week. I accept that all this is subjective and tea-leaf reading.

Hey! How about a referendum?

Garvinator
21-02-2008, 02:43 AM
Hey! How about a referendum?
and what would we be voting on so it can fail like almost all other referendums in Australia's history ;)

Garvinator
21-02-2008, 02:45 AM
I suspect that the situation actually has a great many causes
I think the number one cause by a long way is lack of decent, quality, 'unbiased' education.

Basil
21-02-2008, 03:02 AM
and what would we be voting on so it can fail like almost all other referendums in Australia's history ;)
Something along the lines of:

PART A
Are you in favour of | verbally acknowledging | a statement of | stolen generation | wrongs of past | yada yada | whatever?

PART B
Do you support
-- This text {profound sincere regret} or
-- This text {sorry} or
-- neither

If that were debated sufficiently widely and openly (by the people, for the purposes of) prior to the referendum, the nation would get a fairly good handle on the issue and what's at stake (as opposed to the noisy rabble left skewing the real numbers) as is so often the case.

Those who wished to kill the idea could vote against it. The flip-flops and the other 25% somewhats like me could focus on selecting one of the two texts as opposed to neither. Whereas the Republican issue failed (last time) because of the complexities of the models involved, the 'sorry' issue would be a much simpler in/ out, yes/ no job.

This is infinitely better IMO than the hijacked and subsequently strangled process that newbie Rudd has inflicted upon a singularly myopic and love/dumbstruck electorate.

Capablanca-Fan
21-02-2008, 09:35 AM
This is infinitely better IMO than the hijacked and subsequently strangled process that newbie Rudd has inflicted upon a singularly myopic and love/dumbstruck electorate.
And far from healing Australia, it has just caused division.

Capablanca-Fan
21-02-2008, 03:02 PM
And far from healing Australia, it has just caused division.
Case in point (http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2008/02/20/3404_ntnews.html):


PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd's national apology to the stolen generation has sparked a spate of racial violence in Darwin.

Five people had to be admitted to hospital after one brawl. The Caucasian men were attacked by a group of 10 Aboriginal men, who demanded that their victims "say sorry". ...

"The police officer said since the sorry apology on Wednesday, it had been completely out of control."

The woman said there were four other victims of racial violence in the emergency room at Royal Darwin Hospital. Her friend had fractured ribs and bad bruising. Others had head injuries and bruises.

Note that they didn't call it "racist" violence although that's exactly what it was.

Kevin Bonham
21-02-2008, 10:44 PM
Hey! How about a referendum?

I'm sure the AEC will be glad to discuss your kind offer to pay for it.

Did you make or support calls for a referendum (if there were any) when the federal parliament overruled the Northern Territory's euthanasia legislation despite polls showing overwhelming public disagreement with the parliament's stance?

Basil
22-02-2008, 12:08 AM
Did you make or support calls for a referendum (if there were any) when the federal parliament overruled the Northern Territory's euthanasia legislation despite polls showing overwhelming public disagreement with the parliament's stance?
No. I regret to say that I have a sketchy recollection of that issue. I'd be happy to cajoled, judged, corrected, educated however the cards may fall.

Nonetheless, I stand by everything I have said about Steamroller Pretty Boy and his unilateral shellacking of an issue that required more cooperation than he afforded - either to his people or the people's opposition.

Capablanca-Fan
25-02-2008, 02:59 PM
Has anyone asserted that here?
I should hope not. Chinese earned more in Malaysia than Malays, yet there was overt discrimination against the Chinese. Same with Tamils in Sri Lanka.


And are the superior outcomes for Asians that you mention age-adjusted?
Indeed, age adjustment is another factor in the differences in wages, showing that the racism explanation is even more bankrupt. Sowell's new book Economic Facts and Fallacies documents that the median age for blacks is 5 years younger than the median for the American population as a whole (35). Since people usually earn more as they are older, with a peak well above 35, this would be another factor in the higher incomes of whites.

More figures: US 2000 census: median earnings of black individuals $27,264 in 1999, cf. national average $32,098, blacks as individuals earned 85% of Americans in general. But Asian Americans men earned $40,650, cf. $37,057 for all American men, i.e. Asians earned 10% above the average.

But black families only earned 66%, largely because a lot of them lack fathers in the household. But black married couples earned 88% of the average, $50,690 and $57,345, while Asians earned 19% more.


It doesn't necessarily follow that a vulnerable subpopulation becomes less vulnerable solely on account of removal of a factor causing that vulnerability. Indeed, by virtue of being in a weak position in the first place, it may be at more risk of going backwards when some new cause of poverty comes along.
It's still notable that Blacks had their biggest advances before civil rights laws. Poverty fell sharply from 87% to 47% in black families from 1940 to 1960, before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Voting Rights Act of 1965 and before the "affirmative action" plans of the 1970s. Also in the 1940–1960 period, the number of blacks in white collar occupations, managerial and administrative positions, and professions doubled, while the number of farm workers was only a quarter.

But in 1970, the median black household income was 60.95 of the median white household income, and wasn't greater in any year of that decade, and was lower in 1980.

This doesn't stop the race-baiters like Je$$e Jack4on from claiming that their militancy, and government programs like affirmative action and "war on poverty", deserve the credit for the rise of blacks out of poverty and into higher-paying jobs.


We don't know for sure that past "racism" (or at least, subjugation) plays no causal part in that situation.
Yet all the actual evidence is against it, since black families were more intact when they were closer to the time of slavery and where there was overt racism by government. The Leftmedia adulates this by praising the likes of Muhammad Ali for dropping his "slave name" supposedly bestowed by slave owners, when in reality, slaves took secret surnames precisely to preserve the family, and this purpose would be defeated if they all had their owner's surname. It's especially ironic that these newer blacks often take Arabic names, although Arabs enslaved far more blacks than white Europeans ever did.


I suspect that the situation actually has a great many causes, and that determining whether the roots of past injustices are still present in the current situation (or not) is not easy.
That's one of the problems: blaming the past instead of improving the present. If you want to go down that line, you could blame WW2 on the Czechs: for centuries, Czechs and Germans co-existed peacefully in Bohemia. The rise of Czech nationalism led to discrimination against Germans, and even more when Czechoslovakia became independent after WW1. Hitler could exploit some legitimate grievances of the Sudeten Germans. Of course this was only an excuse for his power-grab. After WW2, Germans were brutally expelled by the millions "back" to a Germany that their families hadn't seen for generations. Where does it end?

Kevin Bonham
26-02-2008, 12:30 AM
Indeed, age adjustment is another factor in the differences in wages, showing that the racism explanation is even more bankrupt.

I don't think that anything that proves the degree of actual disadvantage to be less has any bearing on whether a proposed explanation succeeds or doesn't. If it showed there was no actual disadvantage once age was taken into account I would be more impressed!


It's still notable that Blacks had their biggest advances before civil rights laws.

Does Sowell (or any other source) give comparative figues for changes in poverty in white families between 1940 and 1960.


Yet all the actual evidence is against it, since black families were more intact when they were closer to the time of slavery and where there was overt racism by government.

Weren't all family types (as defined by race) more intact closer to the time of slavery?


The Leftmedia adulates this by praising the likes of Muhammad Ali for dropping his "slave name" supposedly bestowed by slave owners, when in reality, slaves took secret surnames precisely to preserve the family, and this purpose would be defeated if they all had their owner's surname. It's especially ironic that these newer blacks often take Arabic names, although Arabs enslaved far more blacks than white Europeans ever did.

Interesting issue but unsure I see the relevance to discussion of causes of disadvantage.


That's one of the problems: blaming the past instead of improving the present.

Blaming the past and improving the present are in no way mutually incompatible.

Nor did I say that all the causal factors were necessarily in "the past".


If you want to go down that line, you could blame WW2 on the Czechs:

Maybe you could, but it would be about as similar a line to go down as the French is to the Fred, and in any case it might force me to talk about Godwin's Law. :hand:

Capablanca-Fan
26-02-2008, 12:56 AM
I don't think that anything that proves the degree of actual disadvantage to be less has any bearing on whether a proposed explanation succeeds or doesn't. If it showed there was no actual disadvantage once age was taken into account I would be more impressed!
Why? If the average age is lower, yet age is a factor in earning power, then it's not surprising that an ethnic group with a lower average age would earn less.


Does Sowell (or any other source) give comparative figues for changes in poverty in white families between 1940 and 1960.

Not that I have read so far. But since the question was about black poverty and discrimination, it was not necessary.


Weren't all family types (as defined by race) more intact closer to the time of slavery?
Not sure. Yet it's strange to blame slavery of 150 years ago for family disfunctions today, rather than events much closer to our time such as the "war on poverty".


Interesting issue but unsure I see the relevance to discussion of causes of disadvantage.
It is just another example of how vacuous some of the grievance mongers' claims are.


Maybe you could, but it would be about as similar a line to go down as the French is to the Fred, and in any case it might force me to talk about Godwin's Law. :hand:
It's a fact that ancient grievances exacerbated tensions that a dangerous demagogue like Hitler could exploit; and the post-war expulsion of Germans showed that ethnic grievances didn't end with Hitler's defeat. I couldn't give a monkey's about Godwin's Law BTW.