Is it me or is this all very Kennedy..ish?
Friday, February 22, 2008
Monday, February 18, 2008
ANIMAL FARM - REQUIRED READING
Interesting to watch the Indonesian reaction to the Declaration of Independence by Kosovo..At best, it could be described as tepid support for their Muslim brothers.
Of course, there are some big Russian deals going down in Indonesian with all the transparency we have come to expect, so it would be naïve to expect any stand of principle.
Could it also be that by standing up with their Muslim brothers in Kosovo, they would have to admit some inconvenient truths? Such truths as the West, primarily led by the United States stepped in to stop the slaughter, while Indonesia and the rest of the Muslim world were happy to look the other way. Kind of wrecks the image that the United States and the dang Jews are out to get em huh?
Of course, for anyone who has read Animal Farm would understand that some Muslims are more equal than others….Darfur anyone?
The Stump has no real take on this issue except in the way it exposes the frauds, liars and pedlars of half truths here.
Of course, there are some big Russian deals going down in Indonesian with all the transparency we have come to expect, so it would be naïve to expect any stand of principle.
Could it also be that by standing up with their Muslim brothers in Kosovo, they would have to admit some inconvenient truths? Such truths as the West, primarily led by the United States stepped in to stop the slaughter, while Indonesia and the rest of the Muslim world were happy to look the other way. Kind of wrecks the image that the United States and the dang Jews are out to get em huh?
Of course, for anyone who has read Animal Farm would understand that some Muslims are more equal than others….Darfur anyone?
The Stump has no real take on this issue except in the way it exposes the frauds, liars and pedlars of half truths here.
Still not Sorry ?
A bit of plagarism but worth saying (Andrew Bolt is probably the leading Australian Conservative Writers, son of immigrants and bane of the touchy feely left in Australia)
By Andrew Bolt
February 08, 2008 04:25am
Article from: Herald Sun
IT'S over, and all I can do now is offer a sincere sorry of my own.
You see, no matter what, a sorry to the "stolen generations" will be read out in Parliament next week by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.
Rudd will say that sorry to "stolen" children no one can actually find,
but few commentators and politicians seem to mind. Or care to notice.
Most Liberals, cowed and cringing, will just back whatever Rudd says. Most journalists, teary over their own goodness, will praise it. And most Australians will sigh with relief, hoping a bit of well-meaning humbuggery will let us "move on".
So it's over. The only thing I can hope for now is that if Rudd must read out an apology, he reads out a compromise like mine.
What has divided us so far is that Rudd is a sentimentalist who wants to say sorry regardless of the facts about the "stolen generations". But I am a rationalist who can only say a sorry that respects the truth - and no apology I've read, including the ones on this page yesterday, comes close.
Mine does - not that I have much hope that even this last appeal to reason will work.
To Rudd and other Say-Sorries it simply doesn't matter that there's no evidence any Australian government had a policy to steal children just because they were Aboriginal.
See the evidence they've ignored.
In Victoria, for instance, the state Stolen Generations Taskforce
concluded there had been "no formal policy for removing children". Ever.
In the Northern Territory, the Federal Court found no sign of "any policy of removal of part-Aboriginal children such as that alleged".
In Tasmania, the Stolen Generations Alliance admitted "there were no removal policies as such".
In South Australia, the Supreme Court last year found no government policy to steal Aboriginal children there, either. Rather, stealing black children had been "without legal authority, beyond power and contrary to authoritative legal advice".
But none of that evidence matters to Rudd.
Nor does it matter that no one has yet named even 10 of these 100,000 children we are told were stolen - stolen not because we wanted to save children in trouble, but because we wanted to "keep White Australia pure", as "stolen generations" author Prof Robert Manne put it.
Name just 10, I asked Manne in debates in print and on stage. He couldn't.
Name just 10, I asked Stolen Generations Alliance spokesman Brian Butler last week on Adelaide radio. He wouldn't.
Name just 10, I now ask the Prime Minister. He won't.
Even the Liberals, now desperate to seem more "compassionate", seem to know they will be saying sorry for a great crime that never happened.
Here is Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson, urging Rudd only to not say "stolen": "(I)t has pejorative connotations particularly for several
generations of very good men and women from churches and other organisations who believed they were doing the right thing in removing these children."
But if these people really did steal Aboriginal children from good homes just to smash their culture and "keep White Australia pure", how on earth could they be "very good men and women"? That's like condemning slavery while praising slavers as "very good men" who only meant well.
But not even that matters. Rudd's apology is happening and all I can hope is that he can still hear a little voice telling him he has a duty to truth, and to the Aboriginal children today who will suffer if he lies.
Because suffer they will. Already we read almost monthly of Aboriginal children who are bashed, raped or killed because social workers and magistrates are too scared by the "stolen generations" to "steal" them.
So, what is my own apology?
No apology can do us good, dividing us by race and suffocating us with victimhood. But mine, I hope, can avoid most harm.
My sorry will acknowledge that many Aboriginal children were indeed betrayed by their walk-away parents, white and black, and even by some institutions pledged to help them.
But my sorry won't make our children ashamed for a society that still offers us all - Aborigines included - more freedom, health, justice and security than any before.
My sorry will also have one other great virtue you'll see in almost none of the dozens of others suggested.
Mine, at least, will tell no lies.
That is because I have done what few others will: I have checked the
histories of scores of the "stolen" children asking for this sorry, to
see what it is we should be sorry for.
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; an "stolen generations" leader Annette Peardon, whose mother was jailed for three months for neglecting her children.
And here's the sorry I say to them:
What makes us Australians helps make us human. As Australians, we believe in the dignity of each person, regardless of their race or place of birth, of their colour or creed.
We believe that no one is a stranger to us, beyond our sympathy and our help. And we believe it is in offering such sympathy and help that we best realise our humanity.
But we are sorry. We are sorry that at times we have not as a nation, or as individuals, lived up to those ideals. We are but human, and, as all humans do, have failed and fail still.
As a nation, we are sorry for those children that we harmed, when we meant to help. We are sorry that in helping many, we did not help all.
We have failed at other times as well. We are sorry for having taken, when we could have shared. We are sorry we have treated some as strangers, when in truth this is their sacred home.
But we are a people whose sins are small when set beside our virtues, which are great.
We have as a nation desired to do good, just as we desire it now.
We therefore commit ourselves anew to the purpose with which this nation was founded - to give every citizen the right and opportunity to live their life in peace, honour and freedom, under laws common to us all.
But more - we recommit ourselves, today especially, to our young, our lost, our helpless and our poor. They will not find us wanting as some have found us wanting before. This will be the measure of our repentance.
For our failings we are sorry. But for our ideals we are not. What has
divided us can be overcome, and with the goodwill that compels us to say sorry today, overcome we surely will.
By Andrew Bolt
February 08, 2008 04:25am
Article from: Herald Sun
IT'S over, and all I can do now is offer a sincere sorry of my own.
You see, no matter what, a sorry to the "stolen generations" will be read out in Parliament next week by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.
Rudd will say that sorry to "stolen" children no one can actually find,
but few commentators and politicians seem to mind. Or care to notice.
Most Liberals, cowed and cringing, will just back whatever Rudd says. Most journalists, teary over their own goodness, will praise it. And most Australians will sigh with relief, hoping a bit of well-meaning humbuggery will let us "move on".
So it's over. The only thing I can hope for now is that if Rudd must read out an apology, he reads out a compromise like mine.
What has divided us so far is that Rudd is a sentimentalist who wants to say sorry regardless of the facts about the "stolen generations". But I am a rationalist who can only say a sorry that respects the truth - and no apology I've read, including the ones on this page yesterday, comes close.
Mine does - not that I have much hope that even this last appeal to reason will work.
To Rudd and other Say-Sorries it simply doesn't matter that there's no evidence any Australian government had a policy to steal children just because they were Aboriginal.
See the evidence they've ignored.
In Victoria, for instance, the state Stolen Generations Taskforce
concluded there had been "no formal policy for removing children". Ever.
In the Northern Territory, the Federal Court found no sign of "any policy of removal of part-Aboriginal children such as that alleged".
In Tasmania, the Stolen Generations Alliance admitted "there were no removal policies as such".
In South Australia, the Supreme Court last year found no government policy to steal Aboriginal children there, either. Rather, stealing black children had been "without legal authority, beyond power and contrary to authoritative legal advice".
But none of that evidence matters to Rudd.
Nor does it matter that no one has yet named even 10 of these 100,000 children we are told were stolen - stolen not because we wanted to save children in trouble, but because we wanted to "keep White Australia pure", as "stolen generations" author Prof Robert Manne put it.
Name just 10, I asked Manne in debates in print and on stage. He couldn't.
Name just 10, I asked Stolen Generations Alliance spokesman Brian Butler last week on Adelaide radio. He wouldn't.
Name just 10, I now ask the Prime Minister. He won't.
Even the Liberals, now desperate to seem more "compassionate", seem to know they will be saying sorry for a great crime that never happened.
Here is Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson, urging Rudd only to not say "stolen": "(I)t has pejorative connotations particularly for several
generations of very good men and women from churches and other organisations who believed they were doing the right thing in removing these children."
But if these people really did steal Aboriginal children from good homes just to smash their culture and "keep White Australia pure", how on earth could they be "very good men and women"? That's like condemning slavery while praising slavers as "very good men" who only meant well.
But not even that matters. Rudd's apology is happening and all I can hope is that he can still hear a little voice telling him he has a duty to truth, and to the Aboriginal children today who will suffer if he lies.
Because suffer they will. Already we read almost monthly of Aboriginal children who are bashed, raped or killed because social workers and magistrates are too scared by the "stolen generations" to "steal" them.
So, what is my own apology?
No apology can do us good, dividing us by race and suffocating us with victimhood. But mine, I hope, can avoid most harm.
My sorry will acknowledge that many Aboriginal children were indeed betrayed by their walk-away parents, white and black, and even by some institutions pledged to help them.
But my sorry won't make our children ashamed for a society that still offers us all - Aborigines included - more freedom, health, justice and security than any before.
My sorry will also have one other great virtue you'll see in almost none of the dozens of others suggested.
Mine, at least, will tell no lies.
That is because I have done what few others will: I have checked the
histories of scores of the "stolen" children asking for this sorry, to
see what it is we should be sorry for.
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; an "stolen generations" leader Annette Peardon, whose mother was jailed for three months for neglecting her children.
And here's the sorry I say to them:
What makes us Australians helps make us human. As Australians, we believe in the dignity of each person, regardless of their race or place of birth, of their colour or creed.
We believe that no one is a stranger to us, beyond our sympathy and our help. And we believe it is in offering such sympathy and help that we best realise our humanity.
But we are sorry. We are sorry that at times we have not as a nation, or as individuals, lived up to those ideals. We are but human, and, as all humans do, have failed and fail still.
As a nation, we are sorry for those children that we harmed, when we meant to help. We are sorry that in helping many, we did not help all.
We have failed at other times as well. We are sorry for having taken, when we could have shared. We are sorry we have treated some as strangers, when in truth this is their sacred home.
But we are a people whose sins are small when set beside our virtues, which are great.
We have as a nation desired to do good, just as we desire it now.
We therefore commit ourselves anew to the purpose with which this nation was founded - to give every citizen the right and opportunity to live their life in peace, honour and freedom, under laws common to us all.
But more - we recommit ourselves, today especially, to our young, our lost, our helpless and our poor. They will not find us wanting as some have found us wanting before. This will be the measure of our repentance.
For our failings we are sorry. But for our ideals we are not. What has
divided us can be overcome, and with the goodwill that compels us to say sorry today, overcome we surely will.
Friday, February 15, 2008
BLOGGER WHERE FOR ART THOU
THE ANON BLOGGER
Is there something in the water in Jakarta (besides blind mullets)? Every six months or so, some insecure little Blogger gets his knickers in a twist about Expat Bloggers and/or expats. In this particular case, we have called the little blogger “housefly” after the commonhouse housefly’s habit of regurgitating its food and eating again and hence forth refered to as HF. Housefly seems apt as HF is simply regurgitating previous post of his from 2006
Meanwwhile you have to love this little piece of Sanctimonious HF claptrap;
“On blogging term (s), let’s not be anonyomus (anonymous). That’s what a real man should do.
In short, what I would like to say is this: anonymous blogger is a coward. Sadly most foreign exparts (expats) in Indonesia are anonymous blogger(s).”
Therefore the Stump, who blogs anonymously is in HF opinion is coward! Fair enough, the stump can name call with the best of them..laugh..hang on to your hats..
Well, in short, the Stump thinks HF should pull his head out the place where the sun does not shine and take a look around at the real world before he posts. On the issue of personal attributes, might be best if the picture came down..not a good look for a REAL MAN. I cannot see the hordes beating a path to his door to discover the secrets of what it is to be a real man on that basis.
Normally I enjoy reading Indonesian blogs written in English, it is an achievement that I could not match in reverse. Whilst reasonably fluent in Bahasa, I still from time to time transpose the wrong word or apply the wrong context and wind up insulting people. It is a bit like the inability to tell the difference between prudence and cowardice. A point our house fly may wish to ponder.
Further HF inane demands for pictures and CV;s border on..no cross the border into the absurd. Although I suspect this has more to do with the cultural need to pigeon hole someone into a particular strata and class of society than complete ignorance of the standards of the rule of law in Indonesia.
You will see examples of the pigeon hole effect looking at the grand houses of the elite and corrupt in Jakarta (elite and corrupt..mmm redundant phrasing?). These tastless monuments to indifference complete with grandiose columns of marble in the front, join the Nokia Communicator telephones, as the “must have” accessory to their unprincipled and rarely challenged lifesytles. All time these parasites of society are taking every opportunity to silently scream “look at me, I’m really important”.
You need proof of how far down societies ladder the “look at me” syndrome slides? Watch what happens any time a plane in Indonesia gets within 500m of a terminal. You could lose an eye as vain and glorious rip out their handphones in an orgasmic, slavering, frenzy of pretentious self importance)
Ah but back to HF, its pretty a pretty safe if idiotic bet to use your own name when the most controversial thing you post is “Free New Blogger Templates”. This is hardly going have Neil Davis rolling his grave as his courage for reporting is challenged by our "named" blogger.
Ok lets be a bit fair ..A quick view of the HD archives reveals
December 2007
• 31: Top Ten Blogger Indonesia 2007 (28)
• 29: Floods and Landslides in Indonesia (0)
• 28: Benazir Bhutto Assassinated (5)
• 27: Indonesian Blogger Ministers (5)
• 26: Idul Adha, Christmas and New Year 2008 (3)
• 13: Blogger Indonesia of the Week (77): Anita Carmencita (7)
• 08: Indonesia Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of The Year 2007 (10)
Do take the time and go and read HF's highly “controversial” (read milksop) stand on illegal logging and compare it to this post by one of those evil anon expat bloggers. I do love this turn of phrase from my fellow accused coward "If the Indonesians cannot see what is happening, or worse, are not aware that their children will only have memories of these once great jungles, I do indeed shed a tear for them, however, I cannot forgive them as what they are taking from the world is not theirs to take". The Stump concurs!
Want more for a laugh..Or try Hf's principled and risky stand on the worlds greatest nutter:
“President Ahmadinejad speaks bravely against the US, the only world superpower of everything: economy, military and, no less important, the media. Third, he speaks controversially against the state of Israel and partially the Jews–the mogul of world media”
OK, I was joking its pure gorilla smegma - Jews - the mogul of world media?? Hello Planet Earth calling all space cadets, time to come home now. BTW, In most rational people’s eyes saying that country should be wiped off the map is insane not controversial (sic).
But apparently even after that piece of toss, HF feels no irony when complaining a particular blog site paints a certain religion in a bad light and has an agenda for another (Its ok HF, you are allowed to say Islam and Christianity, just no cartoons but Life of Brian is ok).
Give me a break, it’s hardly news and I think most readers are well aware of the agendas so obviously on view. Perhaps if more reasonable and educated Indonesians took some of the so-called spokesmen for various religious and political groups to task for their absurd comments then IM might have a slightly more difficult time finding material. To suggest that Islam is hard done by in this country is true fairy land stuff.
I can’t help but think there is a swag of jealousy involved here. Whilst HF finds Anon expat blogs annoying and damaging, he makes no mention of the plethora of Indonesia hate sites that abound. Of course, that would require a tad of introspection that all is not rosy in the republic.
In summary, it does not really matter if the writer is anonymous or not, after all they are only opinions. A blog is neither a research library nor the font of all human knowledge. If you want to debate on the rights or wrongs of anonymous posting feel free, but if you start name calling don’t be surprised if you get sat on your metaphorical arse.
P.S. The previous post was nasty and petty. Wouldn't it have been much nicer just asking the question why people feel the need to blog as Anon rather than name calling? Have a nice widget day now ya hear!
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
SORRY SORRY SORRY
The Australian Parliament opened today with an apology to the Aboriginal people for the past injustices suffered since the arrival of the first British settlers. A large section of this apology reflects on the “stolen generation”
“We reflect in particular on the mistreatment of those who were Stolen Generations – this blemished chapter in our nation’s history.”
Of course, looking through the prism of political correctness and today’s social standards can paint a seriously distorted view of the world. These issues have been painted by various left leaning, agenda driven, social engineers as some sort of planned racist genocide plot.
In fact, the social intervention and removal of children deemed at risk was almost always done with the best of (albeit perhaps viewed from a modern perspective unacceptable) intentions.
Strikingly and completely ignored by the Aboriginal Conspiracy theorists is the fact these type of policies were the order of the day for that time. Critically they were not solely applied to Aboriginal Children and their families, a fact deeply buried by the black armband view of Australia's History.
Here is an interesting quote from official Australian Government Archives,
“Many children, separated from their parents and familiar surroundings, suffered from the disruption and dislocation, and this part of a family history can be a distressing one to uncover.”
Sound familiar? Unfortunately for the aboriginal conspiracy theorists, the quote refers to children who were brought to Australia from their home countries under various migration schemes which commenced with the sponsoring of farm boys to New South Wales by the Dreadnought Trust in 1911. Most were brought from the British Isles, with some groups from Malta after World War II. During the war, Polish Jewish children also arrived.
There is no dispute that some of these children (black and white) were forcibly or fraudulently removed from their families. The fraud hoisted upon the more gullible members of the Australian and International public is the myth is that it was all race driven. Indeed, a number of children (black and white) did fall prey to abusive and evil individuals, who without careful monitoring always seem to slither up take advantage of such situations. The key point is that on the whole, race or colour had little to do with the removal of the children from their surroundings and/or extended families. Rather it was done in the honest belief (mistaken or otherwise) that these children were being offered a better life and better future. In the vast majority cases that has been well proven to be the case.
As a case in point of how times change and wording and practices then deemed socially acceptable would not come close to passing muster today;
British Custody of Children Act 1891 which permitted the voluntary organisations to ‘dispose of’ the children in their care by emigration” Remember the "dispose of" (or removal or dare I say stolen?) is referring to white children in this case.
The extreme and mostly loony left that now dominates Australian Universities and their very well funded lobby groups would have you believe that it was only aboriginal children that were targeted for placement in various orphanages and establishments deemed more suitable than their existing home environment. Even Australia's own hollow man, PM Crud is pushing the barrow of the now common folk myth "only reason these children were removed was because they were Aboriginal" and "the only people subject to these type of actions were aboriginal". Statements which at best are a misconception, at worst an agenda driven lie.
The term Aboriginal Stolen Generation really gained ground with the Human Rights Commission's Bringing Them Home report in 1997. The report made very traumatic reading and there is no doubt a large section of the Australian Population both black and white believes the sole purpose of the removals was to “end the existence of the Aborigines as a distinct people”.
Problem is, the real situation is not and was not that simple. Certainly the removals were driven by a case of perceived cultural superiority and a belief that Aborginal Culture was doomed anyway. However, to pretend that “half caste children” and others were not at risk in traditional communities or these types of policies acted in isolation with Aborginal children is intellectual leftist dishonesty at its worst.
Further, the Bringing Them Home report relied heavily on various claims by a bloke with the name of Peter Read (Shame Peter did not do more of what his last name suggests). One of Read’s more suspect claims (amongst many others)and yet the one seized upon by the Culural Galahs was;
"After reviewing more than eight hundred case files, in was revealed some managers cut a long story short when they came to that part of the committal notice 'Reason for board taking control of the child'. They simply wrote 'for being Aboriginal'.
Unfortunately for Read’s credibility, a subsequent review of those same files found there were at best three cases that stated “Aboriginal" being cause for removal. Three from eight hundred hardly seems systematic or proof of the much shrieked claim of cultural genocide.
Of course, even three would be too many if race was the only reason (which it was not, remember our British boys now). Never the less, the seed was now sown and the image of black babies being forcibly removed is now common folk lore. The myth continues as grist for the bizarre section of the community that seems to need a healthy dose of white guilt to get through the day.
The reality is that between 1907 and 1932, the NSW authorities removed only seven babies aged less than 12 months, and another 18 aged less than two years (about one child under 2 a year?). In fact, over two-thirds deemed “at risk” were teenagers, 13 to 17 years old. The reason they were removed was to send them off to be employed as apprentices and at that time a perceived better future.
(On a personal note, interestingly, when the stump was 15, he was forced to move to a boarding house 2000Km from home to begin learning an apprenticeship. There were no funds permitting attendance at university way down in the big city. I guess that does not count due to a different skin colour according to PC crowd..poor bugger me).
There is a ton of stuff out there on the fallacies of Aboriginal History, from the well publicised but fraudulent claim massacre claims of Aboriginals in Tasmania to the well published secret woman’s business in South Australia a few years back. All these were gobbled up like leftover strawberries by the chattering left. The secret womans business was later uncovered as a sad and not even well planned development fraud and the so called massacre was organised by a man who was not even born at that time.
The Stump’s view of the apology is it is just a fluffy piece bit of leftist, worthless spin doctoring by a political party with history of such things. Who can forget Bob Hawkes classic piece of wank
“ By 1999 no child shall live in poverty”
The political party of PM Crudd who takes great pleasure in painting the conservative liberal party as the evil bad guys has a bad habit of conveniently forgetting its own history whilst climbing the slimey soapbox of Spin.
For those of you who still think the ALP has any moral authority in these areas, perhaps its time to reflect on the following:
In NSW, the 1915 Aborigines Protection Amending Act, which allowed the Aborigines Protection Board to remove children without recourse was the work of the first Labor government in the state headed by James McGowen and W.A.Holman.
The Act's 1943 amendment, which allowed Aboriginal children to be fostered out to non-indigenous families, was introduced by the Labor government of William McKell.
In Western Australia, the 1936 Act was the product of the Labor governments of Phillip Collier and John C.Willcock. That noise you can hear, is the moral high ground turning to Crudd.
There is no denying the status of aboriginal health and well being in Australia is abysmal. Aboriginal men have a 17 year lower life expectancy than their white counterparts. However, spin doctoring apologies do little to address the situation and will ultimately prove as hollow and useless as the last 30 Years of do-gooder nonsense!
The same people who opposed the Howard Governments intervention plans to stop the rape and systematic abuse of women and children in aboriginal communities are the loudest in demanding SORRY. Yet these intellectual loafers offer no alternatives to life draining cycle of alcoholism, rape, abuse and criminality that is the reality in so many aboriginal communities.
Aboriginal Noel Pearson had the best and only reply to that kind of callous, self centered, ego tripping at others expense rubbish when he said
“If you were a child cowering in terror in a house where adults were rampaging you would not mind a bit of paternalism (paraphrased)”
Of course these cultural latte warriors lead us inevitably down the path to the obscene situation where the rape of 10 year old girl by nine aboriginal men is dismissed as “very naughty” and should be viewed through a cultural perspective”
Who is saying SORRY to her?
Now before the massive chattering hordes start on their shrill cries of racism and our resident troll wades in with another comment as wet as a puddle and nowhere near as deep. Let the Stump state, that the Stump is a full supporter of increased funding across the board for all aboriginal communities.
Funding would not be that difficult to attain, hundreds of millions of dollars are wasted in corrupted programs with little return for the Australian People. For instance, on top of the current planned proposals, an additional $458 Million could be redirected in the aboriginal budget at the snap of the pen. A review of aid packages across the board could then be implemented in the short term with a view of improving the lot of all Australians. Perhaps it is time we addressed the home issues first.
“We reflect in particular on the mistreatment of those who were Stolen Generations – this blemished chapter in our nation’s history.”
Of course, looking through the prism of political correctness and today’s social standards can paint a seriously distorted view of the world. These issues have been painted by various left leaning, agenda driven, social engineers as some sort of planned racist genocide plot.
In fact, the social intervention and removal of children deemed at risk was almost always done with the best of (albeit perhaps viewed from a modern perspective unacceptable) intentions.
Strikingly and completely ignored by the Aboriginal Conspiracy theorists is the fact these type of policies were the order of the day for that time. Critically they were not solely applied to Aboriginal Children and their families, a fact deeply buried by the black armband view of Australia's History.
Here is an interesting quote from official Australian Government Archives,
“Many children, separated from their parents and familiar surroundings, suffered from the disruption and dislocation, and this part of a family history can be a distressing one to uncover.”
Sound familiar? Unfortunately for the aboriginal conspiracy theorists, the quote refers to children who were brought to Australia from their home countries under various migration schemes which commenced with the sponsoring of farm boys to New South Wales by the Dreadnought Trust in 1911. Most were brought from the British Isles, with some groups from Malta after World War II. During the war, Polish Jewish children also arrived.
There is no dispute that some of these children (black and white) were forcibly or fraudulently removed from their families. The fraud hoisted upon the more gullible members of the Australian and International public is the myth is that it was all race driven. Indeed, a number of children (black and white) did fall prey to abusive and evil individuals, who without careful monitoring always seem to slither up take advantage of such situations. The key point is that on the whole, race or colour had little to do with the removal of the children from their surroundings and/or extended families. Rather it was done in the honest belief (mistaken or otherwise) that these children were being offered a better life and better future. In the vast majority cases that has been well proven to be the case.
As a case in point of how times change and wording and practices then deemed socially acceptable would not come close to passing muster today;
British Custody of Children Act 1891 which permitted the voluntary organisations to ‘dispose of’ the children in their care by emigration” Remember the "dispose of" (or removal or dare I say stolen?) is referring to white children in this case.
The extreme and mostly loony left that now dominates Australian Universities and their very well funded lobby groups would have you believe that it was only aboriginal children that were targeted for placement in various orphanages and establishments deemed more suitable than their existing home environment. Even Australia's own hollow man, PM Crud is pushing the barrow of the now common folk myth "only reason these children were removed was because they were Aboriginal" and "the only people subject to these type of actions were aboriginal". Statements which at best are a misconception, at worst an agenda driven lie.
The term Aboriginal Stolen Generation really gained ground with the Human Rights Commission's Bringing Them Home report in 1997. The report made very traumatic reading and there is no doubt a large section of the Australian Population both black and white believes the sole purpose of the removals was to “end the existence of the Aborigines as a distinct people”.
Problem is, the real situation is not and was not that simple. Certainly the removals were driven by a case of perceived cultural superiority and a belief that Aborginal Culture was doomed anyway. However, to pretend that “half caste children” and others were not at risk in traditional communities or these types of policies acted in isolation with Aborginal children is intellectual leftist dishonesty at its worst.
Further, the Bringing Them Home report relied heavily on various claims by a bloke with the name of Peter Read (Shame Peter did not do more of what his last name suggests). One of Read’s more suspect claims (amongst many others)and yet the one seized upon by the Culural Galahs was;
"After reviewing more than eight hundred case files, in was revealed some managers cut a long story short when they came to that part of the committal notice 'Reason for board taking control of the child'. They simply wrote 'for being Aboriginal'.
Unfortunately for Read’s credibility, a subsequent review of those same files found there were at best three cases that stated “Aboriginal" being cause for removal. Three from eight hundred hardly seems systematic or proof of the much shrieked claim of cultural genocide.
Of course, even three would be too many if race was the only reason (which it was not, remember our British boys now). Never the less, the seed was now sown and the image of black babies being forcibly removed is now common folk lore. The myth continues as grist for the bizarre section of the community that seems to need a healthy dose of white guilt to get through the day.
The reality is that between 1907 and 1932, the NSW authorities removed only seven babies aged less than 12 months, and another 18 aged less than two years (about one child under 2 a year?). In fact, over two-thirds deemed “at risk” were teenagers, 13 to 17 years old. The reason they were removed was to send them off to be employed as apprentices and at that time a perceived better future.
(On a personal note, interestingly, when the stump was 15, he was forced to move to a boarding house 2000Km from home to begin learning an apprenticeship. There were no funds permitting attendance at university way down in the big city. I guess that does not count due to a different skin colour according to PC crowd..poor bugger me).
There is a ton of stuff out there on the fallacies of Aboriginal History, from the well publicised but fraudulent claim massacre claims of Aboriginals in Tasmania to the well published secret woman’s business in South Australia a few years back. All these were gobbled up like leftover strawberries by the chattering left. The secret womans business was later uncovered as a sad and not even well planned development fraud and the so called massacre was organised by a man who was not even born at that time.
The Stump’s view of the apology is it is just a fluffy piece bit of leftist, worthless spin doctoring by a political party with history of such things. Who can forget Bob Hawkes classic piece of wank
“ By 1999 no child shall live in poverty”
The political party of PM Crudd who takes great pleasure in painting the conservative liberal party as the evil bad guys has a bad habit of conveniently forgetting its own history whilst climbing the slimey soapbox of Spin.
For those of you who still think the ALP has any moral authority in these areas, perhaps its time to reflect on the following:
In NSW, the 1915 Aborigines Protection Amending Act, which allowed the Aborigines Protection Board to remove children without recourse was the work of the first Labor government in the state headed by James McGowen and W.A.Holman.
The Act's 1943 amendment, which allowed Aboriginal children to be fostered out to non-indigenous families, was introduced by the Labor government of William McKell.
In Western Australia, the 1936 Act was the product of the Labor governments of Phillip Collier and John C.Willcock. That noise you can hear, is the moral high ground turning to Crudd.
There is no denying the status of aboriginal health and well being in Australia is abysmal. Aboriginal men have a 17 year lower life expectancy than their white counterparts. However, spin doctoring apologies do little to address the situation and will ultimately prove as hollow and useless as the last 30 Years of do-gooder nonsense!
The same people who opposed the Howard Governments intervention plans to stop the rape and systematic abuse of women and children in aboriginal communities are the loudest in demanding SORRY. Yet these intellectual loafers offer no alternatives to life draining cycle of alcoholism, rape, abuse and criminality that is the reality in so many aboriginal communities.
Aboriginal Noel Pearson had the best and only reply to that kind of callous, self centered, ego tripping at others expense rubbish when he said
“If you were a child cowering in terror in a house where adults were rampaging you would not mind a bit of paternalism (paraphrased)”
Of course these cultural latte warriors lead us inevitably down the path to the obscene situation where the rape of 10 year old girl by nine aboriginal men is dismissed as “very naughty” and should be viewed through a cultural perspective”
Who is saying SORRY to her?
Now before the massive chattering hordes start on their shrill cries of racism and our resident troll wades in with another comment as wet as a puddle and nowhere near as deep. Let the Stump state, that the Stump is a full supporter of increased funding across the board for all aboriginal communities.
Funding would not be that difficult to attain, hundreds of millions of dollars are wasted in corrupted programs with little return for the Australian People. For instance, on top of the current planned proposals, an additional $458 Million could be redirected in the aboriginal budget at the snap of the pen. A review of aid packages across the board could then be implemented in the short term with a view of improving the lot of all Australians. Perhaps it is time we addressed the home issues first.
Monday, February 11, 2008
SBY REGULATIONS
Jakartass has really taken the President’s direction to “Think outside the box” to heart. So in the spirit of Blog solidarity here’s the Stump’s two cents worth:
With immediate effect the following regulations are to be implemented:
1. All politicians who wish to partake in a government (taxpayer) funded overseas trips are required to take Pubic Transport to and from the Airport, this means buses. (Express Customs walk-throughs and traffic clearance is expressly forbidden).
2. All government vehicles are to be affixed with a large toll free number requesting the registration of the vehicle be reported to a Central Authority should the vehicle be sighted at any shopping mall, golf course or other facility of public entertainment. (Central Authority is to request details of such approvals from regional managers, any use deemed frivolous will mean immediate open auction of said vehicle for the pubic good).
3. All government vehicles are to have designated and recorded drivers. Any driver who is not designated as such will be subject to immediate criminal action for theft of public property.
4. All public officials currently in receipt of a taxpayer funded vehicles will be required submit a justification to the central authority on why they cannot use “pool vehicles and drivers”. Failure to do so within seven days will result in the withdrawal of the vehicle.
5. All government vehicles are to carry large signs stating “These Vehicles are paid for by the people of Indonesia, please report misuse to 021..XXXXX”
6. All companies and individuals in receipt of public funds, grants and allowances are required by law to make a public declaration of their audited taxation payments.
7. All plastic carry bags are banned henceforth.
8. All plastic bottles and beverage cans are henceforth subject to a 100Rp deposit to be paid place of purchase or central facility in any town of more the 10,000 people.
9. It is now law to ridicule the Nuclear Power option in a country overly blessed natural resources in the world.
10. Internet Trolls may only hijack websites on the 30 Feb each year.
With immediate effect the following regulations are to be implemented:
1. All politicians who wish to partake in a government (taxpayer) funded overseas trips are required to take Pubic Transport to and from the Airport, this means buses. (Express Customs walk-throughs and traffic clearance is expressly forbidden).
2. All government vehicles are to be affixed with a large toll free number requesting the registration of the vehicle be reported to a Central Authority should the vehicle be sighted at any shopping mall, golf course or other facility of public entertainment. (Central Authority is to request details of such approvals from regional managers, any use deemed frivolous will mean immediate open auction of said vehicle for the pubic good).
3. All government vehicles are to have designated and recorded drivers. Any driver who is not designated as such will be subject to immediate criminal action for theft of public property.
4. All public officials currently in receipt of a taxpayer funded vehicles will be required submit a justification to the central authority on why they cannot use “pool vehicles and drivers”. Failure to do so within seven days will result in the withdrawal of the vehicle.
5. All government vehicles are to carry large signs stating “These Vehicles are paid for by the people of Indonesia, please report misuse to 021..XXXXX”
6. All companies and individuals in receipt of public funds, grants and allowances are required by law to make a public declaration of their audited taxation payments.
7. All plastic carry bags are banned henceforth.
8. All plastic bottles and beverage cans are henceforth subject to a 100Rp deposit to be paid place of purchase or central facility in any town of more the 10,000 people.
9. It is now law to ridicule the Nuclear Power option in a country overly blessed natural resources in the world.
10. Internet Trolls may only hijack websites on the 30 Feb each year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)