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.

15 comments:

Achmad Sudarsono said...

Easy does it, Big Fella. Just to get things clear, this is the case you're making, right ?

1. Australia's getting a bad wrap because:

- the government thought it was doing the right thing

- Non aboriginals got taken away as well.

So, Oigal, just to clarify:

1) Was the forced removals policy the right or the wrong thing to do ? Not sure from your post -- (maybe as a troll I just have a short attention span).

As always, go, you good thing, go for gold, and, as always, easy does it, Big Fella, easy ! Easy !

johnorford said...

context is important, but not a magic veto.

having said that, words are cheap...

spew-it-all said...

Wow that's pretty harsh. I know that we can't put this issue in black and white pespective. I do still believe that some might have been having benign intention when they took care of aboriginal children.

However, i don't like seeing this apology business as leftist who try to portray its opponent bad and evil. In fact, he didn't seem to politicise it as Nelson did. For me, it is really important to acknowledge what happened in the past and realised that current government and society once was laid on a flawed moral faculty.

oigal said...

Hey All (Even you Assmad as you do raise some good points)

"Was the forced removals policy the right or the wrong thing to do ? Not sure from your post" nor should you be, thats the point to describe the policy as inherently evil and directed only at Aboriginals is simply ignoring the facts. Wrong Headed, perhaps tainted moral mores of that time, certainly..Were a significant portion of these children at risk from a health, education, abuse point of view certainly.

I think most fair minded people would agree the government at the time thought they were doing the right thing, in hindsight from todays perspective most would say it was the wrong thing but that does not make the motives at the time evil.

Personally, if the apology makes some feel better, go for it. I ask again what is really changed from the last 30 years where the wooly headed romantic notions of the Aboriginal Culture has created such begin neglect that it would be fair to say that more damage has been inflicted on the Aboriginal culture that the first 100 years of british settlements.

A point to ponder, should all children be removed from the community where nine men thought is was ok to rape a little girl? No only are those guys still in the community, surely any insular community that creates an environment where 9 men can all think its ok to rape a child is so unfit and dysfuntional that all children should be removed..forcibly if necessary (it won't happen in this day and age by the way, its better to let kids fall thru the cracks than make a stand against the chattering PC brigade)

Achmad Sudarsono said...

Hi Oigal,

There's a time and place for trolling.

Here's what I see - you seem to be saying:

1) Important question is: what will the apology change ? And has the approach of the "left" really helped the aboriginal community.

But just to draw you out, I think you're still a bit agnostic about the paternalism ie John Howard's approach of sending in the soldiers might have been needed.

At the same time, that mind-set (not trying to be loaded), perhaps was what motivated the removals policy ?

What's the lesser of two evils.

Finally, the backlash against perceived racism - ie PC chattering classes - is becoming a problem to calling things like they are: violence, alcoholism, child abuse, rape, general social decay in aboriginal communities.

Achmad Sudarsono said...

P.S. - Here's a thought & correct me if I'm wrong.

Sounds like you're saying not that racism hasn't existed in Australia (and everywhere else), but in the case of aboriginals, it hasn't been the main cause of their plight.

So certain groups have hijacked the racism issue (for all sorts of reasons), capitalizing on middle-class guilt.

This has created an unhelpful and mainly ideological war of attrition between conservatives, liberals the right and the left.

This war, it would seem, has been harmful because not only has it distracted attention from the problem, but created false solutions (like ATSIC).

To throw my own two Rupiah's worth in, seems like you have a preference for the "non-armband" view of history. You also don't seem to object to a sensible discussion with the other side (the armband view) and Peter Reads of this world.

What seems to be the problem is the context. The context and war of ideas above makes such an exchange loaded and unproductive.

Fair enough.

oigal said...

Ouch and this hurts.. Assmad you have stated my case better than I could or did..

I don't have a problem with Sorry or Sorry days or even Sorry Decades.

However, if we cast our minds back to the grand reconcilation walk over the Sydney Habour Bridge, nice, fluffy feel good but in practical terms did it help one little kid trapped in dysfuntional aboriginal communitities? I am no where near smart enough to even to attempt to provide a solution out of this mess but I do know that all the sorrys in the world is not going to stop women and children getting raped and bashed tonight in any number of dysfuntional communtities.

Surely amongst our learned countrymen there is someone who can come up with a workable way forward but I cannot see that happening until we dispose of the fluff and hollow gestures and really expose the issues.

Howards intervention..ugly but effective in the short term and already being dismantled by various special interest groups..once again when the soldiers and police leave..do those little kids feel so much better that some arse wipe in Sydney has stood up for Aboriginal "Rights' what price does the kid pay?

Racism..mmm..yes and no..Hard to put into words, if you are talking racism as in lets "beat the nigger and hang him from a tree". I think its fair to say that mind set never existed in Australia. Racism as in the white culture is superior and the savages culture and way of life is doomed anyway..yes that was the mind set. Against that mind set, the government tried to do what was best (or thought best) "save what we can and assimilate into white culture"

"Breed out the savage" was definately part of the plan, perhaps considering the whole host of seemingly unsolvable issues left today..perhaps it was the only workable solution..wouldn't that make highly emotive post.

BTW.."Breed out the savage" is known locally as Transmigration

lastly you sum everything up with this..needs no more, self contained trueism

"the backlash against perceived racism - ie PC chattering classes - is becoming a problem to calling things like they are: violence, alcoholism, child abuse, rape, general social decay in aboriginal communities."

Achmad Sudarsono said...

Oigal.

Hardly. :-)

Well, it's a serious business this. One sided-discussions, from left or right, can be dangerous. Peter Read, for example, (whom I've met), is a reasonable and fair-minded person. (He admits he's emotional about the issue).

Whilst I'd probably side with his take over yours (as presented), I doubt the reasonable conservative voice has had a proper airing. All this name-calling mightn't be that harmful when you're talking about tax cuts, but it seems to be when talking about state of affairs in the the aboriginal communities.

oigal said...

"Peter Read, for example, (whom I've met), is a reasonable and fair-minded person."

He may well be but he does his side of the discussion enormous harm when he quotes documents or figures that are proven incorrect or distorted on the first pass of review. Its sloppy and worse it renders the rest of his work suspect. Worse it provides us rednecks with a free pass. Funnily enough there is enough information out there he does need to gild the lily.

I am still awaiting anyone to direct me to anything, anywhere that sounds like a workable solution..(I know thats a cop out but in this case, it really is well beyond anything I can think of that would work)

oigal said...

oops does not need to gild the lily

Achmad Sudarsono said...

Where did Peter Read quote incorrect figures ?

oigal said...

"quote incorrect figures" distorts or incorrect subtle but important change..Covered most of it in the post,

After a review of 800 NSW cases files

For instance Read claims "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'."

As already stated in fact out of 800 files only one mentioned that..

However, I am not going to try and justify that bad things did not happen, point is the debate is overly tilted that any sembalance of the truth is long gone..but I for one do not accept this black arm band view of history..in any shape or form

Achmad Sudarsono said...

Hmm. Thanks. Ok. I wonder why Read did that. All food for thought over the weekend.

oigal said...

Point is he was not wrong but nor is the more conserative side.. On the whole and comapred to most countries I believe Australia can be very proud of history. Yep sure cocked a lot of things up in particular with the Aboriginal but all this constant push of middle class guilt and hyperbole forces people on the defensive and prevents any real progress forward. I ask you have seen or read of any real solutions other than the symbolism that we love so much and achieves so little

Achmad Sudarsono said...

Fixing a broken community - no. A long process of national healing. I think building a national culture where aboriginals don't feel like pariahs is key. Symbolic steps are a part of that.
In terms of improving circumstances, I'm a big fan of education and jobs. Worked for the Irish.