Graham
says: If you don't know enough,
then do us the courtesy of doing some research and finding out.
Karen
says:
Excuse
me but you were the one to bring up this subject in the first place. I never
once mentioned this topic. You mention it last night and when I reply with an
honest answer you shoot me down with a do more
research?!?!?!?!
I
answered you as honestly as I could by saying that I could not give an informed
opinion on something I did not know too much about.
And
whether it is 200 years, 100 years or 50 years - it doesn't matter what I think.
I cannot comment on something I am not that familiar with or haven't had some
experience with. I'm giving my opinions on things that I have seen, heard and
witnessed during my time.
It is
not a cop out but the statement of truth.
And as
I am working all day WITHOUT the internet I only get to play with it at
home at night. So I do not spend all my time researching "the High Court's
overturning of the doctrine of Terra Nullius which found that in fact the
indigenous peoples had title to this land before the Europeans came." I do have
other things to do.
So
don't attack me for giving you an honest "I don't know enough". You brought it
up, not me.
-----Original
Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Graham
Young Sent: Sunday, 12 March 2000 11:31 PM To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [recoznet2] has the man no
shame!!!!!
Karen, are you serious? That's just a cop
out. You must have an opinion, or you wouldn't be spending all of this
time writing email to us. And if you don't agree that the original
dispossession was a wrong done to Aborigines, then there is probably little
sensible conversation that any of us can have with you.
The point about the High Court's overturning of
the doctrine of Terra Nullius is that it found that in fact the indigenous
peoples had title to this land before the Europeans came. Title to land
means ownership of it. If you take ownership away from someone,
that is theft. Are suggesting that there are extenuating circumstances
that mean this theft was not a wrong? If so, please take a stab at
stating your argument. If you don't know enough, then do us the courtesy
of doing some research and finding out.
By the way, it is also a cop-out to say that all
of these things happened 200 years ago. They didn't. The
greatest part of the dispossession happened late last century and this
century. That was when the greater geographical part of the country was
settled, and there are plenty of people alive today who voted for governments
who sanctioned that activity. So it is not accurate to say that it has nothing to do with current
Australians. Perhaps it happened before both of our times, but not all
our times.
Graham Young
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2000 8:52
PM
Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no
shame!!!!!
Unfortunately I was not around over 200 years ago
when this great nation first developed therefore I cannot give an informed
opinion. I do not know what really happened.
I
know only the basics and I refuse to comment on something I do not know more
accurately.
Sorry.
Trudy and Karen,
If I understand what you have both written
correctly, I think we have some common ground. I think that we all
agree that the original disposession of the continent was a wrong that was
done to the original inhabitants.
Perhaps Karen might like to reply to
that? Just a yes or a no. I am sure I know where you stand
Trudy. ;-))
Graham Y
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2000 3:35
PM
Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the
man no shame!!!!!
>How would you feel, Karen? Would you
forgive them and go forward as if nothing had happened? >Would you
think you now had equality? >Would you betray the love of your
children and parents and their deaths and agree to forget so that
>they could feel better?
No, I would not forgive them and no I would not
think I had equality. But I would also know that the siblings were not
responsible for their parents actions. You cannot hold someone
responsible for someone else's actions. One would probably be impressed
with the fact they came forward and acknowledged what had happened and
agreed to try and make things better. Is that so wrong?
As for apologising with reconciliation: Why
should I be forced to betray my own innocence and apologise for
something I never had any involvement with? My family were never involved so I
personally do not wish to apologise. I'm not being stubborn or a racist
just simply standing up for my beliefs, my morals and my own
family's innocence.
Perhaps people should be knocking on the doors
of those who actually were responsible for each individual atrocity and
bring them to justice - if they are still alive.
They are the ones you want to say
sorry.
By saying that everybody should apologise, you
then make people feel guilty for something they did not do - trying to
force the hand - when all we want to do is move on in a peaceful,
harmonious life.
I do understand the story and it is very
sad. Over time most people never forget but they do
move on. It's not about whether the other person or their children
apologise, it is about yourself becoming stronger and moving on with
life. Everyone has suffered some sort of hardship in their life. But no
matter how much the anger stays with one you cannot expect someone who
had nothing to do with the original sin to apologise. It's like
admitting to a crime you did not commit!
I have suffered some very distressing and
personal issues of my own where I had an amazing level of anger inside
me. Eventually over time though I have moved on. I have not forgiven but
I have certainly tried to make something out of my life. I realised that
there was no point in grieving all the time - it gets you no where and
realising that what happened happened even for no good
reason.
What makes you think I was
being so defensive about my
age???? I put forward my age simply to show which generation I am from
and that my views are from a younger person.
Karen,
I don't know why you are so defensive about your age. There are
many young people on the list. Some younger than you are.
You ask why an apology is necessary and how it will make
reconciliation work. An apology is only a part of reconciliation but a
very necessary part.
Let me pose you a scenario: You are married and have children.
You live with your extended family on a very productive farm and
everyone gets along pretty well and have enough to eat. Then, some
people you've never seen before come onto your farm and begin shooting
your family. Your husband and 2 of your 5 children are killed right in
front of you.. Most of your extended family, your mother and father,
aunts and uncles are killed. Some of the men come and rape your two
young daughters and bash your young son. Almost all the people you
have known and loved all your life are dead and you have no one to
comfort you or to help you. They take your farm and everything on it
and leave you a small plot to live on but only if you work the farm
for barely enough food to live on. You have no choice because you
don't want your children to starve to death so you work for the people
who took everything you loved from you. Eventually, your two
daughters give birth to a child each but they look different from your
family and before long, the people you work for tear the the children
away from your daughters and leave with them. You are grief-stricken
for your daughters and the loss of your grandchildren, you are angry
but helpless to do anything about it. Your son has never been the same
since his bashing and is sullen and refuses to do anything except
destroy everything he touches. You can't reach him no matter what you
do and you fear for his life. Your daughters become distant and begin
drinking to forget what has happened to them and one morning you find
one of them dead. She is 18. The years pass and you are now
getting old. The people who took everything from you are dead and
their children are now in charge. They still make you work hard and
give you a little extra now and then. Then, one day they come to
see you. They want everything that has happened to be forgotten. They
now want to live as equals. They offer to give you a bit more land so
that you can grow things for yourself and have a bit more to eat. Of
course, you will no longer get anything extra from them. Also, the
conditions attached to this land are that everything is to be done as
they instruct. You cannot follow the practices of the past. They offer
to educate your new grandchild but insist on choosing what is taught
and only in their language. They want to go forward as if nothing
has happened and they want you to forget what their parents did to you
and your family and not live in the past. They refuse to apologise
because they don't feel responsible for what their parents did even
though they know what their parents did and they are growing rich on
what the farm produces. They cannot even bring themselves to tell you
that they are sorry for what you have suffered....
How would you feel, Karen? Would you forgive them and go forward as
if nothing had happened? Would you think you now had equality?
Would you betray the love of your children and parents and their
deaths and agree to forget so that they could feel better?
Trudy
Karen wrote:
> Tim,
>Just because he doesn't believe in saying sorry doesn't mean he doesn't believe in people living as >a nation united!!
>There is no need for a sorry - how will it make reconciliation work?
>Can anyone even answer that question?
Karen
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of tdunlop
Sent: Saturday, 11 March 2000 9:09 AM
To: RecOzNet2
Subject: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!
Trudy wrote:
Howard is saying nothing new but I think the time has come for
people to ask him to prove his 'commitment'. So far, all his actions
have proved the opposite. --- Trudy
Trudy,
Not just his actions, but his words. I can't believe anyone at all can take him seriously on this. I can't believe he has the nerve to come out of a meeting and
say, once again, that he's committed to reconciliation. It's only a week ago on 3AW that he said: "What baffles me about this (reconciliation) issue is that I'm
expected to repudiate my own personal beliefs; I'm told that the only way I can show leadership on this issue is to do something I don't believe in."
The game was up the moment he uttered this, for once, truthful comment - he doesn't believe in it. But still, his comment about being committed to
reconciliation keeps popping like an unflushable turd. Bit like the man himself.
I'm flabbergasted.
Tim
-- ********************************* Make the Hunger Site
your homepage! http://www.thehungersite.com/index.html
*********************************
|