|
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
*********************************
|
