RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!

[Karen Crook]

TIM SAYS: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."   KAREN SAYS: This says he believes in reconciliation but does not see how a sorry will make it all better! Yet you went on to say:   TIM: "my point was that in one statement he says he believes in reconciliation and in another he says he doesn't.  That's a contradiction. "   KAREN SAYS: In refernce to the above first para - to which you were talking about - he does not actually say that Tim. So you are interpreting it the way you want. He never actually got quoted as saying he doesn't believe in reconciliation.     As for John Howard, I did not vote for him yet I continue knowing that I cannot do too much about that because he was voted in. A united nation means living in a democratic society where the people decide who they want as a leader. And look at who we got. Big mistake hey?? I hate the guy but the 'no sorry' business is the only thing I agree with from him.   -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of tdunlop Sent: Monday, 13 March 2000 9:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!     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!!   Hi Karen - I'm not quite sure how you got this from what I wrote - my point was that in one statement he says he beleives in reconciliation and in another he says he doesn't.  That's a contradiction.  It means one answer is a lie.  If someone lies (as the quotes - and they are quotes - show that he does) then we have some reason to doubt their integrity.  That was my point.   But to address your point.  I wonder what a united nation means?  Who gets to decide what the rules are under which we live?  I'm sure you'll agree that the rules - what system of government, how the law will work, who'll write the laws, who'll be allowed to be elected, all those sorts of things - they don't just appear out of the blue.  They are there because people decide to do things in this way and not that.  In a united nation, the more people having a say in how those rules are formed, the better, I think.  But a 'united nation' is not just about formal things like that.  It's also about less easily defined things - about moral things I guess.  So when we decide to do something - like send aid to East Timor - we do it for moral reasons, because we beleive it's the right thing to do.  People are suffering and we try to help.  An apology falls into that sort of category.  It's another decision we make.   As Prime Minister, John Howard has decided that he won't apologise, for pretty much the reasons you give - we shouldn't have to apologise for something we didn't actually do.  His moral reasons are that no-one who didn't actually, personally, confiscate land, abduct a child, poison a waterhole, march people off a cliff, introduce a disease, suppress a language, denigrate a tradition, or any of the other things that actually happened - if you personally didn't do this, then you shouldn't have to apologise.   There are other people, though, who think, well I didn't actually do any of those things, but then again I didn't have to - somebody else had already done them for me.  The land had already been confiscated by the time I was born, and I sure didn't abduct any children or poison any water etc etc.  By the time I got here, I didn't have to do any of those things.  Because it was already done.  And here I am, living here, through no fault of my own.  There are people in this position - that is, in exactly the same position as John Howard, people who just happened to be born here once most of the dirty work was done - who nonetheless think that it would be a good idea to apologise.  Not because they personally did any of those things, but because they benefit from those things having been done in the past.  We would not be here now if those things hadn't been done in the past.  And they are sorry that their situation today was brought about by those things that happened in the past.  So some people want to say sorry.   So it will help reconciliation because it will acknowledge that how we live today came about because of what happened in the past.  (I wonder if you think that is true or not?)  We might not have done those things, but like I say - WE didn't have to.  We just happened to get born here now and can take advantage of the way things are.  We can't undo the past, but we can acknowledge it.  An apology is a way of making that acknowledgement and saying that we'd like things to be based on a fairer system in the future so that we can have the 'united nation' you speak of.  So the future is what we do today.  An apology will help because what we do today will affect how we (and our decendants) live in the furture.  An apology will get us off to a better start in the future - better than the start we were given.   It's like the bumper sticker says: If you can read this, you're on Aboriginal land.   Anyway, sorry to go on, but I hope you can see what I'm saying, even if you disagree.  But for me the "I didn't do it" argument isn't very convincing.  I didn't land at Galipolli or win the last Ashes series, but I'm proud of those achievements - as I know John Howard is.  But if you can be proud about the good things in the past even though "you didn't do them", then you can be ashamed of the bad things and acknowledge they were bad and wrong by apologising them; and it is such a tiny thing compared to the victim's loss.  A tiny thing.   Tim