I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Graham. You have not hesitated to give
your opinion on other things about which you don't have all the facts
(no-one ever has all the facts), but when it came to a sticky question, you
shielded yourself with an excuse.
I empathise with your difficulty finding information. It has plagued me for
ever. I, too, work all day, and have a life outside of social issues. I
had to proactively research these issues, and it can be very consuming.
This is part of the problem. If we had ready access to the relevant and
accurate information (we can thank the commercial media and politicians for
this lack), everyone would be a bit more knowledgable, and "ignorance" (for
want of a more friendly term) wouldn't be such a problem. The
non-Aboriginal population at large shouldn't have to put itself out to
research the issues and the history. This is the duty of our government,
and it is something at which they have clearly failed.
Cheers.
Glenn Murray
"I am a peanut"
-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Crook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 6:48 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!
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 -----
From: Karen Crook <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]On Behalf Of Graham Young
Sent: Sunday, 12 March 2000 6:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!
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 -----
From: Karen Crook <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Trudy and Rod Bray
Sent: Sunday, 12 March 2000 3:06 PM
To: RecOzNet2
Subject: Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!
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]
<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
<http://www.thehungersite.com/index.html>
*********************************
-------------------------------------------------------
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at
http://www.mail-archive.com/
To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
from the
copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
the "fair
use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
RecOzNet2 is archived for members @
http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/
