[FWD] RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame?
I am forwarding this answer from Karen Crook to Don Clarke to the list because it bounced for being too long. This, despite me asking for extraneous stuff to be cut from the bottom of messages. Bounced mail goes to my old address (I haven't figured out how to change that yet) so this is a little out of date. (In more ways than one.) Trudy From: "Karen Crook" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame? Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 15:35:28 +1100 Reconciliation is where we take away all the specific subsidies and start giving to people for credit of their situations rather than race. There are all colours out there on the streets homeless, on drugs or drinking too much Does that mean that we would also take away subsidies from farmers, mining conglomerates, special 'isolation' subsidies, HECS subsidies for students, single parent subsidies, parental allowance subsidies, day care subsidies, the car industry subsidies, the subsidies to the arts and tax breaks, special allowances and tax breaks for industries to keep their businesses in certain areas, unemployment benefits to those who have the money to support themselves, pensioner subsidies, special shipping allowances, the subsidies for foodstuffs and other items that are given to isolated areas, private schools - I could go on ad infinitum. Many of these subsidies are not given to people 'for credit of their situations' as you put it. But just you try to do that Karen. There would be lynch mobs at your house - mainly from upper-middle class socio-economic mums and dads, rich industrialists, rich cow-cockies and parents of kids from rich schools. In fact I would like to see that happen. I believe that indigenous peoples would actually get more - and many deserve more. No because as I said, they should only be receiving it for their particular circumstance, and these subsidies are for particular circumstance which assist people! ** But just you try to do that Karen. Like I'm a real threat!! *** I believe that indigenous peoples would actually get more - and many deserve more. Then tell me how does an Aboriginal woman of about 50yrs old with all adult children living away from home, working for the Government in a very well-paid job get a financial grant to compete in a government sporting competition in another State and then stay at a 5 star hotel I personally know this woman and she told me this herself. And the excuses used on the application also were over-rated and exaggerated - also admitted to by herself. She just thought what the hell, they'll give me the money. How is this fair? She has a great job, like the rest of us, yet received well over $1,500 to attend. It's not like she couldn't afford to go herself if she'd saved. If you can't go, you can't go-just like everyone else. But not all of us can just apply for the funds! See, it is this sort of thing that causes people such as myself to get disheartened by unfairness. People using their colour for advantage and then crying foul about racism. It's hypocrisy at its best. ** The people who are stopping Australia from being 'Australian' are the non-Aboriginal people who still treat indigenous peoples as second class citizens. Australia should be one nation (no pun intended) but it will never be so until the dominant culture comes to term with its own inbuilt racism and realises that ALL should be given a fair go. It is your culture that is saying this land is 'ours' and not yours. What about those Aboriginals who bash their children, rape their wives and daughters, drink themselves into oblivion, kill one another and disrespect their own people by hurting one another? They treat themselves as second class citizens sometimes and make their situations even worse by doing this. I do not agree with any sort of violence or bad treatment and find this appalling. So don't go blaming non-Aboriginals because there is plenty of second class treatment happening from within. So exactly what do you mean by being given a fair go? * Try telling that to any black person who dares to venture out of his neighbourhood. Try telling that to a black kid who is going to visit a friend who lives in Double Bay in NSW, who is walking along the street to his friends and is pulled up three times by the police who question what he is doing there. Would a white kid get the same treatment? Try also telling that to the women who are too afraid of walking out on the street after dark, even just for exercise, because of the fear of rape by a man or groups of men regadless of colour. Maybe the police question them three times because they know him, or his friends or he's acting suspicious. When did you ever wear a police uniform? If they didn't ask and something happened the public would be down their throat for not protecting the community! It's a catch-22
Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!
-Original Message- From: Karen Crook [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Saturday, March 18, 2000 2:50 PM Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! My racist voyage of ignorance??? How dare you call me a racist! This is obviously the way you treat people who have a different opinion to yourselves. You do not know me from a bar of soap. You think you know me from a few e-mails?! Don't personally attack me for my own opinions because by what you have just said lowers yourself and that makes YOU ignorant. All I have been doing is listening to everyone's opinions and putting forward some questions and my own thoughts. Have I personally attacked you or insulted you? No, because I at least respect the fact that everyone has an opinion and we are all very different. How quick you are to judge me over some e-mails. And you get angry at people for doing the same thing about Aboriginal people!?!?!?!?! Those who throw stones.. Karen, I have presented my opinion having read many of your posts. In my opinion you and perhaps a majority of Australians are sharing the same racist voyage of ignorance. That ,Karen, is my opinion . Laurie. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Laurie Forde Sent: Saturday, 18 March 2000 10:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! -Original Message- From: Karen Crook [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, March 17, 2000 10:55 PM Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! Well it's not mine so no objection! See in this day and age though, things are a lot more developed and ownership is now bought. That was not my law or decision. See, in those days though there was 4 years of development and understanding of land usage. Karen, until you are able to comprehend that Indigenous culture has as much right to recognition as Invader culture you will never be able to examine the issues sensibly, and will continue on your racist voyage of ignorance. Laurie. Things are very different these days and I think we should be taking this into account that we have moved on to different practices and procedures via real estate. We are no longer practicing old time laws - we have become a civilised society where things are very business-like. You cannot please the masses so there is always going to be someone unhappy with the decisions. Situation reversed: Would you move from your brand new house if someone suddenly came around and said you were sitting on a sacred site -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Graham Young Sent: Thursday, 16 March 2000 10:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! So as we are all visitors to this land and there should be none of this "this is mine and you took it away," (according to you) I assume you would have no objection to me just moving into your house and pushing you off because as visitors the only right that we have to property is the strength of our own right arm. Graham - Original Message - From: Karen Crook [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 7:31 PM Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! If you're going to go back, why not go back all the way. Eventually, the land was owned by no one, except the dinasours! As far as I am concerned we are all visitors to this land and there should be none of this "this is mine and you took it away." Here's a thought for you: How do we not know that many years ago the Aboriginals were in fact the second or third group of people to live on this land? How do we not know that a group of them didn't fight someone else for it and claimed it as their own? Unfortunately, it's one of those stories that could keep going back and back and we'll never know who originally started this amazing country of our. Nobody has a real answer for this because nobody knows. So how about we all just accept that we are here and that we should go forward? I read the newspapers too - I have too - and I have formed my own opinions. We all form them from something we believe in don't we? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Trudy and Rod Bray Sent: Tuesday, 14 March 2000 9:08 AM To: RecOzNet2 Subject: Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! I am forwarding Graham Young's message which bounced because it was too long. Please, everyone remember to remove the older parts of messages that are not needed for clarity. Trudy ** Karen, I am sorry that you feel that I was attacking you. That wasn't my = intention at all. I am trying to understand what you think, and the = only way to do that is to start with the most basic concepts and then = work
Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!
Karen, I'm not quite sure that I understand all of your last post, but underlying it seems to be an acceptance that the way that our society is organised now with respect to private property is better than it was. If that is the case, would you agree that our current system is more moral? Would you also agree that taking something that belongs to someone else is wrong? With respect to your last comment, if I were living on a sacred site and an aboriginal group had the right to obtain the land from me, then yes, I would go, just as I would if it was required for road purposes, for example. But I would expect to be compensated for the loss of it, and it would probably only occur in circumstances where there was government legislation to back it. That is the point of my example. While there is evidence that colonial administrations actually believed aborigines to have property rights these were never respected. The land was appropriated without the thought that they should receive any monetary payment at all. And I want to reiterate that this is not a matter of ancient history. The freeholding of leases without compensation to the holders of native title was part of the theft of this country and it occurred until quite recently. Now I accept that a large number of the people who settled this land thought that they weren't doing anything wrong. But I don't accept that right and wrong are relative concepts. "Thou shalt not steal" is a precept about 4,000 years old now, but just because everyone else is stealing, that doesn't justify me in doing the same thing. So I don't have a problem with looking back and saying that what was done was wrong. I also don't have a problem with apologising for it, not because I feel any personal guilt, but because this signifies that I accept and understand that it was wrong. I also don't have a problem with us as a society compensating the original inhabitants for the loss they have suffered in some way. Graham Young - Original Message - From: Karen Crook [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 9:53 PM Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! Well it's not mine so no objection! See in this day and age though, things are a lot more developed and ownership is now bought. That was not my law or decision. Things are very different these days and I think we should be taking this into account that we have moved on to different practices and procedures via real estate. We are no longer practicing old time laws - we have become a civilised society where things are very business-like. You cannot please the masses so there is always going to be someone unhappy with the decisions. Situation reversed: Would you move from your brand new house if someone suddenly came around and said you were sitting on a sacred site -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Graham Young Sent: Thursday, 16 March 2000 10:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! So as we are all visitors to this land and there should be none of this "this is mine and you took it away," (according to you) I assume you would have no objection to me just moving into your house and pushing you off because as visitors the only right that we have to property is the strength of our own right arm. Graham - Original Message - From: Karen Crook [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 7:31 PM Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! If you're going to go back, why not go back all the way. Eventually, the land was owned by no one, except the dinasours! As far as I am concerned we are all visitors to this land and there should be none of this "this is mine and you took it away." Here's a thought for you: How do we not know that many years ago the Aboriginals were in fact the second or third group of people to live on this land? How do we not know that a group of them didn't fight someone else for it and claimed it as their own? Unfortunately, it's one of those stories that could keep going back and back and we'll never know who originally started this amazing country of our. Nobody has a real answer for this because nobody knows. So how about we all just accept that we are here and that we should go forward? I read the newspapers too - I have too - and I have formed my own opinions. We all form them from something we believe in don't we? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Trudy and Rod Bray Sent: Tuesday, 14 March 2000 9:08 AM To: RecOzNet2 Subject: Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! I am forwarding Graham Young's message which bounced because it was too long. Please, everyone remember to remove the older parts of messages that are not
RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!
Well it's not mine so no objection! See in this day and age though, things are a lot more developed and ownership is now bought. That was not my law or decision. Things are very different these days and I think we should be taking this into account that we have moved on to different practices and procedures via real estate. We are no longer practicing old time laws - we have become a civilised society where things are very business-like. You cannot please the masses so there is always going to be someone unhappy with the decisions. Situation reversed: Would you move from your brand new house if someone suddenly came around and said you were sitting on a sacred site -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Graham Young Sent: Thursday, 16 March 2000 10:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! So as we are all visitors to this land and there should be none of this "this is mine and you took it away," (according to you) I assume you would have no objection to me just moving into your house and pushing you off because as visitors the only right that we have to property is the strength of our own right arm. Graham - Original Message - From: Karen Crook [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 7:31 PM Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! If you're going to go back, why not go back all the way. Eventually, the land was owned by no one, except the dinasours! As far as I am concerned we are all visitors to this land and there should be none of this "this is mine and you took it away." Here's a thought for you: How do we not know that many years ago the Aboriginals were in fact the second or third group of people to live on this land? How do we not know that a group of them didn't fight someone else for it and claimed it as their own? Unfortunately, it's one of those stories that could keep going back and back and we'll never know who originally started this amazing country of our. Nobody has a real answer for this because nobody knows. So how about we all just accept that we are here and that we should go forward? I read the newspapers too - I have too - and I have formed my own opinions. We all form them from something we believe in don't we? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Trudy and Rod Bray Sent: Tuesday, 14 March 2000 9:08 AM To: RecOzNet2 Subject: Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! I am forwarding Graham Young's message which bounced because it was too long. Please, everyone remember to remove the older parts of messages that are not needed for clarity. Trudy ** Karen, I am sorry that you feel that I was attacking you. That wasn't my = intention at all. I am trying to understand what you think, and the = only way to do that is to start with the most basic concepts and then = work upwards. There has got to be some point where we can all agree on = something. Once we have reached a point like that it then allows us to = move back up the trail and find where we disagree. At the moment we are = disagreeing at a point so far down the track that we have moved too far = away from each other to be able to communicate. Trudy put an example to you which was a model for Aboriginal = dispossession and injury. You seemed to accept that there was a moral = wrong involved. I sought to clarify if that is what you thought. So = it wasn't something that I brought up at all. It was something that had = come up in your conversation with Trudy. Why do I think that you are copping out? Because this is a basic = question, and I don't see how anyone can carry out a discussion on = reconciliation without having formed an opinion on it. I certainly = think, reading your posts, that you have formed an opinion. If you = truly haven't formed an opinion on it, then you need to. I don't spend = my time researching Aboriginal issues on the net, or anywhere else for = that matter. The research to make a decision on whether the settlement = was right or wrong is easy to come by. Most of what I know comes from = the major newspapers. The reason that I brought up Terra Nullius was because it is about the = only defence against Aboriginal dispossession being wrong. What the = doctrine said was that this land was not owned by anyone before the = European settlers appeared. The Aborigines and Islanders were here, but = they were thought not to have any right or title in the land. That = entitled the Europeans to settle where they liked and set up their own = system of title. This was the law of the land until the Mabo decision, = which involved not Aborigines but the Merriam people (Micronesians I = think). They had a system of individual ownership of land unlike that =
Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!
-Original Message- From: Karen Crook [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, March 17, 2000 10:55 PM Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! Well it's not mine so no objection! See in this day and age though, things are a lot more developed and ownership is now bought. That was not my law or decision. See, in those days though there was 4 years of development and understanding of land usage. Karen, until you are able to comprehend that Indigenous culture has as much right to recognition as Invader culture you will never be able to examine the issues sensibly, and will continue on your racist voyage of ignorance. Laurie. Things are very different these days and I think we should be taking this into account that we have moved on to different practices and procedures via real estate. We are no longer practicing old time laws - we have become a civilised society where things are very business-like. You cannot please the masses so there is always going to be someone unhappy with the decisions. Situation reversed: Would you move from your brand new house if someone suddenly came around and said you were sitting on a sacred site -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Graham Young Sent: Thursday, 16 March 2000 10:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! So as we are all visitors to this land and there should be none of this "this is mine and you took it away," (according to you) I assume you would have no objection to me just moving into your house and pushing you off because as visitors the only right that we have to property is the strength of our own right arm. Graham - Original Message - From: Karen Crook [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 7:31 PM Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! If you're going to go back, why not go back all the way. Eventually, the land was owned by no one, except the dinasours! As far as I am concerned we are all visitors to this land and there should be none of this "this is mine and you took it away." Here's a thought for you: How do we not know that many years ago the Aboriginals were in fact the second or third group of people to live on this land? How do we not know that a group of them didn't fight someone else for it and claimed it as their own? Unfortunately, it's one of those stories that could keep going back and back and we'll never know who originally started this amazing country of our. Nobody has a real answer for this because nobody knows. So how about we all just accept that we are here and that we should go forward? I read the newspapers too - I have too - and I have formed my own opinions. We all form them from something we believe in don't we? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Trudy and Rod Bray Sent: Tuesday, 14 March 2000 9:08 AM To: RecOzNet2 Subject: Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! I am forwarding Graham Young's message which bounced because it was too long. Please, everyone remember to remove the older parts of messages that are not needed for clarity. Trudy ** Karen, I am sorry that you feel that I was attacking you. That wasn't my = intention at all. I am trying to understand what you think, and the = only way to do that is to start with the most basic concepts and then = work upwards. There has got to be some point where we can all agree on = something. Once we have reached a point like that it then allows us to = move back up the trail and find where we disagree. At the moment we are = disagreeing at a point so far down the track that we have moved too far = away from each other to be able to communicate. Trudy put an example to you which was a model for Aboriginal = dispossession and injury. You seemed to accept that there was a moral = wrong involved. I sought to clarify if that is what you thought. So = it wasn't something that I brought up at all. It was something that had = come up in your conversation with Trudy. Why do I think that you are copping out? Because this is a basic = question, and I don't see how anyone can carry out a discussion on = reconciliation without having formed an opinion on it. I certainly = think, reading your posts, that you have formed an opinion. If you = truly haven't formed an opinion on it, then you need to. I don't spend = my time researching Aboriginal issues on the net, or anywhere else for = that matter. The research to make a decision on whether the settlement = was right or wrong is easy to come by. Most of what I know comes from = the major newspapers. The reason that I brought up Terra Nullius was because it is about the = only defence against Aboriginal dispossession being wrong. What
Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame?
Reconciliation is where we take away all the specific subsidies and start giving to people for credit of their situations rather than race. There are all colours out there on the streets homeless, on drugs or drinking too much Does that mean that we would also take away subsidies from farmers, mining conglomerates, special 'isolation' subsidies, HECS subsidies for students, single parent subsidies, parental allowance subsidies, day care subsidies, the car industry subsidies, the subsidies to the arts and tax breaks, special allowances and tax breaks for industries to keep their businesses in certain areas, unemployment benefits to those who have the money to support themselves, pensioner subsidies, special shipping allowances, the subsidies for foodstuffs and other items that are given to isolated areas, private schools - I could go on ad infinitum. Many of these subsidies are not given to people 'for credit of their situations' as you put it. But just you try to do that Karen. There would be lynch mobs at your house - mainly from upper-middle class socio-economic mums and dads, rich industrialists, rich cow-cockies and parents of kids from rich schools. In fact I would like to see that happen. I believe that indigenous peoples would actually get more - and many deserve more. Reconciliation is giving everyone a chance at an education no matter what colour they are And making that education relevant to the person concerned. There are too many studies on education that state that it is too anglo-centric and often not relevant nor of use to people of ethnic origin nor to indigenous peoples. Yes everyone should have a chance at education no matter what colour they are. A cursory read of most articles on indigenous education in Australia will convince you that this is exactly what educators are trying to achieve. Reconciliation is allowing everyone the chance to have a job, no matter what you look like. Once again I agree. But you try being black and trying to get a job. Even if your credentials are the same, if you are white you are far more likely to get the job - even now. This is the same for women, ethnic origin, disability, and sexual preference. Once again any cursory read of articles on employment in Australia will prove this to you. REconciliation is everybody recognising that this land belongs to Australia not just once specific race, and that we should all work together to make this place great. None of this "ours" and "yours". I wonder if you would think the same if the 'law' came in and took your house and property and gave you nothing for it. And if they took your property because they believed that you were not sufficiently human to hold that property and then they destroyed your property - what would you think. Like it or not this land was 'owned' by people before the white invasion and has never been ceded. People who nourished and loved it and who cared for it in ways that are only just now being recognised as the best way to look after this land. Even your white courts have stated that this land was owned before invasion - your law - the law you say we should all be upholding. It is the white person who is trying to change the laws to suit their own sense of greed and avarice. The people who are stopping Australia from being 'Australian' are the non-Aboriginal people who still treat indigenous peoples as second class citizens. Australia should be one nation (no pun intended) but it will never be so until the dominant culture comes to term with its own inbuilt racism and realises that ALL should be given a fair go. It is your culture that is saying this land is 'ours' and not yours. Reconciliation is letting people walk down the street without fear of harassment, abuse and physical harm no matter what your colour, sexuality, appearance or disability Try telling that to any black person who dares to venture out of his neighbourhood. Try telling that to a black kid who is going to visit a friend who lives in Double Bay in NSW, who is walking along the street to his friends and is pulled up three times by the police who question what he is doing there. Would a white kid get the same treatment? Reconciliation is many things to me. Its is to me too and not many of them seem to be about indigenous people from what I see. Reconciliation is about being proud to be Australian And about including ALL Australians in that dream - equally, indivisibly, equitably. Reconciliation is about being ready to look after one another And ensuring that ALL are looked after according to their needs - and any survey will show that the indigenous people of this country are the most neglected and needy - through white man's lack of inclusivity of them. Reconciliation - what does it mean to you! Some time ago Tim Fischer stated that he thought the Japanese people should apologize to the Australian people for what they did in a
RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!
My racist voyage of ignorance??? How dare you call me a racist! This is obviously the way you treat people who have a different opinion to yourselves. You do not know me from a bar of soap. You think you know me from a few e-mails?! Don't personally attack me for my own opinions because by what you have just said lowers yourself and that makes YOU ignorant. All I have been doing is listening to everyone's opinions and putting forward some questions and my own thoughts. Have I personally attacked you or insulted you? No, because I at least respect the fact that everyone has an opinion and we are all very different. How quick you are to judge me over some e-mails. And you get angry at people for doing the same thing about Aboriginal people!?!?!?!?! Those who throw stones.. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Laurie Forde Sent: Saturday, 18 March 2000 10:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! -Original Message- From: Karen Crook [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, March 17, 2000 10:55 PM Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! Well it's not mine so no objection! See in this day and age though, things are a lot more developed and ownership is now bought. That was not my law or decision. See, in those days though there was 4 years of development and understanding of land usage. Karen, until you are able to comprehend that Indigenous culture has as much right to recognition as Invader culture you will never be able to examine the issues sensibly, and will continue on your racist voyage of ignorance. Laurie. Things are very different these days and I think we should be taking this into account that we have moved on to different practices and procedures via real estate. We are no longer practicing old time laws - we have become a civilised society where things are very business-like. You cannot please the masses so there is always going to be someone unhappy with the decisions. Situation reversed: Would you move from your brand new house if someone suddenly came around and said you were sitting on a sacred site -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Graham Young Sent: Thursday, 16 March 2000 10:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! So as we are all visitors to this land and there should be none of this "this is mine and you took it away," (according to you) I assume you would have no objection to me just moving into your house and pushing you off because as visitors the only right that we have to property is the strength of our own right arm. Graham - Original Message - From: Karen Crook [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 7:31 PM Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! If you're going to go back, why not go back all the way. Eventually, the land was owned by no one, except the dinasours! As far as I am concerned we are all visitors to this land and there should be none of this "this is mine and you took it away." Here's a thought for you: How do we not know that many years ago the Aboriginals were in fact the second or third group of people to live on this land? How do we not know that a group of them didn't fight someone else for it and claimed it as their own? Unfortunately, it's one of those stories that could keep going back and back and we'll never know who originally started this amazing country of our. Nobody has a real answer for this because nobody knows. So how about we all just accept that we are here and that we should go forward? I read the newspapers too - I have too - and I have formed my own opinions. We all form them from something we believe in don't we? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Trudy and Rod Bray Sent: Tuesday, 14 March 2000 9:08 AM To: RecOzNet2 Subject: Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! I am forwarding Graham Young's message which bounced because it was too long. Please, everyone remember to remove the older parts of messages that are not needed for clarity. Trudy ** Karen, I am sorry that you feel that I was attacking you. That wasn't my = intention at all. I am trying to understand what you think, and the = only way to do that is to start with the most basic concepts and then = work upwards. There has got to be some point where we can all agree on = something. Once we have reached a point like that it then allows us to = move back up the trail and find where we disagree. At the moment we are = disagreeing at a point so far down the track that we have moved too far = away from each other to be able to communicate. Trudy put an example to you which was a model for Aboriginal = disp
RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!
I
never said police were not racist, nor did I say they were.
Quite
frankly I can give any opinion i want because they are mine.
Believe whatever you want, I'm
happy.
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Don
ClarkSent: Monday, 13 March 2000 10:27 PMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [recoznet2] has the man no
shame!
Karen,
As I remember it you made clear statements that there
was no racism in the laws of this land. You made statements that the
police are not racist. You made other statements that a little research
would have proven are quite the opposite of your statements.
Now you are saying that you can't give an informed
opinion?
I believe many of your statements are not
informed.
My research is done at night when I have finished my day
and I do have other things to do as well. But I would not think of
having a discussion without being informed in the first place or at least
stating my lack of information and asking for some.
Don
Don ClarkPresidentIndigenous Social Justice AssociationPO Box
K555Haymarket NSW 1240[EMAIL PROTECTED]
There can be no real reconciliation without social justice
- Original Message -
From:
Karen Crook
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, 13 March 2000 6:48
P.M.
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 knowtoo 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 dayWITHOUT 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
YoungSent: Sunday, 12 March 2000 11:31 PMTo:
[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
To: [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
RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!
Do a block sender on my e-mail address!! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Claire O'Connor Sent: Tuesday, 14 March 2000 12:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! Hello can someone tell me if it is possible to receive all mail from a list except one sender. I admire anyone who attempts to answer this sort of time consuming comment but when I get email sent from one person (and there seem to be more than 6 in one day), whose views and attitudes I am fully acquainted with but dont really want to listen to, I would like to be able to configure my system so it doesnt arrive in the first place. Thanks Claire Karen Crook wrote: In other words I will never forget what happened to me but the greatest revenge I can have to the person in question is to live my life to the fullest. Letting them know they did not destroy me!! Hmm, sweet revenge! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Glenn Murray Sent: Monday, 13 March 2000 9:24 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! I have not forgiven but I have certainly tried to make something out of my life. Reconciliation without forgiveness??? H... Glenn Murray -Original Message- From: Karen Crook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2000 4:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!
If you're going to go back, why not go back all the way. Eventually, the land was owned by no one, except the dinasours! As far as I am concerned we are all visitors to this land and there should be none of this "this is mine and you took it away." Here's a thought for you: How do we not know that many years ago the Aboriginals were in fact the second or third group of people to live on this land? How do we not know that a group of them didn't fight someone else for it and claimed it as their own? Unfortunately, it's one of those stories that could keep going back and back and we'll never know who originally started this amazing country of our. Nobody has a real answer for this because nobody knows. So how about we all just accept that we are here and that we should go forward? I read the newspapers too - I have too - and I have formed my own opinions. We all form them from something we believe in don't we? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Trudy and Rod Bray Sent: Tuesday, 14 March 2000 9:08 AM To: RecOzNet2 Subject: Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! I am forwarding Graham Young's message which bounced because it was too long. Please, everyone remember to remove the older parts of messages that are not needed for clarity. Trudy ** Karen, I am sorry that you feel that I was attacking you. That wasn't my = intention at all. I am trying to understand what you think, and the = only way to do that is to start with the most basic concepts and then = work upwards. There has got to be some point where we can all agree on = something. Once we have reached a point like that it then allows us to = move back up the trail and find where we disagree. At the moment we are = disagreeing at a point so far down the track that we have moved too far = away from each other to be able to communicate. Trudy put an example to you which was a model for Aboriginal = dispossession and injury. You seemed to accept that there was a moral = wrong involved. I sought to clarify if that is what you thought. So = it wasn't something that I brought up at all. It was something that had = come up in your conversation with Trudy. Why do I think that you are copping out? Because this is a basic = question, and I don't see how anyone can carry out a discussion on = reconciliation without having formed an opinion on it. I certainly = think, reading your posts, that you have formed an opinion. If you = truly haven't formed an opinion on it, then you need to. I don't spend = my time researching Aboriginal issues on the net, or anywhere else for = that matter. The research to make a decision on whether the settlement = was right or wrong is easy to come by. Most of what I know comes from = the major newspapers. The reason that I brought up Terra Nullius was because it is about the = only defence against Aboriginal dispossession being wrong. What the = doctrine said was that this land was not owned by anyone before the = European settlers appeared. The Aborigines and Islanders were here, but = they were thought not to have any right or title in the land. That = entitled the Europeans to settle where they liked and set up their own = system of title. This was the law of the land until the Mabo decision, = which involved not Aborigines but the Merriam people (Micronesians I = think). They had a system of individual ownership of land unlike that = of the Aborigines and the High Court found that this gave rise to = continuing property rights under our system. In this judgement they = made non-binding suggestions that there might be property rights on the = mainland. The rest is history as succeeding cases have confirmed that = those rights do exist on the Mainland, and have decided what they might = be, and their nature. =20 So, maybe you disagree with the High Court and believe that the land was = originally owned by no-one. If so, perhaps we should start at that = point. =20 Graham Young - Original Message -=20 From: Karen Crook=20 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]=20 Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 5:48 PM 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:=20 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 witnes
Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!
So as we are all visitors to this land and there should be none of this "this is mine and you took it away," (according to you) I assume you would have no objection to me just moving into your house and pushing you off because as visitors the only right that we have to property is the strength of our own right arm. Graham - Original Message - From: Karen Crook [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 7:31 PM Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! If you're going to go back, why not go back all the way. Eventually, the land was owned by no one, except the dinasours! As far as I am concerned we are all visitors to this land and there should be none of this "this is mine and you took it away." Here's a thought for you: How do we not know that many years ago the Aboriginals were in fact the second or third group of people to live on this land? How do we not know that a group of them didn't fight someone else for it and claimed it as their own? Unfortunately, it's one of those stories that could keep going back and back and we'll never know who originally started this amazing country of our. Nobody has a real answer for this because nobody knows. So how about we all just accept that we are here and that we should go forward? I read the newspapers too - I have too - and I have formed my own opinions. We all form them from something we believe in don't we? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Trudy and Rod Bray Sent: Tuesday, 14 March 2000 9:08 AM To: RecOzNet2 Subject: Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! I am forwarding Graham Young's message which bounced because it was too long. Please, everyone remember to remove the older parts of messages that are not needed for clarity. Trudy ** Karen, I am sorry that you feel that I was attacking you. That wasn't my = intention at all. I am trying to understand what you think, and the = only way to do that is to start with the most basic concepts and then = work upwards. There has got to be some point where we can all agree on = something. Once we have reached a point like that it then allows us to = move back up the trail and find where we disagree. At the moment we are = disagreeing at a point so far down the track that we have moved too far = away from each other to be able to communicate. Trudy put an example to you which was a model for Aboriginal = dispossession and injury. You seemed to accept that there was a moral = wrong involved. I sought to clarify if that is what you thought. So = it wasn't something that I brought up at all. It was something that had = come up in your conversation with Trudy. Why do I think that you are copping out? Because this is a basic = question, and I don't see how anyone can carry out a discussion on = reconciliation without having formed an opinion on it. I certainly = think, reading your posts, that you have formed an opinion. If you = truly haven't formed an opinion on it, then you need to. I don't spend = my time researching Aboriginal issues on the net, or anywhere else for = that matter. The research to make a decision on whether the settlement = was right or wrong is easy to come by. Most of what I know comes from = the major newspapers. The reason that I brought up Terra Nullius was because it is about the = only defence against Aboriginal dispossession being wrong. What the = doctrine said was that this land was not owned by anyone before the = European settlers appeared. The Aborigines and Islanders were here, but = they were thought not to have any right or title in the land. That = entitled the Europeans to settle where they liked and set up their own = system of title. This was the law of the land until the Mabo decision, = which involved not Aborigines but the Merriam people (Micronesians I = think). They had a system of individual ownership of land unlike that = of the Aborigines and the High Court found that this gave rise to = continuing property rights under our system. In this judgement they = made non-binding suggestions that there might be property rights on the = mainland. The rest is history as succeeding cases have confirmed that = those rights do exist on the Mainland, and have decided what they might = be, and their nature. =20 So, maybe you disagree with the High Court and believe that the land was = originally owned by no-one. If so, perhaps we should start at that = point. =20 Graham Young - Original Message -=20 From: Karen Crook=20 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]=20 Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 5:48 PM 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:=20 Excuse me but you w
Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame?
Hi Karen, My feeling about your answer is that you're not talking about reconciliation but about something less specific like living in a fair country, judging by your comments below. Reconciliation is about that too, but it refers to a particular relationship, namely, that between settler Australians and Indigenous Australians. You might think that that relationship is not important but you don't get to decide that and nor do I and nor does John Howard - history decides that. That relationship exists, you can't just wish it away. Awful things happened in the past - I think you would admit that, wouldn't you? - and those things have repercussions in the present. So reconciliation can't just be about the things you mention, it also has to be about the specific relationship. You can't define that relationship out of your definition of reconciliation. Karen: Reconciliation is many things to me. Well, it can have many aspects, I agree, but it's only about one thing - the relationship between Settler and First Australians. And that's the very thing you don't seem to want it to be about. Why? Karen: Reconciliation is about being proud to be Australian. Fine. We can be proud to be Australian, but what are you proud of? Everything that has ever happened here? Surely not - you're too smart to know that nothing wrong has ever happened here, whether its about Indigenous Australians or anything else. But like I said last time, if you can be proud about some of the things done in Australia then can't you also be ashamed of some things too? And if you can be ashamed of some things then, as proud Australians who no doubt don't want their country to be badly thought of, shouldn't we do something about those things that make us ashamed? And if the victims of one of those shameful things say to us that one of the things they want is an apology for how they have been treated, then is that too much to ask? Even if we, as you've said, didn't actually do those things, who else is going to make the gesture? The people in the past can't apologise, can they? So who is? And how would it decrease our pride in being Australian if we said sorry now? Surely being proud of who we are means fessing up that we're not now and never have been perfect. Don't you think that'd help us move on, which seems to be the main thing you want? I must admit I'm always amazed when people say they are proud to be Australian but then also say that they don't much about the country's history. Funny sort of pride. So proud they can't be bothered reading a few books. Karen: Reconciliation is about being ready to look after one another. Well, we're not looking after one another by denying one group's suffering, are we? Karen: Reconciliation - what does it mean to you! It means saying sorry, having the apology accepted and trying to move on together,not by ignoring the past but by acknowledging it. It won't solve everything but it will go out of its way not to make anything worse and it won't deny other people's suffering. Pretty simple really. Karen: As for mandatory sentencing, I have never actually said that I was against mandatory sentencing. I just still don't see how it is a race issue. Still, nobody has come up with anything concrete. It's a race issue because of the way it's applied. If you put a law in place that is more likely to affect one group of people than another then the law itself doesn't have to actually specify that group, the bias will take care of itself. For example, dealing crack cocaine in the US attracts harsher penalties than does dealing powdered cocaine. Crack is cheaper and is therefore more likely to be used by poor people than rich people. Poor people tend more often to be black than white in the US. Thus the law doesn't have to say 'arrest only black people', this just happens because that's who use crack. White people who use powedered cocaine are less likely to be prosecuted (the figures show) and recieve much more lenient sentences, because the laws are written that way. Racism often works in this way - it is built into the structures of how laws and institutions work. If an employer doesn't want women with children to geta certain jobthey don't have to say men only -they just make the job description unattractive to women, say by demanding long hours and weekend work. This won't stop all women with children applying, but it will discourage many. Karen: Why does nobody jump up and call it racist when a white person dies in custody? Because racism is about power. If the system that puts people in jail is largely written and run by one group of people, and if those laws are more likely to affect a certain group (like the crack example
RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!
Hear hear! And it's not as simple as that either. The cry, "Let's just forget about it and move on" is always made by those who benefited (and continue benefiting) from the dispossession. Coincidence? How can we move on when this is the closest that mainstream Australia comes to admitting that a wrong was done and that it needs to be corrected. Please, Karen, read the document that I forwarded to you a week or two ago. What we're asking is that you stop trying to see everything in black and white (and I'm not talking about skin colour, so forgive the pun). Have a think about the issues... try to put yourself in someone else's shoes. Please. Glenn Murray -Original Message- From: Graham Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 10:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! So as we are all visitors to this land and there should be none of this "this is mine and you took it away," (according to you) I assume you would have no objection to me just moving into your house and pushing you off because as visitors the only right that we have to property is the strength of our own right arm. Graham - Original Message - From: Karen Crook [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 7:31 PM Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! If you're going to go back, why not go back all the way. Eventually, the land was owned by no one, except the dinasours! As far as I am concerned we are all visitors to this land and there should be none of this "this is mine and you took it away." Here's a thought for you: How do we not know that many years ago the Aboriginals were in fact the second or third group of people to live on this land? How do we not know that a group of them didn't fight someone else for it and claimed it as their own? Unfortunately, it's one of those stories that could keep going back and back and we'll never know who originally started this amazing country of our. Nobody has a real answer for this because nobody knows. So how about we all just accept that we are here and that we should go forward? I read the newspapers too - I have too - and I have formed my own opinions. We all form them from something we believe in don't we? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Trudy and Rod Bray Sent: Tuesday, 14 March 2000 9:08 AM To: RecOzNet2 Subject: Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! I am forwarding Graham Young's message which bounced because it was too long. Please, everyone remember to remove the older parts of messages that are not needed for clarity. Trudy ** Karen, I am sorry that you feel that I was attacking you. That wasn't my = intention at all. I am trying to understand what you think, and the = only way to do that is to start with the most basic concepts and then = work upwards. There has got to be some point where we can all agree on = something. Once we have reached a point like that it then allows us to = move back up the trail and find where we disagree. At the moment we are = disagreeing at a point so far down the track that we have moved too far = away from each other to be able to communicate. Trudy put an example to you which was a model for Aboriginal = dispossession and injury. You seemed to accept that there was a moral = wrong involved. I sought to clarify if that is what you thought. So = it wasn't something that I brought up at all. It was something that had = come up in your conversation with Trudy. Why do I think that you are copping out? Because this is a basic = question, and I don't see how anyone can carry out a discussion on = reconciliation without having formed an opinion on it. I certainly = think, reading your posts, that you have formed an opinion. If you = truly haven't formed an opinion on it, then you need to. I don't spend = my time researching Aboriginal issues on the net, or anywhere else for = that matter. The research to make a decision on whether the settlement = was right or wrong is easy to come by. Most of what I know comes from = the major newspapers. The reason that I brought up Terra Nullius was because it is about the = only defence against Aboriginal dispossession being wrong. What the = doctrine said was that this land was not owned by anyone before the = European settlers appeared. The Aborigines and Islanders were here, but = they were thought not to have any right or title in the land. That = entitled the Europeans to settle where they liked and set up their own = system of title. This was the law of the land until the Mabo decision, = which involved not Aborigines but the Merriam people (Micronesians I = think). They had a system of individual ownership of land unlike that = of the Aborigines and the High C
RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame?
Hi again Karen, Before you start making claims such as these, have a think about your own situation. If it wasn't for such affirmative action policies, you wouldn't even have access to the computer you're typing on. More to the point, you wouldn't be allowed to voice your opinions, much less have anyone listen to them. Affirmative action has brought us a long way (not all the way yet, unfortunately). This land belongs to everyone? Yeah right. This land belongs to "white Australia", and there's no two ways about it. Who makes the decisions? Who enforces them? Who has all the voting power (oh yeah, I forgot, might is right)? White Australia forces this country into an us and them situation by situating Aboriginal Australians and all their culture as "Them". I go into this in some detail in my thesis if you care to read it. Reconciliation is about everything you state. The problem is, none of those things can happen without sensitive policies, and without genuine recognition of past wrongs, and genuine attempts to fix them. These are the things that we're fighting for. As for mandatory sentencing, if you haven't heard anything concrete yet, then you haven't read the Independent Royal Commission Report into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. It recommends most strongly that imprisonment of Aboriginal people be used as a last resort... not as a first resort! Aboriginal people don't die more often in custody, they're just imprisoned more often... up to 16 times more often. Have a real close think about this statistic. Do you honestly think that Aboriginal "nature" is 16 times more criminal than non-Aboriginal nature? Why do you think they're imprisoned at such a high rate? Even if we accept that they're committing crime more often (ignoring the fact that they are targeted more often, and retained in custody for the very same offences that non-Aboriginal people are given a slap on the wrist for). Even if we do accept that they're committing the crime, why is this the case? Don't you think it's got something to do with systematic oppression? With not being allowed to have a unique identity that is anything but criminal and "bludging"? If only you would open you heart to the everyday experience of being Aboriginal. I've never known an Aboriginal person who wasn't discriminated against EVERY DAY purely because of their "race". White people don't have to live under these conditions... that's why we don't jump up and call it racist when a white person dies in custody! Glenn Murray -Original Message- From: Karen Crook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 8:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame? Reconciliation is where we take away all the specific subsidies and start giving to people for credit of their situations rather than race. There are all colours out there on the streets homeless, on drugs or drinking too much. Reconciliation is giving everyone a chance at an education no matter what colouor they are. Reconciliation is allowing everyone the chance to have a job, no matter what you look like. REconciliation is everybody recognising that this land belongs to Australia not just once specific race, and that we should all work together to make this place great. None of this "ours" and "yours". Reconciliation is letting people walk down the street without fear of harassment, abuse and physical harm no matter what your colour, sexuality, appearance or disability. Reconciliation is many things to me. Reconciliation is about being proud to be Australian. Reconciliation is about being ready to look after one another. Reconciliation - what does it mean to you! Actually, while I'm at it, I would love to hear what everyone else's definition of reconciliation is. I'm very curious to know what we are all talking about. What are people fighting for?? As for mandatory sentencing, I have never actually said that I was against mandatory sentencing. I just still don't see how it is a race issue. Still, nobody has come up with anything concrete. Why does nobody jump up and call it racist when a white person dies in custody? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of tdunlop Sent: Tuesday, 14 March 2000 9:57 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame? 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. Hi again Karen - you're right about this. My presumption is that reconciliation requires an apology and if he won't apologise then he doesn't beleive in reconciliation. Maybe that's a wrong a presumption. John Howard defines reconciliation as being possible without an apology, as do you.
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 knowtoo 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 dayWITHOUT 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
YoungSent: Sunday, 12 March 2000 11:31 PMTo:
[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
To: [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]]On
Behalf Of Graham YoungSent: Sunday, 12 March 2000 6:26
PMTo: [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
To: [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
RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!
In other words I will never forget what happened to me but the greatest revenge I can have to the person in question is to live my life to the fullest. Letting them know they did not destroy me!! Hmm, sweet revenge! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Glenn Murray Sent: Monday, 13 March 2000 9:24 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! I have not forgiven but I have certainly tried to make something out of my life. Reconciliation without forgiveness??? H... Glenn Murray -Original Message- From: Karen Crook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2000 4:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!
Hi Karen, Once again, that's hardly reconciliation. Reconciliation is about doing our best to right the wrongs, not about perpetuating the "us them". I'm sure someone else on this list will put it much more elegantly than I, but surely you can't think revenge should be considered the essence of reconciliation?! Cheers. Glenn Murray -Original Message- From: Karen Crook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 6:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! In other words I will never forget what happened to me but the greatest revenge I can have to the person in question is to live my life to the fullest. Letting them know they did not destroy me!! Hmm, sweet revenge! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Glenn Murray Sent: Monday, 13 March 2000 9:24 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! I have not forgiven but I have certainly tried to make something out of my life. Reconciliation without forgiveness??? H... Glenn Murray -Original Message- From: Karen Crook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2000 4:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 bar
RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!
The differencewith your examples is that you are saying it to someone you know and love. Saying sorry to a race is entirely different - you say it to agroup of people you could never know personally. The office of PM demands that he represent all Australians. The problem with John Howard isthat he doesn't understand the demands of his office. He thinks it's his personal fiefdom. Wasn't there an article in all the major media 2 nights ago stating that a recent poll showed a large majority (over 50%) of Australians agreed with John Howard?? -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Trudy and Rod BraySent: Monday, 13 March 2000 9:56 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! Karen Crook wrote: 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! Karen, When someone you know dies, do you say to the survivor: ' I can't say I'm sorry because I had nothing to do with it and it's not my fault!' or do you say 'I'm sorry for your loss'? If a friend of yours is raped or bashed, do you say: 'Too bad, I had nothing to do with it, you just have to deal with it' or do you express empathy and understanding and acknowledge your friend's suffering by saying, 'I'm so sorry this happened to you'? Saying sorry is not an admittance of guilt. Saying 'sorry' is saying that you feel the pain, that your share the grief. It is only when grief is acknowledged and allowed expression that anyone can move forward in a positive way. It is only when all Australians who today benefit from the dispossession and suffering of Aboriginal Australians acknowledge that dispossession and suffering instead of turning away, that reconciliation can begin. It is the first step of many others that are necessary. The only way that all Australians can do this, is for the PM to do this on behalf of all Australians. It has nothing to do with his personal beliefs - they are irrelevant. The office of PM demands that he represent all Australians. The problem with John Howard is that he doesn't understand the demands of his office. He thinks it's his personal fiefdom. Trudy
RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!
I was simply replying to your interpretation of my own personal experience. I'm not talking about revenge on a national scale as each situation is different. I was simply implying that by moving on my life is better. I have no need to forgive this person and I certainly would not reconcile. It's different and personal - perhaps we should leave it there. K :-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Glenn Murray Sent: Monday, 13 March 2000 8:02 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! Hi Karen, Once again, that's hardly reconciliation. Reconciliation is about doing our best to right the wrongs, not about perpetuating the "us them". I'm sure someone else on this list will put it much more elegantly than I, but surely you can't think revenge should be considered the essence of reconciliation?! Cheers. Glenn Murray -Original Message- From: Karen Crook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 6:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! In other words I will never forget what happened to me but the greatest revenge I can have to the person in question is to live my life to the fullest. Letting them know they did not destroy me!! Hmm, sweet revenge! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Glenn Murray Sent: Monday, 13 March 2000 9:24 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! I have not forgiven but I have certainly tried to make something out of my life. Reconciliation without forgiveness??? H... Glenn Murray -Original Message- From: Karen Crook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2000 4:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 eno
RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!
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:"Whatbaffles me about this (reconciliation) issue is that I'm expected torepudiate my own personal beliefs; I'm told that the only way I can showleadership 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 tdunlopSent: Monday, 13 March 2000 9:59 AMTo: [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 atradition, 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 did
RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!
Exactly!!! And if we extrapolate a bit with that logic, would it be reasonable to assume that it is one's duty to be compassionate to those one knows and loves? Howard's refusal to apologise indicates that he doesn't know Australia's Aboriginal population, and he doesn't love them! Even general courtesy tells us that we should have empathy and be compassionate... I'm sure you'd express your sorrow to a stranger in the street should you meet them and find out they had experienced such a tragedy? Glenn Murray -Original Message- From: Karen Crook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 7:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! The difference with your examples is that you are saying it to someone you know and love. Saying sorry to a race is entirely different - you say it to a group of people you could never know personally. The office of PM demands that he represent all Australians. The problem with John Howard is that he doesn't understand the demands of his office. He thinks it's his personal fiefdom. Wasn't there an article in all the major media 2 nights ago stating that a recent poll showed a large majority (over 50%) of Australians agreed with John Howard?? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Trudy and Rod Bray Sent: Monday, 13 March 2000 9:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! Karen Crook wrote: 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! Karen, When someone you know dies, do you say to the survivor: ' I can't say I'm sorry because I had nothing to do with it and it's not my fault!' or do you say 'I'm sorry for your loss'? If a friend of yours is raped or bashed, do you say: 'Too bad, I had nothing to do with it, you just have to deal with it' or do you express empathy and understanding and acknowledge your friend's suffering by saying, 'I'm so sorry this happened to you'? Saying sorry is not an admittance of guilt. Saying 'sorry' is saying that you feel the pain, that your share the grief. It is only when grief is acknowledged and allowed expression that anyone can move forward in a positive way. It is only when all Australians who today benefit from the dispossession and suffering of Aboriginal Australians acknowledge that dispossession and suffering instead of turning away, that reconciliation can begin. It is the first step of many others that are necessary. The only way that all Australians can do this, is for the PM to do this on behalf of all Australians. It has nothing to do with his personal beliefs - they are irrelevant. The office of PM demands that he represent all Australians. The problem with John Howard is that he doesn't understand the demands of his office. He thinks it's his personal fiefdom. Trudy --- 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/
Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!
Karen,
As I remember it you made clear statements that there was
no racism in the laws of this land. You made statements that the police
are not racist. You made other statements that a little research would
have proven are quite the opposite of your statements.
Now you are saying that you can't give an informed
opinion?
I believe many of your statements are not
informed.
My research is done at night when I have finished my day
and I do have other things to do as well. But I would not think of having
a discussion without being informed in the first place or at least stating my
lack of information and asking for some.
Don
Don ClarkPresidentIndigenous Social Justice AssociationPO Box
K555Haymarket NSW 1240[EMAIL PROTECTED]
There can be no real reconciliation without social justice
- Original Message -
From:
Karen Crook
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, 13 March 2000 6:48
P.M.
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 knowtoo 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 dayWITHOUT 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
YoungSent: Sunday, 12 March 2000 11:31 PMTo:
[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
To: [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]]On
Behalf Of Graham YoungSent: Sunday, 12 March 2000 6:26
PMTo: [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 o
Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame?
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. Hi again Karen - you're right about this. My presumption is that reconciliation requires an apology and if he won't apologise then he doesn't beleive in reconciliation. Maybe that's a wrong a presumption. John Howard defines reconciliation as being possible without an apology, as do you.So I'd be interested to know what reconciliation does mean to you. I know you beleive it doesn't mean an apology, but what does it mean? What is required for there to be reconciliation? Karen: 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. Well, that's not quite true - you also agree with him that mandatory sentencing isn't a race issue. Anyway, if you get a chance to answer the question about what reconciliation means to you, I'd be grateful. Tim
Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!
Karen, You seem to have missed the point I was making. Whether or not it is a person you know or a group of people you don't is not what is relevant, but rather that 'sorry' is not an admission of guilt but an understanding of and empathy with suffering and grief. And if non-Aboriginal Australians are not capable of that in light of Aboriginal dispossession and disadvantage that they have caused over a period of 200+ years then there is no hope for reconciliation. As far as Howard is concerned, yes, he aligns himself with the most common denominator instead of leading and educating. He spent millions on promoting his GST (sorry, educating) but what has he spent on educating non-Aboriginal Australians about the true history of this land? He doen't even want to know the true history of this land. Those same people who agreed with John Howard should also have been asked what they knew about Aboriginal dispossession and disadvantage - it would have been very revealing! Trudy Karen Crook wrote: The difference with your examples is that you are saying it to someone you know and love. Saying sorry to a race is entirely different - you say it to a group of people you could never know personally. >The office of PM demands that he represent all Australians. The problem with John Howard >is that he doesn't understand the demands of his office. He thinks it's his personal fiefdom. Wasn't there an article in all the major media 2 nights ago stating that a recent poll showed a large majority (over 50%) of Australians agreed with John Howard?? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Trudy and Rod Bray Sent: Monday, 13 March 2000 9:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! Karen Crook wrote: 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! Karen, When someone you know dies, do you say to the survivor: ' I can't say I'm sorry because I had nothing to do with it and it's not my fault!' or do you say 'I'm sorry for your loss'? If a friend of yours is raped or bashed, do you say: 'Too bad, I had nothing to do with it, you just have to deal with it' or do you express empathy and understanding and acknowledge your friend's suffering by saying, 'I'm so sorry this happened to you'? Saying sorry is not an admittance of guilt. Saying 'sorry' is saying that you feel the pain, that your share the grief. It is only when grief is acknowledged and allowed expression that anyone can move forward in a positive way. It is only when all Australians who today benefit from the dispossession and suffering of Aboriginal Australians acknowledge that dispossession and suffering instead of turning away, that reconciliation can begin. It is the first step of many others that are necessary. The only way that all Australians can do this, is for the PM to do this on behalf of all Australians. It has nothing to do with his personal beliefs - they are irrelevant. The office of PM demands that he represent all Australians. The problem with John Howard is that he doesn't understand the demands of his office. He thinks it's his personal fiefdom. Trudy
Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!
Hello can someone tell me if it is possible to receive all mail from a list except one sender. I admire anyone who attempts to answer this sort of time consuming comment but when I get email sent from one person (and there seem to be more than 6 in one day), whose views and attitudes I am fully acquainted with but dont really want to listen to, I would like to be able to configure my system so it doesnt arrive in the first place. Thanks Claire Karen Crook wrote: In other words I will never forget what happened to me but the greatest revenge I can have to the person in question is to live my life to the fullest. Letting them know they did not destroy me!! Hmm, sweet revenge! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Glenn Murray Sent: Monday, 13 March 2000 9:24 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! I have not forgiven but I have certainly tried to make something out of my life. Reconciliation without forgiveness??? H... Glenn Murray -Original Message- From: Karen Crook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2000 4:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!
I am forwarding Graham Young's message which bounced because it was too long. Please, everyone remember to remove the older parts of messages that are not needed for clarity. Trudy ** Karen, I am sorry that you feel that I was attacking you. That wasn't my = intention at all. I am trying to understand what you think, and the = only way to do that is to start with the most basic concepts and then = work upwards. There has got to be some point where we can all agree on = something. Once we have reached a point like that it then allows us to = move back up the trail and find where we disagree. At the moment we are = disagreeing at a point so far down the track that we have moved too far = away from each other to be able to communicate. Trudy put an example to you which was a model for Aboriginal = dispossession and injury. You seemed to accept that there was a moral = wrong involved. I sought to clarify if that is what you thought. So = it wasn't something that I brought up at all. It was something that had = come up in your conversation with Trudy. Why do I think that you are copping out? Because this is a basic = question, and I don't see how anyone can carry out a discussion on = reconciliation without having formed an opinion on it. I certainly = think, reading your posts, that you have formed an opinion. If you = truly haven't formed an opinion on it, then you need to. I don't spend = my time researching Aboriginal issues on the net, or anywhere else for = that matter. The research to make a decision on whether the settlement = was right or wrong is easy to come by. Most of what I know comes from = the major newspapers. The reason that I brought up Terra Nullius was because it is about the = only defence against Aboriginal dispossession being wrong. What the = doctrine said was that this land was not owned by anyone before the = European settlers appeared. The Aborigines and Islanders were here, but = they were thought not to have any right or title in the land. That = entitled the Europeans to settle where they liked and set up their own = system of title. This was the law of the land until the Mabo decision, = which involved not Aborigines but the Merriam people (Micronesians I = think). They had a system of individual ownership of land unlike that = of the Aborigines and the High Court found that this gave rise to = continuing property rights under our system. In this judgement they = made non-binding suggestions that there might be property rights on the = mainland. The rest is history as succeeding cases have confirmed that = those rights do exist on the Mainland, and have decided what they might = be, and their nature. =20 So, maybe you disagree with the High Court and believe that the land was = originally owned by no-one. If so, perhaps we should start at that = point. =20 Graham Young - Original Message -=20 From: Karen Crook=20 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]=20 Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 5:48 PM 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:=20 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.=20 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. =20 So don't attack me for giving you an honest "I don't know enough". You = brought it up, not me. -- * Make the Hunger Site your homepage! 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 copyrigh
Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!
Dear Trudy, Thanks for your scenario - it puts together so many aspects of this issue in a simple and effective way. I have written some songs that come out of my experience of being a white person on this land, and I am planning to do some workshops in schools in Adelaide singing and discussing this stuff. Would you mind if I use your scenario? THanks again Annette -Original Message-From: Trudy and Rod Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: RecOzNet2 [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date: Sunday, 12 March 2000 3:01Subject: 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]]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
RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!
From: "Karen Crook" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 16:35:05 +1100 Importance:Normal Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 thei
Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!
Karen Crook wrote: 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! Karen, When someone you know dies, do you say to the survivor: ' I can't say I'm sorry because I had nothing to do with it and it's not my fault!' or do you say 'I'm sorry for your loss'? If a friend of yours is raped or bashed, do you say: 'Too bad, I had nothing to do with it, you just have to deal with it' or do you express empathy and understanding and acknowledge your friend's suffering by saying, 'I'm so sorry this happened to you'? Saying sorry is not an admittance of guilt. Saying 'sorry' is saying that you feel the pain, that your share the grief. It is only when grief is acknowledged and allowed expression that anyone can move forward in a positive way. It is only when all Australians who today benefit from the dispossession and suffering of Aboriginal Australians acknowledge that dispossession and suffering instead of turning away, that reconciliation can begin. It is the first step of many others that are necessary. The only way that all Australians can do this, is for the PM to do this on behalf of all Australians. It has nothing to do with his personal beliefs - they are irrelevant. The office of PM demands that he represent all Australians. The problem with John Howard is that he doesn't understand the demands of his office. He thinks it's his personal fiefdom. Trudy
Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!
Hi Annette, Of course you can use it. Just change or omit the names to protect the guilty. ;-) Trudy David Sjoberg wrote: Dear Trudy,Thanks for your scenario - it puts together so many aspects of this issue in a simple and effective way. I have written some songs that come out of my experience of being a white person on this land, and I am planning to do some workshops in schools in Adelaide singing and discussing this stuff. Would you mind if I use your scenario?THanks againAnnette -Original Message- From: Trudy and Rod Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: RecOzNet2 [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sunday, 12 March 2000 3:01 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]]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) i
Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!
ÿþ< ! D O C T Y P E H T M L P U B L I C " - / / W 3 C / / D T D H T M L 4 . 0 T r a n s i t i o n a l / / E N " > < H T M L > < H E A D > < M E T A c o n t e n t = " t e x t / h t m l ; c h a r s e t = u n i c o d e " h t t p - e q u i v = C o n t e n t - T y p e > < M E T A c o n t e n t = " M S H T M L 5 . 0 0 . 2 3 1 4 . 1 0 0 0 " n a m e = G E N E R A T O R > < S T Y L E > < / S T Y L E > < / H E A D > < B O D Y b g C o l o r = # f f f f f f > < S P A N c l a s s = 9 6 0 1 9 0 8 0 5 - 1 2 0 3 2 0 0 0 > < D I V > < F O N T s i z e = 2 > K a r e n < / F O N T > < / D I V > < D I V > & n b s p ; < / D I V > < D I V > < F O N T s i z e = 2 > Y o u s a y v e r y d e f i n i t e l y y o u r " f a m i l y w e r e n e v e r i n v o l v e d " < / F O N T > < / D I V > < D I V > < F O N T s i z e = 2 > i . e . y o u s a i d < / F O N T > < / D I V > < D I V > < F O N T s i z e = 2 > & l t ; & l t ; < / F O N T > < / D I V > < D I V > & n b s p ; < / D I V > < D I V > < D I V > < F O N T s i z e = 2 > < F O N T c o l o r = # 0 0 0 0 f f > < F O N T f a c e = A r i a l > < S P A N c l a s s = 9 6 0 1 9 0 8 0 5 - 1 2 0 3 2 0 0 0 > A s f o r a p o l o g i s i n g w i t h r e c o n c i l i a t i o n : W h y s h o u l d I b e f o r c e d t o b e t r a y m y o w n i n n o c e n c e a n d a p o l o g i s e f o r s o m e t h i n g I n e v e r h a d a n y i n v o l v e m e n t w i t h ? < / S P A N > < S P A N c l a s s = 9 6 0 1 9 0 8 0 5 - 1 2 0 3 2 0 0 0 > & n b s p ; M y f a m i l y w e r e n e v e r i n v o l v e d s o I p e r s o n a l l y d o n o t w i s h t o a p o l o g i s e . I ' m n o t b e i n g s t u b b o r n o r a r a c i s t j u s t & n b s p ; s i m p l y s t a n d i n g u p f o r m y b e l i e f s , m y m o r a l s a n d m y o w n f a m i l y ' s i n n o c e n c e . < / S P A N > < / F O N T > < / F O N T > < / F O N T > < / D I V > < D I V > < S P A N c l a s s = 9 6 0 1 9 0 8 0 5 - 1 2 0 3 2 0 0 0 > < / S P A N > < F O N T s i z e = 2 > & l t ; & l t ; < / F O N T > & n b s p ; < / D I V > < D I V > < F O N T s i z e = 2 > H o w c a n y o u b e s o s u r e ? & n b s p ; S o f e w o f u s k n o w w h a t e v e n o u r p a r e n t s h a v e d o n e o r < / F O N T > < / D I V > < D I V > < F O N T s i z e = 2 > s a i d i n t h e i r l i f e t i m e l e t a l o n e f u r t h e r b a c k . < / F O N T > < / D I V > < D I V > & n b s p ; < / D I V > < D I V > < F O N T s i z e = 2 > W h e n d i d y o u r f a m i l y c o m e ? < / F O N T > < / D I V > < D I V > & n b s p ; < / D I V > < D I V > < F O N T s i z e = 2 > I k n o w t h i s i s a n i m p o s s i b l e q u e s t i o n i f y o u a r e m o r e t h a n 1 g e n e r a t i o n A u s t r a l i a n b u t o n e o f < / F O N T > < / D I V > < D I V > < F O N T s i z e = 2 > t h e t h i n g s w h i c h i s e m p h a s i z e d i n a l l l e a r n i n g a b o u t A b o r i g i n a l c u l t u r e i s t h a t B E F O R E y o u < / F O N T > < / D I V > < D I V > < F O N T s i z e = 2 > t a c k l e i t y o u a c t u a l l y g e t t o k n o w y o u r s e l f a n d u n d e r s t a n d y o u r o w n h e r i t a g e . < / F O N T > < / D I V > < D I V > & n b s p ; < / D I V > < D I V > < F O N T s i z e = 2 > Y o u m a y h a v e d o n e t h i s b u t I s u s p e c t m a n y o f u s r e a l i s e w h e n w e d o a n y r e s e a r c h a t a l l < / F O N T > < / D I V > < D I V > < F O N T s i z e = 2 > t h a t t h e r e a r e n o d o u b t c o n t a c t s w e h a v e m a n a g e d t o s u b m e r g e i n t o o u r c o n s c i o u s n e s s < / F O N T > < / D I V > < D I V > < F O N T s i z e = 2 > s o m e a t a v e r y p e r s o n a l l e v e l ( i n o u r o w n y o u t h ) a n d o t h e r s c o n t a c t s o u r f a m i l y h a v e h a d < / F O N T > < / D I V > < D I V > < F O N T s i z e = 2 > e i t h e r c o n s c i o u s l y o r u n c o n s c i o u s l y o v e r t h e y e a r s s i n c e o u r f i r s t r e l a t i v e s c a m e t o t h i s < / F O N T > < / D I V > < D I V > < F O N T s i z e = 2 > c o u n t r y . < / F O N T > < / D I V > < D I V > < F O N T s i z e = 2 > < / F O N T > & n b s p ; < / D I V > < D I V > < F O N T s i z e = 2 > C h e e r s < / F O N T > < / D I V > < D I V > < F O N T s i z e = 2 > L y n n & n b s p ; < / F O N T > < / D I V > < / D I V >
RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!
I have not forgiven but I have certainly tried to make something out of my life. Reconciliation without forgiveness??? H... Glenn Murray -Original Message- From: Karen Crook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2000 4:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
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 atradition, 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. Butif 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;andit is such a tiny thing compared to the victim's loss. A tiny thing. Tim
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 To: [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]]On Behalf Of Graham YoungSent: Sunday, 12 March 2000 6:26 PMTo: [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 To: [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 justsimply 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 understandthe 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
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]]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 *
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 justsimply 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 understandthe 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 beingso 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 BraySent: Sunday, 12 March 2000 3:06 PMTo: RecOzNet2Subject: 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
