Quote:
Originally Posted by Joker
I think that it is more about apologizing on behalf of those who should have apologized long ago, but can't.
I think it's more about formally acknowledging that certain events that occured in the past were wrong and regretable.
I think it's more about pledging to change our methods for dealing with other cultures in the future than about accepting responsibility for those past wrongful policies.
Perhaps using the word "apology" was not the best choice, since it denotes a feeling of sorow over acts that one is responsible for. It may have been more accurate for him to say "I'm sorry for what has happened in the past."
|
He did - that's exactly what he said. I posted the link to his apology so people could see how it was worded. It went for a lot longer than that, and addressed many of the questions brought up here, but I wasn't going to post a 30-minute link!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blade
Repeat: An apology is only required from, or appropriate for, someone who has committed a wrong. Among other bad consequences, an apology by someone who is not responsible for a wrong, or even worse, on behalf of people who have committed no wrong, can lead to demands from the persons wronged for recompensation or privileges at the expense of those who have committed no wrong - a straight-forward injustice.
|
And this comment just illustrates your ignorance on the matter. He didn't apologise on behalf of the Australian people, just on behalf of the government and parliament - the ones directly responsible for the stolen generations and the ones directly responsible for the current appalling legislations with regard to indigenous people. And he made it clear beforehand that there would be no compensation. For which, again, I think he is wrong. The plight of the indigenous communities of Australia is absolutely the collective responsibility of the non-indigenous peoples of Australia, whether or not we are "personally" responsible for it.
As is the welfare of ANY who are underprivileged - no matter what their ethnic background, I might add.
Not only that - you call his act one of mental illness. The majority of Australians call it altruism, humility, generosity and a spirit of reconciliation that has been long overdue. It takes a very honorable and decent person to do what he did (something I think that you could not possibly relate to) and that is why he was applauded by everyone in that room and elsewhere - even the people who disagreed with him. For goodness' sake - the opposition leader got up straight afterwards and apologised as well.
This was a symbolic act that does not negatively affect a single person in this country for whom it was not intended, and has a very great positive affect on the people for whom it was. If you knew anything about this country's history of treating our Aboriginal people you would understand that this is a tiny drop in a huge bucket of apologies that we owe them. I would apologise myself if I knew where to do it.
It's just typical that you would call such a noble, peace-offering gesture a mental illness.