Hard News: Back in the mainstream
140 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
there was some kerfuffle a few years back about howard's lying ways, and someone (i genuinely forget who) referred to him as "a lying rodent".
caused quite a chuckle at the tibby household, let me tell you
Yes, a priceless moment in Aussie politics - I can't remember who it was either - and it meant that we had the additional pleasure of seeing Howard being dogged for at least one, if not two, general election campaigns by a person in a Giant Rat suit. Direct democracy in action (except for when the Big Rat was shepherded away by security people).
-
Well, the Chaser chased him in white rabbit suits on one of his morning walks because the chatterati consensus was that Howard needed to pull a rabbit out of the hat if he was going to win the election.
-
Et tu Brutus, you rat-fuck
That sentence on its own is laugh out loud funny
-
last election said some throwaway line like, "if i get hit by a bus, peter has the PMs job".
the chaser had howard being stalked by a bus with costello's face on it.
now that was damn funny.
-
Oh, the Aussies can't quite remember who originated the "lying rodent" label either, apparently. ABC transcript, 01/11/2004:
Former Queensland Liberal state management committee member, Russell Galt, says Liberal Senator, George Brandis, who originally investigated the children overboard affair, described the Prime Minister as a "lying rodent" at a meeting he attended in May last year. [...] Senator Brandis denies Mister Galt's claim [...]
-
BTW - This in the SMH from Rudd: "We will say sorry."
KEVIN Rudd has vowed to act quickly after he is sworn in as prime minister to make a formal apology to Aboriginal Australians on behalf of the nation.
At last!
Gee, that and $3.50 each should buy Aboriginal Australians a cup of coffee. Sorry, Charles, but this is about as impressive as Tony Blair's apology for his ancestors making decision that lead to a famine in Ireland that killed a goodly chunk of my ancestors.
Who needs real policy when you're got the empty politics of gesture and moral self-congratulation? Perhaps Mr. Rudd might want to forget the photo op, and show Aboriginals that his Government actually takes their desperate social deficits seriously.
-
Who needs real policy when you're got the empty politics of gesture and moral self-congratulation? Perhaps Mr. Rudd might want to forget the photo op, and show Aboriginals that his Government actually takes their desperate social deficits seriously.
I can't speak for the native people of Australia, but I've always thought that an apology is actually rather important to them. I know that a lot of Maori felt it was important enough to them to have it included as part of the their treaty settlements. And it was big for a lot of NZ Chinese to have that apology a few years ago.
I'm just not sure that 'we' should go telling Aborigines what's important for them. Particularly since it costs nothing to do so.
-
included as part of the their treaty settlements
But not instead of a treaty settlement...
-
While Craig is right in that symbolic gestures won't necessarily have the impact on indigenous life that genuine policy and action might, there is simply no denying in Australia the power of this particular symbolic gesture, a power which has only grown exponentially over the time that the Rodent has flatly refused to make it. Bring it on.
-
I'm just not sure that 'we' should go telling Aborigines what's important for them. Particularly since it costs nothing to do so.
Kyle: PAS, and the rest of teh bogisfere, would be a very quite place if we didn't feel entirely confident about setting the world to rights from the end of an internet connection many thousands of miles away from the action. :)
But, hey, if real live Aborigines get a warm, fuzzy glow on far be it from me to criticise them. I just think its entirely reasonable to hope there's a lot more substance to come from Rudd. That's where the hard work begins.
-
But not instead of a treaty settlement...
Well no, but I don't believe that Aborigines have given up on making progress on that.
But I don't get any impression that an apology is an 'empty' gesture for Aborigines. It might have no practical implications, and it might do very little for all the issues that Aboriginal people face there, but it's also as I understand it, important to them. Hell, if I should be teaching my kid to say sorry for things, I don't see why states should be exempt.
-
Craig, more effective policies and inclusive decision making to improve the economic and social well being of Aboriginal Australians is obviously part of the equation but it is clear that a symbolic apology is a big deal. You only have to look at the reaction among Aboriginal leaders and commentators that is being reported in the Australian news media.
Anyone who has lived in Australia will be conscious of the Howard government's reluctance to make such a gesture which will make the event when it happens all the more powerful.
And how cynical was it that during campaigning that Howard signalled he would be prepared to make some kind of gesture to Aboriginal Australians in the spirit of reconciliation - if he were re-elected.
There's a lot of power in symbolism. Just ask the Chinese how they feel about war crimes committed by the Japanese during the Second World War.
-
There's a lot of power in symbolism. Just ask the Chinese how they feel about war crimes committed by the Japanese during the Second World War.
Or the so called 'comfort woman' in Korea for that matter. An acknowledgement would be huge.
-
Gee, that and $3.50 each should buy Aboriginal Australians a cup of coffee. Sorry, Charles, but this is about as impressive as Tony Blair's apology
sorry craig, but this is one where i get to say that you are totally and completely wrong.
first of all the apology was never supposed to be a panacea for aboriginal social dislocation, deprivation, and systemic mainstream racism. those are entirely separate issues.
reconciliation was a years-long process that was supposed to culminate in an apology, on behalf of the federal parliament, and the australian mainstream, for the systematic removal or children under decades of assimilationistic and bitterly racist policies.
so save your partisan sniping for issues that actually matter.
-
whoops... angry.
*save your partisan sniping for issues that don't actually matter
-
Che:
And getting equally angry, how about you save your condescending bullshit for someone who actually gives a damn and finds bold print even slightly intimidating? Since folks keep bringing up the Treaty process here, I've talked to some folks who think apologies are all very nice and enormously moving, but the hard yards of meaningful negotiation, being taken seriously by people acting in good faith, and a real outcome meant even more.
If that's 'partisan sniping', Che, I just give up. Thought it was a statement of the blindingly obvious, but what do I know? Talk is cheap, except when it comes from a politician - then its completely worthless, and I'm quite happy to be absolutely non-partisan on that.
-
well, for starters, "asking some folks" in new zealand about treaty apologies, and superimposing your responses on australian realities kind of superficial, no?
second, the partisan sniping accusation rests on your willingness to assume that rudd is merely wanting to make photo-mileage out of this issue.
the apology to the stolen generation is a huge issue that defines almost a generation of australian race-relations politics. and in particular, the apology symbolised the unwillingness of howard to take aboriginal issues seriously at all. no apology was closely followed by 'no action'.
But, hey, if real live Aborigines get a warm, fuzzy glow on far be it from me to criticise them. I just think its entirely reasonable to hope there's a lot more substance to come from Rudd.
i don't know if you're wanting to grasp this, but the apology is the substance.
and, i know better than to try to intimidate you. i've seen you brow-beat too many people on this very blog to even consider it. :)
-
As a non-Aborigine... I cant say whats important to them...
But here's my take...
The very fact that an apology carries no cost, no associated actual reparations.... is the very reason that refusal to give it grates so badly...
Refusing to apologize, when it carries no cost to do so, is a blatant statement that you have nothing to apologize for...
Thats why (I think) its important to them.
And Rudd, by making an apology that was refused by not just the Rodent, but other priministers of both sides before him, is indicating that maybe more than just words, but actual deeds as well, could be next?
I agree, an apology on its own isnt worth much.... but presumably, it is how you start down the right path. And its by how far down the path they travel, that you measure whether the apology was empty or real....
-
I think you nailed it right there, Fletcher B.
"Refusing to apologise, when it carries no cost to do so, is a blatant statement that you have nothing to apologise for..."
As we know, and even Blind Harry can see, decades of racist, and paternalistic government policies towards Aboriginal Australians means that an apology is long overdue.
Speaking of paternalistic, have a listen to Geoff Robinson's condescension in his interview on the subject in today's programme of Morning Report.
-
man... a guy can't even pick a fight in this forum without two reasonable people coming along and being all "reasonable"...
-
man... a guy can't even pick a fight in this forum without two reasonable people coming along and being all "reasonable"...
Umm OK, hang on a second.
"Che you liberal PC wiffley left-wing pinko give-everything-to-the-Murrays-and-Abos, say-sorry-at-the-drop-of-a-hat... person!"
Now don't say I never give you anything.
-
dems fighting words!
-
Craig, I don't know what you object to? The proffered apology is not the entirety of what's been suggested but one small albeit significant part.
For what it's worth, I sense a great deal of across-the-board support for an apology, provided it is part of both a genuine attempt to reconcile and a program of policies to address the significant inequities that exist today. Symbols are important, though not sufficient in themselves.
I don't think Howard's intervention in the NT will remain in place as it is, Rudd has pledged to restore land rights at least, however it will likely provide a platform for similarly broad approach.
-
Paul Keating apologised in his 1992 Mabo speech at Redfern. An excerpt:
We non-Aboriginal Australians should perhaps remind ourselves that Australia once reached out for us. Didn't Australia provide opportunity and care for the dispossessed Irish? The poor of Britain? The refugees from war and famine and persecution in the countries of Europe and Asia? Isn't it reasonable to say that if we can build a prosperous and remarkably harmonious multicultural society in Australia, surely we can find just solutions to the problems which beset the first Australians - the people to whom the most injustice has been done.
And, as I say, the starting point might be to recognise that the problem starts with us non-Aboriginal Australians.
It begins, I think, with the act of recognition. Recognition that it was we who did the dispossessing. We took the traditional lands and smashed the traditional way of life. We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. We took the children from their mothers. We practised discrimination and exclusion.
It was our ignorance and our prejudice. And our failure to imagine these things being done to us. With some noble exceptions, we failed to make the most basic human response and enter into their hearts and minds. We failed to ask - how would I feel if this were done to me?
As a consequence, we failed to see that what we were doing degraded all of us.
-
An admission of responsibility, yes. Not quite an apology though. Still, miles better than anything from Howard.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.