Wednesday, 13 February 2008


stoleycorey I have to confess, my own knowledge of the history behind today's apology by Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is sketchy, but as Tim Blair suggests, I have to suspect "the effect of the apology on those it’s aimed at is a secondary concern. This is more about smug white folks feeling nice about themselves. That’s why, despite it being an apology for allegedly terrible events, everybody is smiling."  Whatever the truth of historical claims, this is people apologising for things they didn't do to people to whom those things weren't done.  That always makes me suspicious.

On the face of it the whole act is backward looking, and likely to engender the same backward-looking sense of entitlement engendered here in New Zealand by our own indigenous grievance industry.  Tim quotes John Howard's favourite aboriginal Noel Pearson, who makes good sense when he says,

One of my misgivings about the apology has been my belief that nothing good will come from viewing ourselves, and making our case on the basis of our status, as victims.

We have been—and the people who lost their families certainly were—victimised in history, but we must stop the politics of victimhood. We lose power when we adopt this psychology. Whatever moral power we might gain over white Australia from presenting ourselves as victims, we lose in ourselves.

My worry is this apology will sanction a view of history that cements a detrimental psychology of victimhood, rather than a stronger one of defiance, survival and agency.

I think that's true whatever the actual history is-- and while I do take note of historians I admire like Keith Windschuttle, who suggests much of the 'stolen generation' history is fabricated, I note too that despite the many gaps in my knowledge I am aware that the history of European settlement in Australia is far less benign than it has been in New Zealand -- for all sorts of reasons, many of which remain to this day.  Despite that, to paraphrase Thomas Bowden, "today's Aboriginals, to whom this apology is directed, enjoy a capacity for generating health, wealth, and happiness that their Stone Age ancestors could never have conceived.  From a historical perspective, the proper response to such a gift is not resentment but gratitude."

That the apology offered today was brought about by resentment and likely only to engender victimhood is telling.  As Ayn Rand liked to say, don't bother to examine an obvious folly, ask only what it is designed to bring about.  In this case, expect visions of taxpayer dollar bills to begin floating in front of those apologised to very soon, and the rumble of "compensation" to begin.

UPDATE: I like this comment on Leighton Smith's show:

Who would be saying sorry now if someone in New Zealand had stolen the Kahui twins from their parents.  Or Nia Glassie.  Or Lillybing.

Makes you think, huh.


  1. A rather odd post from someone who has posted with more than a little regularity on how Sue Bradford has 'nationalised children', and how dreadful that is for the family.

  2. You appear to be assuming something about which only you are aware. Any chance of letting me in on the secret?

  3. If the man had half a brain he would have said.

    "Australians on behalf of all Australians, apologise to Australians for any injustices done to Australians."

  4. Yes - lets give them this generation of yoof.

    This is typical leftist/labour behaviour where the big white 'bwana' can go off to the sweet little black with bucket loads of money - just to show how nice he can be. There is no real concern that any good will done, but it will appease his conscience about the fact that through out the world the white man is generally economically more successful

  5. Don't be disingenuous my dear - stealing kids is state intervention - so they bloody well should apologise. That is the libertarian position I would have thought.

    Unless the all-powerful state only gets sanction when it is dealing with nigras and not white nuclear families.

  6. "Don't be disingenuous my dear - stealing kids is state intervention - so they bloody well should apologise. That is the libertarian position I would have thought.

    Unless the all-powerful state only gets sanction when it is dealing with nigras and not white nuclear families."

    Actually the libertarian position says nothing about whether or not to apologise or how to apologise or in what capacity to apologise or what to seek as resolution from an apology; only that the state baby snatching shouldn't be done in the first place. It's not un-libertarian to question the motives and desires of the apologiser or it's likely effects - desired or not.

    Sorry anon, but all I see is PC questioning the desired effect of the apology and musing on the likely effect of the apology. Please point me in the direction of the post where he sanctions the state run child-snatching of "nigras"... I don't see it.

    By all means call out racism where it actually exists, shame them out on it. It would be at least worthwhile, but don't go embarrassing yourself by making it up for the sake of trolling.

  7. And don't you go embarrassing yourself by pretending to be anything other than a conservative. Even Farrar can do better than this post.

    Try reading Liberty Scott's take on the issue - and - something I thought I would never say - Elijah Lineberry's.

  8. Were any kids stolen at all? According to the record in the NSW State Library, there were three children removed for the stated reason, "aborigine". Three. Just three. That is the entire sum total the new abo cargo cult grievance industry is to be based upon. Three incidents. Now if you look at the reason for the removal of other abo children you see a far different context. It's not all that different from what is present lately...

    Sure, it is no business of the state to remove children from their parents. Still, those "well meaning" labourite civil servants were concerned about things like parental alcoholism, child rape, child abuse, ignorance, theft, violence, solvent abuse and absolutely no future for the children whatsoever in the surroundings they were in. And for removing children from the walking death of this the great "culture" the Labour PM of Australia is apolooooogising. Note: he is apologising for decades of Labour Party government policy.

    What I reckon is that anyone who feels guilty and needs to apologise should go ahead and do so. Then that person should take responsibility for their guilt and pay compensation personally. Yes you liberals, sell your home, sell your car. Let your hearts bleed as you pay over your assets to those you wish to compensate. Leave the rest of us out of it.


  9. Anon, I have read them already... and? How does libertyscott's and Lineberry's post make PC's post a sanction of state baby snatching of "nigras". What, so you think they are better posts - therefore PC sanctions baby snatching? I challenge you again to point to PC doing such a thing.

    Nice try with the "conservative" angle, why not just call me a racist too? Your powers of assumption and inference should be up to the challenge - you've given an astonishing display so far. The mere fact that I'm not immediately and wholeheartedly agreeing with you should be enough no? I find with people like you it usually is.

  10. The simple point to me is this. The state did wrong, it was aggressive and failed miserably in many cases when it thought it was doing good.

    However the state did not do wrong against everyone of aboriginal descent (except nobody can deny that until the late 1960s aboriginal Australians were not even full fledged citizens).

    I agree completely that the effect of the apology MAY be negative, in granting victimhood to more than those who were victims. The apology as I see it was directed at those removed from their families.

    The benefits of modern western civilisation can't be denied, but breaking up families to benignly grant this is NOT benign. It is social engineering on a grand scale.

    As I have said, compensation is an appropriate matter for the courts, nothing more but also nothing less.

  11. It just gets better and better.

    As it happens the Australian Police are concerned that there are dozens and dozens of children resident in the Cape York "community" who are the subject of sexual assualt, deviance, abuse and perverse assault. These children are raped, tortured and assaulted on a routine basis by their adult "family" members. Since they are aborigine children the state policy is to leave them where they are. It is more important to keep the "families" intact than it is to worry about the crimes being comitted against the children. There are many other "communities" where this is going on.

    Recently there was a case where a group of seven aborigine men were convicted of pack raping a child. They were returned to their "comunity" after being convicted and told off by the judge. Naughty bad rapists! Be good in future! Try not to do it again.

    Oh, and the girl was returned. Can't be seen to be "stealing" her. Back into the loving arms of the rapists she has been sent. Wonder what's happening to her lately. Reckon she stays up at night?

    I am thinking that in years to come these children, whose lives were stolen by their elders, will demand an apology from the state along with massive compensation for its non-action...



1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.