Klompmeester wrote:
> "John_H" <john4721@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:o0t7r3l58d4u9ohl6i1kistfgcgvoqasg9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> RogerM wrote:
>>> What if the bad whites of the day did nothing to take the children
from
>>> the
>>> squalor of their upbringing?
>> Which is totally irrelevant to the real reason they were taken
>> away.... To save their souls for Jesus!
>>
>> If there's to be compensation involved, then every church that ever
>> sent forth a missionary should be required to take up a collection!
>>
>> The rest of us most certainly owe them apology.
>
> I'm not sorry, and it's another reason not to get naturalised so I can
> remain that way.
>
> It had nothing to do with me and I won't have someone else apologise on
my
> behalf for something I'm in no way responsible for.
The parts I saw focused on an apology on behalf of the parliament and
the government for the decisions they made, not the general population.
That said, I didn't bother watching the whole thing.
I'm neither for or against it. As far as I'm concerned the English
conquered the country from the Aborigines. Of course it's not nice, and
the result was a loss of their culture. European farming has taken a big
toll on the environment as well.
Still, I'm sitting in my comfy chair now typing this because of the
occupation of their land, and it would be hipocritical of me to say I'm
against it.
Of course KRudd's playing political games, and very effective ones. He's
still a ****load better than the liberal ****wits and their ****ed
extreme capitalist ideology.
At the end of the day, who gives a **** about the theatrics of that
apology business. There are far, far more im****tant things to worry about.
|
