sory or not , page-2

ghost

The term "stolen generation" came out of the Bringing Them Home Report" to gov in 1997.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/

Since then it has become the focus for a specific apology or expression of sorrow from the government. Most states have made that expression but it's been avoided by both parties until relatively recently. I don't recall Latham ever promising to say sorry and Beazley was always hedging when asked - it's become more popular over time and Rudd felt that it was a political plus rather than a negative at the last election. imho up to then it was a negative - but some will disagree.

I believe that the apology/sorrow request was preceeded by a call for a treaty, but that's faded. I also believe that a general apology/sorry call was being made by some in the indigenous community before the Bringing Them Home report but that that report bought the issue into clear focus and concentrated the push.

Since the stolen generation term became common we've seen new developments - you now hear peoople refer to first generation stolen, second generation stolen. Peoople are claiming to be affected because their grandparents were stolen.

Some commentators argue that no-one was stolen, let alone a generation. That also begs the question of what is a generation - 20 years, 60 years?

whatever - we are going to apologise this week - but most who argue strongly that this is an absolute necessity don't want to pay any compensation. So it's a Clayton's apology imho.

I realize that you probably know all this - but you did ask when did it start.

regards