Why didn't John Howard want to apologize to the stolen generations?

Question

Why didn't John Howard want to apologize to the stolen generations?

Answer 1

A friend of mine is an indigenous Aussie - and he's a full blood, too, Tim and there is NOTHING yuk about him. Grow up! Anyway, he was so pleased to hear those words of "we're sorry". He said that they didn't want anything to do with compensation. The fear of that came because of the American Indians doing such a thing apparently. The indigenous populations here wanted the apology by way of an acknowledgment for what happened so they could then move on from that. It was the fear mongering John Howard that wanted to play to the fear of compensation who refused to say sorry.



At the same time I just couldn't help but think there was a smidge of racism in the 1950's mired John Howard...

Answer 2

A public apology to the stolen generations has very real legal ramifications. Howard was more concerned about the huge compensation bill that would result from a public apology. It is quite quite revealing that after all the hoopla and hype there were more than SIXTY lawsuits for compensation started in the courts within hours of the official apology by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. Currently indigenous Australians are calling for a 1 billion dollar fund to cover compensation pay-outs. This makes it sound very much like John Howard's fears were well founded.

Answer 3

Because he is John Howard and John Howard doesn't apoligise to anyone for anything.



From The Age newspaper March 12, 2008.

Apology was a mistake, says feisty Howard

FORMER prime minister John Howard has defended his decision not to say sorry to Australia's Aborigines during his 11 years in power and criticised the Rudd Government's apology to the stolen generations.

"I do not believe as a matter of principle that one generation can accept responsibility for the acts of earlier generation," he said. "In some cases, children were wrongly removed, in other cases they were removed for good reason, in other cases they were given up and in other cases, the judgement on the removal is obscure or difficult to make."

Answer 4

John Howard was an idiot in many aspects while he was the Prime Minister of Australia and i was very happy to see the end of his reign. Saying that i did however agree with his refusal to apologise for something he actually had nothing to do with. If my Father or Grandfather did something illegal 50-100 years ago would you expect me to apologise for their actions.

As for these do gooders that are saying that they have indigenous friends who are full blood Aborigines i say to you is there a difference between a full blood and a non full blood they are all Aboriginal no matter what the percentage is. Try telling someone with only 20% Aboriginal blood they are not really Aboriginal you will not get a very good response. I have Aboriginal friends with all differing amounts of ancient blood line but as far as they are concerned not one is better than the other

Answer 5

I agree with Robert, i also have a full-blood Aboriginal friend, she was a victim of the stolen generation and she's a beautiful person. They do deserve an apology, and i feel it was wrong by John Howard to ignore what they went through.



Anyone thumbing down this anwer hasn't ever got near enough to an Aboriginal person to understand what they went through.

Answer 6

Because words are cheap as we have seen from the current government ..tell me what has changed since the ' apology ' was given ? Absolutely nothing ...



Terrible things have been done down through the centuries ...look at the slave trade . We all would know the old hymn ' Amazing Grace ' written by the ex slave trader , John Newton ..a man who had a wretched past yet came to see truth & then do something to correct the injustices that he had helped perpetrate..



That is a worthy form of apology ..to not only admit error but to actively try to right the wrongs of the past ..in Newton's case he teamed up with British Lord William Wilberforce & together they changed history by abolishing slavery as it was then ....



When our point scoring politicians actually do something to correct injustice instead of just talk about it maybe the cynics among us will support them..

Answer 7

He was worried about the monetary repercussions.



What I find ironical about some these answers is we have just had an apology to our child migrants who are going for huge compensation.(rightly so I think)

Whats the difference except the obvious one.

Answer 8

So he could easily avoid any potential compensation issues.

Answer 9

because he chose not to claim responsibility for something that happened fifty years before his tenure.

Answer 10

Why should he? He isn't like Rudd angling for the cheap vote & he wasn't responsible for what happened centuries ago.I am sick to death of all this apologising & carry on for something today's Australians had nothing to do with.

Answer 11

because john howard was right in not wanting to appologize to them more than half of those so called stolen generation only said they were stolen so they could hopfully gain from it by sueing the government.

what has changed since the im sorry spech is the aboriginals get more money per fortnight than us white aussies why though there not special in fact have you people ever seen full blooded aboriginal yuk

Answer 12

Because John Howard was a PM of substance. He knew that saying sorry would achieve nothing.



Kevin Rudd takes every opportunity to score political points.

Answer 13

Because he isn't a pushover like Kevin Rudd.



If you want to run the country, you can't make every single person happy. Kevin Rudd just wants to look good in front of everyone.

Answer 14

He doesn't like anyone who isn't of European descent.