John Howard's Argumentative Analysis

Greg Abbott was the republican candidate who supported anti-abortion, less funds for education, and against immigration. While his opponent Wendy Davis who is the democratic candidate that supports abortion, fund our future in education and wants to help immigrants to help their families. Greg Abbott had an accident that made him be on the wheel chair and allowed him to understand the problems that people. While he heard others problem he wanted to fix them with his own problems. That is an inspirational mission that he has but he went the route of offending his opponent. Wendy Davis is a single mother and Texas Senator that she served. While going through the struggles she wanted to fight for women’s rights and also for all those who are oppressed.

In Kevin Rudd’s 17th of February 2008 speech, the Australian Prime Minister apologises to the Indigenous Australians for the stolen generations. With this speech, Rudd attempted to ease the disadvantage that affects most Indigenous Australians by pledging that the government would improve their health, education, living conditions and their lifestyle overall. Rudd claims that he is apologetic and remorseful for the treatment the past Indigenous Australians received. He strengthens his speech by using several language techniques to convince the audience that Australia is remorseful for the past events and wishes to amend. the techniques he used include such as his choice of vocabulary and references to time to mention the historical struggle

The civil war did reduce sectional antagonist a huge amount but it also made the United states One Nation. The war was a test for the nation or in this case ANY nation for those dedicated to see if they could endure and a final resting place for those who died and for the nation to live. There was division between the north and the south which eventually brought upon the Brutal Civil War. In president Andrew John’s Amnesty proclamation, the Union forgave the confederate and made them swear on an oath to faithfully support, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States. “The union eventually showed that they had no “antagonist” against the south which made the United States One nation once again. The soldiers that risked their lives

The British invasion of Australia has unfortunately had multiple negative impacts on all Indigenous Australians, and additionally has created historic legacies that frequently effect the way in which people perceive, and work with Indigenous peoples. One of the historic legacies evident throughout Aileen’s case is the horrific occurrence of the stolen generation. One of the most profound consequences of colonisation, involving the removal of Aboriginal children from their families into missions, reserves or other institutions (Dudgeon, Wright, Paradies, Garvey & Walker, n.d.). This historic legacy can be identified in Aileen’s case, which has potential to impact on the processes taking place, and the decisions being made by the stakeholders.

Kevin Rudd’s apology was to the Aboriginals; but in particular, to the Stolen Generations. From 1909-1969, the Australian Government forced a policy know as assimilation upon the Aboriginals. Assimilation is the forced integration of minority groups onto the dominant society. Inhumane acts were inflicted upon these proud people because of the ‘Aborigines Protection Board’ which entailed that the Australian Government had full rights to forcibly remove half-caste children from Aboriginal care without parental consent nor a court order.

At the turn of the twentieth century the systematic forced removal of Aboriginal children from their mothers, families and cultural heritage was commonplace. There were several reasons that the government and white society used to justify the separation but the prevailing ideology of nationalism and maintaining Australia for the ‘whites’ was the over-riding motivation and justification for their actions[1]. Progressive sciences such as anthropology espoused such theories as eugenics, miscegenation, biological absorption and assimilation which legitimated governmental policies relating to Aboriginal affairs[2]. It was

Only in recent years have we seen the recognition that the stolen generation deserves and the essential part it has play in the struggle of Aboriginal rights. Since the end of the stolen generation, numerous organisations and government agency has come out and said sorry for what happened for seventy years and as a result Aboriginal rights are becoming more apparent. The famous “I’m sorry” speech said by Kevin Rudd was the first Parliament apology to the Stolen Generation and was seen as a huge leap forward in the recognition of the Stolen Generation. The Bringing Them Home Report in 1997 was a strong campaign for The

Terra Nullius was once apparent in Australian society, but has now been nullified with the turn of the century. With the political changes in our society, and the apology to Indigenous Australians, society is now witnessing an increase in aboriginals gaining a voice in today’s society. Described by Pat Dodson (2006) as a seminal moment in Australia’s history, Rudd’s apology was expressed in the true spirit of reconciliation opening a new chapter in the history of Australia. Considerable debate has arisen within society as to whether aboriginals have a right to land that is of cultural significance and whether current land owners will be able to keep their land.

Reconciliation is the process of building respectful relationships between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and the wider Australian community. It is about understanding and respecting their culture and heritage and signifies ‘coming together’ to become one nation without racism and with equality for all. There are still vast differences in health, education, employment, and standards of living of the Indigenous peoples as compared to their non-Indigenous counterparts. Even today Indigenous peoples have a significantly lower life expectancy, up to 11.5 years for men and 9.7 years for women . The infant mortality rate for the Indigenous peoples is double the rate for non-Aboriginal Australians. Understanding these inequalities is the first step to reconciling the differences. Policies such as the stolen generation and assimilation policy destroyed Indigenous identity and culture and justified the dispossession of Indigenous people and the removal of Indigenous children from their parents. We can’t change the past but we can make a better future by understanding and learning from the mistakes of the past, reconciliation is about that. Many practical and symbolic strategies have been implemented over the last 50 years to achieve reconciliation such as ATSIC, Northern Territory Intervention and the Mabo decision. However, the most significant ones are the 1967 Referendum, Closing the Gap framework in 2008 and the ‘Sorry speech’. The aim is to improve the five dimensions of reconciliation: race relations, equality and equity, institutional integrity, unity, and historical acceptance.

I would like to begin this speech by recognising the owners of this land, the true ancestors of the country we call ‘ours’. To the Indigenous peoples of Australia, I acknowledge you, I thank you and most of all I apologise to you for the deep suffering and remorse you are put through. I am ashamed of this country’s treatment towards you. Past and Present.

Since the time of federation the Aboriginal people have been fighting for their rights through protests, strikes and the notorious ‘day of mourning’. However, over the last century the Australian federal government has generated policies which manage and restrained that of the Aboriginal people’s rights, citizenships and general protection. The Australian government policy that has had the most significant impact on indigenous Australians is the assimilation policy. The reasons behind this include the influences that the stolen generation has had on the indigenous Australians, their relegated rights and their entitlement to vote and the impact that the policy has had on the indigenous people of Australia.

The problem of evil explores whether the existence of God is compatible with the existence of evil. An atheist will often suggest that the existence of evil proves the nonexistence of God. If God existed and were omniscient and omnipotent, He would be able to know of evil and prevent its occurrence. As he is perfectly good He would prevent evil, and evil would therefore not exist. If God truly exists, evil should not.

This article gives the reader an inequitable view of Indigenous Australians, defending Tony Abbot’s point of view and the audience is encouraged to agree with mainstream media in regards to whether or not Tony Abbott is racist. Article B from the Koori Mail condemns Tony Abbott’s viewpoint as not only racist but he is insulting the very culture that he is representing. Article B states that Tony Abbott does not understand Indigenous culture and how important land is to them “Connection to country is everything to Aboriginal people – defines Aboriginal people and sustains us in a cultural and spiritual sense and can play a vital role in building economic independence, self-determination and healing” (Greg Cromelin, Article B). With Article B the audience is encouraged to get angry at Tony Abbott’s comments and make him out to be racist.

The Stolen Generation has left devastating impacts upon the Aboriginal culture and heritage, Australian history and the presence of equality experienced today. The ‘Stolen Generation’ refers to the children of Aboriginal descent being forcefully abducted by government officials of Australia and placed within institutions and catholic orphanages, being forced to assimilate into ‘white society’. These dehumanising acts placed these stolen children to experience desecration of culture, loss of identity and the extinction of their race. The destructive consequences that followed were effects of corruption including attempted suicide, depression and drug and alcohol abuse. The indigenous peoples affected by this have endured solitude for many

As Allan Marett (2005) states in his text Songs, Dreamings and Ghosts: ‘there is a great deal of ambivalence within Australian society about the contribution that Aboriginal knowledge and modes of expression can and should make to the national consciousness, ranging from those who embrace Aboriginal ways of being in the world as the key to understanding how to be in Australia, to those who reject them totally as primitive, inimical to development, or simply irrelevant to ‘civilised’ values.’ This description is a seemingly accurate account from both sides of non-Indigenous Australian’s perceptions of Indigenous Australians. John Howard’s eleven year reign as Prime Minister, and his political campaign of ‘Practical Reconciliation’, sheds some understanding on the assimilationist and westernised mindset that some Australian citizens possess (Gunstone, 2010). However, as Australia becomes more multicultural - unless the nation is content with going into a state of ruin - acceptance of diverse cultures must be recognised and