Evening my blog readers (I've decided to do these at least twice a week depending on my circumstances)

If you were perhaps half interested in what I had to say last time and you've come back to read what I have to muse about this week, I thank you for your time. If you've just decided to begin reading from this one, I welcome you to my profile and blog entries that I've begun writing ever since my suspension (see Blog 1 - A change in the winds).

Since I was part way through the topic of "Political Correctness", "Censorship" and "Sugar-coating the truth" and what I meant by all that, I may as well begin this blog with that.

After my suspension, I read over my post again, and the entire topic, and I noticed that the majority of the posts that were deleted, were either
a) Possessing slight racist overtones (when dealing with a topic that catergorises EVERYONE into "races", it is very hard not to have a racist overtone within your post)
b) In DISAGREEMENT with the idea of "Sorry Day".

Now, that second point really irks (annoys) me. Whilst those that were deleted ALL had slight overtones of racism (consider moderations), and some had pure racist remarks as well (definite moderations), ALL that were deleted were the posts that "Disagreed" with the idea of "Apologising".

The reason this annoys me, is because of the idea of "Censorship". As many of the "Pro-Censorship" advocates on here will say: "It is to 'Protect' our society". I decided to just find out what they meant in their meaning of "Protect" so I searched, and only found meanings that pertained to "Defending from attack, being stolen, being injured, or guarding".

With that in mind, I fail to see why we are censoring the VIEWS that are in opposition to the "notion" (which there are many of). The opposing views are not there to attack, steal, injure or damage anything (physically, mentally, spiritually), they are just that...opinions and views on the issue based on a poster's research (we are on a public forum after all). Those that are scathing attacks, should be moderated, those that are in logical disagreement, should be left alone.

So why must we be censored, if in opposition to an ideal?

Therein comes my second point of "Political Correctness". This "movement" of "correcting" everything so that nothing possesses even the slightest hint of "racism, sexism, bigotry, intolerance, dogmatism, and differences of opinion".

Frankly, is getting out of hand.

"Baa Baa____Sheep" (From Black to Rainbow)
"______Penguins" (Fairy to little)
"Chair_____" (Man to person)

Quite frankly, there is no need for it, other than to appease either:
a) The minority who whinge about everything, because their lives are only fulfilled by interfering with the lives of others, and making the other people miserable.
b) A new kind of movement, where everything is sugar-coated, and made out to be lovely and sweet.

Point b, brings up the final issue of "Sugar-coating the truth". Going back to the issue of "Sorry Day", a great many
people felt that the opposition's speech on the day had opened an old wound and said "Things that need not be said".

I'm rather angry at this, since it is through the protest of these Aboriginals, that the governments started to take their "Stolen Generation" seriously and research what they could about it, so they could formulate an appropriate apology.

But in doing so, they found out the harsh reality behind some of these claims, and realised the extent of a required apology. The problem was, that the Aboriginal's "Stolen Generation" whilst a dark day in their history (and in ours should we be deemed "responsible), is one that must be faced full on if an apology is to be given.
But instead, they wanted a "forgive and forget" motto. Give us our apology for an event in our lives, but don't bring up what happened.

That's rather hypocritical in my eyes. It is the Aboriginals who have come forward, opening wounds in "multicultural" Australia, and then demanding an apology for an event that has a status of taboo. Basically...

That's not only a miscarriage with the purpose of an apology (if we don't know the full actions that we are apologising for, then we should not be required to apologise.), but also blinding everyone to believe everything isn't harsh and terrible.

The one-sided, "play-nice, but outright lie" view is the only accepted view, whereas anything that shows a hint of "cold/blunt honesty" is shunned as being mean or even "evil".

I think what society needs is a good hard look at itself, and take a good dose of the "Harshness" that is life. I'm not saying we need to catergorise ourselves according to "skin colour, sex" etc. and treat any catergory as an "inferior". We need to realise the mistakes we've made as a whole society, make the best of the situations we have as individuals, and NOT BLAME OTHERS for the labels/categories that are placed on us. If we of a certain sex, race, creed, belief, then go forward in society with them, and don't go through life, blaming others and taking advantage of others purely because of a supposed "inferior" view.

I suppose I should end my second blog here (I'm beginning to ramble, and I'm going around in circles). I don't want people to believe I'm a racist (I have many friends of many different races), or that the Aboriginals are undeserving as a race (they have endured many hardships, granted).

However, I am against having my taxes being paid out to help Aboriginals who claim to be "affected" by this "stolen generation", who then go out and spend the funds on liquor, sniff petrol, urinate on walls, don't contribute anything in society other than the occasional "Uproar" about Aboriginals getting treated unfairly, and those that blame everyone else for what they've been handed as a PERSON (see A Current Affair, 14/02/08 ).

Step up, and make something with your life (many have), regardless of what you have/are, and be thankful that you've got it.

Now that I've basically finished my musing on this whole affair of "Sorry Day", I welcome any comments or factual criticisms (blunt if need be, sugar coating it makes it pointless if it's a criticism). However, I won't tolerate any illogical abuse, or pure hate posts. As I said, we are on a public forum.

Next week, I'll be starting Uni again (transferred to a new course), so I might muse over the idea of starting out fresh in Uni all over again. Unless some major event makes the news, or a comment is made on this blog about my possibly doing something else that I can do (a review, a commentary on another event, an opinion on a current issue etc.) then I'll see you all next week (hopefully, if I haven't lost you already from these long-winded first posts basically on the topic of my suspension).

I ended my first blog with a great line, and I believe it works well as a concluding statement for all my blogs (A la' Terminator).

"I'll be back".

Well...I'm back. That's right, if you are here reading my very first blog entry right now, you may be shocked/dismayed/overjoyed to learn that I was suspended for 5 days, for "racist" remarks.

A comment I left on the "Gamespot AU" forums about the then current affair of Indigenous Australians seeking an "apology" from the current federal government saw me stripped of posting privilages for 120 hours.

Now that I'm back, I may as well post a little musing on the whole thing, since after all, it is a sensitive issue and with this apology, a great many things will change.

My post went something along the lines of:

"Many will be coming forward for compensation claims due to the apology now being given by Kevin Rudd. Many greedy, underserving, "hard done by" aboriginals will be coming forward now that the flood gates have opened."

Now, whilst it seems like a major generalisation, it is hardly far from the cold, honest truth.

After all,

1. If you actually look at the history, the majority of the children (not all) were actually under extremely harsh conditions staying with their parents, (since the children were typically of mixed descent). The "kidnappings" that occured were mostly voluntary handovers on the behalf of the parents (they had to sign papers for the child's release), since in most cases the parents could not care for the "half-cast" children.

Not only that, but alcoholism, and child abuse was rampant (and still is, 2007 Howard intervention in NT). The children were being taken away from that. They were not being taken away from a "better" way of life.

2. The figure was reported at "10%" of children in the 1870's. That is hardly a generation worth of "kidnapping". If it was actually only 10% of the population of "half-cast" children, then those 10% would hardly have made it past a generation (a cold statement I know), before their bloodline died out (April 2000 scandal). Since the Aborigines cannot falsify this figure of 10%, or even name around 10 of the 25,000 of the alleged "Stolen" (apart from the many "Anecdotal" cases) it stands as the most factual figure.

3. Around the 1940's - 1960's, many "non-aboriginal" babies were taken from their "non-aboriginal" teenage mother, due to the shame that it brought back in those days. They however, in most cases were taken against their will, and taken from what could be considered a good home. However, in the Aborigines cases, the majority were handed over voluntarily as I said, and into a decent living. What puts the Aboriginal cases above these?

4. The Aborigines already receive a great many "extra special" treatments both in financial support, status as a citizen, and acknowledgement. If I applied for government funds of ANY KIND (including HECS loans, welfare etc.), there is always an instant on these papers that asks of "Are you of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander heritage?". If I ticked that box saying "Yes", I receive something extra (be it in the form of extra funds, less repayment interest, lower entry requirements etc.). We are already extra accomodating to their race and yet they still play the "victim race" card constantly, believing themselves to be hard done by.

It is not us promoting a "racist" environment, nor a "prejudiced" society. We are the ones trying to appease them, and yet they spit in our faces with the constant "victim race" and try and make us guilty for somehow having some sort of "Supposed superiority" over them.

With all that I ask, why did the Aboriginals REALLY want an apology? It would've hardly affected ANY of today's outspoken Aboriginal spokesmen. Well, one very good reason is compensation. Look at the case of Bruce Trevorrow (August 07). He had very good proof of his "heritage" and his "stolen" status, and in effect, he was awarded over $500,000 for damages. Now I'm not dismissing the court's decision in this case. If there are genuine cases out there, with people who have been obviously affected by it...then let them come forward.

However, now that Rudd has "Apologised" for our "actions", we are admitting to being the guilty party in this "event". In effect, you'd find Aborigines of all creed coming out of the wood-work demanding compensation or benefits of some kind. If they don't receive it, they can quite possibly begin a long court battle and sue for damages.

Therein lies a whole new problem. How do we prove they were actually affected by it? The documents are there somewhere, but how do we know these people who come forward are actually people affected by it? We could try Blood Tests. But you see, the problem with that is the "aborigines" who come forward, to receive this blood test would claim "Racism" and "victimisation". As I said in the beginning, they are only too happy to play that "victim race" card.

In effect, we are back to square one.

The statement that gave me a suspension, whilst certainly possessing "racist" overtones, was not false and certainly very factual. There are "Greedy" Aboriginals out there, and those "Greedy" ones are usually the "undeserving" as well. But where it really bursts the bubble is the phrase "Hard done by".

The Aboriginals are no longer hard done by (hence the phrase in quotation marks in my deleted post). The outspoken Aboriginals already receive so much extra only because of their race.

I suppose, the "Sorry Day" is the change to all this. We are now united under one label as "Australians". I guess Rudd believes he has swept it all under the rug, appeasing the aboriginal elders for the mistakes of previous governments, and charming up the general public as it all being "A new beginning".

Time will tell us what the consequences are of this "Sorry Day". No matter what happens, things will change. But they may not change for the better.

Taking it off the topic of "Indigenous Australia", and after re-reading the topic that was posted, I'm realising the nature of society now. I guess that massive stage of "Political Correctness", "Censorship" and "Sugar-coating the truth" has finally arrived.

Since this blog is already very long, I'm going to end it here. I'll continue to write these every week, updating on current events, musings over various issues, reviews, journals about what I've done throughout the week, and possibly in the future; various videos to give it variety.

If you have any comments, questions, or criticisms, then feel free to post them (this is my first, so bare with me).

Thank you for your time if you bothered to read it all (or if you skipped over the points I made, thanks for reading the majority of it).

"I'll be back" next week.