Inbox

A Qualified Apology
Your cover story on the Australian government’s “sorry” to Aboriginal people tells only one side of the story [Feb. 25]. I have lived in Australia for one-third of its history; my ancestors came here in 1791. My English ancestor was “stolen” from his family at the age of 16 for catching a fish in a farmer’s stream. My Irish ancestor was “stolen” from his family for protesting against British landlords. People like them and their descendants worked to build Australia as a modern nation. When Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said sorry, he did not speak for me. I have nothing to be sorry for. Aboriginal people certainly need government help in health and education, but above all they need to contribute toward their own welfare. This means getting a job, sending their children to school and joining mainstream Australia. James Carney
Newcastle, New South Wales

Your cover reads “Australia Says Sorry.” Australia did not say sorry — its government and Parliament did. There are more than 14 million people — migrants from many countries and their children — whose families were not even living in Australia when the events being apologized for took place. Why should they say sorry? What about the thousands of British children who were stolen from their country during World War II, many of whom suffered privation or abuse in Australia? Have they received an apology or compensation? James Taylor,
Frankston, Victoria

Both of Australia’s main political parties offered apologies, and they were necessary and balanced. The policies for which they apologized were racist and have been a source of immense pain for Aboriginal people. However, they were well-intentioned and also arose from a desire to care for the children of single mothers who were unable to look after them properly. Reconciliation is, however, a two-way process. When one party apologizes, the other ought to forgive. Aboriginal people and their leaders need to say publicly, “We forgive you.”Until that happens, there will be no reconciliation and Australians will not be able to move forward as one people. I hope there will be no more “sorry days.” Perhaps instead we could have an annual reconciliation day. Jennie Stevens,
Canberra

The descendants of the British colonists whose actions are now being apologized for are far too sensitive about the negatives of colonization and not sufficiently staunch about the great amount of inspired, inventive, generous, inclusive, improving good that their forebears brought about for indigenous people. This point has been lost in a one-sided debate.
Bruce Morley,
Auckland

Apologies have symbolic value but often lack substance. The solutions to indigenous people’s problems are vastly more difficult than saying a few words. Prime Minister Rudd also failed to acknowledge the role of his Labor Party in originating almost all of the indigenous legislation that is now being condemned. Doubtless there will now be many claims for compensation by indigenous people. Will apologies also be made to the British children taken to orphanages in Australia last century, to internees during the world wars, to Pacific islanders kidnaped to work in the Queensland cane fields, to the unwed mothers who until the 1970s almost routinely had their children taken from them, or to the avoidable victims of our hospital system’s failures? I apologize to those I have omitted from the list of the wronged.
Martin Gordon,
Canberra

Your story reports that opposition Leader Brendan Nelson supported the government’s apology and that many people turned their backs and jeered as he did so. Nelson, rather than accepting that the day was all about saying sorry, took the opportunity to talk about sexual abuse, alcoholism and domestic violence in some Aboriginal communities. He also noted that in many cases where children were removed from parents, the harm and anguish were unintentional and inflicted by “well-meaning” people. There was truth in his statements, but such sentiments have been expressed many times before. To dredge them up on that particular day, at that particular moment, was mean-spirited, insensitive and showed bad judgment.
Brett Jack,
Sydney

I was sorry to see “Australia Says Sorry” on the cover of TIME. Not that it is wrong to say sorry for injustices when they have occurred. However, there is no proof that the “stolen generations” were actually stolen from their families. Authorities in Australia have been unable to name even 10 stolen children. New PM Rudd has grabbed at an opportunity to get global attention by blaming Australians for injustices that are a myth. Former PM John Howard expressed regret but did not say “sorry” because there was, and still is, no proof that Aboriginal children were stolen. Welfare organizations only removed children from situations in which they were endangered by abuse, malnutrition, and a lack of normal care.
J.D. Rogers,
Brighton, Victoria

Signal Success
Your article “Signal Failure,” on the theory of Dutch traffic engineer Hans Monderman that streets are actually safer without road signs, reminded me of an incident that occurred in Auckland one extremely wet weekday in winter [Feb. 25]. At 8 a.m., at the height of the rush hour, there was a major blackout that affected the entire city and lasted about four hours. All traffic lights were out. Police on point duty manned four major intersections in the CBD, and one or two others were manned for brief periods by public-minded citizens who did not mind getting soaked. Police later reported that, contrary to all expectations, gridlock had not ensued. There was no serious congestion and fewer accidents than usual. Most commuters reported that while they had driven more slowly than usual, their traveling time was shorter. While this does back up Monderman’s theory, I cynically suspect that if we did away with traffic lights, speed would gradually increase and courtesy and care would all too soon degenerate into selfishness and aggression.
Penelope Wilson,
Auckland

See How They Run
Joe Klein ignored the most important reason Barack Obama is winning: media adoration [Feb. 25]. Where is the scrutiny of Obama’s flawed policy proposals, his attacks on Clinton’s proposals, his business dealings and his record in the Illinois state legislature? Millions of us find Clinton very inspiring. We believe we are electing a President, not a television evangelist.
Horace Newton Barker Jr.
Chattanooga, Tennessee

A pretty face, a pop-star aura and clichés about welfare, justice, freedom and change are all a candidate needs to lure ecstatic audiences into believing the new messiah has arrived. Obama’s charisma obliterates the emptiness of his message. Too bad for Clinton. Her voice is too shrill, her laughter too loud and her tears too easy. Who cares about her profound knowledge, her long experience with Washington’s maze and ways, and her useful insight into the Republicans’ bag of tricks?
Herman D’Hollander,
Antwerp, Belgium

The Oscars Blooper Reel
Richard Corliss is justified in griping about incorrectly awarded Academy Awards [Feb. 25]. There should be retrospective awards to correct past errors of judgment.
Jan Schaafsma
Betty’s Bay, South Africa

Corliss thinks Shakespeare In Love and its leading lady, Gwyneth Paltrow, were not Oscar-worthy? The film has the cleverest plot, most literate dialogue and best acting and musical score, all while offering hilarity and heartbreak, romance and cold calculation. It succeeds marvelously in every way. Paltrow gave a breathtaking performance as both Lady Viola and Thomas Kent and got only one Oscar for it. What was the Academy thinking?
Alan B. Posner,
Royal Oak, Michigan

The Academy has made many goofs, but often subsequent adulation compensates for its oversights. After receiving the Lifetime Achievement Award, Charlie Chaplin got one of the longest standing ovations in Oscar history. I don’t think he would have exchanged that experience for a competitive Oscar he missed out on during his career.
Anurag Chatrath,
Edinburgh

To the list of Oscar’s missteps, I would add Gentlemen’s Agreement over Great Expectations in 1947, Charlton Heston (Ben Hur) over James Stewart (Anatomy of a Murder) in 1959 and Elizabeth Taylor (Butterfield 8) over Deborah Kerr (The Sundowners) in 1960. At or near the top of the list of missing nominations, I would place both Rosalind Russell and Cary Grant (His Girl Friday) in 1940.
Paul J. Corigliano,
San Marcos, California