I must say that the idea of apologising for something that was seen as right to do at the time, but is now considered morally and perhaps legally wrong, is a good idea.

If those adults are today suffering either directly or indirectly as a result of the migrations you've stated, then this apology is long overdue.

The problem with apologies therefore is that they are in a way, an admission of wrong doing, and as such, people do expect something done after the apology. Given the compensation culture, I can see why governments can be reluctant to give apologies of a public nature, especially on issues such as this one which can cause volatility.

Nonetheless, for the purpose of moving on, or creating better awareness, apologies can be a good point to begin to reconcile and forge new beginnings.

The disrespective nature with which British empire came to be meant that for so many people, their way of life became permanently disrupted through the instillation of western ideals which today's globalised world largely subscribes to. There are benefits to this, but for the purpose of my point, there are drawbacks that continue to bedevil todays generations, e.g. racism. This was born out of those ideals and attitudes.

I welcome Australia's apology because it is the most noble way of accepting responsibility, and lays a platform within which future generations can refer to, instead of denying the truth. If Britain as well as apologising for the mass emmigration of these children could also apologise for slavery, it would be a good starting point to address the "who started it" type question that I sometimes ask myself when I try to understand racism. This question is normally asked by parents when two children are fighting, and it normally ends with an apology if the two children want to move on.

I lost my support for Tony Blair for poo pooing issues like this particular one.

Wow, I read this post combusting myself through it with laughter. If you rolled your eyes at me that many times, I'd think you're doing it to piss me off lol. Thanks for sharing this experiance. Believe it or not, I could identify with a lot of what you are talking about; not because I am white - I hope it's clear i'm not - but because there was a time when I too questioned the idea of "Black community", or why there was so much talk of "Black this, black that", and a lack of equivalents for the whites. Never once heard of "white community."

This is perhaps a rare point of view, coming from someone who would be expected to share the same views with those who see things as "Black" this, and black other. But my point of view is thankfully as a result of my background, having come from Africa, and therefore I have an advantage of a different POV. In Africa, there's no talk of black. You can describe someone as being black, but that would only be in relation to their skin tone, as opposed to the person 'black'. So therefore, the word black in western world represents another race, and it is easily seen as such due to the differences in skin colour. It is therefore largely , in the presence of white, that Black automatically becomes 'Black people' hence the other, hence the black race.

Towards the end of your post, you state your wish for a "Human Diversity". Well, perhaps what you are saying is you would rather people stopped identifying themselves by the colour of their skin, and just be. That sadly would only be good as a wish or a dream. However good a wish it is, it largely ignores the fact that for there to be Black amidst white, black did not arrive there by accident. In fact, it did not arrive there in good terms. This is not a slavery rebellion but trying to put my thoughts across in context. Human diversity has always existed, but unfortunately, one group of humans has historically attributed differences to personalities and characters. Therefore,it could be argued that most socially changing ideas be it law, policy or research that have emanated without due regard of distortions such as those which link skin colour to behaviour,chararacter etc.. are racially exclusive by virtue of failing to take into account the views and contributions of those who are viewed only as a colour or a different and perhaps unworthy people due to colour.

For example if there was a community consultation on building a hospital, researchers who attribute behaviour/character/personalities or even particular tragedies to skin colour might say to black people that the community needs a new hospital in order to combat the rise of HIV epidemic for example. What they would fail to say to them - because they don't think it would matter to them or they don't think it's worth it - and say to the whites is that as part of such and such government programme, the hospital (perhaps amongst many other options) was being considered as one of the ways to increase employment, given the increase in health related qualifications. Therefore, you'd find everyone voting for the go ahead, but for different reasons altogether. You might find blacks voting due to disease prevention or treatment reasons but less likely due to the possibility of a career, perhaps due to historical differences in employment or even schooling chances(which would probably have been hampered by some form of racialisation). Whites on the other hand would less likely vote on the basis of HIV prevalence, because they believe it is a disease for the blacks, perhaps because the media has concentrated its effort on highlighting this (this i believe was the case in the 80's, with gay people being demonised), and they couldn't have been given that as the major reason. But because they would all vote indipendently for different reasons, the hospital would eventually be built. However, blacks would see it as a place for treatment, and whites would see it as both a place for treatment and somewhere where someone can aspire to work one day. This is a silly example, but hope the point is clear.

The black community therefore is not a self secluding community, but a forum (so to speak) that recognises the already existing divisions in the society as a result of historical reasons, and continuing attitudes and therefore this group would seek to come up with ideas where it appears that the greater society does not cater for their needs, or has continued to see them as a coloured people thereby failing to considered their worth even, after identifying them as a such and linking this to the people that they are or can/cannot be. It is no surprise to me that there is talk of a black man and a nigger. A black man is seen as the one who chooses not to let things bother him, and just does what he ought to do to live this life where we all live then die. He, I believe has crafted himself an inner self belief, that no matter what, he is not going to let other people make him into a nigger. He expresses his displeasure but he does it differently. He for one, sees himself as a person first. He will address his problems by looking inside of him and examining whether he has done his best. He uses the right channel to settle differences. This man is more likely to take you to court.

On the other hand, enter the nigger world. He for one does not see himself as a person but as a nigger. He expresses his problems by relating to a greater oppression out there, whether he has been directly oppressed or not. To him, the external is why he is the way he is. Perhaps also for him, he was brought up by parents who never saw themselves as people. He therefore sees himself as the beast the society has created him to be, and he is happy in that identity because he has nothing to prove, and no reputation to protect: his name was spoilt before birth. This man is likely to gun you than take you to court where he believes he will not get a fair trial. That is how a sub-culture is born out of a culture. For the subculture to end, there has to be some form of normalisation. Whites must begin to see blacks as people, and blacks must begin to see themselves and whites as people.

If a group of white people would be forcefully planted in Africa, and then a belief instilled amongst Africans that the group of whites is somehow inferior, it is likely that that group will begin to either accept that, or fight to change those perceptions. But being that they will be a minority, they might struggle so much to get themselves heard, especially if the inferior mindset is not overturned by those who begun instilling it in the first place. It has been the work of blacks to prove themselves worthy, than the work of those who made them worthless to change mindsets. No doubt a lot has been done, but never be so naive to think that just because you've never been racist, other people aren't. Also, don't be so naive to think that to be racist you have to literally be a racist. You can call me nigger all you like, but do not allow your racist mind to influence the chances of me becoming the best I can be either by doing or not doing. This is why believe it or not, laws are enacted that make it a duty for public bodies to exercise due regard of peoples race, sexuality, sex, etc. Why is this so? Because if not, people will not make it their business to include others that have been secluded before due to physical or behavioural differences. Don't forget that the reason why a lot of people cannot kill you is not because it is morally wrong, but more because it is liiegal to do so. That says a lot right? That in my books is what racism is. Words such as niggers only serve to identify people who are potentially racist, and for me, they are the gateway to being actively racist.

As an African studying in UK, I just feel sorry for people who have to grow up seing themselves as people who they have been constructed to be, but not who they really are. I know that this is a world I can choose to leave back at the drop of a hat, but i'm equally aware that nature might see me having a mixed race child,and now what? Should I bring him up to be the person people expect him to be because they have a certain expectation of "Black kids"? or the person who he can be. One thing i'm happy with about America is that by a majority vote, people showed that differences can be ignored. A very good step ahead.

This will be my first post here, hello all. Your wording - that the clone "THINKS" he or she is YOU bears your answers. I don't believe in cloning, nonetheless yr qn is interesting.

1. Is the clone human?

Well, you can look at 'human' as a made up word, in mankind's attempt to separate or group himself from other living things, in a way that denies being an animal or even possessing animalistic tendencies. I know of 'humans' who could pass for animals. I think mankind tends to doubt or conciously refuse to contend that 'animals' can share with us come characteristics which we very much see as 'human': compassion; saving anothers life; fear; etc. Therefore if the clone possesses characteristics which are completely opposite to those which we 'humans' label as 'animal' i.e. if it possesses characteristics that we as non-animals can identify with, I would pass it for being human.

2. Does your clone have a soul.

If i've passed him for being human, and if he "THINKS" he is me, then by virtue of his being able to think, yes I think he has a soul. Having a soul in a way that comprehends thought, is consistent with being alive. If he thinks he is me however, he is only going to ACT like me. This means that he will make it his business to decide to act like me, whether he gets it right or wrong which is a thing i find problematic -- We don't generally tend to think we are us; we just know we are. Taking this to your next question,

3. Is that clones soul your soul?

No. He thinks separately and decides what he wants. In fact, he thinks and does things without my knowledge: he acts like me. How on earth would i know what is going through his head in times when he is not 'acting' like me? Although me and him look very similar, it appears he has a brain of his own which harbours his independent thought. Supposing I died; would he die or would he act like he is dead?