wir schreiben morgen eine Arbeit, bei der wir über eine Entschuldigung der Australier an die Aborigines für die jahrelange Unterdrückung...
Ich hab schonmal eine Übungsargumentation geschrieben?
Könnt ihr mir vielleicht ein bisschen Kritik und Tipps geben? Das wäre sehr nett :D.
Hier ist die Argumentation:
Kevin Rudd, the Prime minister of Australia, gave a speech to say sorry to the victims of the „Stolen generation“, the children who were taken away from their familys.
Now I want to deal with the ask, if it is a good or a bad idea to apologize for something that is happened a long time ago.
An argument for the apology is that an apology is better than no apology because the Aborigines can recognise that the Australians are very sorry in consideration of the faults of the past.
Without an apology the Aborigines could not see the regret of the white people and therefore they wouldn´t forgive the Australians.
Moreover with an apology there is the possibility that the Aboriginal people and the Australians can let the past behind and go together into a peaceful future without disrimination and with equal living conditions.The whites must not have a bad conscience anymore and they can conclude with the cruel history of Australia.
On the other hand an apology cannot make something undone. Apologies are only words and cannot bring the parents their stolen children and therefore the Australians have to chance something with actions. For example they can search the parents of children who were taken away in the past.
Furthermore it´s very ludicrous to think that an apology is enough for whatis happened in the past. Most of the victims of the „Stolen generation“ have traumatic loss since they were taken away from their familys and nothing can heal these wounds.
In summary there are better arguments for the apology and therefore in my opinion it was a great gesture.