Slick Tony's Indigenous insincerity

[boris1gary]

Slick Tony's Indigenous insincerity

“There is no country on Earth where people are made more welcome. There is no country on Earth whose people have more innate generosity to others. Yet for two centuries – with fragrant [sic] exceptions, of course – Australians had collectively failed to show to Aboriginal people the personal generosity and warmth of welcome that we have habitually extended to the stranger in our midst.”

These words are chilling, for their shameless, delued deception.

The Prime Minister’s speech requires a fierce riposte, on two grounds.

Firstly, Australia cannot currently claim to be a generous welcoming country.

We are not showing warmth to the stranger, as Prime Minister Abbott claims. In fact, in our name, Abbott’s Government is treating men women and children fleeing persecution with appalling cruelty. Australia does not welcome refugees or offer them safety. We push them back into the sea. We send them back to the horrors from which they have fled. We incarcerate, injure, threaten and destroy them.

Secondly, Abbott speaks of our failure to offer warmth and welcome to Indigenous people.

By this Abbott claims that it is white Australia welcoming a stranger to these shores. That’s right — a stranger?

Indigenous people have lived in this land for at least 60,000 years — to suggest they are strangers in this country is beyond idiotic and embarrassing and strays into being downright offensive.

It is white settlers who became the strangers in another people’s land. It is the white people who stole the land and committed the murders and took the children from their mothers. It is us, white people, who are the violent invaders — who did not deserve to be welcomed.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/slick-tonys-indigenous-insincerity,619...

[freakiness]

---

@monman12 wrote:

---

"The one true point he makes is that he has failed to extend his welcome to aboriginal people"

Codswallop.

""Australians had collectively failed to show to Aboriginal people the personal generosity and warmth of welcome that we have habitually extended to the stranger in our midst.”

He has said AUSTRALIANS collectively failed to show the same degree  of   generosity and warmth of welcome to Aboriginal people that they would to others (strangers) within the country (midst) i.e discrimination.

Meaning non indigenous Australians collectively,  not just him.

nɥºɾ

---

It wasn't non indigenous Australians collectively who demonstrated their disdain when he arrived late and promptly fell asleep during their attendance.  His pretence of caring is too little too late to be taken as sincere..  If there was any genuine concern he would start with an apology for his appalling behaviour in the past.

Not all Australians collectively have acted the same as him either.

[freakiness]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1OKujvU2wQ

@21:25 he says he will spend his first week as PM in that community   

Later he denied ever having said such a thing.

[the_great_she_elephant]

And before anyone leaps in to accuse me of politicaal bias I would like to point out that I am not criticising Mr Abbott - unless he wrote that speech himself - I am criticising his script wrters for doing a sloppy job.

Yet for two centuries – with fragrant [sic] exceptions, of course – Australians had collectively failed to show to Aboriginal people the personal generosity and warmth of welcome that we have habitually extended to the stranger in our midst.”

If I had written that sentence, my first publisher - from whose stern pen I learnt the art of self-editing -  would have put a big red cross beside it and stuck  a post-it note under it with comment "I'm not sure what you are trying to say here". He would have drawn a big red circle round 'the stranger in our midst' with another post-it note note saying "this is a piece of literary pretension that  might have had it's place in an 18th century sermon but it is totally inappropriate in the context of modern day Australia. He would also have drawn a red circle round the word 'flagrant' and written above it WHAT!!!

And I would have gone away, had a long hard think and rewritten it something like this:

Yet for two centuries – with notable (or maybe happy)  exceptions, of course – Australians had collectively failed to show to Aboriginal people the same personal generosity and warmth of welcome that we have habitually extended to strangers.

[monman12]

I concur to a degree TGSE but take issue with your:
"warmth of welcome that we have habitually extended to strangers"       when what was written was
"warmth of welcome that we have habitually extended to the stranger in our midst.”     because the former would instantly be branded as meaning the indigenous population are strangers/outsiders, whilst the latter is  a convoluted (somewhat esoteric)  way of referring to someone different (indigenous/stranger) but already present/existing (in our midst)

What was Abbott attempting to convey?  That we have a history of being  discriminatory  (racist) , lacking in warmth,  where the indigenous population are concerned,  as opposed to others  within our society?

I think so.

nɥºɾ

[monman12]

I am sorry B1G I did not wish to upset you by referring to "delued deception", as it was not apparent where that phrase  was sourced, even though I know you love to quote others often and at large.    It turns out that it was an article within  the IA (Independent Australia) whose favourite author is the ALP champion Bob Ellis.

However in my defence I was only pointing out that the post was a reference to Abbotts turn of phrase and the comment that "fragrant" should have been "flagrant"  would have been grammatically wrong,  and  could possibly be applied to the strange comment you wrote  (copied) : "delued deception"

In most cases when you publish a statement you are held to have in effect made that statement yourself, i.e. a newspaper can be sued for defamation by printing a slander  made by a third party,  or even here if you quote anothers statement deemed  originally unnaceptable.
I should have known better as  your source was IA,  however, did you not consider the phrase "delued deception" somewhat strange, and worthy of a quick check/research?

nɥºɾ

PS
If the intended phrase was supposed to be: "deluded deception"  we would have have had a de-facto tautology.

[the_great_she_elephant]

---

@monman12 wrote:

I concur to a degree TGSE but take issue with your:
"warmth of welcome that we have habitually extended to strangers"       when what was written was
"warmth of welcome that we have habitually extended to the stranger in our midst.”     because the former would instantly be branded as meaning the indigenous population are strangers/outsiders, whilst the latter is  a convoluted (somewhat esoteric)  way of referring to someone different (indigenous/stranger) but already present/existing (in our midst)

What was Abbott attempting to convey?  That we have a history of being  discriminatory  (racist) , lacking in warmth,  where the indigenous population are concerned,  as opposed to others  within our society?

I think so.

nɥºɾ

---

John, the difference lies in the insertion of that little word same It indicates that we are (or should be) giving equal consideration to two discrete  to two groups. without that word the implication is that one group (Aboriginal peopel) is a part of  the overall group  - strangers to whom we owe kindness and consideration.

[boris1gary]

---

@monman12 wrote:

I am sorry B1G I did not wish to upset you by referring to "delued deception", as it was not apparent where that phrase  was sourced, even though I know you love to quote others often and at large.    It turns out that it was an article within  the IA (Independent Australia) whose favourite author is the ALP champion Bob Ellis.

However in my defence I was only pointing out that the post was a reference to Abbotts turn of phrase and the comment that "fragrant" should have been "flagrant"  would have been grammatically wrong,  and  could possibly be applied to the strange comment you wrote  (copied) : "delued deception"

In most cases when you publish a statement you are held to have in effect made that statement yourself, i.e. a newspaper can be sued for defamation by printing a slander  made by a third party,  or even here if you quote anothers statement deemed  originally unnaceptable.
I should have known better as  your source was IA,  however, did you not consider the phrase "delued deception" somewhat strange, and worthy of a quick check/research?

nɥºɾ

PS
If the intended phrase was supposed to be: "deluded deception"  we would have have had a de-facto tautology.

---

That's very interesting, I look forward to the picking to pieces word by word  the next post sourced from the telegraph or the citizens electoral council.

[monman12]

"That's very interesting, I look forward to the picking to pieces word by word  the next post sourced from the telegraph or the citizens electoral council."  Do not forget IA though.

That is an excellent idea B1G, however facts are worth checking also,  especially those definitely quoted,    just basic research/thought apropos all media sources, as like here , quite often,  there is "exaggeration" misinformation and outright bias (bleating) from the 80% of concrete headed:

Perhaps one should feel sorry for disenfranchised  caprine and ovine  bleaters,   because  someone once strangely wrote: "It's not actually legal for sheep or goats to vote".

However, I would consider that :    "there's not actually any political necessity for sheep or goats to vote"

[freakiness]

You still haven't told us where you get your 80% figure from.

Or provided evidence of Gillard crying poor me.  Even in the so called misogyny speech she didn't cry poor me. quite the opposite.

[monman12]

"You still haven't told us where you get your 80% figure from."

It is a loose but accepted figure over many years FN, meaning that there is  outside of the 80% figure 20% of  the electorate who do make a difference, and even think before voting.

"Paul Keating has often said that in federal politics a general rule of thumb is the ALP have a structural primary vote of 38% and the Coalition have a structural primary vote of 43%. The “structural vote” is the amount of the electorate that can be relied upon to support either of the political parties at an election."

As for Poor Me, she and her duo circus act with Rudd are gone.  Does Women for Gillard still exist?, are there any echoes of  woe is me, misogyny  or sexism cries  emanating from Canberra? How is Emily's List. managing?.  Perhaps poor us would be  more applicable!

Poor Me professed to "admiring" Thatcher once, it is a pity that she could not emulate her toughness whilst in office, or that of other past and present female leaders.

nɥºɾ