Dichotomy In Redfern Speech

By repeatedly turning the conversation back on the audience, saying “go to the Sydney Gazette and look it up and read about it” Grant makes them a part of the argument and makes them accountable for their role in the solution to the racism I Australia. Doing this makes it possible for the receiver to feel obligated to learn more about the subject matter at hand and, even after the speeches completion, discover a new perspective on the content. Grant uses the emotive language of “two centuries of dispossession, injustice, suffering” the convey the circumstances faced by him and his ancestors that have beaten them down as a people. This juxtaposes, however, against the use of “survival”, showing how, despite the injustice and suffering, they continue to survive and not give up on their home. This is an example of a long-term discovery that the Aboriginal community can survive whatever it is being thrown at them and is still be rediscovered everyday as they continue to survive in the face of the ‘Australian Dream’. Pauses are used strategically throughout the speech to allow the audience time to process what has been said and allow them to draw discoveries from the information provided for them. By pausing after making the bold statement “We’re better than this” Grant is allowing the affirmation to sink in that it is possible that not all non-indigenous Australians are racist and that change is possible. Discoveries that occur over a period of time can often be more meaningful than the realisations that happen in an instant as they have been considered deeper and can be the most vital discoveries to initiate

The history wars of Australia is an area of great controversial debate. Throughout the course of Australian history, the public has been mainly subjected to one perspective that focused on the glorifying moments of European settlement and its progress such as its involvement in world wars and the transition of the nation into a globalised continent. As a result, there is a rigid dichotomy between the perceptions of white Australians and the indigenous population on subjects such as the colonisation or invasion of Australia. History told from the perspective of Aboriginal people greatly contrasts what is written in the history books and also what is exposed or encouraged towards the public. It focuses on the dispossession of indigenous people, the massacres and the attempted eradication of culture. This view of Australian history has been labeled as 'black armband history', which was first used during an interview by a historian, Geoffrey Blainey.

They recognise the various ways in which each and every text is the creation of the author.” In order to do this, there must be an understanding of the author and the origin of their perspective. This article was written by Andrew Bolt, a columnist who refers to the stolen generation as a myth and believes that there were no large scale removals of children for “purely racist reasons.” Furthermore, in the past, Bolt has been accused of having a serious case of historical denialism. After analysing the author’s background, it is guaranteed that this article is in the perspective of someone who was never on the indigenous side to being with. This perspective is clear in the lead where bolt says, “Footballer Adam Goodes has let us down as Australian of the Year, using his soapbox to vilify out past and preach division.” This quote has illustrated the way Bolt has positioned the readers to view Goodes, the Australian of the Year, as a villain. Bolt continues to say that Goodes apparently, “attacked Australians who resisted this lurid characterisation of our past,” by saying, “the people who benefited most from those rapes, those killings and theft ….turn away in disgust when someone seeks to expose it.” However, if read with in further depth, it is clear that Goodes was not trying to “vilify our past,” but was simply acknowledging historical shame and how it can be used to

‘Australia’ also showed how the government controlled how children of Aboriginal descent were brought up with language used such as “The mixed raced children must be dislocated from their primitive full blooded Aborigine, how else are we to breed the black out of them”. This presented again the reason as to why the Aboriginal children were taken away from their own cultures to be raised in something completely different.

Stan Grant’s speech ‘Racism and the Australian Dream’ (2015) effectively reminds the Australian population of the racism and harsh inequalities indigenous Australians have faced in the past and still face today. In reminding us of this reality, Grant engages us to discover issues of civic participation in Aboriginal people and in doing so perpetuates a need for social change. More?

Speeches are an iconic and widely used means of expression for our political leaders, particularly when discussing issues of importance such as Indigenous Australia. Paul Keating’s ‘Redfern Speech’ and Kevin Rudd’s ‘Apology to Australia’s Indigenous Peoples’ are the two political speeches which I will be analysing in this paper.

Aboriginals were the first kind to be in Australia. They had ownership of their land and they embraced their culture. This did not last long as the Europeans came to Australia. Things started to change from there such as many different tribal groups in Australia were wiped out, losing their language and culture. Hudson (2006) argues “Law and justice can only provide redress for those who appear the same as white men”. This essay will explain different aspects of issues that aboriginals are dealing with from which it then can be seen whether or not; white men are the only ones who deserve redressing from the law and justice.

Thus, silencing the entire right wing European and Government perspectives. The current Australian Curriculum sees year 9 and 10 students tasked with exploring massacres and the spread of European disease as effects of European-Indigenous contact, this accompanies investigating accounts of Indigenous Australians removed from their families during The Stolen Generation (Australiancurriculum.edu.au, 2017). Young Australians, under the premise of education, are presented a biased review of Australia’s history, guided to recognise only Indigenous perspectives and negative effects (Davies, 2014). Is this practise compromising Australians entire understanding of Australia’s history, particularly Indigenous relations? Historians including Bain Attwood, a leading scholar in the field of cross-cultural history, suggests: “the Stolen Generations narrative is endangering historical truths…”(R. Kennedy, 2001). The Australian Curriculum negates justly acknowledging the Protection policies roots in aiming to ensure acceptance of half cast children into white society, in the pursuit of peacefully assimilating Australia’s cultural divide. As was the dominate discussion focus of the 1937 Commonwealth-State Native Welfare Conference, theorising “how

The 2008 apology to the Stolen Generations by Kevin Rudd is historically significant for a number of reasons (Creative Spirits, 2014). Some felt it provided closure to a painful and traumatic part of Indigenous history while others fail to see how the apology has in the years after proven to change the circumstances of Indigenous peoples. Impacts in areas such as health, education, economic opportunity and involvement in child protection and/or the criminal justice system are all areas which should have been impacted by the Apology (Creative Spitis, 2014). However; as this essay will explore very little impact has been made in any of these areas in actual fact in some ways the gap has been made wider or perpetuated by acts of government.

This article gives the reader an inequitable view of Indigenous Australians, defending Tony Abbot’s point of view and the audience is encouraged to agree with mainstream media in regards to whether or not Tony Abbott is racist. Article B from the Koori Mail condemns Tony Abbott’s viewpoint as not only racist but he is insulting the very culture that he is representing. Article B states that Tony Abbott does not understand Indigenous culture and how important land is to them “Connection to country is everything to Aboriginal people – defines Aboriginal people and sustains us in a cultural and spiritual sense and can play a vital role in building economic independence, self-determination and healing” (Greg Cromelin, Article B). With Article B the audience is encouraged to get angry at Tony Abbott’s comments and make him out to be racist.

The Stolen Generation, was one of Australia’s most difficult situations, with multiple short-term and long-term impacts that severely affected Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander citizens. In supporting this claim, ‘The Stolen Generation’ was when Government officials took children away from their home and placed them with other families saying that it was for their own good. Children in this situation experienced much trauma and suffering, and also grew up knowing their culture. This had been going on since the 1910’s and went on until around the 1970’s. Governments around Australia had truly thought that if Aboriginal people had contact with white society that they would eventually die out. It wasn’t until 2008 that an official apology was given to the stolen citizens by one of Australia’s former Prime Ministers, Kevin Rudd.

As a nation, Australia in both a contemporary and historical sense shows a wide kaleidoscope of values and attitudes. Through Matt Ottley’s multimodal narrative Requiem for a Beast, these values and attitudes are prominently demonstrated through its mode and medium. The abhorrent, but still prevalent event of the Stolen Generation plays an immense role in both the values and attitudes that contemporary Australia is known for. As a large portion of this narrative is based on the impact it had on the Indigenous both at the time and to this day, this narrative is told through the perspective of three separate individuals: An Aboriginal Elder, a young boy, and a narrator. Between 1905 and 1969 Australia was known as the first nation to attempt in breeding out an entire race, and this began the legacy that the Australian government was known for.

Macfarlane’s speech is inherently linked to the notion of civic participation within the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. In order to holistically understand civil engagement amongst Indigenous Australians, we must first look historically at their place within Australia’s political society. Despite being the nation’s first inhabitants, Indigenous Australians were not granted the right to vote until 1962 when the Commonwealth Electoral Act (1918) was amended by the Menzies Government (refernce). Furthermore, Indigenous Australians were not formally recognised within the census, nor was the Commonwealth able to make laws in relation to them, until the successful 1967 referendum which amended sections 51 and 127 of the Constitution (refernce). Whilst this was an important step towards increasing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander political participation, it is still extremely problematic, as it removed all references to Indigenous Australians from the Constitution completely. The Australian Constitution therefore fails to acknowledge history prior to settlement, presenting Australia’s national narrative as beginning with British arrival (refernce). This historical misrepresentation of Aboriginals in the Constitution, which is still highly problematic today, holds the roots of the low levels of civic engagement within the Indigenous community. The overwhelming Indigenous

The Australian Governments’ attempt at eradicating our race and culture will fail at its aim of improving our lives by absorbing us into white society. Primarily because white society refuses to accept Indigenous people as equals, regardless of our efforts to live, speak and act like them. We are the true citizens of Australia and a government that is suppose to be doing what is best for its citizens, proposed that Indigenous people should be allowed to “die out” through a process of natural elimination, or, where possible, should be integrated into the white community. Language, tradition, knowledge, dances and spirituality can only live on if passed onto our children. In breaking this circle of life, the White’s are

Ned Kelly’s pleas for true justice to end discrimination against poor Irish settlers eventually opened the eyes of people, and he came to symbolise a fight by a flawed hero for justice, liberty and the innocent. Images of Ned Kelly were even projected to a global audience during the opening ceremony of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. Therefore, showing Carey’s Kelly as an everyday man who was the victim of the unjust powers that be, is only logical. By doing so, we can harness and perpetuate the existing love and admiration for Ned Kelly’s legend that is present among the contemporary Australian populous. We must definitely show Carey’s Kelly, and this particular representation of justice, within a modern adaptation of the work. It’s a representation of justice that many nowadays Australians want to hear, and will therefore connect