#langton — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #langton, aggregated by home.social.
-
Langtons to launch first international wine classification
Langtons will launch its first Classification of International Wine in 2026, expanding its fine wine benchmarking system – which has acted as a trusted guide for the local market since 1990 – beyond Australia for the first time. …
#dining #cooking #diet #food #Australianwine #Australia #Langton's #Wine #WinefromAustralia #WineofAustralia
https://www.diningandcooking.com/2729242/langtons-to-launch-first-international-wine-classification/ -
Langtons to launch first international wine classification
Langtons will launch its first Classification of International Wine in 2026, expanding its fine wine benchmarking system – which has acted as a trusted guide for the local market since 1990 – beyond Australia for the first time. …
#dining #cooking #diet #food #Australianwine #Australia #Langton's #Wine #WinefromAustralia #WineofAustralia
https://www.diningandcooking.com/2729242/langtons-to-launch-first-international-wine-classification/ -
Langtons to launch first international wine classification https://www.diningandcooking.com/2729242/langtons-to-launch-first-international-wine-classification/ #Australia #AustralianWine #Langton's #Wine #WineFromAustralia #WineOfAustralia
-
Langtons to launch first international wine classification https://www.diningandcooking.com/2729242/langtons-to-launch-first-international-wine-classification/ #Australia #AustralianWine #Langton's #Wine #WineFromAustralia #WineOfAustralia
-
5/x
In the past two years, there have been opportunities for the political class to deal with her in a serious fashion. A few, such as independent candidate Michelle Milthorpe and journalist and Saturday Paper columnist Paul Bongiorno, recommended the obvious, as did I: refuse to preference or negotiate. This strategy has been used against radical-right parties in parts of Europe. The evidence on whether this contains or entrenches an “us against the system” narrative is mixed, although the demise of Viktor Orbán in Hungary shows how it can be done with a laser focus on corruption, lies and false nationalism. Many have recommended understanding and addressing the underlying grievance without the racialised framing. Both Milthorpe and Bongiorno’s analyses of regional disaffection point towards key issues: housing, health access, mobile coverage. If the material grievance gets addressed directly, the diversionary appeal has less with which to work.
Sustained local presence of incumbents and hopeful candidates between elections, which Milthorpe argues is necessary to push back the tide of resentment, could relieve some of the rage of the new converts to One Nation. I doubt this alone will defeat the emotional freight of communities ignored for too long and attended to only during campaigns. Hanson’s appeal now is not just the cookers, the alienated and gullible Australians, but also those who believe the two-party system has failed them.
Hanson was legitimised by John Howard’s refusal to censure her, by the decision to negotiate with her and finally do preference deals. Her politics has been borrowed by the Coalition and left largely unchallenged by a cheapened media. Now, she is being supercharged with money from Australia’s richest person. It’s possible no single act could have stopped her across the past 30 years, although many individual acts have made it worse. Much needs to be done in the next two years to stall her rise. As the Irish statesman John Philpot Curran said: “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.”fin
-
5/x
In the past two years, there have been opportunities for the political class to deal with her in a serious fashion. A few, such as independent candidate Michelle Milthorpe and journalist and Saturday Paper columnist Paul Bongiorno, recommended the obvious, as did I: refuse to preference or negotiate. This strategy has been used against radical-right parties in parts of Europe. The evidence on whether this contains or entrenches an “us against the system” narrative is mixed, although the demise of Viktor Orbán in Hungary shows how it can be done with a laser focus on corruption, lies and false nationalism. Many have recommended understanding and addressing the underlying grievance without the racialised framing. Both Milthorpe and Bongiorno’s analyses of regional disaffection point towards key issues: housing, health access, mobile coverage. If the material grievance gets addressed directly, the diversionary appeal has less with which to work.
Sustained local presence of incumbents and hopeful candidates between elections, which Milthorpe argues is necessary to push back the tide of resentment, could relieve some of the rage of the new converts to One Nation. I doubt this alone will defeat the emotional freight of communities ignored for too long and attended to only during campaigns. Hanson’s appeal now is not just the cookers, the alienated and gullible Australians, but also those who believe the two-party system has failed them.
Hanson was legitimised by John Howard’s refusal to censure her, by the decision to negotiate with her and finally do preference deals. Her politics has been borrowed by the Coalition and left largely unchallenged by a cheapened media. Now, she is being supercharged with money from Australia’s richest person. It’s possible no single act could have stopped her across the past 30 years, although many individual acts have made it worse. Much needs to be done in the next two years to stall her rise. As the Irish statesman John Philpot Curran said: “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.”fin
-
4/x
During the 1998 election, Coalition, Labor and minor party preferences kept her from winning the seat of Blair, despite her topping the primary vote. This is the exemplar of democratic mechanics successfully containing her. Also in 1998, Tony Abbott established the “Australians for Honest Politics Trust”, a funded legal campaign that helped trigger One Nation’s organisational collapse but also handed Hanson the grievance story she has run on ever since.
In 2003, she was convicted of electoral fraud and served 11 weeks in prison. The conviction was unanimously quashed on appeal. This was a cautionary case against legal overreach, which in this instance produced a martyrdom narrative rather than containment. In less than a year, she was a finalist on Dancing with the Stars.
After Hanson’s return to the Senate in 2016, the major parties made a decision to negotiate with her, voting with her on welfare cuts and trying to trade company tax cuts for her support. This is arguably where normalisation through ordinary deal-making took hold. From this point, it became unlikely that Hanson could be contained. The wheels were turning on the car crash that has since arrived in polling.
In 2018, Hanson put a motion in the Senate, a very rare instance of her doing the work expected of a senator. The motion itself was a proto-fascist stunt, an assertion of the American white supremacist phrase “It’s okay to be white”. Coalition senators voted for it, and then they called it an administrative error, reversing it once the backlash had landed. The correction was made only after the fact and only under real public pressure. It gave us a preview of the success One Nation is enjoying today, aided by a hapless and now disintegrating Coalition.
The media has a role in this, too. They have treated her as entertainment and consistently given her a platform. They have failed to fact-check her in real time, allowing her lies to hang around unchallenged. She has a natural talent for what American Republican political strategist Steve Bannon described as “flooding the zone with shit”. This is now amplified by a well-funded, sophisticated online campaign of advertisements, animated video series, memes and other propaganda, spread exponentially by her supporters, many of them from the United States and other countries, by bots and the algorithmic surge that has overwhelmed ordinary political debate in Australia. She continues on in that hurt, tremulous voice, reading as if from a hillbilly encyclopaedia about her fears of “Asians”, “immigrants”, “Aborigines”, “multiculturalism”, “lazy workers”, “late-term abortions” and so many other conspiracy theories and irrational interpretations of modernity. -
4/x
During the 1998 election, Coalition, Labor and minor party preferences kept her from winning the seat of Blair, despite her topping the primary vote. This is the exemplar of democratic mechanics successfully containing her. Also in 1998, Tony Abbott established the “Australians for Honest Politics Trust”, a funded legal campaign that helped trigger One Nation’s organisational collapse but also handed Hanson the grievance story she has run on ever since.
In 2003, she was convicted of electoral fraud and served 11 weeks in prison. The conviction was unanimously quashed on appeal. This was a cautionary case against legal overreach, which in this instance produced a martyrdom narrative rather than containment. In less than a year, she was a finalist on Dancing with the Stars.
After Hanson’s return to the Senate in 2016, the major parties made a decision to negotiate with her, voting with her on welfare cuts and trying to trade company tax cuts for her support. This is arguably where normalisation through ordinary deal-making took hold. From this point, it became unlikely that Hanson could be contained. The wheels were turning on the car crash that has since arrived in polling.
In 2018, Hanson put a motion in the Senate, a very rare instance of her doing the work expected of a senator. The motion itself was a proto-fascist stunt, an assertion of the American white supremacist phrase “It’s okay to be white”. Coalition senators voted for it, and then they called it an administrative error, reversing it once the backlash had landed. The correction was made only after the fact and only under real public pressure. It gave us a preview of the success One Nation is enjoying today, aided by a hapless and now disintegrating Coalition.
The media has a role in this, too. They have treated her as entertainment and consistently given her a platform. They have failed to fact-check her in real time, allowing her lies to hang around unchallenged. She has a natural talent for what American Republican political strategist Steve Bannon described as “flooding the zone with shit”. This is now amplified by a well-funded, sophisticated online campaign of advertisements, animated video series, memes and other propaganda, spread exponentially by her supporters, many of them from the United States and other countries, by bots and the algorithmic surge that has overwhelmed ordinary political debate in Australia. She continues on in that hurt, tremulous voice, reading as if from a hillbilly encyclopaedia about her fears of “Asians”, “immigrants”, “Aborigines”, “multiculturalism”, “lazy workers”, “late-term abortions” and so many other conspiracy theories and irrational interpretations of modernity. -
3/x
None of this happens for free. Mining billionaire Gina Rinehart has put Hanson on private jets to Mar-a-Lago and the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, hosted by the American Conservative Union. This year she gave One Nation a $1.5 million campaign plane and helped organise millions in other donations. Her own donations to the party, which will remain uncapped until the end of this year, will not be revealed until February. Rinehart’s fortune traces to her father, Lang Hancock, who in 1984 proposed dosing Aboriginal communities’ water supplies to sterilise them so they would “breed themselves out”. Nobody is suggesting Rinehart shares that view today, although it is fair to say that an extractive fortune, built in an industry with every reason to resent Indigenous land rights and the institutions that enforce them, is now bankrolling a political program aimed at dismantling those same protections.
How did it come to this? How could one in three Australian voters prefer Hanson as prime minister? At any point in the past three decades, could something have been different? Could she have been stopped?
In 1996, the mechanism that should have stopped Hanson worked to an extent but was too late. The Liberal Party disendorsed her once her comments on Aboriginal welfare became a problem, yet by then the ballots had been printed with her name on them as the Liberal candidate. The real failure was upstream: preselection vetting didn’t catch what she’d already been saying as an Ipswich councillor. That’s the most concrete “preventable” point in the story: a more careful candidate-screening process, applied earlier, plausibly would have kept her off the ballot in the first place. Beyond that, her win in Oxley was part of a broader Coalition landslide over which local party machinery had little control.
The more consequential and deliberate choice came after she won. Then prime minister John Howard declined to censure her and described her rise as evidence that a “pall of political correctness” had lifted. That was deliberate. As a sitting prime minister with real authority over his own party’s tone, he chose not to isolate her. Many historians treat this as the bigger missed opportunity, not the preselection mess. After Howard’s exploitation of her nativist hatreds to shape his own policy towards asylum seekers, there were several attempts to prevent her becoming legitimate, and then, from 2016, the Coalition capitulated entirely. -
3/x
None of this happens for free. Mining billionaire Gina Rinehart has put Hanson on private jets to Mar-a-Lago and the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, hosted by the American Conservative Union. This year she gave One Nation a $1.5 million campaign plane and helped organise millions in other donations. Her own donations to the party, which will remain uncapped until the end of this year, will not be revealed until February. Rinehart’s fortune traces to her father, Lang Hancock, who in 1984 proposed dosing Aboriginal communities’ water supplies to sterilise them so they would “breed themselves out”. Nobody is suggesting Rinehart shares that view today, although it is fair to say that an extractive fortune, built in an industry with every reason to resent Indigenous land rights and the institutions that enforce them, is now bankrolling a political program aimed at dismantling those same protections.
How did it come to this? How could one in three Australian voters prefer Hanson as prime minister? At any point in the past three decades, could something have been different? Could she have been stopped?
In 1996, the mechanism that should have stopped Hanson worked to an extent but was too late. The Liberal Party disendorsed her once her comments on Aboriginal welfare became a problem, yet by then the ballots had been printed with her name on them as the Liberal candidate. The real failure was upstream: preselection vetting didn’t catch what she’d already been saying as an Ipswich councillor. That’s the most concrete “preventable” point in the story: a more careful candidate-screening process, applied earlier, plausibly would have kept her off the ballot in the first place. Beyond that, her win in Oxley was part of a broader Coalition landslide over which local party machinery had little control.
The more consequential and deliberate choice came after she won. Then prime minister John Howard declined to censure her and described her rise as evidence that a “pall of political correctness” had lifted. That was deliberate. As a sitting prime minister with real authority over his own party’s tone, he chose not to isolate her. Many historians treat this as the bigger missed opportunity, not the preselection mess. After Howard’s exploitation of her nativist hatreds to shape his own policy towards asylum seekers, there were several attempts to prevent her becoming legitimate, and then, from 2016, the Coalition capitulated entirely. -
2/x
In her first speech to parliament, in 1996, Hanson warned Australia was being “swamped by Asians” who “form ghettos and do not assimilate”. In 2006, she said African immigrants brought disease and were of “no benefit to this country whatsoever”. In her 2016 speech, after being elected to the Senate, the formula returned unchanged except for its target: Australia was now in danger of being “swamped by Muslims”. In February this year, she told an interviewer she had “no time for radical Islam”, whose adherents “hate Westerners”, and said she could not accept there were “good Muslims” – a claim so far over the line that she partially apologised, then immediately undercut the apology by insisting she was “not backing down”. Transgender Australians are the newest addition to the list, accused in her press club speech of running an ideology that has “penetrated almost every regulatory authority” to “redefine humanity”.
Each target is different, yet the operation performed on each is identical: identify a minority, declare it the cause of national decline, demand the dismantling of whatever protects it. Hanson has called for the abolition or defunding of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, the Human Rights Commission, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, the ABC, SBS and the United Nations. Each has been named an enemy not for any proven failure but simply for existing to protect someone other than the “mainstream Australians” for whom Hanson claims to speak.
Then there is the leader cult. This is not a metaphor but a clause in a party’s constitution. In August 2017, One Nation’s governing document was rewritten so Hanson would serve as president “for as long as she may wish”. She was given the power to hand-pick her successor, who would serve indefinitely before any return to internal elections. A former party president, who had warned in 2014 that the change “could be seen as dictatorial”, later told a national newspaper he had greeted the final draft with a mock Hitler salute. Hanson herself explained that she dissolved the party’s original branch structure because ordinary members caused her “trouble”.
What stops all this short of fascism proper is that Hanson has never proposed abolishing parliament. She stands for election and accepts her Senate suspensions within the chamber’s own rules. Yet a movement that observes democratic form while gutting its substance is exactly what political scientists studying global authoritarianism say is hardest to identify in time. These movements rarely provide one unmistakeable transgression that would make refusal easy. -
2/x
In her first speech to parliament, in 1996, Hanson warned Australia was being “swamped by Asians” who “form ghettos and do not assimilate”. In 2006, she said African immigrants brought disease and were of “no benefit to this country whatsoever”. In her 2016 speech, after being elected to the Senate, the formula returned unchanged except for its target: Australia was now in danger of being “swamped by Muslims”. In February this year, she told an interviewer she had “no time for radical Islam”, whose adherents “hate Westerners”, and said she could not accept there were “good Muslims” – a claim so far over the line that she partially apologised, then immediately undercut the apology by insisting she was “not backing down”. Transgender Australians are the newest addition to the list, accused in her press club speech of running an ideology that has “penetrated almost every regulatory authority” to “redefine humanity”.
Each target is different, yet the operation performed on each is identical: identify a minority, declare it the cause of national decline, demand the dismantling of whatever protects it. Hanson has called for the abolition or defunding of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, the Human Rights Commission, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, the ABC, SBS and the United Nations. Each has been named an enemy not for any proven failure but simply for existing to protect someone other than the “mainstream Australians” for whom Hanson claims to speak.
Then there is the leader cult. This is not a metaphor but a clause in a party’s constitution. In August 2017, One Nation’s governing document was rewritten so Hanson would serve as president “for as long as she may wish”. She was given the power to hand-pick her successor, who would serve indefinitely before any return to internal elections. A former party president, who had warned in 2014 that the change “could be seen as dictatorial”, later told a national newspaper he had greeted the final draft with a mock Hitler salute. Hanson herself explained that she dissolved the party’s original branch structure because ordinary members caused her “trouble”.
What stops all this short of fascism proper is that Hanson has never proposed abolishing parliament. She stands for election and accepts her Senate suspensions within the chamber’s own rules. Yet a movement that observes democratic form while gutting its substance is exactly what political scientists studying global authoritarianism say is hardest to identify in time. These movements rarely provide one unmistakeable transgression that would make refusal easy. -
1/x
Can Pauline Hanson be stopped?Marcia Langton is an Aboriginal writer, a descendant of the Yiman people of Queensland. She is professor of Australian Indigenous studies at the University of Melbourne.
27 June, 2026 The Saturday Paper
——————
Pauline Hanson’s populist and mostly false declarations have changed little in 30 years. They are her personal grievances writ large for an audience hungry to attribute their own grievances to particular races and religions. The normal process through which her “policies” would be held to account by journalists and other politicians has largely failed. Even if it is self-evident that what she “promises” cannot be implemented, not without cruel and unconstitutional measures, not to mention catastrophic economic repercussions, her electoral base has at least tripled.
Hanson has built a myth of her martyrdom. Hers is a victim pageant and many of the main players in the media seem to be transfixed. At the National Press Club last week, she delivered a 90-minute rave with barely a murmur from journalists who had the opportunity to question her sustained catalogue of lies and misinformation. Hanson has only ever had to ignore and outlast outrage, and outrage burns out on a predictable schedule.
Last week, Hanson said the thing she has been building towards for three decades: Australia, she announced, must be monocultural. No differences, not even slight ones, managed at the margins. Her vision was for one culture, one umbrella, the rest negotiated away or defunded into irrelevance. It was delivered in her familiar, folksy exasperation, the voice of a woman who has “had a gutful”. That tone is doing a lot of work. It is the reason a program that would otherwise read as a textbook case of proto-fascism is instead received as some kind of common sense.
Proto-fascism is defined as a movement that borrows fascism’s characteristic moves. It depends on scapegoating ethnic and religious minorities, organising around a leader whose personal authority overrides party democracy, and treating pluralist and international institutions with open contempt. It differs from fascism only in that it lacks fascism’s revolutionary ambition to abolish the constitutional order itself. Measured against Hanson’s record, the fit is not loose or rhetorical; it is almost exact, and has been since her days as a councillor in Ipswich. -
1/x
Can Pauline Hanson be stopped?Marcia Langton is an Aboriginal writer, a descendant of the Yiman people of Queensland. She is professor of Australian Indigenous studies at the University of Melbourne.
27 June, 2026 The Saturday Paper
——————
Pauline Hanson’s populist and mostly false declarations have changed little in 30 years. They are her personal grievances writ large for an audience hungry to attribute their own grievances to particular races and religions. The normal process through which her “policies” would be held to account by journalists and other politicians has largely failed. Even if it is self-evident that what she “promises” cannot be implemented, not without cruel and unconstitutional measures, not to mention catastrophic economic repercussions, her electoral base has at least tripled.
Hanson has built a myth of her martyrdom. Hers is a victim pageant and many of the main players in the media seem to be transfixed. At the National Press Club last week, she delivered a 90-minute rave with barely a murmur from journalists who had the opportunity to question her sustained catalogue of lies and misinformation. Hanson has only ever had to ignore and outlast outrage, and outrage burns out on a predictable schedule.
Last week, Hanson said the thing she has been building towards for three decades: Australia, she announced, must be monocultural. No differences, not even slight ones, managed at the margins. Her vision was for one culture, one umbrella, the rest negotiated away or defunded into irrelevance. It was delivered in her familiar, folksy exasperation, the voice of a woman who has “had a gutful”. That tone is doing a lot of work. It is the reason a program that would otherwise read as a textbook case of proto-fascism is instead received as some kind of common sense.
Proto-fascism is defined as a movement that borrows fascism’s characteristic moves. It depends on scapegoating ethnic and religious minorities, organising around a leader whose personal authority overrides party democracy, and treating pluralist and international institutions with open contempt. It differs from fascism only in that it lacks fascism’s revolutionary ambition to abolish the constitutional order itself. Measured against Hanson’s record, the fit is not loose or rhetorical; it is almost exact, and has been since her days as a councillor in Ipswich. -
Hey. I hear you and I am a tenant on #Country, so forgive me if I don't believe I need an #education on that bit of the program.
My question related directly to an #OAM being returned to the #crown by the recipient.
My sense of his point is and was then, that if OAMs represent the crown spilling #nuggets on the #floor around the table to keep the #Blackfellas quiet, then #returning it in recognition of the nuggets was the correct thing to do. I agree with him.
Did you know that fat #Clive was made a #national living #treasure? So was #Dr #Karl.
Were I Dr Karl, I would have asked to be removed from the list of people so honoured, since if Clive could get one, they were meaningless.
Are you with me so far?
Anyone given an honour by the crown, is meaningless unless the crown accepts the fact that the land was not #conquered nor ceded by the #people who were here, leaning on #spears, watching the #invasion and having no idea what it meant, until the #muskets and #canon and #ropes and #gibbets began to take their toll.
I don't disagree that many Blackfellas have had a good run and ended up with #doctorates and so on, but they are precious few and far between.
Prof #Langton for example could not be considered an #exemplar of our #First #Nations in general. Wonderful #representative, but not a great example of Blackfellas #reality.
For that you'd need to visit a #prison, find a 40 year old #Blackfella with 20 years jail behind him or her. That is your example of Blackfella reality.
So, I agree with you that we have lots of Blackfellas who have done well. The fact that they are so #celebrated should give you a clear idea of where I stand.
Address the issue of the #OAM mate. The rest is seriously #irrelevant in the moment.
Have a great day.
-
Hey. I hear you and I am a tenant on #Country, so forgive me if I don't believe I need an #education on that bit of the program.
My question related directly to an #OAM being returned to the #crown by the recipient.
My sense of his point is and was then, that if OAMs represent the crown spilling #nuggets on the #floor around the table to keep the #Blackfellas quiet, then #returning it in recognition of the nuggets was the correct thing to do. I agree with him.
Did you know that fat #Clive was made a #national living #treasure? So was #Dr #Karl.
Were I Dr Karl, I would have asked to be removed from the list of people so honoured, since if Clive could get one, they were meaningless.
Are you with me so far?
Anyone given an honour by the crown, is meaningless unless the crown accepts the fact that the land was not #conquered nor ceded by the #people who were here, leaning on #spears, watching the #invasion and having no idea what it meant, until the #muskets and #canon and #ropes and #gibbets began to take their toll.
I don't disagree that many Blackfellas have had a good run and ended up with #doctorates and so on, but they are precious few and far between.
Prof #Langton for example could not be considered an #exemplar of our #First #Nations in general. Wonderful #representative, but not a great example of Blackfellas #reality.
For that you'd need to visit a #prison, find a 40 year old #Blackfella with 20 years jail behind him or her. That is your example of Blackfella reality.
So, I agree with you that we have lots of Blackfellas who have done well. The fact that they are so #celebrated should give you a clear idea of where I stand.
Address the issue of the #OAM mate. The rest is seriously #irrelevant in the moment.
Have a great day.
-
Hey. I hear you and I am a tenant on #Country, so forgive me if I don't believe I need an #education on that bit of the program.
My question related directly to an #OAM being returned to the #crown by the recipient.
My sense of his point is and was then, that if OAMs represent the crown spilling #nuggets on the #floor around the table to keep the #Blackfellas quiet, then #returning it in recognition of the nuggets was the correct thing to do. I agree with him.
Did you know that fat #Clive was made a #national living #treasure? So was #Dr #Karl.
Were I Dr Karl, I would have asked to be removed from the list of people so honoured, since if Clive could get one, they were meaningless.
Are you with me so far?
Anyone given an honour by the crown, is meaningless unless the crown accepts the fact that the land was not #conquered nor ceded by the #people who were here, leaning on #spears, watching the #invasion and having no idea what it meant, until the #muskets and #canon and #ropes and #gibbets began to take their toll.
I don't disagree that many Blackfellas have had a good run and ended up with #doctorates and so on, but they are precious few and far between.
Prof #Langton for example could not be considered an #exemplar of our #First #Nations in general. Wonderful #representative, but not a great example of Blackfellas #reality.
For that you'd need to visit a #prison, find a 40 year old #Blackfella with 20 years jail behind him or her. That is your example of Blackfella reality.
So, I agree with you that we have lots of Blackfellas who have done well. The fact that they are so #celebrated should give you a clear idea of where I stand.
Address the issue of the #OAM mate. The rest is seriously #irrelevant in the moment.
Have a great day.
-
Hey. I hear you and I am a tenant on #Country, so forgive me if I don't believe I need an #education on that bit of the program.
My question related directly to an #OAM being returned to the #crown by the recipient.
My sense of his point is and was then, that if OAMs represent the crown spilling #nuggets on the #floor around the table to keep the #Blackfellas quiet, then #returning it in recognition of the nuggets was the correct thing to do. I agree with him.
Did you know that fat #Clive was made a #national living #treasure? So was #Dr #Karl.
Were I Dr Karl, I would have asked to be removed from the list of people so honoured, since if Clive could get one, they were meaningless.
Are you with me so far?
Anyone given an honour by the crown, is meaningless unless the crown accepts the fact that the land was not #conquered nor ceded by the #people who were here, leaning on #spears, watching the #invasion and having no idea what it meant, until the #muskets and #canon and #ropes and #gibbets began to take their toll.
I don't disagree that many Blackfellas have had a good run and ended up with #doctorates and so on, but they are precious few and far between.
Prof #Langton for example could not be considered an #exemplar of our #First #Nations in general. Wonderful #representative, but not a great example of Blackfellas #reality.
For that you'd need to visit a #prison, find a 40 year old #Blackfella with 20 years jail behind him or her. That is your example of Blackfella reality.
So, I agree with you that we have lots of Blackfellas who have done well. The fact that they are so #celebrated should give you a clear idea of where I stand.
Address the issue of the #OAM mate. The rest is seriously #irrelevant in the moment.
Have a great day.
-
Recent acquisitions from England part 1:
📖 #Medieval #London : #TheCity , #Westminster and #Southwark: Showing London in the Late #13thCentury with an Introduction and Directory
📖 The Stripping of the #Altars : #TraditionalReligion in #England , #1400 - #1580 by #EamonDuffy
📖 From #Becket to #Langton : #English #Church #Government #1170 - #1213 by #CRCheney
📖 The #BlackDeath ( #PitkinGuides ) by #BrianWilliams