The scribe is human. The scribe holds onto hope, love, and peace. These ingredients are essential for survival and creativity as the scribe dares to walk into the social furnace, to find words to articulate the genocidal horror and terror of colonisation and power.
Stan Grant, ABC journalist and First Nations representative, exposed his soul on ABC TV, his pain, and that of his family when he addressed, very publicly, the deep hate spears and articulated hurtful racism that dominate in the outpost penal colony called Australia.
His spirit and heart strength are in tatters; but hope is not lost, although the intense political/ media system of oppression, dehumanisation and hate does eat the social/ individual soul.
Daring to bear witness to this history Stan communicates our complex settler history and the resultant horrific resonances of ignorance and denial as we embrace ‘normalisation’.
The question remains: ‘Can we, as a nation, inoculate our damaged psyches as we walk to/ with the Statement from the Heart; which will give constitutional recognition to First Nations peoples brutalised for 230 years of ongoing wars of colonisation?’
Do we understand the incalculable cruelty we display when we imprison ten-year-old children? Is there anything that is not weaponised when we address First Nations rights? It seems that values no longer exist in Australia. We incarcerate tortured refugees too – defying rights upheld by international charters.
Australian punitive economic technologies cling to epistemic violence to enhance economic systems of incarceration and brutality. Yes, it gets worse as we incarcerate our children for resisting the powers that are destroying the planet. Are we that ‘normalised’? What happened? Have a rest, Stan, but come back stronger. There does exist a consciousness that sees love as an existential state, it’s just that all of the media shite has knocked this realisation out of our ‘normalised’ souls, and hearts, but not our vision!
Easy Jo ..call Qantas..and book your tickets..
This BS regarding colonisation is beyond belief.
what the reminder of the country 97%
just walk are in shame ..!! We were not
responsible for what happened…
We belong to the land ..knowone
Owns any lands in this Country..
Well coming from a white older male barrow that is a lot of mischievous ideas you argue, really colonisation was as you suggested non violent and benevolent. I suggest you move away from the old Jacki Jacki concept taught up to the seventies. Can you tell where the original inhabitants signed away their rights?
Stan’s job was to commentate on the coronation of Charles. His job requires him to give honest and unbiased true commentary, not his personal life that no one is really interested in. Everyone has their struggles and misfortune that are not aired to the public, they do not have a platform in which to do so like Stan did. It appears he can give it but takes exception when he gets it back. I am sorry but I don’t think he deserves privileges. Unfortunately the ABC has lost it’s way, it does not represent the average every day punter any longer, it appeals to the leftist and lefty’s only. When was the last time you saw an unbiased report from these rapscallions,?. Many other networks presented a fine coverage that many many Aussies enjoyed. Ita But rose, you should hang your head in shame the buck stops with you.
The other networks all gave the same mindless, shallow, sycophantic and uncommentated coverage. Honestly the ABC can’t win. Yes it’s supposed to be balanced you all scream. To offer the same shallow gushing guff – and totally ignore facts like the majority of Australians say they want a republic and the fact that Terra Nullius (the justification under which ownership was declared in the name of the crown) has been rejected by the high court – would to me be unbalanced and falling down on their job.
Yes the coronation was entertaining and we all liked the singing and the red carpet but there are deeper implications for Australian society that need exploration and the ABC stepped up.
A panel discussion that included the Chair of the Australian Republican Movement, a prominent monarchist legal eagle MP and an articulate First Nations voice would seem to me to add some gravitas, relevance and yes balance to what was otherwise treated like a gala or a musical.
A clarification. Stan was not there to describe the frocks and the uniforms, nor even to attempt to lipread what Harry was saying. It was a panel discussion and he was there to give a First Nations perspective. To mind mind highly relevant and appropriate.
Warren Mundine and Jacinta Price choose to ignore the ongoing vile racist and non racist attacks from anonymous cowards . Maybe Stan should take a leaf from their book.
I think people have a right to choose how they react to “vile racist and non racist attacks from anonymous cowards”. It probably takes more courage to call it out.
Qui tacet consentire videtur
There would be no “vile racist and non racist attacks from anonymous cowards” if there was no non de plume allowed on any forum. People should have to put their name to their comments.
Look, I generally agree with that David but, given some of the social media induced psychoses out there I can understand why people might want to stay unidentified from disturbed minds.
I try to make comments respectful and nothing I wouldn’t be happy to be identified with by the stable.
Gecko breath, The majority of Aussie’s want a republic?, you sure about that?. If brave intelligent Aussie’s like Warren Mundine and Jacinta Nampijinpa Price say the voice is divisive, racist and in general a waste of time and money that is good enough for me. Vote NO.
Many an opinion poll has indicated that most Australians want a republic. Whether they all agree on the model they want, and therefore whether another referendum would be any more successful is another matter. It is still a valid topic for discussion as we sit through another foreign hereditary monarch – one who vows he is a true Protestant, ordained by God and head of the CofE – as OUR head of state.
But the republic and Voice debates are quite different questions. I was defending the ABC’s decision to discuss the implications of the coronation to contemporary Australian society as part of their charter and not entering into the Voice debate here at all.
You must vote as you see best but perhaps have a deeper look at the arguments than simply who agrees with you. I find people like Prof Marcia Langdon and Pat Dodson brave, intelligent, credible and wise but I’ve also had a bit deeper dive into the pros and cons, and will continue to do so before I vote.
I was wondering why you designated me to a particular group of lizards and decided it must be because they are distinguished by the ability to vocalize with chirps and barking noises. They also have sticky toes that allow them to climb walls but I can’t claim that ability. Cheers 😊
I doesn’t matter what type of lizard you are, once a lizard always a lizard.
A bit ad hominem there Greg! Good, that means my comments have hit the mark 🦎
Curious that this seems aimed at me personally rather than the substance of my reply? 🦎