There's so much to unpack in this story by Stan Grant.

First, it's easy to reject the premise: "What do coronavirus, the rise of authoritarianism and the retreat of democracy have to do with Indigenous reconciliation in Australia? Everything" /2 https://twitter.com/abcnews/status/1264636413598789633

2. Second, there's this: "Now is the time to think bigger about our own history, our unfinished business, and the demands of First Nations for justice"

What demands? What justice? /3

3. Then: "Australia is in the crosshairs of a global ideological struggle between authoritarianism and liberalism"

Is it? (we're only three paras in so far, folks) /4

4. Next: "Coronavirus has made this all very real: as China stares down Australia and US President Donald Trump — himself accused of undermining democracy... The historical injustice and the ongoing rights claims of First Nations people form part of these global fault lines"
/5

5. So, coronavirus, China and Trump are linked to on-going rights claims of Aborigines.

Seems a long bow to draw.

And what on-going rights claims? /6

6. "If Australian politics cannot meet Indigenous demands for justice, what does it say about the strength and legitimacy of our own democracy? This is the question posed by the... proposed a three-pronged program of democratic rehabilitation: Voice, Treaty, Truth"

OK, but... /7

7. Just because a group, any group, 'demands' something, especially something as radical as requiring constitutional change, should it automatically be granted?

Is that how democracy works now?

Now he segues seamlessly into terrorism: /8

8. "History can be a breeding ground terrorism and hatred: Islamic State and the extreme right both drink from the same poison well. Australia is thankfully spared such violence, but history here too is a roadblock to reconciliation"

Spared such violence? /9

9. Perhaps we should ask the family of Curtis Cheng and the victims of the two car attacks in Melbourne.

He goes on: "The Uluru Statement offered a way through this impasse, proposing a rejuvenated Australian identity where we "can walk in two worlds" — black and white" /10

10. Surely the proposals can also be seen as divisive along race lines.

Surely the best 'voice to parliament' is a seat in parliament, as Aboriginal MPs have shown.

And what form would a 'treaty' take? Between whom would it be? /11

11. Who would be authorised to sign such a treaty on behalf of all Aboriginal people and how would they be elected to have such an imprimatur?

No-one seems to know answers to these questions other than parroting 'treaty'. /12

12. Finally, 'truth'. Whose 'truth'?

Will we accept that the rate of removal of in-danger children has doubled since Rudd's National Apology, due to neglect and abuse? And, if so, could not others of the Stolen Generation' have been removed for the same reasons? 13

13. Will 'truth' accept that some communities are so dysfunctional that they pose a danger to all within?

Stan Grant is big on rhetoric but, sadly, short on practical solutions.

I wish he and others could focus on practical ways to improve conditions for Aboriginal folk.