There& #39;s so much to unpack in this story by Stan Grant.

First, it& #39;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">https://twitter.com/abcnews/s...
2. Second, there& #39;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& #39;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, & #39;demands& #39; 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 & #39;voice to parliament& #39; is a seat in parliament, as Aboriginal MPs have shown.

And what form would a & #39;treaty& #39; 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 & #39;treaty& #39;. /12
12. Finally, & #39;truth& #39;. Whose & #39;truth& #39;?

Will we accept that the rate of removal of in-danger children has doubled since Rudd& #39;s National Apology, due to neglect and abuse? And, if so, could not others of the Stolen Generation& #39; have been removed for the same reasons? 13
13. Will & #39;truth& #39; 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.
You can follow @ToomeyWright.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: