Political Correctness


Only right wing nutbags would try to argue Terra Nullus or the absence of massacres.

It’s not in dispute. At all.


Agree, but the question is why don’t we more broadly accept indigenous history as the foundation for our nation?


Because nothing’s been offered.

We have Dreamtime stories.
We have Welcome to Country.
We have Sorry Day.
We have the Deadlys.
And fine things they all are, too.

But as to actual celebrations of people or events from prehistory that aren’t based in ancient mythology, religion if you like (and there’s nothing wrong with that), there is absolutely nothing.

There is zero reason to suspect they wouldn’t be accepted and celebrated if they were presented.


My understanding is that there were multiple nations with many different languages and variations of culture occupying the same continent. A similar example might be south east asia where Thailand, Vietnam and Malaysia who have some cultural and racial similarities but they all have separate language and culture, religion and nation.


Hell, boomerang is just a word (or something close to it) that the losers from Sydney were using.

Fark Sydney.


I don’t they’re arguing against a culture.


I think all decent people do.

It’s just a loud minority that would disagree.

I kind of agree with Wims point. Aboriginal history is hard(pre settler) it’s an oral history with no written records etc. Its hard to create mountains of content for kids to learn other than Dreamtime and some basic “how they lived”.

Also agree with Hambo, which history are we teaching? My understanding is that the culture and lifestyle was pretty varied.


Nope, not at all.


I think it’s pretty easy to broadly teach the history of indigenous people in Australia without having specifics, oh, this bloke did this. Teach the nations, teach the basics of the dreaming. Teach about the historical significance of lake mungo.

It’s not that hard


Australia history is so much more interesting than, Captain Cook! Arthur Philip, the Gold Rush! Ned Kelly!


That’s pretty farked up.


Song lines, trading, oldest aquaculture, second oldest human habitat at Condah, foods and preparation, tools, beliefs, art etc - there is certainly no less than other cultures to celebrate and more than a bunch I bet


Not to mention the indigenous experience post white settlement, which was pretty rad apparently and still is!



The 7-8 months I spent working in NZ was an eye opener in terms of how prevalent Maori culture is in general Kiwis day to day life.

It was refreshing to see this. We could learn quite a lot from them in how to better respect, acknowledge and embrace our own incredible indigenous culture.


You are talking 25% vs 1-2%.


“What’s Nazis got to do with ANZACs?”

My assumption was the person asking this question was well aware Australian troops fought against Nazi controlled Germany in WWII. Seriously, how many 18+ year olds do not know that?

So why the question? I doubt she was asking about anzac biscuits. The most likely explanation is she was referring to literal ANZACs - Australian & New Zealand troops in a joint force under one command, actually called Australian and New Zealand Army Corps - that mostly operated in WW1, a Nazi free zone. In which case it is a reasonable question. (Thanks for sticking up for me @Preliminary_Point2 that was the point I was making).

Now @benfti is correct, and I respect this is a significant issue for him. For a brief period in Greece in WWII, Australian and New Zealand troups were combined under one command and used the term ANZACs again. However, is it sufficient for young people to know that Australian troops fought against German axis forces in Greece, or should millenials be mocked because they don’t know these troops were literally ANZACs as well (so yes there you had Nazis v ANZACs). Maybe I’m getting soft in my old age, but I think it is wrong to mock and try to humiliate a young person for not knowing that.

If we look forward a bit further Australian and New Zealand forces were also combined for a period in Vietnam against the rampaging Antifa hordes, so perhaps the ANZACs could also be claimed to be pro-facist (don’t @ me, it is a joke).


Not sure if srs? If you are, I’m super interested to hear how you extrapolate that.


It’s all a bit of a silly semantics argument though, isn’t it?

I mean, regardless of how you define an Anzac, whether that be a guy who fought in Gallipoli, or my nephew who has just finished boot camp and will get his first posting this month, the answer to the question at hand is probably the same.

What would an ANZAC find more concerning?

  • The media misrepresenting Nationalism as Nazism, or
  • A group of angry dudes with Swatzika tatts doing nazi salutes as they gather on St Kilda Foreshore?

Personally, I reckon the answer is pretty obvious.


Not serious, I even said it was a joke.


It is very true that Australian Governments have pushed our Troops into some morally and legally wrong conflicts and wars. Vietnam is a good example.