Lexis hate and distortion of Abbott continues

'he phrases -"This is our land," and
"Piss off..." may not (like Mr Abbott's choice of words)
be the most tactful - but they are expressions (and reactions)

To compare Mr Abbott expressing a point of view which the vast majority of fair minded Australian would agree with as opposed to the hateful spiteful rhetoric of the aboriginal industry shows how out of touch you are.

Joe,
Everyone wants a better life, could it be that the Aborigines saw and desired the same things in a European styled society that a modern day Indian or Filipino does?

Belly, I expected the 'shadow minister' to defend Abbott, but not you. Abbott did say something wrong.

I said this on another thread.

Tony Abbott displayed yet again his diplomatic and political ineptitude of being a real leader by picking Australia Day (of all days) to stir the proverbial pot.

What Abbott said was just as offensive as someone making antiwar comments on ANZAC Day, or making anti-semetic comments in rememberance of the Holocaust - whatever one's personal beliefs.

Indeed, for a 'leader' who takes photo opportunities "helping" indigenous communities, one would imagine he would have enough nouse and sensitivity not to have made those comments on a day that many aboriginal people don't support as Australia Day, whether you like it or not.

Granted, the 'mob attack' was unacceptable and has done immense damage to their cause, but Abbott's churlish comments were ill-timed, insensitive and bordered on incitement.

I also said (in response to being asked why should I be frightened by the Australia Day fiasco):

I'm frightened of having a man like Tony Abbott lead our country (because of the above mentioned ineptitude) but there's only one thing I'm more frightened of, the measure of support he is getting.

Even now, Abbott and his followers are trying to blame Gillard for the despicable display shown yesterday and the day before. For what it's worth, Gillard had a press conference today explaining the chain of events - did you watch it?

I deeply regret about past crimes and discrimination towards native Australians. Yet, I cannot consider myself responsible. Today, as a citizen, I am responsible for not repeating such atrocities to any Australians.
We cannot just cry over the shameful past and try to 'correct' it at expense of the majority of Australians, who by no means can be considered responsible. This would lead us not even to 'nowhere' but to bitter and painful death as a nation.
Aboriginal people, as the eldest Australians, have my deepest respect and sympathies. How good it wood be to live in our Australian home together as dearest brothers and sisters!

Otokonko,
that installation is on Waibene. It was built to protect Australia in anticipation of the Russian Invasion. The land there was not used by the Islanders then hence Thursday Island being chosen as site for Qld Govt Administration. Your query however suggests that the land used was "taken" just like that. It wasn't. There were negotiations with the people from the area & they in turn realised that it was their own benefit also. Don't forget also that the real Islanders by 1877 had already been massively interbred with the real invaders of Torres Strait, the Samoans. This fact is being kept rather low nowadays.
Please read The colonial & cultural occupation of Torres Strait by Steve Mullins. Thie man actually lived & worked in the Strait rather than simply consult history books . He ended up a Professor of History not just an academic wanting to be a Professor. Huge difference in integrity there. In nearly all land acquisitions people were & still are compensated. Telstra, Schools, shops etc all pay leases. There is not a single square metre of privately owned land on the 15 inhabited outer islands yet all facilities & services are provided.

It's now possible to explore the past by means of
a large number of books, articles, films, novels,
songs and paintings. We can find out so much
about the history of indigenous-settler relations.
If we really want to know that is.
I would highly recommend the book by Henry Reynolds,
"Why weren't We Told?"

As Reynolds points out:

"Knowing brings burdens which can be shirked by
those living in ignorance. With knowledge the
question is no longer what we know but what we are not
to do, and this is a much harder matter to deal with.
It's a matter that will continue to perplex some of us
for many years to come."

Reynolds tells us that, "telling the truth is central
to the Aboriginal agenda for reconciliation. They want
to have the truth told about numerous things - about
the taking of the children, about the exploitation of labour,
the systematic abuse of women. But above all is the
matter of violence, the long history of frontier conflict.
They want white Australia to own, to accept, to identify
with a past thay they know only too well. Reconciliation
means reconciliation of the two stories about what
happened when pioneer settlers met indigenous people all
around a vast, moving, ragged frontier. They want us to
talk about the line of blood. They want us to take it
seriously and treat it with gravity, to recognise
that violence was not just an aberration or an accident
but rather that it was central to the creation of modern
Australia. They would like us to admit that settlement
grew out of the barrel of a gun, for how else can their
loss of ancestral lands be understood and explained?"

Dear runner,

I do not hate Mr Abbott or any politician for that matter.
I, as a voter am entitled to remark on what he does
as a politician. And stating that he showed a lack of
tact in this case does not equate to "hatred." At least
not in my books.