University's don't teach common sense.

Dear Big Nana,

In answer to your question - who makes this
stuff up?

According to the "beleaguered mainstream of
ordinary Australians" and the Right-Wing media
outlets - it's - unrepresentative all powerful
politically correct, Leftist cultural elite.
The endless man-hating feminists, Leftist
University Lecturers, biased ABC journalists,
and the grant-grabbing scientists, and of course
we need to include the - handout addicted
Aborigines.

There I think that covers it.

When we have so many parasites with so much time on their hands, that they can come up with this sort of stupidity, we really are sitting on the tail end of the once great western civilisation.

Hi Altrav,

Probably 'Italian-Australian'. I'm 'Celtic-Australian' myself, with suspicions of other bits as well.

People don't necessarily describe themselves biologically, as half-this, or quarter-that. If your mother is, say, Italian, and all your siblings think of themselves as Italian-Australian, and if your neighbours and friends defer to you as an Italian-Australian, it would be no surprise if you thought of yourself as Italian-Australian. So it is with Aboriginal people, regardless of how dark or pale they may be. Certainly my wife thought so, and our kids do too, not that it's done them much good.

Cheers,

Joe

Foxy, I know who doesn’t make these things up, and that’s the actual full blood aboriginal people of the north who find these ideals highly offensive and who have certainly never been consulted in regards terminology.
My Opinion, if you don’t think the worlds patrilineal or matrilineal relate to aboriginal culture then I suggest you don’t have much experience of said culture.
All tribes have a system of land access and it’s either through their mothers side or their fathers. Each tribe is different. In the Kimberley, land claim is patrilineal but in other areas it’s matrilinial.
Like the knowledge of the extensive ramifications of skin groups, land inheritance is something the average part aboriginal has never learnt, only those in the north retain some of this knowledge.

Anyone who has read (and understood) 1984 will understand why language matters. Why some are so anxious to alter the language to suit the politics. For example, if you change the language so that its impossible to call 1788 a colonisation, it will, in a generation or two, become impossible to think, let alone argue, that it was anything other than an invasion....

"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.

"By curtailing frivolous and "fighting" words, the Party seeks to narrow the range of thought altogether, such that eventually thoughtcrime will be literally impossible. The same goes for disruptive or subversive behavior." 1984.

This essay also explains the concept ...http://peggynoonan.com/what-were-robespierres-pronouns/

Its happening all around but subtly without much push-back. This year we laugh at those pushing what is clearly a daft range of directives. In 5 years those who fail to follow those directives will be unpersoned. In a decade they'll be excommunicated. Within a generation students won't even know its possible to think it was anything but an invasion.