Racism and Reconciliation

Conversation on Reconciliation

I had this conversation on the Prime Minister’s instagram account after he told people not to go to the Black Lives Matter protests in June 2020. It is very long but I have included it in full with some comments on each person’s arguments.

In summary, though, I said this country was founded on genocide, which is a very strong and emotive word, for which I was rightly challenged. In my responses, I included specific references to the UN Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. A friend of mine, who joined the conversation to defend me, used specific historical references to the First Fleet. The main person arguing against us based their argument on their own credentials as someone who claims to have a PhD in Australian history and is married to a Wiradjuri woman. They then make a series of assertions about other peoples who suffered violence. But they don’t provide any specific evidence to support their claims.

So using strong emotive words is more likely to generate a response, but make sure before you do it that you can defend your claims with facts, and that you have credible sources.

As you can see in this conversation, I was trying to be calm and constructive, open to other opinions, and not rude. The other person in this conversation is also being calm, which is good and means that the conversation can be constructive.

Here you can see I commented under the PM’s instagram post.
The black censor is someone who was, totally reasonably, asking me to defend what I said. You should always be prepared to defend what you say, especially if you are using words like genocide.
The red is one of my friends defending me.
The green is another one of my friends, who was using her previous knowledge of the first fleet to defend the statement. As you can see she has tried to educate herself on the topic before saying things.
Here, the black censor feels cornered, and said a very bold statement. “There has never been any genocide in this country [Australia] ever”. Never feel pressured into saying things that you cannot defend.
Here my friend is arguing using evidence. This is extremely important.
This was where I responded to the black censor’s previous statement, using a credible source to back me up.
DO NOT BE DETERRED BY SOMEONE SAYING THEY HAVE A PHD!! If they don’t respond to the argument, and they are just saying ‘oh well I have a degree in this so I am right and you must listen to me’, then no, they don’t have a credible argument.
This is an extremely good point made by my friend, saying that she hasn’t heard any of his points about Australia practising genocide.
Here the black censor is making some good points about left wing bias, but is not really doing anything to support his claim that there never was genocide in Australia.
This is a simple statement, and yet it negates his previous points, as he hasn’t been able to defend his statement.
Here the black censor is saying that he doesn’t like to call it genocide. This is a rather feeble comment, as it is just him, whereas I have the UN convention on my side.
I was very confused with this, because he labeled me as a left, and then said that I just wanted to label things. I also do not think that he knew that I was 13 then.
After this, the black censor did not reply, so the conversation ended.

One reply on “Conversation on Reconciliation”

Wow, Zari, you really stood up to this person! Never pull back just because someone claims to be an expert before they proof to be. He/she really tried to play the David vs Goliath game, and he/she clearly is mistaken on the definition of genocide. You go, girl!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *