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 A friend of mine, who joined the conversation to defend me, used specific historical references to the First Fleet.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.
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!
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!