Potpourri Again…

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #93013
    williamthebold
    Participant

    I read and I read. I muse and reflect. I reach conclusions.

    I disapprove of the slogan Black Lives Matter.
    It embodies quite serious negative racial overtones.
    The slogan should instead be ALL LIVES MATTER?
    I sympathise with those who feel they have been badly treated.
    It appears that, in some parts of the world, police forces have a ‘gang’ based mentality.
    They behave like actors in a violent ‘B’ movie?
    They have forgotten their true purpose?
    Or those who direct them have.

    Do we need public statues?
    I see them as long term insidious ‘instruments of propaganda’.
    They are usually large, and meant to intimidate.
    Do we really need to be reminded constantly of the ‘accomplishments’ of someone from the past?
    And statues can create a false impression too.
    They give no acknowledgement to support personnel who would be required for an achievement.
    Surely all such records should be confined to the written word of history, or be part of a display in a museum?
    Much better to clear away all public statues, and have a clean neutral landscape?

    I see there is still one town council in Ontario Canada refusing to open meetings with an acknowledgement related to Canada’s Indigenous people.
    I agree wholeheartedly with their attitude.
    I see any such acknowledgement as an absurd practice.
    It is an attempt by a minority to entrench a treasonous attitude in to public thinking.
    Something similar is being attempted here?
    It should be seen as it really is, and roundly rejected?
    The reason this idea even gets a hearing is that it appeals to some instinctive trait in people?
    They get excited by the feeling of a crusade, without looking at the logic of it?
    They are easily ‘swayed’, and led up the garden path.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-25/nt-mla-chansey-paech-elected-first-indigenous-speaker/12387438
    So two australian citizens are elected to two positions in parliament.
    That is exactly what I would expect.
    Why emphasise the ‘indigenous’ aspect?
    What is the purpose of doing so?
    To draw attention to some difference we should be aware of?
    Why was Mr Paech so open about his personal life in his maiden speech to parliament?
    Do we really need to know such things? What business is it of ours?
    Isn’t it time we stopped this silly approach to people in the public arena?
    Journalists need to examine their guiding principles.
    Comment only on personal matters where those matters relate to the breaking of some law?

    #93024
    Salina
    Participant

    Unfortunately, William, there is a growing section of the community world wide, who seem to believe they have the right to command the rest of us how to think.

     

    We have reached a point in our society where it is deemed moral and right  by those people, to topple historical statues, destroy books and ban certain films.

     

    All in the name of a cause, which, while it does have some merit,  has been hi-jacked by certain groups.

     

    There is logic in your comment, but sadly, logic, along with morality is not recognised by those groups.

     

    There is a brilliant article in to days’ Australian, by one of the finest minds in Australia today. Much of it is very  quotable,

     

    but it needs to be read in full to be genuinely appreciated.     The writers’ name is Henry Ergas.

     

    Antinomianism (from the Greek: ἀντί, “against” + νόμος, “law”) is any view which rejects laws or legalism and argues against moral, religious or social norms (Latin: mores), or is at least considered to do so. The term has both religious and secular meanings. Thanks to Wikipedia!

     

    A word introduced into the comments below the article, which, in my opinion, describes what is happening.

     

     

     

    #93027
    Salina
    Participant

    I just want to add, that though I state things above, it is how I view them.   Others do not have to agree with me.

    #93029
    williamthebold
    Participant

    Salina, thank you for your comments.
    I think it is understood that we express opinions and views, but these are personal only.
    There is no certainty we are right.
    We should welcome contrasting views.
    We can learn from the responses of others.

    #93030
    RachelRachel
    Participant

    No matter what is written,what is said or just whatever, there will always be someone who will be offended or upset and want it changed , removed from society or renamed. It seems to be the way today.
    I just read today of a lady who does have an unusual name and thinks it is so wrong that it gets spelt and pronounced incorrectly . Someone once upset her by laughing about her unusual name.
    Being a migrant myself some 50 odd years ago I only had to say the wrong thing in front of certain people and I got told to go home.
    Well I grew broad shoulders and I stayed and I became a citizen of this beautiful country.

    #93041
    Salina
    Participant

    Rachel, by coincidence I was just reading a story regarding offence taking if a name is spelt incorrectly.     A female presenter on the ABC has this to say:

    But fear not, Aualiitia has a solution. “Perhaps take inspiration from Maori-Australian artist Kira Puru who wrote a clause in her contract stating that her appearance fee doubles if they misspell her name, after two Australian music festivals spelled her name wrong in promotion material in 2018,” she wrote.

    Heaven help us!

    Link

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
WordPress theme: Kippis 1.15