It’s ages since I bothered with Mr Akerman, the self-styled conservative who poses as a reasonable commentator in the Sydney Daily Telegraph. Today, given my own little dummy spit on Facebook, I thought I would attempt to out-pedant him.
My dummy spit? Here:
I was not impressed by yesterday’s circus in Canberra. If that puts off some of my friends here, so be it. I am sick of crap both left and right on these matters, totally over it, totally!
Akerman’s crap is as follows:
EVER ready to cry “racist”, Labor is now backing proposed changes to the Australian Constitution which would enshrine a two-tier citizenship based on claims of race.
That’s what used to be called apartheid when South Africa had such evil laws.
Labor has promised to hold a referendum on the constitutional recognition of indigenous Australians on or before the next federal election, due next year.
Like the word “gay”, “indigenous” no longer means what it used to – originating and living or occurring naturally in an area or environment.
That would mean that every person born in Australia is indigenous.
But in the Orwellian newspeak of the politically correct “indigenous” does not mean born in Australia. It means Aborigine as in Australian Aborigine, a definition that is also becoming increasingly fluid…
I could be really annoying and point out that so far as I can tell “gay” has never meant “originating and living or occurring naturally in an area or environment” – but that would just be mean of me! However, to “indigenous”. It would have surprised Sir Thomas Browne writing in the 17th century to hear he was being “politically correct” when he insisted that Africans are not “indigenous or proper natives of America.”
Kangaroos are indigenous to Australia, Piers; rabbits, dogs, cats and Akermans are not. Even when born here. Which you were not. I suppose that makes you an Indigenous Papuan?
Oh and do note what a true conservative I am in the matter of dictionaries…