• Want to help us with this year's BoS Trials?
    Let us know before 30 June. See this thread for details
  • Looking for HSC notes and resources?
    Check out our Notes & Resources page

Pauline Pantsdown (1 Viewer)

yoddle

is cool
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
1,129
Location
nowhere man
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
The line is already running out there that Pauline Hanson spoke for some attention-deprived "silent majority" of Australians... giving a voice to the great, ordinary, battling mass ignored buy the prosperous, softly liberal, inner urban elites.

This is Tory Maguire in The Punch:

"For the past decade and a half Hanson has served as a powerful warning to politicians and the media of the dangers of forgetting to ask people what they think... it's become clear she represented a large section of the community who thought no-one in Parliament House, be they MPs or journalists, were listening to them."

Hmm.

The news point here is that the One Nation founder has announced her intention to leave the country for a new life in Britain. The irony of Hanson, the unconscious xenophobe (only unconscious because she had never heard of the word) becoming a migrant in a foreign land is rich. Delicious. Sadly she won't be imposing herself on the British welfare system, having tweaked enough from her post-politics celebrity and the coffers of the Australian Electoral Commission to see her safely into some quietly respectable home-counties bungalow, union jack fluttering over the dovecote.

What and who did Hanson represent? What is her legacy? It's worth reminding ourselves of the moment when she entered the boarder Australian consciousness, thanks to her maiden speech to the house of representatives. It was 5.15pm on Tuesday September 10, 1996:

"My view on issues is based on commonsense, and my experience as a mother of four children, as a sole parent, and as a businesswoman running a fish and chip shop. I won the seat of Oxley largely on an issue that has resulted in me being called a racist. That issue related to my comment that Aboriginals received more benefits than non-Aboriginals.

"We now have a situation where a type of reverse racism is applied to mainstream Australians by those who promote political correctness and those who control the various taxpayer funded "industries" that flourish in our society servicing Aboriginals, multiculturalists and a host of other minority groups. In response to my call for equality for all Australians, the most noisy criticism came from the fat cats, bureaucrats and the do-gooders. They screamed the loudest because they stand to lose the most - their power, money and position, all funded by ordinary Australian taxpayers.

"Present governments are encouraging separatism in Australia by providing opportunities, land, moneys and facilities available only to Aboriginals. Along with millions of Australians, I am fed up to the back teeth with the inequalities that are being promoted by the government and paid for by the taxpayer under the assumption that Aboriginals are the most disadvantaged people in Australia. I do not believe that the colour of one's skin determines whether you are disadvantaged."

There was more: the global collusion of financial markets, the inequities of the family law act, the nagging uncertainty that Australian foreign aid money would be 'properly' spent once in the hands of, well, foreigners... a familiar, resentful grab bag.

Undeniably, she struck a chord: an apparently commonsense of dimly comprehended outrage, the angry sense that one's rightful due was being siphoned elsewhere, to the blacks, the migrants, the fat cats. Anyone but Us.

The record would suggest that Hanson never had the wit or acumen to exploit this low common denominator for her own advantage (other than through tapping the rich vein of public funding to be had after semi-successful forays in politics), but she signalled to others a sense of what might be achieved by appealing to the darker, dumber angels of Australian nature.

Not that her views were ever held by anything like a majority; her power lay in giving a broader body of voters, people whose politics remained unformed and suggestible, a sense of What Was Wrong.

Her bluntness in addressing that sweep of people, in providing a focus for their sense of victimhood and grievance, lowered the bar for others in politics. And others, more capable than she, exploited this new freedom: the freedom to step beyond "political correctness" and cast about directly in the racist, isolationist shadows of Australian public life.

The enduring legacy of Pauline is that the moral emphasis of Australian politics, that elevation was a higher calling than simply pandering and that securing that elevation was the trust of public life, has spent the better part of a decade lost.

Her legacy is a modern Australia where coarse populist nationalism and its attendant shadow of thinly veiled racist grievance is now an accepted part of the mainstream discourse. Much has changed since 1996.
This is a piece from ABC News online.

Let's discuss the Hanson legacy. The last paragraph is quite a bold statement, and I can't really decide whether I agree or not. I have seen very impassioned anti-racist moments through Australian politicians but maybe it is possible to distinguish a constant racist undercurrent.

I mean I was five at the time of her maiden speech to Parliament, but I can still remember everyone hating her. I disagree she spoke for a "silent majority", i think she spoke for a minority who only mumbled because their views were marginalised by people with more compassion and intelligence than them.

I think that people who think like her, who have prejudices based on inherited generational racism, are still as numerable as ever, although I disagree that they have a big public platform. However I think politicians still play to them, even subconsciously.
 

Fish Tank

That guy
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
279
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
Ironic that she's emigrating to another country, yes. But she's not going to Asia or the Middle East, but a predominantly Anglo-somethingish country - the people she was supposedly campaigning for. Personally I think a tiny bit of irony is lost there.

It's hard to say if she was speaking for the 'silent majority', and that may come down to a person's local area; for example the opinions of a student in the inner suburbs are going to differ to a farmer's out west. So the idea of the 'majority' will differ according to one's location. However, taking a much broader view of it, I can't think of a reliable way to determine the national majority's opinions (open to suggestions) other than voting which occurs once every 3 years. I'm not saying that Hanson represented the 'silent majority' (as she put it) or she didn't because I lack any evidence at this stage to say either.

I would say that racism today is not on the same scale as previous generations, namely through laws to promote equal opportunities and all that. However, all people have a natural prejudice to something, just race discrimination is a somewhat common one.
 

funkshen

dvds didnt exist in 1991
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
2,137
Location
butt
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
It's hard to say if she was speaking for the 'silent majority', and that may come down to a person's local area; for example the opinions of a student in the inner suburbs are going to differ to a farmer's out west. So the idea of the 'majority' will differ according to one's location.
What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

However, taking a much broader view of it, I can't think of a reliable way to determine the national majority's opinions (open to suggestions) other than voting which occurs once every 3 years. I'm not saying that Hanson represented the 'silent majority' (as she put it) or she didn't because I lack any evidence at this stage to say either.
Gallup Poll, News Poll... you know what a poll is right? Its when you ask a lot of people the same quesiton.

However, all people have a natural prejudice to something, just race discrimination is a somewhat common one.
Source?
 

Fish Tank

That guy
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
279
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Rambling yes. Nothing resembling a rational thought, I don't think so. You expect me to believe everyone in Australia eats sushi while wearing an Armani suit and chats to their IT consultant colleagues on Blackberries during their latte-break? Diverse country, diverse people, diverse opinions. My point is that trying to think up what a 'normal person' thinks is stupid

Gallup Poll, News Poll... you know what a poll is right? Its when you ask a lot of people the same question.
Yes, because a small selection of people is everyone. I don't see them as reliable.

"A prejudice is a prejudgement: i.e. a preconceived belief, opinion, or judgment made without ascertaining the facts of a case." - Wikipedia (it'll do). Every single person in this world gets the facts before making some sort of opinion about something... right, that's why the Cronulla riots happened and the Indians published a comic of Vic Police in KKK pillow-case hats.


All said, probably best for Australia (and the image of a tolerant multi-cultural society) that Pauline isn't in Parliament, I don't think she was campaigning for the majority.
 

JasmineNuytre

I AM ACTUALLY BIGPOLE
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
79
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Whats funny is that a lot of Asians say "omgz shes is racist, fuck off", but then come to BOS and spread racist comments themselves to other races....hmmm...interesting. Dont call people names you aren't comfortable with people calling you.
 

Crestwood's_G

In Elegance
Joined
Aug 7, 2005
Messages
1,521
Location
HILLS - WEST SYDNEY
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Ironic that she's emigrating to another country, yes. But she's not going to Asia or the Middle East, but a predominantly Anglo-somethingish country - the people she was supposedly campaigning for. Personally I think a tiny bit of irony is lost there.

It's hard to say if she was speaking for the 'silent majority', and that may come down to a person's local area; for example the opinions of a student in the inner suburbs are going to differ to a farmer's out west. So the idea of the 'majority' will differ according to one's location. However, taking a much broader view of it, I can't think of a reliable way to determine the national majority's opinions (open to suggestions) other than voting which occurs once every 3 years. I'm not saying that Hanson represented the 'silent majority' (as she put it) or she didn't because I lack any evidence at this stage to say either.

I would say that racism today is not on the same scale as previous generations, namely through laws to promote equal opportunities and all that. However, all people have a natural prejudice to something, just race discrimination is a somewhat common one.
well considering anglos come from England youd sure hope so...btw the middle east is in asia
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top