IT seems the older, richer and more privileged he becomes, the more Stan Grant likes to brandish his affliction. And despite decorating his weekend columns for the ABC with mostly European desk calendar quotations, the Q+A host may now be the only commentator left in Australia who makes gratuitous and disparaging references to people’s colour (“whites”). On Easter Day, he published a sad homily that name-checked Jurgen Moltmann, St John of the Cross, Miguel De Unamuno, Elie Wiesel and James Cone. Insofar as anything approximating a thesis is discernible, it appears to be that Aborigines – Grant prefers the Canadian term, “First Nations” – are the only Australians who have ever suffered. The phrase “my people” appears five times. It means Aborigines – exclusively. He doesn’t regard those whose forebears came from other places or those whose tribulations were worse than any endured by the living indigenous – or native-born octogenarians who have been here longer than he has – as members of the “my people” aristocracy. He concludes with the phony mystical blasphemy that the political Voice is actually God’s.
While it is true that Aborigines have endured afflictions, it is equally true to say they have caused them. “We didn’t need white people to bring us God,” Grant argues – erroneously using the upper case to conflate a pagan entity with the God he worships as a Christian. “We call God Baiame – the creator spirit. Baiame gives us our law. Our land.” According to early anthropologists who made a close study of his regime, Baiame approved of sickening violence against women, other “nations,” the disabled and the old. This was Grant’s whites-free Eden for millennia but its god wasn’t the one Carmelite John of the Cross endured those dark nights to love. In the late eighteenth century, then, Aborigines did in fact need white people to bring them the G. There is no shame in having been enlightened by outsiders. The white tribes of Europe were too.
Today’s big story at The Australian – one shocked observer calls it the “ultimate sin” – is that there were “white hands on black art” in “APY Lands” paintings slated for the NGA’s winter exhibition. If “studio assistants” stood over Aboriginal artists in South Australia to “juice up” their imagery, that would be tawdry. If, however, they were working for a master on the same grand pieces, that would be something the famous men of the Renaissance did as a matter of course. If the argument is that the works are somehow sacred, somebody should explain why selling them to rich collectors isn’t simony. In any case, I can think of more awful sins dragging Aborigines down, a grubbier example of informational omission (good morning, Prime Minister) and a more disturbingly racist attempt to desecrate a hallowed canvas than a demarcation dispute scandalising the ‘authentic’ art racket. Like all other sub-groups of humanity, Aborigines are uniquely themselves and just like everyone else. They are not born with with esoteric powers, hurts and intuitions. They are not other than us. Maybe the paintings are better for the duality in their creation.
How dare you!
I refuse to watch Q&A but I can’t imagine it was easy for the Archbishop of Sydney on that show last night. Especially if Stan Grant started on about this stuff.
White people have to be divided into Woke and no-Woke for The Voice to get up, since Ethnic Minorities are going to be Bloc voting Yes.
Peter Dutton is awake to this, that’s the main reason he stressed that the Liberal Party will take the high road campaigning against Canberra’s Voice.
Thanks for keeping track CL, and the important analysis.
Concerning, then, that SG manages to present the phantasm of his identity as itself an affliction, which it surely is not if it is a gift from on high. And his identity as an affliction managed – during Holy Week – to displace that of the Suffering Servant, of One who neither sat with nor pondered over affliction but experienced it. Conjuring up emotions does not cut it, neither as meditation nor communication. His people deserve better.
IT seems the older, richer and more privileged he becomes, the more Stan Grant likes to brandish his affliction
Stan Grant obviously wants to be one of the Abostocracy
Surely after a lifetime of hardship and degradation, He is at least owed that much.
LOL emoji
Another long suffering rich celebrity who thinks he was the only one to suffer childhood deprivation and taunts.
From all accounts he was blessed in the people that mattered most, his parents.
Another who ignores his own white forebears.
I did feel some pity as Grant’s skin ‘became’ more and more bronzed; sad to be constantly longing for a less-white appearance. Not for him the appealing, brown eyes of the Aboriginal man; Stan cannot help those crocodile eyes. Offspring have to accept the genes doled out.
His plaintive writings are quite strange. And fulsome.
Dot painting interference. “ultimate sin”.
Sacred has made a comeback; but with regard to the Aboriginal people only.
Another of the ‘thinkers’ mentioned in that Grant column was on Q+A last night.
What a coincidence.
Anne Pattel-Gray claims Australia will be ‘damning Indigenous people to hell’ if it votes down the Voice to Parliament: ‘You are going to kill a nation of people’.
If any or all indigenous artwork is sacred then none of it is.
We are all Indigenous now!
Two points:
Aboriginal life generally improved exponentially after contact with the colonialists.
Convicts suffered much more than Aborigines.
Pattel-Gray going low when the Yes case remains logical and rational.
All she has is abuse and blackmail, and a hunger for extra power for herself and her fellow activists locked into the Constitution.
A good example, to add to the likes of Grant, Langton and Pearson, of the sort vindictive and vicious individuals who would gain power over us.
A good example, to add to the likes of Grant, Langton and Pearson, of the sort vindictive and vicious individuals who would gain power over us.
They’ll only ever be what they are right now, Tokens.
More noticeably, these types of grifters are the best Aboriginal representatives that the Yes case can find.
I don’t think Cathy, Buddy, Ash, or Goodesy will do any good either.
Well worth the read.
THE REAL AGENDA BEHIND THE VOICE TO PARLIAMENT: Exposing the Globalist’s Plan to Steal Australian Farmlands and Regional Land
https://stephenreason.substack.com/p/the-real-agenda-behind-the-voice
This Holy Week I have sat with affliction.
Sounds as though he has piles.
“We didn’t need white people to bring us God,” Grant argues – erroneously using the upper case to conflate a pagan entity with the God he worships as a Christian. “We call God Baiame – the creator spirit. Baiame gives us our law. Our land.” According to early anthropologists who made a close study of his regime, Baiame approved of sickening violence against…
Tan Grant is a CINO… a fake, a fraud. Tan’s gone on these “god” rants before. Apart from being perpetually “aggrieved” and quoting – in disjointed fashion – what others have said about “God/god”, he’s careful not to expose too much of what he actually believes. After reading Tan’s rants it’s difficult to discern where he stands on basic doctrine. Every now and then the veil slips a bit as in the above quote. Is Tan equating “Baiame” with the Biblical God? What does “his people” mean in the context of Christianity? Then there’s the “First Nations” nonsense. If anyone is invoking the term “FN”, they’re indicating that they are liars; they are very much prepared to lie about the history of the indigenous at the very least.
Then there’s the hysterical Pattel-Gray, a typical activist that will blame pretty well everything except the contribution the “victims” make to their own difficulties. She’s apparently an expert in “Black Theology”… of course she is. What a mess.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Pattel-Gray
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_theology
What a strange time in history when some people define their lives to be harder than reality. No wonder big pharma is making a killing selling SSRIs
Just had a chance to sub-edit this piece that I wrote last night.
An error or two – for which I apologise.
———————-
Ando, what struck me about the Wiki entry was the reviewer who criticised her doctoral research as reliant on other sources. That is more or less a fail-worthy fault in a doctorate. Sounds like an MA was, um, “juiced up” to be a PhD.
Many such cases.
Of course…
In 2016, Stan was awarded an Honorary Doctorate of Letters by the University of New South Wales. Stan completed his studies at both the University of New South Wales and the Australia National University.
And there’s more. There’s always more…
Stan Grant
Professor, journalist and beloved Australian icon, Professor Stan Grant Jnr has recently added a new role as Vice Chancellor’s Chair of Australian-Indigenous Belonging at Charles Sturt University.
What the heck is “Australian-Indigenous Belonging”?
Apparently, Tan… sorry, Professor Tan… has a “strong reputation for independence and integrity”.
https://about.csu.edu.au/community/events/explorations-gennext/stan-grant
Is this some sort of macabre joke?
Gosh, what happened here? Tan looks as though he went heavy on the spray. It makes Kevin Dudd look even more pasty white than he usually does.
https://images.sbs.com.au/drupal/nitv/public/20160212001228154929-minihighres.jpg
and says:
11 April, 2023 at 5:22 pm
Well worth the read.
Yes it is.
Apparently in Ukraine, Zelensky & Co are selling large amounts of farmland to foreigners (Multi-National Corporations?)
Once again……https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=193587283388229&set=pb.100082108752436.-2207520000.
It’s a photo, so anyone who STILL believes grant is an Aborigineeveryone can take a glance, then get back to us.
We already know Stan is white. Who doesn’t know he’s a fraud in blackface? Facts are he has a serious mental illness (narcissism covers much of it); no different to the blokes in dresses or skinny chicks who reckon they are fat. Maybe he also sees dead people?
In the referendum, vote NO to mad people!