Rhethorical Devices Used In Noel Pearson’S Speech ‘An Australian History For Us All’
When attempting to end inequality, Pearson argues that solidarity and collective unity is more important that eliciting guilt about historical inequalities. Pearson, a well-respected Indigenous rights activist and academic, gave this speech in response to Prime Minister John Howard’s comments on ‘the black arm-band view of history’, supposedly calling for the removal of the achievements of the first, colonial settlers. Pearson’s employment of dialogue exposes the arguments and discourse surrounding this topic at the time - “They will say that Aborigines must stop being victims and ‘should get over it, it’s all in the past, we had nothing to do with it, we are not guilty, help yourselves. ’” The grouping pronoun, ‘they’, also distances the audience from those, namely politicians, who make these comments, presenting those in the political sphere as populists who do not care about what is right and just, but what will gain them support.
He takes a pragmatic, balanced stance on this argument, saying “but if present generations of Australians cannot be held to account for the past, they are surely responsible for the infidelities of the present. ” The high modality suggests that he is expanding our role in perpetuating inequality and displays the correlation between past, previous and future disparity. He then provides constructive answers to end injustice towards Indigenous Australians through solidarity - “Guilt is not a very constructive emotion. I think what we need to do is open our hearts. All of us. ” The collective language denotes that solidarity and empathy are powerful tools for ending injustice and advancing rights for Indigenous peoples. The truncated sentences simplifies his point to the audience, and in conjunction with the use of ethos, also alters audiences previous ways of thinking in regards to ending injustice. Therefore, speeches challenge previous methods of overcoming inequity and oppression, highlighting the need for empathy, solidarity and unity over guilt-tripping and shaming.
Pearson’s expert use of collective language and pathos both challenges and includes his audience, suggesting that overcoming discrimination is a collective effort. His ethos provides credibility due to his study of history at the University of Western Sydney and his reference to other prominent critics noted for speaking about the issue of Indigenous rights and history, such as previous Prime Minister Paul Keating, solidifies his argument.
Pearson’s speech was ill-received by many conservative Australians, both from the public and in politics, who were against the Indigenous rights movement, yet many also appreciated his attempts to objectively discuss history and present a wide range of views. His speech appears to be increasingly more relevant in today’s society, with the recent movement to change the date of Australia day and to remove statues commemorating colonial generals or events. Evident in the higher rates of suicide, abuse, incarceration and deaths in custody for Indigenous Australians, his speech retains its enduring values due to the continuation of injustice in a contemporary context.
