The concepts raised in Paul Keating’s 1993 eulogy reaffirms this position. The nature of his speech stems from the discovery of an unidentifiable Australian who tragically died during the course World War 1. Keating attempts to battle the issue of creating a tangible identity for the soldier for all Australian’s to mourn. He begins his deeply moving eulogy with an anaphora, stating “we do not know”, leading is to ironically respect the soldier even though know nothing about him, only that he represents all soldiers lost in the defence of our country. This notion is further represented in his paradox “He is all of them. And he is one of us.” This quote lends emphasis towards the extended metaphor in the speech, stating “their bravery and sacrifice” will never be forgotten.

Being a eulogy, the tone throughout the speech is sincere and sombre, evoking the poignant feeling for the loss of a youthful generation in the Pyrrhic victory of World War One. Being Prime Minister, Keating is able to cross all political barriers by offering a sacrifice to the “100,000 Australian’s who have died in wars in the past century” creating a precedent for patriotism. This can be seen through Keating’s allusion to the lesson learnt during the ‘Great War’, stating that “it was a lesson about ordinary people, and the lesson was that they were not ordinary.” His use of irony shows the extreme patriotism shown by the soldiers and the up most respect we have for them, and will continue to have to them, regardless of their names

In “An Australian History for us all,” presented to the Chancellors Club Dinner in 1996, Noel Pearson appeals to the need to take responsibility for the marginalisation of Australian Aboriginals recognising our failures and coming to terms with this tragic history in order to move forward. Pearson initially assumes a tone of humility, “I come only with some observations,” to foreshadow arguments over our “understanding of the colonial past,” allowing his audience to align with his view on the “turbulence,” surrounding the issue. The emotive language used by Pearson seen in his statement, “most ordinary Australians… vehemently reject any responsibility for [the past],” highlights the racism and ignorance shown by Australians in the past. He uses formal and intellectual language stating, “up until the 1960s there was… terra nullius: a history that denied or ignored the true facts,” in order to appeal to the intellect of the audience, and the implications of the 1992 Mabo case.

Pearson thus moves to establish the need for a “collective consciousness and conscience that encompasses a responsibility for the present and future, and the past,” the alliterative effect resonating with the historical allusion to “the heroic deeds at Gallipoli and Kokoda,” suggesting we have a skewed connection to history. He makes an effective analogy between Indigenous Australians and the Jewish – suggesting “It would be inappropriate for us to say… ‘the