It&#x27;s worth noting that the article is <i>heavily</i> editorialising. That &#x27;one man facing the country alone&#x27; with respect to his 1972 troubles? 1972 is a notable year for civil rights in Australia - Whitlam was elected, and he brought in the Racial Discrimination Act, set up the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, and initiated legislation to support indigenous land rights. Abolished the WAP, opened up foreign trade, and recognised China. Did a ton of other stuff around equal rights and welfare[1]. Whitlam was a great statesman, but he didn&#x27;t do it alone - Australia had a civil rights movement just like everwhere else did in the &#x27;60s; equal rights were rising everywhere and colonial empires were crumbling. The idea that Norman was a lone voice is simple myth.<p>It&#x27;s also weird to see Australia called an apartheid regime. For all the terrible things done to the indigenous here, things weren&#x27;t arranged as in South Africa. The US treated it&#x27;s indigenous in a similar manner to Australia (though not <i>quite</i> as bad), and had legal segregation in the South (cue photo of water fountains), but we wouldn&#x27;t characterise the US as an apartheid regime. Apartheid was a political system limiting people of colour in order to maintain power in the hands of minority whites - both Australia and the US had significant white majorities, with whites in easy control of the political machine.<p>Finally, the article is also wrong to call Norman the biggest hero on the podium. Norman should be lauded for his actions, but he was still doing &#x27;support&#x27; - the main act was done by Smith and Carlos. Had they not acted, there would be no notable photo.<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.smh.com.au&#x2F;federal-politics&#x2F;political-news&#x2F;gough-whitlam-left-a-long-list-of-achievements-20141021-119cpu.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.smh.com.au&#x2F;federal-politics&#x2F;political-news&#x2F;gough-...</a>