The Necessity of Reparation for Historic Injustices
Michael Adam wrote:The government is the problem NOT the solution.
The “Voice” is racist by definition.
You are being played. Again.
People with good intentions falling for one of the oldest tricks in the book.
Boycott the vote.
Michael Adam. Hi.
They say ‘knowledge’ is dangerous. But, they also say anyone without knowledge is even more dangerous, you just proved that.
Maybe you should crawl back under that rock you emerged from.
Clueless, selfish, live in your own little fishbowl type of world, nothing to see here. Keep your eyes closed and hope it all goes away. Aboriginal people are the most generous and forgiving people on the planet. Maybe head out of your suburb one day and go and speak to true Australians, they’ve got all the time in the world, unlike us folk who run around like blue arse flies trying to earn a buck just so we can keep ahead of debt in our so called ‘wonderful’ society. AW
Having a part of the constitution refer to a particular race, you know, the one that was here for 40,000 or 60,000 years before whitey, is not “hence racist”.
This apple in my hand is red, but it isn’t, by definition, a fire truck!
There are already references to First Nations people in the constitution, that was what the 1967 referendum was about. If you are going to run that line, you must also run the line that the constitution is already racist. But please, don’t go there.
I won’t spend much time in this thread, not likely to learn much.
Of the arguments put forward to vote against The Voice -
It will re-racialise Australia. Oh Lordy, of course it won’t.
It will make government impossible/unworkable. Spare me, government is already super-complex, this will be a flea bite on an elephant. Perhaps they can get rid of a few industry lobbyists if it all becomes too much.
It will lead to the High Court being clogged up. Well, nobody who knows these things, like former High Court Justices, constitutional experts don’t think that. Besides, it’s an advisory body, they won’t have power. This just gives them influence, a Voice.
There’s no detail. That’s because the government of the day designs how The Voice works. There aren’t any tax laws in the constitution, but there are a million tax laws. This is how constitutions work. The LNP can get in in future years and change it how it sees fit, it just won’t be able to abolish it, like they did ATSIC (which became in imperfect body in the end).
So far, things haven’t worked. We’re up to 235 years of failure now. Isn’t that enough to try something new?
I am yet to hear one argument against The Voice that doesn’t come across as hysterical white privileged ranting. No logic, no reasoned argument, just whining and privilege. Well, it’s what we do best.
Race.... so that makes Kiwis utterly and totally racist?
They have a treaty
They have seats reserved for Maori
They have much much more....
I focus wrote:Race.... so that makes Kiwis utterly and totally racist?
They have a treaty
They have seats reserved for Maori
They have much much more....
If you go back half a dozen pages you can find the NZ discussion and Kiwi poster thoughts on it all, Kiwis are definitely very divided over those things.
@batfink
My last two post already dealt with all your aspects talked about and ive heard no decent argument whatsoever for why race/ethnicity should play any part in the constitution past a basic acknowledgement of indigenous people in the preamble.
BTW. Australia is a very multicultural society made up of pretty much every ethnic group on earth and every skin shade possible, and all these people will vote differently, its not just so called white people that will vote No.
This whole issue is really simple if you believe people should be treated the same no matter ethnicity or skin colour, you have no choice but to vote No.
If you believe in somehow justifying treating people differently based on ethnicity or skin colour, then i guess you could vote Yes, but what you are doing is a form or racism.
Or, as I said to zen, we endeavor to hope people start to treat everyone equally and we aspire to be the world's first truly egalitarian society (give it a couple hundred years) with an elder race of first-peoples' descendants who are obliged, through their historical associations, to tie everything back to the health of the country we live in, and quietly advise the strange greedy, loud, self-interested future govts we will inevitably have.
There's Indo and his total lack of awareness again, somehow oblivious to the fact that in Australia people have been treated very differently on the basis of ethnicity or skin colour.
It's kind of tragic that Indo has no interest in trying to lift these people up.
Maybe just leave them to their own devices and hope for the best I guess.
https://www.thelastdaughter.com.au/film/
..the kind of storytelling Australia needs - no baddies, just documentation of the total misguidedness and consequent harm that has been done..
'Sweet As' was a good film too, good for teens to watch.. thought-provoking in an enjoyably aimless way..
AndyM wrote:There's Indo and his total lack of awareness again, somehow oblivious to the fact that in Australia people have been treated very differently on the basis of ethnicity or skin colour.
It's kind of tragic that Indo has no interest in trying to lift these people up.
Maybe just leave them to their own devices and hope for the best I guess.
Sorry wrong, we just have different views on the way to go about seeking positive change.
I also dont agree that just because a group of people we're treated differently in a negative way in the past that treating them differently in a positive way in the future, provides some type of equity especially in outcome's going forwards, it just doesn't work that way.
Maybe im a bit idealistic but i believe in true equality being the best road and policy and help based on needs not ethnicity based.
indo-dreaming][quote=I focus wrote:Race....
If you believe in somehow justifying treating people differently based on ethnicity or skin colour, then i guess you could vote Yes, but what you are doing is a form or racism.
Seriously Indo.
You're implying i'm racist if i vote yes.
Maybe take a break from this thread if thats the sort of conclusions you are now drawing.
That's highly insulting for any person who has compassion for Australia's indigenous population.
Indo I have just travelled up the NW through the Kimberly's, NT and seen many communities.
You view is very much at odds with the reality on the ground and there is no way people like Jacinda Price or Mundine represent any of those Aboriginals views including your own.
The majority of Australians are going to vote on some thing that will not have any impact of them yet can only benefit Aboriginal communities saying no is giving a very clear and damming message IMHO.
Anyway given the current polling looks like you will get your wish looks like it wont get up and as a result nothing will change longer term.
i cant understand why theres any opposition to saying yes........Jack Thompson is a man for all Australians ,has lived with the Aboriginal people and says vote YES.........so yes it is
southernraw][quote=indo-dreaming wrote:I focus wrote:Race....
If you believe in somehow justifying treating people differently based on ethnicity or skin colour, then i guess you could vote Yes, but what you are doing is a form or racism.
Seriously Indo.
You're implying i'm racist if i vote yes.
Maybe take a break from this thread if thats the sort of conclusions you are now drawing.
That's highly insulting for any person who has compassion for Australia's indigenous population.
Its an interesting thought are you a racist if you support racial division or racist policy?
I honestly dont know, i think its a hard one, some people say intent is important others say intent isn't important.
Either way i personally dont like labeling people racist and that wasn't my aim of my post.
The way I am reading Indo's arguments is best illustrated by cartoon on left. Yes vote just seems to be wanting to hopefully give the indigenous community a lift up..
https://interactioninstitute.org/illustrating-equality-vs-equity/
I focus wrote:Indo I have just travelled up the NW through the Kimberly's, NT and seen many communities.
You view is very much at odds with the reality on the ground and there is no way people like Jacinda Price or Mundine represent any of those Aboriginals views including your own.
The majority of Australians are going to vote on some thing that will not have any impact of them yet can only benefit Aboriginal communities saying no is giving a very clear and damming message IMHO.
Anyway given the current polling looks like you will get your wish looks like it wont get up and as a result nothing will change longer term.
This is the real problem if the No vote does get up, forever we will hear people like you say, nothing has changed because there is no voice.
In a sense it wouldn't be such a bad thing if the Yes vote got up, because then at some point people like you would have to say, yeah okay it didn't change anything.
andy-mac wrote:The way I am reading Indo's arguments is best illustrated by cartoon on left. Yes vote just seems to be wanting to hopefully give the indigenous community a lift up..
https://interactioninstitute.org/illustrating-equality-vs-equity/
Ha ha...when i wrote that i was actually thinking someone would try to use this classic cartoon.
The problem is its not really relevant in this case.
Because ethnicity doesn't mean you are disadvantaged or advantaged, thats why its so important to have policy based on needs and not ethnicity.
indo-dreaming][quote=southernraw wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:I focus wrote:Race....
If you believe in somehow justifying treating people differently based on ethnicity or skin colour, then i guess you could vote Yes, but what you are doing is a form or racism.
Seriously Indo.
You're implying i'm racist if i vote yes.
Maybe take a break from this thread if thats the sort of conclusions you are now drawing.
That's highly insulting for any person who has compassion for Australia's indigenous population.Its an interesting thought are you a racist if you support racial division or racist policy?
I honestly dont know, i think its a hard one, some people say intent is important others say intent isn't important.
Either way i personally dont like labeling people racist and that wasn't my aim of my post.
People can run the race argument from both sides and TBH there is a deep prejudice within Australian society (Pauline supporters?) but the issue is about changing the massive gap that exists between us and Aboriginals and at the same time allowing recognition they were here 1st in a very modest way.
The Voice is simply a incremental start if we fail at this what does it say who we are....
""Because ethnicity doesn't mean you are disadvantaged or advantaged, thats why its so important to have policy based on needs and not ethnicity.""
That statement is incorrect regarding the statistics in pretty much every area of indigenous welfare.
Anyway carry on.....
indo-dreaming wrote:This is the real problem if the No vote does get up, forever we will hear people like you say, nothing has changed because there is no voice.
In a sense it wouldn't be such a bad thing if the Yes vote got up, because then at some point people like you would have to say, yeah okay it didn't change anything.
The Voice is not about fixing the current issues (much worse than you could imagine) its to advise government on policy or government decisions that affect Aboriginals.
indo-dreaming][quote=southernraw wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:I focus wrote:Race....
If you believe in somehow justifying treating people differently based on ethnicity or skin colour, then i guess you could vote Yes, but what you are doing is a form or racism.
Seriously Indo.
You're implying i'm racist if i vote yes.
Maybe take a break from this thread if thats the sort of conclusions you are now drawing.
That's highly insulting for any person who has compassion for Australia's indigenous population.Its an interesting thought are you a racist if you support racial division or racist policy?
.
These are your words and opinions and your words and opinions only.
They have no substance in any truth at all, whatsoever.
Absolute bollocks.
andy-mac wrote:""Because ethnicity doesn't mean you are disadvantaged or advantaged, thats why its so important to have policy based on needs and not ethnicity.""
That statement is incorrect regarding the statistics in pretty much every area of indigenous welfare.
Anyway carry on.....
We already went through all this on the last page, i pointed out the obvious.
The stats like the ones the other Andy posted on previous page, are overall stats based on ethnicity.
But they vary hugely depending on where indigenous people live.
If they are living in cities the stats are not relevant and Indigenous peoples stats are likely to be very similar or the same as the rest of the population.
In regional areas the stats are likely to vary some what but not to the extent of overall stats
And in remote to very remote communities the stats are likely to be far worse than overall stats indicate.
All this is common sense and obvious.
BTW. Last census there was a large increase in people identifying as Indigenous, these people are likely to be people with some indigenous ancestry down their family tree and also no different to other Australians stat wise.
Im not sure how they calculate Indigenous population but If the overall indigenous population is based on the census or its taken into account, then this increase would dilute the various stats even further giving an appearance that things have gotten better when in reality they havent.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/25-per-cent-jump-in-people-identifying-a...
indo-dreaming wrote:andy-mac wrote:""Because ethnicity doesn't mean you are disadvantaged or advantaged, thats why its so important to have policy based on needs and not ethnicity.""
That statement is incorrect regarding the statistics in pretty much every area of indigenous welfare.
Anyway carry on.....We already went through all this on the last page, i pointed out the obvious.
The stats like the ones the other Andy posted on previous page, are overall stats based on ethnicity.
But they vary hugely depending on where indigenous people live.
If they are living in cities the stats are not relevant and Indigenous peoples stats are likely to be very similar or the same as the rest of the population.
In regional areas the stats are likely to vary some what but not to the extent of overall stats
And in remote to very remote communities the stats are likely to be far worse than overall stats indicate.
All this is common sense and obvious.
BTW. Last census there was a large increase in people identifying as Indigenous, these people are likely to be people with some indigenous ancestry down the line and no different to other Australians stat wise
Im not sure how they calculate Idgenous population but If the overall indigenous population is based on the census, then this increase would dilute the states even further giving an appearance that things have gotten better when in reality they havent.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/25-per-cent-jump-in-people-identifying-a...
I think @southernraw above has already made a valid comment regarding this comment, so I'll let it be.
ha ha Really????????
WTF??????????
Are you really arguing that indigenous stats from city's to remote areas are the same or even similar?????????
Education levels?
Employment rate's?
Life expectancy?
Living conditions?
Rates of violence?
Etc
Surely you cant be that ignorant???
I have a question.
How long are you lot going too give air to this oxygen thief before you release you're flogging a dead horse?
This scenario has played out many times in the past decade with our @info not persuaded a bee's dick from his (self) obsessed status of SN's resident expert all things indigenous. It's just another feather in his cap along with his breadth (not depth) of knowledge economics, climate science and politics bless his little white socks.
indo-dreaming wrote:But they vary hugely depending on where indigenous people live.
Yeah nah personal example all the guys I worked with and hung out with in Carnarvon in the early 80's my age (they were workers some non drinkers etc ) are now all dead from natural causes typical of health issues that affect Aboriginals living western life style / diets every single one of them gone.
I focus wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:But they vary hugely depending on where indigenous people live.
Yeah nah personal example all the guys I worked with and hung out with in Carnarvon in the early 80's my age (they were workers some non drinkers etc ) are now all dead from natural causes typical of health issues that affect Aboriginals living western life style / diets every single one of them gone.
Your suggesting indigenous have genetic predisposition to bad health, my understanding is its often suggested but controversial and not studied enough to understand if its really a factor.
My understanding is life expectancy difference is more based on things like
Diet-In particular in remote communities where lack of fresh unprocessed foods like fruit & vegetables is less likely or more expensive and in comparison highly processed and preserved foods are easier to find and while more expensive than prices in other areas still cheaper and often quick and easy.
Education- Lack of education on the importance of balanced diet, physical activity, need for regular health check ups, understanding things like signs of say a health issue such as a heart attack.
Access to health care- Most of us through our lives our health is monitored from babies to death, we get vaccinations, and through regular check ups, we often pick up health issues earlier, in regard to something like a heart attack or signs of, we know the signs and call an ambulance and get high quality care quickly, in a remote community these services are noit available, you have a heart attack and your not going to get to decent medical care fast enough.
There could also be cultural aspects that deter seeking outside medical help or leave it until the very last minute.
Lifestyle choices- To a degree is some communities higher rates of abuse of alcohol higher rates of tobacco use and in some case's possibly less physical activity often due to lack of facilities, in areas that are very hot just the non comfortable nature of doing physical activity for extended periods may even be a factor.
Income- Also a factor those on lower incomes are less likely to seek medical care, if fear they have to pay, than those who dint have this worry.
Mental health-Could also factor in to a degree, if unemployed with lack of purpose mental health issues often dont help physical healh issues.
All these factors are highly influenced by geography, so again you will see the rates vary substantially from indigenous people living in citys to remote communities, its not all that disimilar to countries like Indonesia. (ive had two friends die in Mentawais and Telos from birth complications because of lack of access to good medical care)
End of the day if you had 1,000 indigenous people and 1,000 non indigenous people and they lived their life out from birth with same diets, same exercise levels, same health care, same education, same employment and purpose, same living standard's etc, the differences in outcomes would be pretty much the same.
indo-dreaming wrote:I focus wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:But they vary hugely depending on where indigenous people live.
Yeah nah personal example all the guys I worked with and hung out with in Carnarvon in the early 80's my age (they were workers some non drinkers etc ) are now all dead from natural causes typical of health issues that affect Aboriginals living western life style / diets every single one of them gone.
Your suggesting indigenous have genetic predisposition to bad health, my understanding is its often suggested but controversial and not studied enough to understand if its really a factor.
My understanding is life expectancy difference is more based on things like
Diet-In particular in remote communities where lack of fresh unprocessed foods like fruit & vegetables is less likely or more expensive and in comparison highly processed and preserved foods are easier to find and while more expensive than prices in other areas still cheaper and often quick and easy.
Education- Lack of education on the importance of balanced diet, physical activity, need for regular health check ups, understanding things like signs of say a health issue such as a heart attack.
Access to health care- Most of us through our lives our health is monitored from babies to death, we get vaccinations, and through regular check ups, we often pick up health issues earlier, in regard to something like a heart attack or signs of, we know the signs and call an ambulance and get high quality care quickly, in a remote community these services are noit available, you have a heart attack and your not going to get to decent medical care fast enough.
There could also be cultural aspects that deter seeking outside medical help or leave it until the very last minute.
Lifestyle choices- To a degree is some communities higher rates of abuse of alcohol higher rates of tobacco use and in some case's possibly less physical activity often due to lack of facilities, in areas that are very hot just the non comfortable nature of doing physical activity for extended periods may even be a factor.
Income- Also a factor those on lower incomes are less likely to seek medical care, if fear they have to pay, than those who dint have this worry.
Mental health-Could also factor in to a degree, if unemployed with lack of purpose mental health issues often dont help physical healh issues.
All these factors are highly influenced by geography, so again you will see the rates vary substantially from indigenous people living in citys to remote communities, its not all that disimilar to countries like Indonesia. (ive had two friends die in Mentawais and Telos from birth complications because of lack of access to good medical care)
End of the day if you had 1,000 indigenous people and 1,000 non indigenous people and they lived their life out from birth with same diets, same exercise levels, same health care, same education, same employment and purpose, same living standard's etc, the differences in outcomes would be pretty much the same.
Haha mate, geez you make a great argument there for why the Voice is necessary!
Hahaha. Whoopsie!! @andymac
Not at all, we dont need a voice to tell us the problems or solutions are, we already know what the problems are we also already know what the solutions are, but implementing the solutions is the real problem, because the solutions will always be viewed as assimilation and culture destroying.
The solution is education, employment, access to services all other Aussies, which becomes an issue of geography.
southernraw][quote=indo-dreaming wrote:I focus wrote:Race....
If you believe in somehow justifying treating people differently based on ethnicity or skin colour, then i guess you could vote Yes, but what you are doing is a form or racism.
Seriously Indo.
You're implying i'm racist if i vote yes.
Maybe take a break from this thread if thats the sort of conclusions you are now drawing.
That's highly insulting for any person who has compassion for Australia's indigenous population.
Great example of the “I’m offended/ insulted” argument being used to shut down discussion. There is nothing insulting about simply pointing out this proposed amendment will entrench racial privilege in the Constitution.
waveman][quote=southernraw wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:I focus wrote:Race....
If you believe in somehow justifying treating people differently based on ethnicity or skin colour, then i guess you could vote Yes, but what you are doing is a form or racism.
Seriously Indo.
You're implying i'm racist if i vote yes.
Maybe take a break from this thread if thats the sort of conclusions you are now drawing.
That's highly insulting for any person who has compassion for Australia's indigenous population.Great example of the “I’m offended/ insulted” argument being used to shut down discussion. There is nothing insulting about simply pointing out this proposed amendment will entrench racial privilege in the Constitution.
Who’s racial privilege will it enhance. And how
waveman][quote=southernraw wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:I focus wrote:Race....
If you believe in somehow justifying treating people differently based on ethnicity or skin colour, then i guess you could vote Yes, but what you are doing is a form or racism.
Seriously Indo.
You're implying i'm racist if i vote yes.
Maybe take a break from this thread if thats the sort of conclusions you are now drawing.
That's highly insulting for any person who has compassion for Australia's indigenous population.Great example of the “I’m offended/ insulted” argument being used to shut down discussion. There is nothing insulting about simply pointing out this proposed amendment will entrench racial privilege in the Constitution.
Who’s racial privilege will it enhance. And how
waveman wrote:Great example of the “I’m offended/ insulted” argument being used to shut down discussion. There is nothing insulting about simply pointing out this proposed amendment will entrench racial privilege in the Constitution.
Great example of libertarian hysteria... can't dare suggest perhaps every alt-right snowflake shouldn't spout their crap all over the place all the time..
"this proposed amendment will entrench racial privilege in the Constitution."
Please explain.
purposely staying out of various arguments above...
but it has got to be said, that labor has done a woeful job of selling their baby
they've taken an almost 'shoe in' situation, and lost ground all the way...
when does a political entity take in new information and change tack to address developing situations?
seems never for labor...
there's an abc journalist who regularly hosts the drum, seems soooo contemporay abc journalist in soooo many ways... but he grew up in the bush and has done a good job getting grass roots blackfella opinions on the airwaves. these opinions and experiences are pretty damning for the labor 'narrative' that there is plenty of 'detail', and that there has been extensive grassroots consultation
as I said way back, if this doesn't get up... please please don't resort to all that '....it's because of racism..' bullshit...
blame will be - and should be - squarely on labor's shoulders. their pig headedness, total lack of adaptability, and hubris is astounding to say the least
excellent points from adam12 well back
I agree with the “political leadership” sentiment of your post sypkan especially given the 3 decade long experience the country has had with the right’s abandonment of bipartisanship in these areas in pursuit of culture wars. It’s not good enough for the left to seek change like this without getting their hands dirty and fighting hard like their opponents.
"The solution is education, employment, access to services all other Aussies, which becomes an issue of geography."
That's an incredibly simplistic statement.
For example, towns like Alice Springs, Kalgoorlie, Carnarvon, Halls Creek etc etc are fair sized towns with access to what you've listed above.
Yet they have serious social and health problems despite not being ultra-isloated settlements.
It gets back to the indisputable fact that as a race or culture or however you want to label it, there are deep issues there that need to be addressed in very specific ways.
And these ways can only be understood by listening to those who are most directly affected.
I had several interactions with indigenous people in the last few months and I was amazed how many of them didn't speak English. They all spoke an indigenous language among themselves and there would be one 'good' translator in the group. You can spend as much money and processes as you want but if people don't understand the language they will struggle to understand any of it. Most people in this country would just assume that all indigenous people speak English fluently (I know I did). However, that is far from the truth. It's something that doesn't even get discussed but it's very important.
Important that their (non English) voice is heard.
Also, desert sands problems. No desert sand in Darwin, Townsville, Cairns, Rockhampton etc etc. Just historical neck stepping and generational inheritance of the same old problems.
Indo says we know what the problems are. No shit!
Surely the Voice is about listening to what the potential solutions are, from them, not thinking or forcing our solutions on them. Empowering people to solve their problems. Enshrine it so when it fails, as it has, and will do in the future, we have to keep working at it until it has success. (hopefully)
waveman][quote=southernraw wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:I focus wrote:Race....
If you believe in somehow justifying treating people differently based on ethnicity or skin colour, then i guess you could vote Yes, but what you are doing is a form or racism.
Seriously Indo.
You're implying i'm racist if i vote yes.
Maybe take a break from this thread if thats the sort of conclusions you are now drawing.
That's highly insulting for any person who has compassion for Australia's indigenous population.Great example of the “I’m offended/ insulted” argument being used to shut down discussion. There is nothing insulting about simply pointing out this proposed amendment will entrench racial privilege in the Constitution.
haha.
Ah ok, completely changing the tone/argument of what i was pointing out to suit your own settler mentality/bias.
Don't wanna feel guilty now for the past 200 years do we?
A typical jab at creating division instead of focusing on moving forward with creative and positive solutions/ideas.
Sypkan "but it has got to be said, that labor has done a woeful job of selling their baby
they've taken an almost 'shoe in' situation, and lost ground all the way... "
True that.
I saw the guy that's heading up the Yes vote on TV the other day. First time I'd seen him, can't remember his name now, I'm sure they are working hard for their cause but they are having no impact in the mainstream. The No proponents have been everywhere and despite the disingenuous arguments and outright lies they tell, they are the ones cutting through. You can't pay too much attention to the polling, it is skewered, but on it's face the Yes vote will struggle to get up. There's a lot of speculation amongst the left on twitter and elsewhere as to what is going on with Labor and why they seem to have abandoned advocating the Yes case, or are taking a timid approach, with many saying they know it won't get up and are distancing themselves already. I don't necessarily agree with that, the ALP will be damaged significantly by a failed referendum, as will our reputation internationally and, more tragically, our FNP.
There is more at stake than just the Voice.
If it does fail it won't be the victory the No proponents think. The States will pick up the pieces and go further than the Voice and I would expect treaties to emerge in most states in short time.
Labor have a habit of turning what should be easy wins into embarrassing defeats when they get into power federally. The Voice should have been an easy win but they chose to make it a political contest which unleashed the forces of the IPA and Crosby Textor and the other right wing bases against them putting the Voice and our FNP into the Canberra meat grinder where it didn't have to be. The vague timeline, way too long, the inability to counter the "where's the detail?" argument, and the reliance on the country's "better angels" in spite of the fact egalitarian Australia is a 20th century phenomenon and it's a "fuck you, I'm getting rich" mentality that pervades now, are all misreads that contribute to the floundering of the Yes vote at the moment.
Perhaps the ALP has envisaged all this and has a yet to be revealed master plan ready when the date finally gets set, a strategy to roll out when the rubber finally starts hitting the road that will push the referendum over the line. You would hope so, but I still argue it didn't have to be a contest. The Liberals could have been tickled into bipartisanship, the majority of Liberals in the federal caucus want the Voice, Dutton could have been enhanced politically, appeared a statesman and lost the "Mr. No" persona and it could have been sold as a win/win. Despite their preference to be culture warriors rather than seeking solutions, the Liberals will do bipartisanship where they see advantage. The Nationals of course are a lost cause, captured by Gina and the Minerals Council, and would have kicked up a fuss but they are still the junior partner in the Coalition and wouldn't tear up the deal over something as benign as the Voice.
If they had failed at bipartisanship then Albanese could have blamed the Liberals and advocated he was not going to put the Voice and our FNP through a divisive painful process with a result that had a high chance of failing given the history of contested referendums in Australia and put the whole thing on hold until the next election, where he could wedge the Liberals into submission or be dealing with a different Liberal leader post election who was looking to claw back some middle ground after another loss for the LNP, and gone then.
So it is what it is and the next months leading up to the referendum are going to get loud and ugly and exhausting where real national problems are pushed to the side and the country fights itself over race and racism and who's raping who and who knew in the Parliament buildings rather than the economy, the environment and housing, health, cost of living and the other significant things that do matter.
If the end result is another Labor failed shit show then they should hang their heads in shame and can look forward to minority government at the next federal poll, a result which may not be a bad thing for the country as it seems to me the true progressives in politics today are independents, not the ALP under Albanese.
AndyM wrote:"this proposed amendment will entrench racial privilege in the Constitution."
Please explain.
Don't hold your breath waiting for a reasoned and detailed answer Andy M.
AndyM wrote:"The solution is education, employment, access to services all other Aussies, which becomes an issue of geography."
That's an incredibly simplistic statement.
For example, towns like Alice Springs, Kalgoorlie, Carnarvon, Halls Creek etc etc are fair sized towns with access to what you've listed above.
Yet they have serious social and health problems despite not being ultra-isloated settlements.
It gets back to the indisputable fact that as a race or culture or however you want to label it, there are deep issues there that need to be addressed in very specific ways.
And these ways can only be understood by listening to those who are most directly affected.
Simple yes but it's the important base/structure to build on, any person no matter ethnicity if educated to a decent level, are employed and have access to services are much much more likely to NOT be part of the negative stats.
While somebody that has no education, no chance of being employed, and poor access to services has a far far greater chance of being part of the negative stats.
But yeah 100% there is also cultural issues to overcome, yeah sure some traditional but more so just culture in the way of everyday practices and things that can be seen in any low social economic community., basically habit's and mindsets passed down from parents.
For instance you can have a school and teachers, but if the parents don't care if the kids go to school or not, and the kids dont go to school then they dont get an education then its pointless.
Most of us have the advantage of our parents ensuring we attended school and supported us, and provided positive role models in being employed etc (good culture)
And ideally other positive role model aspects that influence the paths we choose in life, instead of say having parents that were unemployed all their lifes, and possible abused alcohol or drugs, unstable or broken relationship and families. (often as a result of stress from having no money)
So yeah while its 100% important to have education, employment, services you also need a good culture to go along with things.
Developing this positive culture and breaking bad culture cycle's is harder as its something only those within the communities can do, and its unhelpful when you ingrain a victimhood mindset in them that they are powerless to make change and their situation is just how it is and a result of some catch phrase like colonialism or Intergenerational trauma or some other worn out cliche or that not having some other things like voices or treaties or changing Australia day are the problem, and just if these things happen everything will magically change.
"Developing this positive culture and breaking bad culture cycle's is harder as its something only those within the communities can do"
Hence the nature of the Uluru Statement and The Voice.
Are you with me on this?
It sounds like you are, but there's a block somewhere.
By the way, if you can't grasp the concept of intergenerational trauma, you should probably have a read and a think.
Mate I hate buzzwords and catchphrases too but sometimes the term is accurate and necessary.
For @info it looks like the day is ending as it started with an opine back to Tony Abbott’s desire to get mobs off country … terra nullius bullshit and breaking the Mabo “continue occupation” precedents ….. jebus, no wonder the IPA and the miners are opposed to the Voice when it’s easier to do business on empty land
AndyM wrote:"Developing this positive culture and breaking bad culture cycle's is harder as its something only those within the communities can do"
Hence the nature of the Uluru Statement and The Voice.
Are you with me on this?
It sounds like you are, but there's a block somewhere.By the way, if you can't grasp the concept of intergenerational trauma, you should probably have a read and a think.
Mate I hate buzzwords and catchphrases too but sometimes the term is accurate and necessary.
Thinking The Uluru Statement and The Voice would ever change anything is like thinking the Australian government or my state government are going to solve some issue i have, instead of me dealing with my problems.
Terrible attempt at an analogy.
hahaha!
indo you're doing a good job at presenting the No case, and all the while seriously outnumbered in here!
I for one can relate to the No argument.
When I was in a spot of bother in life many moons ago, largely homeless and in my car, had left high school in yr 11, had no trade behind me, broke, etc - all my own fault of course - no one was there to help me.
No Voice was every going to help me but my own. From that moment onwards it all came down to my own personal decisions to help myself. It all came down to attitude and determination. We are victims only of ourselves and our own personal decisions and actions. We and we alone are responsible for our own outcomes in life and for making our own opportunity. No one is going to hold our hands in life or help us. No one is going to close the gap for me.
What helped me in life was the great nation of Australia of the time, particularly Austudy, free TAFE courses, rental affordability, low cost of living, ease of getting into uni and cheap uni, cheap medicare, a society that wasn't divided, etc.
I was able to walk into Centrelink with nothing but determination to go to uni, explain my situation (while holding back tears) and walk out with Austudy and a place in an adult tertiary preparation/bridging course where I was able to repeat yrs 11 and 12 in an accelerated manner. If I remember right, the course was free and I was living off $150/wk on Austudy. I was able to afford to eat and rent a unit half with my girlfriend at the time. Then I was able to get into uni and the rest was history.
To this day I still struggle to see any unique obstacles whatsoever for people of any race, ethnicity, skin colour, gender, sexual orientation, etc, to be able to just let go of all the culture wars and victim mentality stuff they have swirling around in their heads and do the same thing and just take their own initiative to help themselves in life and make their own opportunity, apart from the Australia of the time now: cost of TAFE and uni, rental affordability, cost of living, competing for uni places and jobs with international students and migrants, having to work while going to uni, society becoming more divided and bogged down in the culture wars, addiction to social media, etc.
The Voice is not going to help or change any of this stuff.
Personally I think that is the mistake and fallacy of The Voice.
But I'll still vote yes because ticking a box on a piece of paper is such an easy thing to do and somewhere, somehow it might just help one indigenous Australian to take that first step over that first obstacle of just getting started - which is always the hardest step - with going down the journey of improving their lives for themselves and learning the harsh reality of life that in fact life is challenging and harsh for everyone and that neither the government or no one else is there to help them, hold their hand or close their gap for them - they only have themselves and their own backbone and initiative.
simba wrote:i cant understand why theres any opposition to saying yes........Jack Thompson is a man for all Australians ,has lived with the Aboriginal people and says vote YES.........so yes it is
simba i saw jack thompson on tv, showed a 1999 speach he gave at a bush gathering of fnp isolated communities.
he said he was ok with non bilingual aborigines, only native dialect spoken.
wow! unfrknblvble...24yrs later and still illiterate fnp and he thinks it's ok as his voice "ruleing classes" do as well, that is children being stopped from an education by their community.
i don't like J. T. anymore.
gsco wrote:indo you're doing a good job at presenting the No case, and all the while seriously outnumbered in here!
I for one can relate to the No argument.
When I was in a spot of bother in life many moons ago, largely homeless and in my car, had left high school in yr 11, had no trade behind me, broke, etc - all my own fault of course - no one was there to help me.
No Voice was every going to help me but my own. From that moment onwards it all came down to my own personal decisions to help myself. It all came down to attitude and determination. We are victims only of ourselves and our own personal decisions and actions. We and we alone are responsible for our own outcomes in life and for making our own opportunity. No one is going to hold our hands in life or help us. No one is going to close the gap for me.
What helped me in life was the great nation of Australia of the time, particularly Austudy, free TAFE courses, rental affordability, low cost of living, ease of getting into uni and cheap uni, cheap medicare, a society that wasn't divided, etc.
I was able to walk into Centrelink with nothing but determination to go to uni, explain my situation (while holding back tears) and walk out with Austudy and a place in an adult tertiary preparation/bridging course where I was able to repeat yrs 11 and 12 in an accelerated manner. If I remember right, the course was free and I was living off $150/wk on Austudy. I was able to afford to eat and rent a unit half with my girlfriend at the time. Then I was able to get into uni and the rest was history.
To this day I still struggle to see any unique obstacles whatsoever for people of any race, ethnicity, skin colour, gender, sexual orientation, etc, to be able to just let go of all the culture wars and victim mentality stuff they have swirling around in their heads and do the same thing and just take their own initiative to help themselves in life and make their own opportunity, apart from the Australia of the time now: cost of TAFE and uni, rental affordability, cost of living, competing for uni places and jobs with international students and migrants, having to work while going to uni, society becoming more divided and bogged down in the culture wars, addiction to social media, etc.
The Voice is not going to help or change any of this stuff.
Personally I think that is the mistake and fallacy of The Voice.
But I'll still vote yes because ticking a box on a piece of paper is such an easy thing to do and somewhere, somehow it might just help one indigenous Australian to take that first step over that first obstacle of just getting started - which is always the hardest step - with going down the journey of improving their lives for themselves and learning the harsh reality of life that in fact life is challenging and harsh for everyone and that neither the government or no one else is there to help them, hold their hand or close their gap for them - they only have themselves and their own backbone and initiative.
GSCO, an important question, is your perspective that of an indigenous Australian or a non indigenous Australian?
I think it's important to make that distinction to understand the layers of your post before replying properly as the two lived perspectives are no doubt vastly different.
Cheers.
Uni assignment i did a few years ago. This is my take on things. I'm sure this will ruffle many feathers. I hope so.
Love Blue Diamond x
The Necessity of Reparation for Historic Injustices
Introduction – Compensatory Justice
Disparities between the standards of living of humans on this planet have long been a part of our history on this planet. From the wealthy nations of the West to the developing and undeveloped nations on this globe, the diversity in the quality of life when viewed from a moral standpoint are without a doubt grossly unfair.
In this paper I will look at why historic injustices do require some form of reparation. I take a strong stance that we are more obliged to solve current injustices than to provide reparation for every act of injustice in the past. In doing this I will first investigate the historic injustice of the Aboriginal people of Australia and I will look at the argument that they are entitled to some form of reparation and why.
I will incoroporate some interesting views from Jeremy Waldron, Robert Nozick and others which will help me slowly build to my conclusion that reparation should be in the form of Non Indigenous Australians surrendering some of our priveleges as a form of reparation.
Historic Injustices to Indigenous Australians:
Australia the continent was well inhabited for many years long before white settlement. It is commonly known that in 1788 Australia was colonised as a country under the rule of the British Empire, with total contempt for the fact that it was already inhabited by a native indigenous race of people.
The way the original inhabitants have been treated, including forced assimilation, execution, stolen families and not even allowed to be recognised as citizens for a large part of white Australia’s history are also well known facts. (Poole, 1999,pp114-142)
There exists now a situation where there is a large divide between Aboriginal and non Aboriginal Australian’s that can be traced back to the moment Australia was invaded by English settlers and the brutal and unfair treatment that has followed.
So at this point now, in 2013 what is the just and fair way to make amends for past actions?
I would argue that a moderate to large amount of reparation is overdue for this nation of people, the Aboriginal people. But there are many challenges to this view point especially that of how much reparation, and what sort of compensation.
Past injustices or present suffering?
One of the questions raised in an issue like this is whether it is better to provide compensation or reparation for past deeds, which have already been done in a previous generation and cannot be changed, or whether it is better to now provide assistance to those who are suffering in their current situations and consider that as a form of moral duty.
To understand this we need to delve a little deeper into this issue and hear some differing viewpoints.
Firstly we need to understand what the best way to provide reparation. How do we judge what is the best way of giving back and how much? Jeremy Waldron states “The historic record has a fragility that consists, …in the sheer contingency of what happened in the past” (Waldron,1992,p5 )
This is saying that we can’t trace every single injustice back to the original act therefore reparation for every act would be almost impossible because it would ultimately be guess work.
In this statement he has an objection from Robert Nozick who believes it is in fact possible to address this problem by “changing the present so that it resembles how the past would have looked had the injustice not taken place” (McKenzie, 2013)
This would be a way to ultimately provide maximum reparation, but is it the correct approach? I believe this is a fairly radical approach, although it does have some merits in the fact it would be working in a positive way for indigenous people, I don’t think it is entirely the right way to deal with these issues but it is on the right track.
Waldron argues that it is based on too many unknowns. “The status of counterfactual reasoning about the exercising of human reasoning of human freedom is unclear”(Waldron 1993,p10)
Which leaves the question somewhat open about the sort of reparation that is required, but provides one clear answer to the key question. Both agree that yes, reparation to some extent is required. But how much and in what form?
Another philosopher who leans more towards Waldron’s views is Kymlicka. He is somewhat more straightforward in his assessment that property rights in particular for Aboriginals would create “massive unfairness” and also he maintains the argument “Aboriginal rights must be grounded in concerns about equality and contemporary disadvantage. (McKenzie, 2013) I agree with both these views but I don’t think they provide any active solutions.
The Solution?
So if its not handing back all of Australia’s land to the original inhabitants that is the most appropriate way to deal with past injustices, then what is?
I look at the current country I grew up in, as a white Australian. I ask myself why I never had Aboriginal friends growing up, no understanding of Aboriginal culture and why my basic understanding of Indigenous Australians is mostly 200 years old. I look at our flag, a symbol of a nation that stole a country from its original inhabitants, with no recognition of the Indigenous people at all on it. I see that Australia considered Indigenous people as less than people until only 40 years ago and I see the way that Indigenous Australians live a completely separate life to the way of life I know as an Australian. I see that the only indigenous politician I am aware of is a former Olympian and it is because of this fact of her sporting status that I know this. I see no collective power or representation of Indigenous Australians and I see non Indigenous Australians,( a culture built on a history of stealing a land and mistreating its people) still taking, taking as much out of this land as they can, with little to no regard of sharing or giving to the original inhabitants. I see a government that says lots of words about ‘closing the gap’ and bringing the living standards of non- indigenous and indigenous Australians closer together, but apart from nice words, there is no conviction, no follow through, just assimilation , and all that still remains are injustices.
As stated by Sparrow, “Continuity gives rise to responsibility on part of present generations of Australians for our history”.(McKenzie,2013). Although deeds happened in the past beyond our control, what we do now to either ignore, or rectify these issues will reflect on us in history. So if we choose to do nothing, we are contributing to the history of the mistreatment of non- indigenous Australians. And this is simply unacceptable in my opinion.
Conclusion
So what is fair? I believe that the way forward is a surrendering of some of our privileges as non- indigenous Australians. The simple fact is it was morally wrong without a doubt what has happened in the past. And it is also morally wrong without a doubt to ignore these facts and not offer some form of reparation in the present. But how much?
I think that going back to Robert Nozick’s argument is a start. I think Nozick is wrong to make the present resemble the past in every aspect. But I do think that it would be reasonable to restore some aspects of the way things should be. The things that happened in the past were out of our control and we can’t go back to changing the way things were. But we could change the way things are.
For some examples. Why not give at least 50% of political power to indigenous people? It surely would be a fair thing to do considering this is their country. Media control. 50 percent. Industry. Realestate. The list goes on. Why do we not acknowledge the indigenous people on our flag, or better still use their flag? Why is Australia still a part of the Commonwealth when it serves little purpose to any of us and serves as a constant reminder to Indigenous Australians that they are still controlled by the original invaders. These to me are fairly simple reparations that would have minimal impact on Australia as a whole. Perhaps, it would alter the way we live but I think it is our responsibility, morally to forfeit some of our privileges for the greater good. Basically a little bit goes a long way.
In closing, it is a fact that a huge injustice occurred to the Indigenous population and suffering continues to this day. There is no easy solution to such a burden of pain. I believe the only solutions are for the non- Indigenous population to take responsibility and sacrifice our own way of life to bring about an overall equality. Sacrifice is not an easy word. But it all comes down to right and wrong. We are in a position to give, in this current generation. What are we so scared to lose, that was never ours in the first place??
Bibliography
McKenzie,C.”Prof” (2013), Lecture, Historic Injustices and Indigenous Rights, Macquarie University
Poole, R. (1999). Nation and Identity.Routledge, London, pp.114-142
Waldron,J. (1992). ‘Superseding Historic Injustice’. Ethics, 103 (1), 4-28
References
Poole, R. (1999). Nation and Identity.Routledge, London, pp.114-142
Waldron,J. (1992). ‘Superseding Historic Injustice’. Ethics, 103 (1), 4-28