Resistance to colonisation has rarely been polite. The senator asked questions Aboriginal people are still waiting – after two centuries – to get the answers to
Last year, Australia showed how unengaged and racist this country remains by refusing to insert an Indigenous advisory voice
Right, those are the options. Either you voted yes or you’re unengaged and racist.
If I were, like so many others, to believe what it is I have heard and seen since Thorpe took to the floor, I would be convinced she had broken through the barricades, thrown open the doors, stormed to the front and then proceeding to call his majesty everything under the sun. I certainly wouldn’t get the impression that she, as an Australian senator, attended an event she had been duly invited to, engaged in an act of peaceful resistance by turning her back as God Save the King played and then proceeded to yell a few hard truths about the Crown and the history of this country
This writing is just floundering and bordering on dishonest. While I agree too many people are clutching pearls about it, yelling at the King is what it is. Other First Nations members and elders have stated their disapproval for obvious reasons. While the reactionary “shock” about it is tiring; this side of it is as well. As pointed out it wouldn’t be with the crown these things would negotiated anyway. It would be with the commonwealth/parliament. So yelling at the king during this sort of ceremony about it is not only inappropriate due the event but also due to it being the wrong person to bring this to.
There wasn’t any good reason to vote no, other than you didn’t want rural Aboriginal people to be communicating with the Prime Minister… As that’s all the voice was really about.
Also, a yes vote would have been a small step towards becoming a Republic.
The reasons I saw from the no campaign were 1. Unclear wording in the constitution 2. Bringing race into the constitution (either for all or none) 3. Lack of explanation as to how the changes, again to our constitution, would tangibly “close the gap”. I largely blame labour for it failing. Plenty of nos could have been yes if the campaign was more clear and informative imo but I don’t doubt racism played its part. Blaming it exclusively on racism and political apathy is disingenuous and certainly won’t inform people nor change their minds.
The campaign was plenty clear. People just didn’t want to hear it. “Don’t know, vote no” worked, even though the right response to “don’t know” is “do a modicum of fucking research”.
I feel like you could have sought out all that information though… So that’s not “reason” (which is what I said) - that’s you having further questions you could have answered with google, looking into it, and asking around the yes campaign.
Sounds like you fell for the no campaign and were just too lazy to give things a second thought.
P.S The constitution already contains stuff about “race” and identifies Aboriginal Australians as distinct from people who came here. It’s always had race in it …hence your argument that it “will bring race into the constitution” - is again just you not questioning the no campaign.
People being lazy and not bothering to find shit out isn’t the same as “having a reason” to vote no. It IS a reason a lot of people voted no, but that’s not the same as having had a legitimate reason to.
I’m providing some of the reasons I’ve read or heard from the campaign. Not that I support them or their validity. Regardless of whether people “could” have sought it out if labour wanting to put forward these changes the onus is on them address all the “concerns” either directly or by be being more informative in their campaign.
Which is all an aside, my point remains there were other reasons people didn’t vote yes contrary to what the writer of the article asserted.
Cool, but yeah, I do think modern western government are struggling to get messages out in the digital age of media consumption. People don’t have to go look for info, and often don’t care to, so they get bubbled in their own algorithms.
Agreed, even worse is algorithms continual boosting of “ragebait” or emotion centred content. Why read/watch an article that will “just” be informative when you can watch something claiming how any step forward means you’ll lose something.
They didn’t refuse to answer, and some of the questions were designed to derail the effort, such as “Define Aboriginality” when that’s not in the purview of the Australian government (just like define britishness wouldn’t be), the Australian government can only (in a parliamentary setting where the questions were tabled) define Australian, and only do so in legal terms.
The reasonable questions were answered, such as “Would it be a decision making body” the answer being no, it was an advisory body.
But yeah, that the Liberal party wanted to play party politics with the good will and unity of the Australian people and the desire to settle historical and cultural divisions isn’t surprising and isn’t the win you think it is.
It’s just another sign they’re not responsible, and not fit to be in a leadership position that requires unity and good will, not attempts to derail the country by plunging it into culture wars.
Rightwingers always have these stupid teleological arguments that just completely jump the gun to extreme “civilization ending” conclusion that are never ever not even once accurate or even remotely true and it looks dumb as dogshit ever single time.
Social welfare is Communism!
Gender equality will cause the fall of Rome!
Immigration is white genocide!
…
And what’s this, a new contender; the Yes vote was explicitly going to create a racial supremacist society!
No, the PM would just have to listen to some Aboriginal leaders now… Wouldn’t have to agree, or do what they said. Just he’d be mandated to every now and then, listen to the people we stole the country from.
No shit no one alive “did anything”*, it’s a euphemism for a part of history, it’s intended to impart a general understanding of the transaction in a brief amount of words that sums up events. It’s not intended to accuse modern people of litteral thieft.
It’s okay insecure white man, no mob is going to come a knocking with a deed to your property. They didn’t even have a system of written language, and your property didn’t exist.
That said there will still be people alive today who either were involved in the forced separation of Aboriginal children from their parents (because there was a spate of that in 1960s still, as per the “bringing them home” report, about the “lost generations”), and/or whose grandparents and so on were involved in stuff like that. Samantha Armitages’ family, and probably Gina Rhinehart’s… That’s part of the psychology of why some are paranoid on the issue.
But paranoia is by definition an irrational fear. The voice simply isn’t about reparations.
As for the idea it will give some racial groups more power than others - again this isn’t true because it wasn’t just about race. Does nothing for big city Aboriginal people for instance.
It was SPECIFICALLY about people from very remote Aboriginal communities who barely count politically and are unlikely to have any affect or contact with the PM otherwise. People who can’t just mount a protest in a capital city as most Australians could (90% of us live in Capital cities).
So it was about addressing a disadvantage creates by distance AND race/culture, caused by just how large Australia is (as well as our history, and why pockets of rural Aboriginal communities exist in the first place).
So nah, addressing the unfortune of being a small community that goes ignored isn’t a function of over powering them or giving them a “racial supremacy”.
I never said you were racist, I joked about Aboriginal people showing up with a deed to your house.
You feeling blamed when I’m saying it’s a historical injustice, not a matter of modern theift, isn’t the same thing as me having blamed you.
I don’t even know you, you’re just some stranger on the Internet.
Pointing out this history of the country is just being honest. The people who can’t handle that are the ones being dishonest.
Anyways, if you need to lie and misrepresent the basic positions of the discussion, and the terms involved - I think that shows you’re not operating from reason.
So like I was saying, there was no reasonable case made by the No campaign during The Voice.
You feeling accused, isn the same as a reason, because reason operates on actual statements and substantial facts, not mischaracterisations and tangential FEELINGS.
It’s normal to have feelings, so sorry you let yours cloud your reasonable judgement of the actual facts and arguments being made. In that particular case (and that alone as far as I can tell) you ARE guilty.
You feeling blamed when I’m saying it’s a historical injustice
When you say “we stole their land” then yes, it’s not a historical injustice, it’s a modern one.
Pointing out this history of the country is just being honest.
The history is irrelevant.
Either we are all equal. Or people have more rights based on their ethnicity than others, which is racial superiority, which is exactly what you’re asking for.
like I was saying, there was no reasonable case made by the No campaign during The Voice
That’s because of your political views that see you blame white people for the ills of everything that’s wrong today.
It’s normal to have feelings, so sorry you let yours cloud your reasonable judgement of the actual facts and arguments being made
Christ you’re really on it with the accusations of me being the emotional one when you’re the person who can’t seemingly understand why deciding rights based off of ethnicity is a bad thing.
You’re a racist. Plain and simple. As was the whole and entire Yes campaign.
You don’t and shouldn’t get treated with special privilege because of your skin colour. Everyone in Australia is equal regardless, and it should stay that way.
This constant victimhood screeching by you is not factual, it is pure emotional and based in nothing but fantasy
Yes yes rich and poor sleeping under bridges and all that. A convenient excuse that paves the way for never trying to improve things. Besides if we were all equal we would have treaty, as their ancestral rights would be recognised.
I’m inclined to suggest some minor edits… “Either you voted yes or you’re unengaged and/or racist and/or have been manipulated by a brazenly racist no campaign.”
How about not engaging in racial discrimination which is exactly what the referendum was doing, it was giving a group more power to decide the direction of the country because of their ethnicity.
It’s blatant racism and an attempt to cement racial superiority in the country by using victim status.
Right, those are the options. Either you voted yes or you’re unengaged and racist.
This writing is just floundering and bordering on dishonest. While I agree too many people are clutching pearls about it, yelling at the King is what it is. Other First Nations members and elders have stated their disapproval for obvious reasons. While the reactionary “shock” about it is tiring; this side of it is as well. As pointed out it wouldn’t be with the crown these things would negotiated anyway. It would be with the commonwealth/parliament. So yelling at the king during this sort of ceremony about it is not only inappropriate due the event but also due to it being the wrong person to bring this to.
There wasn’t any good reason to vote no, other than you didn’t want rural Aboriginal people to be communicating with the Prime Minister… As that’s all the voice was really about.
Also, a yes vote would have been a small step towards becoming a Republic.
The reasons I saw from the no campaign were 1. Unclear wording in the constitution 2. Bringing race into the constitution (either for all or none) 3. Lack of explanation as to how the changes, again to our constitution, would tangibly “close the gap”. I largely blame labour for it failing. Plenty of nos could have been yes if the campaign was more clear and informative imo but I don’t doubt racism played its part. Blaming it exclusively on racism and political apathy is disingenuous and certainly won’t inform people nor change their minds.
The campaign was plenty clear. People just didn’t want to hear it. “Don’t know, vote no” worked, even though the right response to “don’t know” is “do a modicum of fucking research”.
I feel like you could have sought out all that information though… So that’s not “reason” (which is what I said) - that’s you having further questions you could have answered with google, looking into it, and asking around the yes campaign.
Sounds like you fell for the no campaign and were just too lazy to give things a second thought.
P.S The constitution already contains stuff about “race” and identifies Aboriginal Australians as distinct from people who came here. It’s always had race in it …hence your argument that it “will bring race into the constitution” - is again just you not questioning the no campaign.
People being lazy and not bothering to find shit out isn’t the same as “having a reason” to vote no. It IS a reason a lot of people voted no, but that’s not the same as having had a legitimate reason to.
I’m providing some of the reasons I’ve read or heard from the campaign. Not that I support them or their validity. Regardless of whether people “could” have sought it out if labour wanting to put forward these changes the onus is on them address all the “concerns” either directly or by be being more informative in their campaign.
Which is all an aside, my point remains there were other reasons people didn’t vote yes contrary to what the writer of the article asserted.
Cool, but yeah, I do think modern western government are struggling to get messages out in the digital age of media consumption. People don’t have to go look for info, and often don’t care to, so they get bubbled in their own algorithms.
Agreed, even worse is algorithms continual boosting of “ragebait” or emotion centred content. Why read/watch an article that will “just” be informative when you can watch something claiming how any step forward means you’ll lose something.
The Liberal party literally wrote all their questions to the Yes campaign and they refused to answer any of them.
They didn’t refuse to answer, and some of the questions were designed to derail the effort, such as “Define Aboriginality” when that’s not in the purview of the Australian government (just like define britishness wouldn’t be), the Australian government can only (in a parliamentary setting where the questions were tabled) define Australian, and only do so in legal terms.
The reasonable questions were answered, such as “Would it be a decision making body” the answer being no, it was an advisory body.
But yeah, that the Liberal party wanted to play party politics with the good will and unity of the Australian people and the desire to settle historical and cultural divisions isn’t surprising and isn’t the win you think it is.
It’s just another sign they’re not responsible, and not fit to be in a leadership position that requires unity and good will, not attempts to derail the country by plunging it into culture wars.
https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/01/10/peter-dutton-letter-indigenous-voice-parliament/
Voting yes was explicitly voting for racial supremacy.
Rightwingers always have these stupid teleological arguments that just completely jump the gun to extreme “civilization ending” conclusion that are never ever not even once accurate or even remotely true and it looks dumb as dogshit ever single time.
Social welfare is Communism!
Gender equality will cause the fall of Rome!
Immigration is white genocide!
…
And what’s this, a new contender; the Yes vote was explicitly going to create a racial supremacist society!
No, the PM would just have to listen to some Aboriginal leaders now… Wouldn’t have to agree, or do what they said. Just he’d be mandated to every now and then, listen to the people we stole the country from.
The vote was about giving a portion of society additional power to create rights for people based solely on their ethnicity.
Yes, that’s racial supremacy.
The fact that you say “we stole the country from” whilst complaining about the right jumping to telological arguments is fucking hilariously ironic.
We didn’t do anything. Not a single Australian alive today was even born under British rule, let alone during the actual colonisation period
No shit no one alive “did anything”*, it’s a euphemism for a part of history, it’s intended to impart a general understanding of the transaction in a brief amount of words that sums up events. It’s not intended to accuse modern people of litteral thieft.
It’s okay insecure white man, no mob is going to come a knocking with a deed to your property. They didn’t even have a system of written language, and your property didn’t exist.
That said there will still be people alive today who either were involved in the forced separation of Aboriginal children from their parents (because there was a spate of that in 1960s still, as per the “bringing them home” report, about the “lost generations”), and/or whose grandparents and so on were involved in stuff like that. Samantha Armitages’ family, and probably Gina Rhinehart’s… That’s part of the psychology of why some are paranoid on the issue.
But paranoia is by definition an irrational fear. The voice simply isn’t about reparations.
As for the idea it will give some racial groups more power than others - again this isn’t true because it wasn’t just about race. Does nothing for big city Aboriginal people for instance.
It was SPECIFICALLY about people from very remote Aboriginal communities who barely count politically and are unlikely to have any affect or contact with the PM otherwise. People who can’t just mount a protest in a capital city as most Australians could (90% of us live in Capital cities).
So it was about addressing a disadvantage creates by distance AND race/culture, caused by just how large Australia is (as well as our history, and why pockets of rural Aboriginal communities exist in the first place).
So nah, addressing the unfortune of being a small community that goes ignored isn’t a function of over powering them or giving them a “racial supremacy”.
No, it’s not. It’s you actively blaming current Australian people for actions of people who lived generations ago.
Ah yes, and I’m the racist.
I never said you were racist, I joked about Aboriginal people showing up with a deed to your house.
You feeling blamed when I’m saying it’s a historical injustice, not a matter of modern theift, isn’t the same thing as me having blamed you.
I don’t even know you, you’re just some stranger on the Internet.
Pointing out this history of the country is just being honest. The people who can’t handle that are the ones being dishonest.
Anyways, if you need to lie and misrepresent the basic positions of the discussion, and the terms involved - I think that shows you’re not operating from reason.
So like I was saying, there was no reasonable case made by the No campaign during The Voice.
You feeling accused, isn the same as a reason, because reason operates on actual statements and substantial facts, not mischaracterisations and tangential FEELINGS.
It’s normal to have feelings, so sorry you let yours cloud your reasonable judgement of the actual facts and arguments being made. In that particular case (and that alone as far as I can tell) you ARE guilty.
When you say “we stole their land” then yes, it’s not a historical injustice, it’s a modern one.
The history is irrelevant.
Either we are all equal. Or people have more rights based on their ethnicity than others, which is racial superiority, which is exactly what you’re asking for.
That’s because of your political views that see you blame white people for the ills of everything that’s wrong today.
It’s normal to have feelings, so sorry you let yours cloud your reasonable judgement of the actual facts and arguments being made
Christ you’re really on it with the accusations of me being the emotional one when you’re the person who can’t seemingly understand why deciding rights based off of ethnicity is a bad thing.
You’re a racist. Plain and simple. As was the whole and entire Yes campaign.
You don’t and shouldn’t get treated with special privilege because of your skin colour. Everyone in Australia is equal regardless, and it should stay that way.
This constant victimhood screeching by you is not factual, it is pure emotional and based in nothing but fantasy
:::
Got another reason?
The same argument that won the gay marriage plebiscite - people should be equal under the law and, by extension, our constitution.
Yes yes rich and poor sleeping under bridges and all that. A convenient excuse that paves the way for never trying to improve things. Besides if we were all equal we would have treaty, as their ancestral rights would be recognised.
and a treaty was explicitly not on the table
I’m inclined to suggest some minor edits… “Either you voted yes or you’re unengaged and/or racist and/or have been manipulated by a brazenly racist no campaign.”
Loads?
How about not engaging in racial discrimination which is exactly what the referendum was doing, it was giving a group more power to decide the direction of the country because of their ethnicity.
It’s blatant racism and an attempt to cement racial superiority in the country by using victim status.