Indigenous leaders who supported the Yes case at last week’s Voice referendum have written to the prime minister saying the No vote was a “shameful victory”.
What was this vote even about? Weren’t people of aboriginal descent already able to be MPs and influence the country? If they want some sort of quota where there must be aboriginals in parliament that sounds like ‘positive’ discrimination, and it’s good it didn’t get passed.
Edit: I am a non Australian interested in this from an outside perspective. I have since been corrected on what the vote was actually about.
I think your comment sums up what a large portion, more than 60% of the country, felt about that referendum.
And thats the unfortunate thing because the Voice was none of what you’ve suggested.
At its simplest it was, ‘hey politicians! You can’t get rid of this government department because things are awkward for you on the news.’ It was a more complicated, and interesting proposal than this, but that part drove necessary constitutional change and thus required a referendum.
But the change was declined. Most reasons i suspect have their root at:
Lack of engagement with the subject matter due to unclear/tenuous benefits to their own lives. Not to mention a fair amount of ambivalence rising to dislike of the Aboriginal peoples of Australia in the broader community.
Noel Pearson’s statement, “we are a much-unloved people.” was and is very poignant.
This atmosphere meant anything, and i mean anything, (even contradictory statements from the same person days apart), could be thrown around as possible effects of the referendum and people would latch onto those reasons as an answer then carry on with their lives.
You have a point but what are you saying looks to me as same old “white man” chauvinism. “We will desire for you what you are own to others”. Sorry, I treat all people equally, regardless of their race,culture or believes. Please do not force apartheid on me or now mine country.
Many of the reasons they’re “in deep shit already” come back to governments making unilateral decisions for easy media and corporate donor ‘reasons’ - specifically targeting Aboriginal people (as allowed under the constitution) rather than listening to what the communities actually need or want.
Hence the Voice. But now we can keep doing the same old shit, targeting the same old Aboriginal communities, but 60% of the population can keep kidding themselves there’s no victims and they’re absolutely not racists at all, oh no no.
No one says the was not a victims, but these guys are dead as well as one who did wrong to them. Task in hand it not give some better treatment but give all everyone same treatment. Remote communities need help - absolutely - but not because they aboriginal but because they in trouble. And do you really think that if voice passed it would help average aboriginal? Nope, it will harm them tremendously, there is reason why they mostly voted no.
I did start my first sentence asking what the vote was about. And then the rest of my comment was just my opinion if it meant a certain thing. If it didn’t mean that thing, all I need it a clear explanation of what it did mean.
It’s honestly a little sad that you didn’t find out the answer before the vote…
Indigenous leaders have been asking for “proper” representation in the Australian parliament since 1933 and there have been multiple failed attempts to grant them that. Some have tried to do too much and outright failed like this one did, others took a softer approach and essentially were a waste of time - the chances didn’t actually achieve the intended goal of providing better representation.
The voice would have made sure there is a body of people dedicated to advising parliament on matters that are important to indigenous Australians. It was only an advisory body, they wouldn’t have had any votes or anything, but whatever they said in parliament would have been an official government record and the response by politicians would also be officially recorded (even no response, would still be recorded).
The problem, right now, is indigenous people are 3% of the population and therefore they are routinely ignored. Politicians wouldn’t have been able to ignore them anymore… the could still have chosen to do nothing at all, but if a sensible proposal was presented in parliament (such as a solution to the alarming fact that indigenous Australians have in the highest incarceration rate of any people in the entire world) and the government chose not to implement those changes they’d be raked over the coals.
Solving those problems is good for everyone, it’s not free to put people in prison for example. It costs tax payers tens of billions of dollars… assuming you’re an Australian who pays tax, thousnads of dollars of the tax you pay each year goes towards imprisoning indigenous Australians and far too often for ridiculous charges like “failing to appear” in court for a court case they either couldn’t physically get to (e.g. you live on Mornington Island and were given a court date in Cairns) or sometimes might not have even known they were summoned to court in the first place.
I’m not Australian, just interested in this from an outside perspective. You make good points, and, to be fair, as a non Australian I hadn’t heard much about this vote at all. I may have been a bit hasty to form opinions based on what I thought the vote was about.
The indigenous people of Australia have never formally accepted the rule of the current government — legally, the Australian government was founded on a bullshit declaration that there was no human life living on the continent - only animals lived here according to the documents and formal letters and statements made when white people settled on this land. The continent is massive and had thousands of tribes who spoke 250 individual languages. It’s estimated humans have been living here for somewhere between 60,000 and 120,000 years (there’s strong archeological evidence for “at least 60k”, and work is ongoing to verify evidence that suggests 120k years).
The current government was forced on those people, and there horrific crimes committed (mass murder, arbitrary killings, children were systematically stolen from parents and raised by the church, in some regions the local government paid a cash bounty for anyone who brought an indigenous head to them, etc. It was bad). Things are not that bad now, but they are still far from perfect, and they need to be solved. There also needs to be some form of treaty between Australia and the indigenous nations who’s land was blatantly and obviously stolen (some of the land that white people aren’t using has been given back, but that’s not a treaty).
Our constitution does not acknowledge the existence of indigenous people. Our national anthem claims this is a “young” country when, at 60,000+ years the indigenous people of this country are in fact the oldest still living civilisation in the world. It’s very very clear that the founders of this country did not consider indigenous people to be part of the country, and the constitution needs to be updated to reflect the modern legal state where they are an integral part of Australia.
Just a quick response about the National Anthem. The official words were changed to “for we are one and free” to remove the reference to the age of the country.
… that’s nice, although I’m struggling to understand how we changed that line but kept the “free” bit.
And are we “one”? Seems pretty clear we are a nation divided especially when athletes representing our country refuse to even sing the national anthem.
Your ideas about what quotas and positive discrimination are almost certainly wrong and the work of people who either heard the words ans assumed they knew everything there was to know or who are seething that they can no longer discriminate.
The reality is that for any given position, there is a range of applicants of different races and genders, any of whom is qualified for the role.
The belief that organisations are forced to say “Well this person has every degree offered by Harvard and is a leader in our field. Unfortunately the quota says we need a black person so let’s hire this high school drop out who turned up to the interview drunk” is pure bullshit.
Also, the absense of these systems doesn’t create a meritocracy, it creates discrimination. We know this from seeing it over and over again before these systems were implemented. Straight white men of a social class hire other straight white men from the same social class and then claim that they just always seem to be the most qualified candidate.
If they genuinely are, it shouldn’t be difficult to prove it should it?
What was this vote even about? Weren’t people of aboriginal descent already able to be MPs and influence the country? If they want some sort of quota where there must be aboriginals in parliament that sounds like ‘positive’ discrimination, and it’s good it didn’t get passed.
Edit: I am a non Australian interested in this from an outside perspective. I have since been corrected on what the vote was actually about.
I think your comment sums up what a large portion, more than 60% of the country, felt about that referendum.
And thats the unfortunate thing because the Voice was none of what you’ve suggested.
At its simplest it was, ‘hey politicians! You can’t get rid of this government department because things are awkward for you on the news.’ It was a more complicated, and interesting proposal than this, but that part drove necessary constitutional change and thus required a referendum.
But the change was declined. Most reasons i suspect have their root at: Lack of engagement with the subject matter due to unclear/tenuous benefits to their own lives. Not to mention a fair amount of ambivalence rising to dislike of the Aboriginal peoples of Australia in the broader community.
Noel Pearson’s statement, “we are a much-unloved people.” was and is very poignant.
This atmosphere meant anything, and i mean anything, (even contradictory statements from the same person days apart), could be thrown around as possible effects of the referendum and people would latch onto those reasons as an answer then carry on with their lives.
Sorry, i’ve rambled a bit. There was a lot to it.
So you obviously know nothing about what was proposed if you’re spouting nonsense about MPs and Aboriginals in parliament.
It was an advisory board to give some representative to the people who’s entire country we stole and people we genocided.
There was no discrimination, except from the No voters.
I’m Australian citizen and did not stole and did not kill anyone. If you did than it is your crime not mine.
Neither yourself or I did.
Australia did.
Hence why the government was not asking for Aboriginal people to have a voice in my household and instead in Australia.
Your personal issues are irrelevant to the conversation at hand.
You have a point but what are you saying looks to me as same old “white man” chauvinism. “We will desire for you what you are own to others”. Sorry, I treat all people equally, regardless of their race,culture or believes. Please do not force apartheid on me or now mine country.
Yawn.
Good thing literally no one was forcing apartheid on you. Go make up something else to feel like a victim.
I have no reason to feel a victim. I just do not want make aboriginals a victims again, many of them are in deep shit already.
Many of the reasons they’re “in deep shit already” come back to governments making unilateral decisions for easy media and corporate donor ‘reasons’ - specifically targeting Aboriginal people (as allowed under the constitution) rather than listening to what the communities actually need or want.
Hence the Voice. But now we can keep doing the same old shit, targeting the same old Aboriginal communities, but 60% of the population can keep kidding themselves there’s no victims and they’re absolutely not racists at all, oh no no.
No one says the was not a victims, but these guys are dead as well as one who did wrong to them. Task in hand it not give some better treatment but give all everyone same treatment. Remote communities need help - absolutely - but not because they aboriginal but because they in trouble. And do you really think that if voice passed it would help average aboriginal? Nope, it will harm them tremendously, there is reason why they mostly voted no.
I did start my first sentence asking what the vote was about. And then the rest of my comment was just my opinion if it meant a certain thing. If it didn’t mean that thing, all I need it a clear explanation of what it did mean.
Giving your opinion on something before you’ve even thought about doing some research is part of the problem here
You were awfully opinionated on the topic for an ignorant fuck.
It’s honestly a little sad that you didn’t find out the answer before the vote…
Indigenous leaders have been asking for “proper” representation in the Australian parliament since 1933 and there have been multiple failed attempts to grant them that. Some have tried to do too much and outright failed like this one did, others took a softer approach and essentially were a waste of time - the chances didn’t actually achieve the intended goal of providing better representation.
The voice would have made sure there is a body of people dedicated to advising parliament on matters that are important to indigenous Australians. It was only an advisory body, they wouldn’t have had any votes or anything, but whatever they said in parliament would have been an official government record and the response by politicians would also be officially recorded (even no response, would still be recorded).
The problem, right now, is indigenous people are 3% of the population and therefore they are routinely ignored. Politicians wouldn’t have been able to ignore them anymore… the could still have chosen to do nothing at all, but if a sensible proposal was presented in parliament (such as a solution to the alarming fact that indigenous Australians have in the highest incarceration rate of any people in the entire world) and the government chose not to implement those changes they’d be raked over the coals.
Solving those problems is good for everyone, it’s not free to put people in prison for example. It costs tax payers tens of billions of dollars… assuming you’re an Australian who pays tax, thousnads of dollars of the tax you pay each year goes towards imprisoning indigenous Australians and far too often for ridiculous charges like “failing to appear” in court for a court case they either couldn’t physically get to (e.g. you live on Mornington Island and were given a court date in Cairns) or sometimes might not have even known they were summoned to court in the first place.
I’m not Australian, just interested in this from an outside perspective. You make good points, and, to be fair, as a non Australian I hadn’t heard much about this vote at all. I may have been a bit hasty to form opinions based on what I thought the vote was about.
Ah I see. A little more background then…
The indigenous people of Australia have never formally accepted the rule of the current government — legally, the Australian government was founded on a bullshit declaration that there was no human life living on the continent - only animals lived here according to the documents and formal letters and statements made when white people settled on this land. The continent is massive and had thousands of tribes who spoke 250 individual languages. It’s estimated humans have been living here for somewhere between 60,000 and 120,000 years (there’s strong archeological evidence for “at least 60k”, and work is ongoing to verify evidence that suggests 120k years).
The current government was forced on those people, and there horrific crimes committed (mass murder, arbitrary killings, children were systematically stolen from parents and raised by the church, in some regions the local government paid a cash bounty for anyone who brought an indigenous head to them, etc. It was bad). Things are not that bad now, but they are still far from perfect, and they need to be solved. There also needs to be some form of treaty between Australia and the indigenous nations who’s land was blatantly and obviously stolen (some of the land that white people aren’t using has been given back, but that’s not a treaty).
Our constitution does not acknowledge the existence of indigenous people. Our national anthem claims this is a “young” country when, at 60,000+ years the indigenous people of this country are in fact the oldest still living civilisation in the world. It’s very very clear that the founders of this country did not consider indigenous people to be part of the country, and the constitution needs to be updated to reflect the modern legal state where they are an integral part of Australia.
Just a quick response about the National Anthem. The official words were changed to “for we are one and free” to remove the reference to the age of the country.
… that’s nice, although I’m struggling to understand how we changed that line but kept the “free” bit.
And are we “one”? Seems pretty clear we are a nation divided especially when athletes representing our country refuse to even sing the national anthem.
Your ideas about what quotas and positive discrimination are almost certainly wrong and the work of people who either heard the words ans assumed they knew everything there was to know or who are seething that they can no longer discriminate.
The reality is that for any given position, there is a range of applicants of different races and genders, any of whom is qualified for the role.
The belief that organisations are forced to say “Well this person has every degree offered by Harvard and is a leader in our field. Unfortunately the quota says we need a black person so let’s hire this high school drop out who turned up to the interview drunk” is pure bullshit.
Also, the absense of these systems doesn’t create a meritocracy, it creates discrimination. We know this from seeing it over and over again before these systems were implemented. Straight white men of a social class hire other straight white men from the same social class and then claim that they just always seem to be the most qualified candidate.
If they genuinely are, it shouldn’t be difficult to prove it should it?