Australia rejects proposal to recognise Aboriginal people in constitution
theguardian.com
Australians have resoundingly rejected a proposal to recognise Aboriginal people in its constitution and establish a body to advise parliament on Indigenous issues.
Saturday’s voice to parliament referendum failed, with the defeat clear shortly after polls closed.
You are viewing a single comment
As an American, it's nice to know we're not the only pieces of shit out there.
Oh it's not just us.
UK, and Canada have sordid pasts as well.
Where do you think the US learned it from?
Where do you think Australian colonialism comes from?
I LEARNED IT FROM YOU, MOM AND DAD! 😭😭
You can throw the French, Spanish, Dutch, and Portuguese in there too
You mean... the UK. Given that the USA, Canada and Australia were all British colonies, ergo the same past.
Yeah but no because we are talking about today and not the 1700s.
"sordid pasts"
"bUT WE're tAlkiNg aBouT TodAy!"
🤦 goddamn you're an idiot.
eLOquEnT
So, are we talking about the past or today? Make up your mind. 🤦 seriously, how do you remember to breathe in the morning?
Yeah but this is the present.
Canada is actively shitty to their indigenous people.
I'm from the UK so I can vouch that the government are actively shitty to it's not rich people.
If I want to explain the class system to someone from a former colony, I start with colonialism, but practised at home.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but the point to understand here is that Australia cannot even make it over the very first hurdle. Indigenous peoples are recognised in Canada's constitution, the Canadian government has signed many treaties over hundreds of years and Canada even has a form of Indigenous self-governance in Nunavut. Australia cannot get anywhere even close to these things. Constitutional recognition was just rejected, widespread treaty making is only in its infancy and self-governance is an absolute pipe dream.
Other former colonies may be shitty towards their Indigenous peoples, but at the very least there is generally some form of recognition of their importance as Indigenous. In Australia, we do not even see Indigenous peoples as Indigenous. We don't understand what that word actually means. So much of the commentary from No voters during this referendum was about how Indigenous Australians are just another racial minority group, equating them with Chinese Australians, Indian Australians, etc. People fundamentally do not understand the difference, because they do not understand the history of their own country.
As is the US. Let's have a threesome!
Down 😊
It could be ignorance, but as a Canadian of European descent, I'd have claimed we were passively shitty more than actively shitty.
https://spheresofinfluence.ca/canadas-best-kept-secret-starlight-tours/
Sorry to yell you, but Canada has been, and still is, actively shitty to the indigenous peoples. Just more polite about it in public.
And that is why I am soo embarrassed, and shocked, and dissappointed, and
Pretty much any white person who doesn’t live in Europe is guilty of these atrocities.
That's not how generations or guilt works.
Quite honestly it was a very confusing referendum. The question seemed simple on the surface but as soon as you ask questions very quickly it was hard to find answers. I think this confusion is the reason the majority voted no, they were scared to choose yes for something they didn't understand. I tried to understand and still couldn't find a straight answer of what this referendum was actually about.
The confusion definitely wasn't helped by the large amounts of deliberate misinformation being put out there about the intention of the Voice, and requests for specificity.
And then the apparently contradictory arguments (often by the very same person, within the same argument) that it was too much, and therefore privileged indigenous Australians over other Australians, and yet also not enough, and would therefore achieve nothing at all. Or that more information needed to be provided, or more often, that specifics needed to be pre-decided and included within the wording (overlooking that those specifics would then be enshrined in the constitution and largely unchangeable ever again)
An argument to paralyse everyone along the decision spectrum who wasn't already in the yes camp or no camps.
To answer your question, the voice was essentially a yes or no to creating a constitutionally recognised body of indigenous Australians, that could lobby Government and Parliament of behalf of indigenous Australians on issues concerning indigenous Australians.
To use an extended analogy:
It would be similar to a board meeting of a large company asking their shareholders to agree to a proposal to create a position within the company of "Disabilities, Diversity, and Equity Officer", and have that position enshrined within the company's charter, to enable a dedicated representative to make representions on behalf of those that fall under those categories, as they all tend to be in minority groups whose needs or ideas don't tend to be (on average) reflected or engaged with by existing company processes or mainstream society. And that the position be held by someone within one of those minority groups.
Sure, an individual employee could take an issue to their supervisor (i.e. the Government/parliament), but that supervisor rightly has a need to observe the needs of the company (its voters) and the majority of employees (the average Australian), and the thought that a policy might not actually be effective for person Y would likely not even occur to the supervisor, as it seems to work for the majority of employees anyway, and they're not raising any issues. The supervisor is unlikely to go proactivelly asking employee Y's opinion on implementing X policy when they feel they already understand what employee a, b, c and d etc. want out of the policy.
Even if employee Y brings up an issue directly with the supervisor, the supervisor is structurally unlikely to take it on board or give it much weight, as it's a single employee vs the multitude of other employees who are fine with the policy as is. And listening involves extra work, let alone actually changing anything as a result.
Having a specific Disability/Diversity/Equity officer not only allows employee Y an alternative chain of communication to feel like they're being seen, and their concerns heard (which has important implications for their sense of self worth, participation, and mutual respect in the company), but the fact that it's a specified company position within the company's charter means the supervisor is much more likely to give that communication from that position much more weight, and consider it more carefully, than if that random, singular enployee Y had just tried to tell the supervisor directly.
The Disability/Diversity/Equity officer doesn't have the power to change rules, or implement anything by fiat. He can only make representations to the company and give suggestions for how things could be better. The supervisor and company still retain complete control of decision making and implementation, but the representations from the DDE officer could help the company and supervisor create or tweak policy and practices that work for an extra 10-15% of employees, and therefore a total of 85% of the company's employees, instead of the previous 70%.
Now, would you expect that the company provide the shareholders with exact details of: what hours the DDE officer will have, how much they'll be paid, what room of what building they'll operate on, how they'll be allowed or expected to communicate with others in the organisation, etc? With the expectation that all this additional information will be entered into the company charter on acceptance, unchangeable except at very rare full General Meetings of all shareholders held every 2 or 3 decades?
No. They just ask the shareholders if they're on board with creating a specific position of Disability/Diversity/Equity officer, and that its existence be noted and enshrined in the company charter so the position can't be cut during an economic downturn, or easily made redundant and dismissed if an ideologically driven CEO just didn't like the idea of having a specific Disability/Equity officer position in the company.
In retrospect Albanese made a big mistake breaking his own rule in being a small target and "taking Australia with you" on big changes. I suspect this will be a bit of a "told you so" moment for the section of the Labor party agitating for bigger social and economic initiatives.
Agreed, there were too many "then what?" when you start to ask questions. On the surface, yep, sounds good to me! But "how does that help?" or "what would they do?" or "who picks them?" lead to some pretty piss poor answers.
I think the biggest red flag for people was that a large portion (possibly not the majority) of the Aboriginals that had a platform of some kind were against it themselves. Why?
Not the majority. Not close. Less than 20%.
We're both born from Western colonialism and converted into capitalism
Western colonialism was capitalism, have a wee read about the East India Company for starters
Finland also has quite a bad history with Sami people. Not quite as savage as US and Indians but still.
English and thr Irish... it's savage all the way down.
We really need to move on from this divisive attitude that people who don't vote the way we do, especially with such a clear democratic majority, are necessarily 'pieces of shit'. Life and politics are more complicated than that and more politically informed left-leaning voters should know better.
Except it is often the case they are pieces of shit.
Sane people don't vote for Clive or Pauline, for example.
Perfectly sane people do. I wouldn't, but I don't denigrate others' sanity based on their political views. This is how you inflame and stifle debate, which only fuels ignorance.
No, they don't. No-one sane does.
It was a vote on whether one specific group of people based on race should have a say in parliament that no other race would have.
A lot of people in Australia seen that as racist and a way to divide the population.
Australians voted to remain in a system where everyone has an equal vote and voice in parliament.
The headline is very obviously misleading and not what people who voted no actually thought.
It's important to note a lot of Aboriginals voted no and we're campaigning for no. As such the left/internet whoever have jumped on the bandwagon about something they don't understand.
You moron everyone else has a voice: it's called the house of representatives. This was a body specifically to advise on indigenous issues, primarily because they live in remote communities and are therefore under-represented. A lot of money goes their way each year from the federal budget for purposes decided by old white men who live in cities, so why not have an indigenous body advise on where that money gets spent? Seems a lot less wasteful to me.
Your home is now mine and I just had a vote if you should have any say at all in anything. It failed. So you have no say. Move out tomorrow. Equal rights to everyone!
American cultural hegemony tends to influence the world. If we go farther to the right, the world tends to follow. If American exported cultural propaganda didn’t work, the world would have condemned us years ago.
If I never heard again about an American being grateful/surprised/emotion that other humans are just like the humans from the US, I would begin to suspect that simulation theory is real and that there's a huge glitch in the matrix. So, thanks for confirming this is all very real again, I guess.