• MüThyme@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    9 months ago

    Solving systemic racial injustice is an inherently one sided thing, and that isn’t racist or divisive.

    What is racist and divisive is allowing the traditional owners of the land to be trapped in perpetual poverty, with significantly shorter lives and with next to no hope of help. Setting up something to address an imbalance like this, to bring actual equality, is not racist.

    There’s a fairly well known saying “when you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.” Things aren’t getting worse for you, we’re just trying to pull other people out of a hole so they can stand beside you.

    • Wanderer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      There is a lot of places in Australia where they are crying out for work and a load of backpackers have to go to a town to fill the jobs. The government even promote it because they need for jobs is so high.

      Then you get there and heaps of Aboriginals are unemployed or they are working part time do they can claim full benefits.

      They already get a load of help but at some point some of them need to realise they need to get a job or do something that isn’t ice.

    • muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      30
      ·
      9 months ago

      Great so make the body and dont put it in the constitution. Simple that way we can have the same body with the same “lack” of powers and dont need to divide race within the constitution.

      • MüThyme@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        Again, it’s not dividing race at all.

        There are two good reasons for putting it in the constitution. One, it stops it being repealed by the opposition who have a history of that sort of thing, thus it won’t be limited to the term of a specific government.

        Secondly, Australia’s history is 100% built on disenfranchisement of our first people. Slavery, being defined as fauna, voting rights younger than a lifetime etc. Our national identity built this problem, our constitution should recognise who this country belongs to, it should recognise who this country has murdered, abducted and generally hated for it’s entire history. This definitely belongs in our constitution, colonialism stole Australia and it’s only fair to recognise that.

        • muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          30
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          An advisory body for a particular race is by definition a division based on race. Say hypotheticaly there was a body in the constitution called the “nazi advisory body” where u had to be a true arian to join, would you agree that is blatantly racist? If so what does it matter what race it is or what its called its still a devision of race by definition.

          For you first point see the timeline of all bodies i have posted in this thread may shed some light on ur over generalisation.

          Second putting the voice in the constitution doesnt address that whatsoever if you want to put recognition of histories ateocities in the constitution put recognition of histories actrocities in the constitution. What does an advisary body in the constitution have to do with recognition of historical actrocities in the constitution.

          • JethPeter@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            20
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            I understand your point, however I think it misses a key element. This land was owned and occupied by our first nations peoples for 65k years.

            The British decided to take it over a few hundred years ago, a pretty rough decision for first nations peoples. In fact they were only recognised as real people with a right to vote in 1967.

            We can’t reverse that bad decision now, each of us are now Australian. Yet no other group of peoples were the victim of our new country formation. Having recognition in the constitution, and a protected voice for national decisions that affect them seems reasonable.

            No other group, culture, or religion has this relationship with our government. A voice for any other group wouldn’t make sense. It’s not a cultural voice - it’s a political one for the nations we forced from power.

            • muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              19
              ·
              9 months ago

              I understand that i just dont beleive i can moraly accept making any devision based on race whatsoever regardless of purpose or reason. I guess thats where we differ.

                  • Nudding@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    9
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    Sounds like you don’t know how racism works then? I don’t know what else to tell you, my slow friend.