With a two-letter word, Australians struck down the first attempt at constitutional change in 24 years, a move experts say will inflict lasting damage on First Nations people and suspend any hopes of modernizing the nation’s founding document.
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.
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.
How it works has nothing to do with how its defined. Granting or denieing somthing based upon race is racist you are willing to do that (doesnt fuckin matter if u think its for the greater good) its by definition racist. Im sorry im not willing to compromise on equality.
Perhaps Canadas relationship with Quebec can serve as an analogy to help you frame this in a manner than is not based in racial divisions.
From my(Canadian) perspective Australia seems to be dealing with a number of the same issues that are important to the structure and formation of Canada and it’s constitution. Quebec holds status as a ‘nation within a nation’ and holds several concessions within our constitution to allow it to preserve the French language and unique Quebecois culture. Going back to the confederation of Canada and before 1867 we’ve always had a tension between the dominant English/Protestant culture and the French/Catholic culture and various protections for the language. Ontario and other provinces have constitutionally protected Catholic School boards which is fucking weird nowadays but make sense in the historical context. Take a look at the ‘not-withstanding’ clause and it’s history too! Bonkers.
All that said, perhaps a better lens to view this ‘Voice’ within parliament is in a similar sense to a nation to nation representative within your parliament. A recognition that there is another nation of people who hold a different value structure, sense of polity and ideas of the derivations and justifications for authority. This cultural nation within the larger Australian nation-state does not hold political or legislative power nor did the referendum propose granting any level of sovereignty to this subsumed nation(unlike Quebec), but in the interest of human rights, equality, cultural discourse and integration it would be prudent for this cultural nation to be able to provide advice and its perspective on the administration of its people.
This Nation to Nation method does have its own complexities and compromises however as Canada is seeing with its various treaty(or lack of treaty) obligations. The Crown Lands in my neck of the woods may be ceded to the local Algonquin tribe as their land was colonized but no treaty signed with their national representatives. It’s also holding up all sorts of large resource development projects.
I’m also curious, how do you feel about the Westphalian nation state? The right of a people’s self determination etc? I suspect you don’t want to tear down borders because their inherently based on racist principles as well.
The nation to nation method is an intereating approach, im no expert on the matter so take what i have to say in regards to it with a grain of salt. If you are to view it as 2 nation would that not mean u can simply say that one nation faught a war and won? Im not saying i endorse that thinking in any but through a historical standpoint it seem to set a presedent that a nation that lost a war/land has a right to claim that back after the fact?
And for u last paragraph.
I beleive everyone ahould have the right to self determination and that each nation also has this wright. And as for tearing down borders how far back does one go? Where do we draw the line on tearing down borders? Just ones based on race? Arent all borders based on race is some sence?
On the ‘fought a war and lost’ point that’s the crux of it. The nation state one a war against a(series of pseudo-) nation state and the loser was subjugated and their governance dissolved. Fair enough. Spoils to the victor etc.
Where this falls apart is that we are not willing, able or morally justified in destroying the cultural nation. Genocide is not acceptable whether a physical or cultural. And so what is a democracy left to do especially when trying to establish a stable nation containing multiple polities? It follows that the victor nation state must hold its various contained cultural nations in equal value and that their cultures have their own value that should not be subjugated in the same manner that their previous political system was.
So yes, this leads to tricky concepts and conversations where various cultural nations have radically different means of disseminating authority and rights. For many aboriginal groups this is an internal democratic(or a similar cultural process that entails a pseudo-democratic process) which chooses and appoints elders who have the responsibility, ability and obligations to speak on behalf of their nation and peoples.
Where this ties into the Westphalian nation state concept is that yes, our current set up of international borders and their moral justifications are based in inherently racist tropes and morals. In the face of greater freedom of movement and globalization this system is encountering various limits to its implementation as we are seeing in Australia with this referendum or in Canada with the Quebecois and First Nations.
So are you actually going to stand on ‘no racism in my politics’ and support the free movement of individuals and the eradication of the Westphalian nation state system? Or will you recognize that nothing is absolute and compromise must be made to have an inherently racist, but mostly effective and deeply entrenched geopolitical paradigm, continue to work in light of multicultural and multi-national states?
In short, you can hold you own sense of nobility and righteousness in your supposed anti-racist stance but pragmatism and the implementation of your ideals has been shown to and will continue to lead to further cultural genocides. Canada spent a century trying to make the natives white under this same ideal that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. Ultimately you’re standing on a very shaky and naive soapbox.
There is no context to which i am willing to accept more racial divide is the solution to racial divide.
I think what you and other people have misunderstood is not wanting it in the constitution has nothing to do with the people or the issues themselves it is 100% to do with not putting racial divide within the constitution.
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.
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.
Sounds like you could use a little nuance in your life, pal.
So what im hearing is ur willing to make devisions on race sounds kinda racist to me.
Sounds like you don’t know how racism works then? I don’t know what else to tell you, my slow friend.
How it works has nothing to do with how its defined. Granting or denieing somthing based upon race is racist you are willing to do that (doesnt fuckin matter if u think its for the greater good) its by definition racist. Im sorry im not willing to compromise on equality.
Yeah, nothing has changed. You continue to not understand what racism is or how it works. Have a good one
Perhaps Canadas relationship with Quebec can serve as an analogy to help you frame this in a manner than is not based in racial divisions.
From my(Canadian) perspective Australia seems to be dealing with a number of the same issues that are important to the structure and formation of Canada and it’s constitution. Quebec holds status as a ‘nation within a nation’ and holds several concessions within our constitution to allow it to preserve the French language and unique Quebecois culture. Going back to the confederation of Canada and before 1867 we’ve always had a tension between the dominant English/Protestant culture and the French/Catholic culture and various protections for the language. Ontario and other provinces have constitutionally protected Catholic School boards which is fucking weird nowadays but make sense in the historical context. Take a look at the ‘not-withstanding’ clause and it’s history too! Bonkers.
All that said, perhaps a better lens to view this ‘Voice’ within parliament is in a similar sense to a nation to nation representative within your parliament. A recognition that there is another nation of people who hold a different value structure, sense of polity and ideas of the derivations and justifications for authority. This cultural nation within the larger Australian nation-state does not hold political or legislative power nor did the referendum propose granting any level of sovereignty to this subsumed nation(unlike Quebec), but in the interest of human rights, equality, cultural discourse and integration it would be prudent for this cultural nation to be able to provide advice and its perspective on the administration of its people.
This Nation to Nation method does have its own complexities and compromises however as Canada is seeing with its various treaty(or lack of treaty) obligations. The Crown Lands in my neck of the woods may be ceded to the local Algonquin tribe as their land was colonized but no treaty signed with their national representatives. It’s also holding up all sorts of large resource development projects.
I’m also curious, how do you feel about the Westphalian nation state? The right of a people’s self determination etc? I suspect you don’t want to tear down borders because their inherently based on racist principles as well.
The nation to nation method is an intereating approach, im no expert on the matter so take what i have to say in regards to it with a grain of salt. If you are to view it as 2 nation would that not mean u can simply say that one nation faught a war and won? Im not saying i endorse that thinking in any but through a historical standpoint it seem to set a presedent that a nation that lost a war/land has a right to claim that back after the fact?
And for u last paragraph. I beleive everyone ahould have the right to self determination and that each nation also has this wright. And as for tearing down borders how far back does one go? Where do we draw the line on tearing down borders? Just ones based on race? Arent all borders based on race is some sence?
On the ‘fought a war and lost’ point that’s the crux of it. The nation state one a war against a(series of pseudo-) nation state and the loser was subjugated and their governance dissolved. Fair enough. Spoils to the victor etc.
Where this falls apart is that we are not willing, able or morally justified in destroying the cultural nation. Genocide is not acceptable whether a physical or cultural. And so what is a democracy left to do especially when trying to establish a stable nation containing multiple polities? It follows that the victor nation state must hold its various contained cultural nations in equal value and that their cultures have their own value that should not be subjugated in the same manner that their previous political system was.
So yes, this leads to tricky concepts and conversations where various cultural nations have radically different means of disseminating authority and rights. For many aboriginal groups this is an internal democratic(or a similar cultural process that entails a pseudo-democratic process) which chooses and appoints elders who have the responsibility, ability and obligations to speak on behalf of their nation and peoples.
Where this ties into the Westphalian nation state concept is that yes, our current set up of international borders and their moral justifications are based in inherently racist tropes and morals. In the face of greater freedom of movement and globalization this system is encountering various limits to its implementation as we are seeing in Australia with this referendum or in Canada with the Quebecois and First Nations.
So are you actually going to stand on ‘no racism in my politics’ and support the free movement of individuals and the eradication of the Westphalian nation state system? Or will you recognize that nothing is absolute and compromise must be made to have an inherently racist, but mostly effective and deeply entrenched geopolitical paradigm, continue to work in light of multicultural and multi-national states?
In short, you can hold you own sense of nobility and righteousness in your supposed anti-racist stance but pragmatism and the implementation of your ideals has been shown to and will continue to lead to further cultural genocides. Canada spent a century trying to make the natives white under this same ideal that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. Ultimately you’re standing on a very shaky and naive soapbox.
You’ve been given excellent and calm explanations why your concern makes no sense in this specific context.
That you choose to cling to a shallow definition instead makes it seem as if you cared more about words than people.
There is no context to which i am willing to accept more racial divide is the solution to racial divide.
I think what you and other people have misunderstood is not wanting it in the constitution has nothing to do with the people or the issues themselves it is 100% to do with not putting racial divide within the constitution.
deleted by creator