7 ms·

Which makes it a little odd to separate out 'indigenous' as needing a separate legal or advisory entity doesn't it? What is the position of the 1% indigenous?

Which makes it a little odd to separate out 'indigenous' as needing a separate legal or advisory entity doesn't it? What is the position of the 1% indigenous? It is referring to a culture contextualised by skin colour. It's all signalling. In Australia there are support and administrative bodies at all level of government interacting with aboriginal communities (often failing for different reasons, mostly budget). A 'Voice' (which is still vaguely defined as having influence but no power) does not magically create harmony between the past and future, it only continues the divide. We are stuck in a world of trying to simultaneously give back the 'old past' while carrying on as-is otherwise. That is impossible. We must work towards a common, prosperous and respectful future for all inhabitants that recognises and admits the things we can't undo or change. We are trying to have it both ways, and it will leave the divides strongly in place.

freejazz 3y ago
>Which makes it a little odd to separate out 'indigenous' as needing a separate legal or advisory entity doesn't it? What is the position of the 1% indigenous? It is referring to a culture contextualised by skin colour. Weird how you seem to recognize what culture is, yet in the same sentence it means nothing more than sharing a skin tone
- agentgumshoe 3y ago
  That's not what I said. I said the culture (for the sake of the referendum) is contextualised by skin tone, because if they showed lots of 'white' people as those they're bringing a voice to people would be confused and it gets messy. Which is my follow-on point about how they're trying to pretend it will somehow bring back a past that can't be brought back.
  - skissane 3y ago
    I'm not sure if skin tone really plays as big a role in the referendum as you suggest. If you look at who the biggest Indigenous spokespeople on each side are, some of them have darker skin and others paler skin, but most of them look like they have varying degrees of mixed Indigenous-European descent. The idea that pale-skinned people can't be Indigenous is mainly one that exists on the political right. In 2011, conservative Murdoch newspaper columnist Andrew Bolt was found (in a civil, not criminal, proceeding) to have violated the Racial Discrimination Act by authoring a newspaper column arguing that pale-skinned people couldn't "really" be indigenous. [0] By contrast, my local federal member of parliament is Dr Gordon Reid MP [1]. He identifies as Indigenous, but his skin tone is pretty similar to my own, and (as far as I know) my own ancestry is purely European (mostly Irish, with some English and Scottish too). But, Dr Reid belongs to our main centre-left party (Labor), and the Australian Labor Party has zero objection to pale-skinned people identifying as Indigenous [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eatock_v_Bolt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eatock_v_Bolt [1] https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?MPID=300126 https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?...
    - agentgumshoe 3y ago
      You can't 'identify' as indigenous. You either are or you're not. Andrew Bolt was a stupid provocateur. If getting political, the ALP has no objection to anyone so long as they support their view... same as the Liberal party.
      - freejazz 3y ago
        I don't think you are getting the point, which is how it is analyzed whether someone "is or isn't" 'indigenous' and a necessary element of that was the requirement that they have indigenous blood. So I don't get where you are coming from when you say you can't "identify" as indigenous - in the law, you needed to do both.
        agentgumshoe 3y ago
        Ok I get what you're saying now. Still though, you can't exactly identify as such without the blood... But this is the whole ludicrous thing; what are they actually identifying as?. Traditional landowners? Cultural martyrs? 'Aussie?' 'Neglected outsiders? It gets really tricky if they start to actually really dig into the problem. It's like the argument is saying they're disadvantaged because they're not living their 'full modern Western life' while also supposing somehow 'we' will give back the old ways and apologise. Which is it? Hence I've been saying we need to work out what future 'Australian' is and all head towards that, as best we can. I don't even know what Australian culture is now, it's a mess of trying to be all cultures to everyone.
        freejazz 3y ago
        I don't think anything you asked follows logically. They seem like your personal political grievances, and I don't see why they are necessary questions to ask at all
        agentgumshoe 3y ago
        How so?

freejazz 3y ago

>Which makes it a little odd to separate out 'indigenous' as needing a separate legal or advisory entity doesn't it? What is the position of the 1% indigenous? It is referring to a culture contextualised by skin colour. Weird how you seem to recognize what culture is, yet in the same sentence it means nothing more than sharing a skin tone

agentgumshoe 3y ago
That's not what I said. I said the culture (for the sake of the referendum) is contextualised by skin tone, because if they showed lots of 'white' people as those they're bringing a voice to people would be confused and it gets messy. Which is my follow-on point about how they're trying to pretend it will somehow bring back a past that can't be brought back.
- skissane 3y ago
  I'm not sure if skin tone really plays as big a role in the referendum as you suggest. If you look at who the biggest Indigenous spokespeople on each side are, some of them have darker skin and others paler skin, but most of them look like they have varying degrees of mixed Indigenous-European descent. The idea that pale-skinned people can't be Indigenous is mainly one that exists on the political right. In 2011, conservative Murdoch newspaper columnist Andrew Bolt was found (in a civil, not criminal, proceeding) to have violated the Racial Discrimination Act by authoring a newspaper column arguing that pale-skinned people couldn't "really" be indigenous. [0] By contrast, my local federal member of parliament is Dr Gordon Reid MP [1]. He identifies as Indigenous, but his skin tone is pretty similar to my own, and (as far as I know) my own ancestry is purely European (mostly Irish, with some English and Scottish too). But, Dr Reid belongs to our main centre-left party (Labor), and the Australian Labor Party has zero objection to pale-skinned people identifying as Indigenous [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eatock_v_Bolt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eatock_v_Bolt [1] https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?MPID=300126 https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?...
  - agentgumshoe 3y ago
    You can't 'identify' as indigenous. You either are or you're not. Andrew Bolt was a stupid provocateur. If getting political, the ALP has no objection to anyone so long as they support their view... same as the Liberal party.
    - freejazz 3y ago
      I don't think you are getting the point, which is how it is analyzed whether someone "is or isn't" 'indigenous' and a necessary element of that was the requirement that they have indigenous blood. So I don't get where you are coming from when you say you can't "identify" as indigenous - in the law, you needed to do both.
      - agentgumshoe 3y ago
        Ok I get what you're saying now. Still though, you can't exactly identify as such without the blood... But this is the whole ludicrous thing; what are they actually identifying as?. Traditional landowners? Cultural martyrs? 'Aussie?' 'Neglected outsiders? It gets really tricky if they start to actually really dig into the problem. It's like the argument is saying they're disadvantaged because they're not living their 'full modern Western life' while also supposing somehow 'we' will give back the old ways and apologise. Which is it? Hence I've been saying we need to work out what future 'Australian' is and all head towards that, as best we can. I don't even know what Australian culture is now, it's a mess of trying to be all cultures to everyone.
        freejazz 3y ago
        I don't think anything you asked follows logically. They seem like your personal political grievances, and I don't see why they are necessary questions to ask at all
        agentgumshoe 3y ago
        How so?