4 ms·

Genetics have nothing to do with it, it's more about culture and identity. These people see themselves as a separate people the same way Americans see themselve

by Youden 3y ago

Genetics have nothing to do with it, it's more about culture and identity. These people see themselves as a separate people the same way Americans see themselves as separate from Canadians and Mexicans or how Californians see themselves as distinct from Texans and vice-versa. They want that to be recognised in a similar way to how the Maori were recognised in New Zealand.

Aromasin 3y ago
Genetics absolutely has something to do with it. If a non-native Australian came along and started self-identifying as an aboriginal they'd be lambasted, and excluded from this advisory body as it's not meant for them. States and nationalities =/= ethnicities. Someone can be an American by being a citizen of that country, past or present. Someone can be Californian by being a resident of that state, past or present. Someone is Aboriginal Australian by virtue of being born to another Aboriginal Australian. Nation states and ethnic identities are utterly different concepts. When I fill in a government form, I am a UK citizen, and identify as a British person; not as any of the other multiple options available to me. There are two separate boxes. I can become a US citizen, or a Canadian citizen, or a Mexican citizen, and identify with that nationality. I can't decide one day to become an Arab or Gypsy ethnicity, even if I lived on the Arabian peninsula or replaced my car with a horse and trap.
- GloomyBoots 3y ago
  I’ll agree with a nitpick. Nationality is also an ethnic concept. A nation is the political manifestation of an ethnic group. Not all states are nations, but we use the term imprecisely. Citizenship is something else entirely.
- Youden 3y ago
  You said "Having "the advisory body of the whites/blacks/asians/indigenous/aboriginal/etcetera" enshrined in a constitution seems utterly bizarre to me." That's an advisory body based on genetic traits that manifest superficial changes, that's what I was responding to. You're right that you can obtain a nationality but not an ethnicity. That's why I explained that you shouldn't think of it as ethnicity but closer to nationality. Look at the beginnings of Australia. Would you think it odd if the colonial government had decided to somehow recognise the current inhabitants of the land? Given that they didn't and instead committed various atrocities, why do you think it's wrong to retroactively recognise the affected people? The people today in our reality are just as descended from the people from then as the people of the fantasy land.

by Youden 3y ago

Aromasin 3y ago

Genetics absolutely has something to do with it. If a non-native Australian came along and started self-identifying as an aboriginal they'd be lambasted, and excluded from this advisory body as it's not meant for them. States and nationalities =/= ethnicities. Someone can be an American by being a citizen of that country, past or present. Someone can be Californian by being a resident of that state, past or present. Someone is Aboriginal Australian by virtue of being born to another Aboriginal Australian. Nation states and ethnic identities are utterly different concepts. When I fill in a government form, I am a UK citizen, and identify as a British person; not as any of the other multiple options available to me. There are two separate boxes. I can become a US citizen, or a Canadian citizen, or a Mexican citizen, and identify with that nationality. I can't decide one day to become an Arab or Gypsy ethnicity, even if I lived on the Arabian peninsula or replaced my car with a horse and trap.

GloomyBoots 3y ago
I’ll agree with a nitpick. Nationality is also an ethnic concept. A nation is the political manifestation of an ethnic group. Not all states are nations, but we use the term imprecisely. Citizenship is something else entirely.
Youden 3y ago
You said "Having "the advisory body of the whites/blacks/asians/indigenous/aboriginal/etcetera" enshrined in a constitution seems utterly bizarre to me." That's an advisory body based on genetic traits that manifest superficial changes, that's what I was responding to. You're right that you can obtain a nationality but not an ethnicity. That's why I explained that you shouldn't think of it as ethnicity but closer to nationality. Look at the beginnings of Australia. Would you think it odd if the colonial government had decided to somehow recognise the current inhabitants of the land? Given that they didn't and instead committed various atrocities, why do you think it's wrong to retroactively recognise the affected people? The people today in our reality are just as descended from the people from then as the people of the fantasy land.