Constitutional recognition is about all our identities

Davida says:

08:53am | 09/11/10

“It seems that every attempt to “empower” minority groups ends up as an attack on straight white males.” 
You have been warned.  Don’t expect mercy when the world is dominated by gay black females….......no,really.

Tom says:

03:08pm | 09/11/10

@ Eric, its a pure Hawker Britton formula driven stunt to distract a dopey public from the government being flogged in the polls. Move the agenda back onto warm fuzzy symbolism. You know the thing? Anyone who dares to ask a question is denounced as a racist or a redneck. The aboriginal leaders turn their backs on Abbott when he tries to put his views. This gets ABC coverage. The elite brings out their modern day Malleus Maleficarum and Abbott is denounced as a racist, xenophobe, redneck, pugilistic, homophobic, misogynist. He plummets in the polls and poor little Julia is congratulated for her caring attitude. They all march across the Sydney Harbour Bridge chanting 60s slogans and singing Kumbaya.

Another truck full of cash gets squandered to keep everyone’s snouts in the trough and average (stupid) Australian workers get slugged for more taxes while the nanny state sets up another 30 welfare committees.

As usual our indigenous people stay at the bottom of the heap, which is precisely where the nanny state advocates want them to be.

Macca says:

06:54am | 09/11/10

@Jade, I will vote in favour of a referendum on this, however I struggle to believe it does anything to ‘reduce the gap’. Its mere symbolism.

DG says:

08:45am | 09/11/10

Jade -

What most Aboriginals want? As a member of my LALC, I can tell you that the views on assimilation are by no means settled, views range from absolute support to resignation to the inevitability of it all and to a desire to fight to the last breath to keep Aboriginal people separate.

The key difference between the treatment of Aboriginal people as opposed to other ethnicity, is that the Aboriginal people were here, on this land, before the invasion and the establishment of the country we call Australia. It is important to note that the invasion was an English action rather than an Australian one (as Australia didn’t exist until federation).

It does, however, depend on what is meant by recognition in the constitution. I don’t think that there is any suggestion of self determination for the indigenous population, so I find myself questioning what is actually proposed.

Kate says:

08:55am | 09/11/10

I completely agree, Jade.
Indigenous Australians are already recognised in the Constitution - so are Asian Australians, Irish Australians, Spanish Australians etc. It’s the ‘Australian’ Constitution, so any Australian citizen, regardless of their background, is recognised and included.

Call me cynical, but this seems like a cheap feelgood stunt which will lead to no actual betterment of living conditions for indigenous Australians. Aren’t there a number of far more pressing issues for this Government to be addressing?

Geoff says:

10:22am | 09/11/10

Hear hear Jade…  I have never looked at aborigines as not being Australian.  Hence our constitution already encompasses them as it does all Australians.

Ducks says:

10:52am | 09/11/10

@ Jade,
I agree with you entirely. But when it comes down to it, even if they are regonised separately, I don’t really care. The wording is pure symbolism and realistically will have minimal impact on any of the issues affecting the aboriginal population.
What irks me is the proposal to spend mllions of $$$ on a referendum for something that will have no impact regardless of the outcome. Surely there are better things to spend our money on.

Gregg says:

04:10pm | 09/11/10

@DG,
For sure there were indigenous peoples in Australia well before the first fleet, Dirk Hartog or any other European explorer landed or sighted the new southern continent.

But just as at some stage it is supposed we were part of the greater Gondwanaland land mass, there have been indigenous peoples for the whole planet and the whole planet has developed just like Australia developed from Gondwanaland and there may have even been conflict thousands of years ago over who ought to be getting to the southern continent or not.

It’s the history of the planet and the constitution is a document of colonies forming the Commonwealth of Australia in much more recent times, descendants of indigenous people being part of the Commonwealth as every citizen is.
And yes, it is not surprising that there could be many different views amongst descendants of indigenous peoples just as there will be amongst non-indigenous and that in a nutshell is always going to be an issue which all of us face.

All the talk of assimilation and closing the gap etc. can collectively be meaningless for eventually it will come down to what do individuals want to do with their lives and non-indigenous people will have similar problems in that regard to indigenous people.

You are right to question what is proposed and it would also be right to question why and what is hoped to be achieved.

I can recall when Rudd was mouthing Sorry there were not only some of the Stolen Generation indicating that they were grateful for what opportunities they had but also elders stating a Sorry was nothing if nothing followed.
What did we see from the song and dance whiteman whiter than most?
Now we have a Welsh white with red hair woman and there are still a lot of questions, perhaps even more over her suitability for leading the country.

Sean says:

09:01am | 09/11/10

They are immigrants just like all of us Sarah, they just got here first.  That shouldn’t entitle them to special treatment not matter what the past history.

Phill says:

10:20am | 09/11/10

Non Immigrants?  We are all immigrants.  The Aborigines just immigrated to Australia a long time before non Aborigines.

Sam says:

01:29am | 24/12/11

@sean + phill

Its only a theory, science is flawed, 30 years ago by your science we were 10,000 years old, 20 ago it was 25, 10 years ago it was 40 thou and now your science is not accurate aboved 50 thou, anyway we were modern humans first, first to practice astrology, first explorers, first sailors, first to practice real funerals (ritual and symbolic meanings) and acually live in a way that could last longer then you could understand, their was no hard work to do when cook came here ( read: The biggest estate on earth ), all that was required was to kill for the land, by your dumb a$$ logic your African, or go even further, which ape family are you, logical is you not

Shane From Melbourne says:

07:28am | 09/11/10

Absolute rubbish. Conquest and displacement or assimilation of native cultures has been part of human historical record ever since the first diaspora of humans from Africa. To claim that any one culture has special significance simply because they arrive in a spot first is to ignore reality. I strongly doubt that the aborigines will receive special treatment when China conquers Australia in 50 or 100 years time…..

Aitch B says:

07:33am | 09/11/10

@acotrel

Wow! Less than human???

Who’s saying that?

Do you honestly believe that because Aborigines are not identified in the constitution that they are viewed that way?

Daryl says:

07:39am | 09/11/10

acotrel, what if they don’t want us to affirm their place in the commonwealth? What if they are not willing to recognise our constitution as many indigenous leaders don’t? Should we just go ahead and do this anyway? Wouldn’t that be wrong?

Reconciliation is a two way street. Does this mean that aboriginies will formally recognise the Australian constitution, remove calls for a treaty or for a separate aboriginal state?

Who is regarding indigenous people as less than human??

TimB says:

08:02am | 09/11/10

Who’s regarding them as less than human?

MarK says:

08:47am | 09/11/10

The rhetoric is strong in this one obiwan.

A light sabre lobotomy is required.

Markus says:

08:50am | 09/11/10

We did affirm their place in the Commonwealth. In 1967.
Personally I find it unethical to regard Indigenous people as different to every other Australian that falls under the banner of “We, the People”.

Hamish says:

12:13pm | 09/11/10

acotrel, I don’t normally agree with you and I don’t this time either, but you should really learn more about slavery if you don’t want to look like an idiot.

Lostie says:

09:08am | 09/11/10

Joan -

“The Deadlies” are an annual Aboriginal celebration of achievement of Aboriginal Australians.

But the real issue is that such celebrations are not part of Aboriginal culture, groups were smaller, celebrations were dealt with on a closer, more personal level than public fairs that are the core of other cultures.

In my language, the word for “life” also means ” talk/share” - the culture of my Aboriginal people is not shared in the same way some way as more populous global cultures celebrate. It was a far more personal experience with telling of stories, dance and singing. The other point to note is that there is no one Aboriginal culture (hence I refer to my Aboriginal culture).

Much of the culture is out there if you wish to learn - I suggest starting with learning the stories of the dreamtime - read them, but then do the traditional thing - share them orally with your family and friends. The stories are not literal, but they do teach us things about the world, about hunting for particular animals or about how to treat other people.

LeonT says:

10:16am | 09/11/10

That the persecution of the white straight male isn’t more widely examined is a clear example of a Marxist conspiracy fuelled by radical academics. Thank you for highlighting this Eric.

Eric says:

12:55pm | 09/11/10

You’re welcome, LeonT.

The fact that you reply with such apparent sarcasm is evidence for my case.

Geoff says:

10:37am | 09/11/10

Yes Ted the title of “First Australians” is debatable…  I too share your concern about perpetuating a lie.

Jade says:

12:24pm | 09/11/10

Yep, most Aussies are that stupid :( unfortunately!

Rastas says:

11:22am | 09/11/10

Daniel, you’re an ignorant one. This exact same thing was raised as a referendum question by Howard and put to the people in 1998. The hypocrisy of the left is, as always, galling in the extreme. Having said that the proposal was voted down 12 years ago for the same reasons it will be voted down today - people don’t want racist sections of the constitution. That is all this suggestion is - institutionalising racism of Aborigines against other Australians. But that’s good racism, isn’t it? While we’re at they should get rid of the welcome to country bullshit that perpetrates so much of the left-leaning crackpot ideas.

Daniel says:

12:04pm | 09/11/10

I have great respect for welcome to country.

MarK says:

08:51am | 09/11/10

Oh this is only the start of what this type of distraction brings out. Hence the reason.

The progressives love to call everyone else inferior and racist and etc etc etc

They speak from a higher moral plane don’t you know.

Fred says:

09:25am | 09/11/10

At best this exercise is nothing more than a distraction for the simple public when Gillard gives into the banks (as per Keatings approach). At worst it is a cynical attempt to justify putting Aboriginals above Australians to justify the continual waste of money thrown at a bunch of bluggers trapped in victim mentality for events that are no longer relevant to the current generations of aboriginals but is a hell of an excuse.

The Badger says:

09:41am | 09/11/10

mark, let’s hope it’s not a qantas plane.]
regressive

razor says:

05:47pm | 09/11/10

And then all you need is an actvist majority of the High Court to decide that because the Constitution recognises the Aboriginals as the first owners then they deserve significantly greater property rights than currrent Land Rights legislation allows.

Dear Moderators,

Why wasn’t my original post on this thread made this morning published?

Rose says:

09:34am | 09/11/10

If you are talking about the intervention, that had everything to do with taking power away from Aboriginal people, not empowering them. The Children are Sacred report was held up as justification for the intervention, even though its recommendations were ignored and instead Howard adopted measures which have no evidence that supports their effectiveness. In fact, much of the evidence points out the long term damage the intervention is doing. Mal Brough may have had good intentions (I don’t think Howard ever had a good intention) but the Intervention is making matters worse not better.

Lisa H. says:

03:12pm | 09/11/10

If the quarantining of some welfare payment for food and necessities so terrible, why are individuals and communities volunteering for the program?

James1 says:

03:23pm | 09/11/10

The English did that to my Irish ancestors - even into the 20th century (remember the Black and Tans?).  I have ancestors who were shipped to this country against their will for crimes ranging from standing up to the English in 1798, to daring to speak Gaelic.  Should we put the Irish in the constitution too?

fairsfair says:

06:49pm | 09/11/10

That is a horrible story and I am sad that it occurred. But it doesn’t happen today and you’d be hard pressed to find anyone alive who carried out any act of this kind. My ancestors were persecuted by the British. They were an oppresive and brutal race who did some horrible things to people of all walks of life - including their own. But they don’t do it today. I am over it, I don’t hold a grudge and dwell on the past - instead I look to the future. I have moved on to find that I am a free Australian who has a state school education, a well massive Hecs debt, a shitbox car and now a tincy tiny house which I will be paying off for the next 30 years. I don’t earn anywhere near the average australian wage of $50 odd thou. I was not afforded any luxuries in life by society that were over and above the basics which tells me that we do live in the lucky country. A country where anyone can be anything.

I am from a region of Australia where there is a high proportion of ATSI people. At school they were given every opportunity. The only airconditioned bus came from Yarrabah, the kids were given breakfast in the mornings and the afternoon bus didn’t leave on the one hour trip home until 4:30pm as they stayed to eat, do sports and/or tutoring. This failed, as the friends I made disappeared from my life at age 15 when the govt funding ran out and they didn’t have to continue with school. This isn’t a generalisation. Access to the school records would prove that 90% of kids ceased education at this time. It is sad because there were some fantastic and intelligent individuals in that group.

I totally understand that cultural differences (and also personal preferences) mean that people don’t necessary want a tertiary education - but we all have to make a crust don’t we? I have the utmost respect for people who work hard at whatever they do. Most of the ATSI kids I went to school with still live in Yarrabah and survive on govt allowances. I know this because they proudly put on facebook how they are ripping the system and awaiting the arrival of their 8th child at age 25.

My long winded comment is that we all have to have a little bit of self respect and take some personal responsibility for our lives. I struggle to comprehend how changing the constitution will keep kids in school until 17, teach them about financial responsibility and modern society. How does this close the gap? I also stuggle to comprehend how you link the above statement into a discussion on a pithy, token and pointless action by this Government in their attempts to promote themselves to be progressing reconciliation in this country.

Fran says:

12:56pm | 09/11/10

You make a good point the only invasion and genocide that took place was when one aboriginal tribe wiped out another. This we know is true by the accounts of William Buckley.

Jenni says:

01:49pm | 09/11/10

No genocide?

1790 In December, Governor Arthur Phillip issued an order for “a party…of two captains, two subalterns and forty privates, with a proper number of non-commissioned officers from the garrison…to bring in six of those natives who reside near the head of Botany Bay; or, if that number shall be found impracticable, to put that number to death”.

1800’s - The conflict (Black Wars) has been described as a genocide resulting in the elimination of the full-blood Tasmanian Aboriginal .

1824 Bathurst massacre: Following the killing of seven Europeans by Aboriginal people around Bathurst, New South Wales, martial law was declared and many Aboriginal people were killed. (not the perpetrators of the crime, just random people murdered as an act of retribution).

1828, February 10 - Cape Grim massacre, Cape Grim, Tasmania. Four shepherds ambushed and killed 30 Pennemukeer aboriginals.

1830 Fremantle, Western Australia,: The first official ‘punishment raid’ on Aboriginal people in Western Australia, led by Captain Irwin took place in May 1830, with the justification that “This daring and hostile conduct of the natives induced me to seize the opportunity to make them sensible to our superiority, by showing how severely we could retaliate their aggression.”

.... seriously - no genocide? The above is only the beginning, there are dozens of more historically recorded incidents of Indigenous Australians being slaughtered at random by white settlers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_of_Indigenous_Australians

Hamish says:

01:56pm | 09/11/10

Jenni, you do know what genocide means right? You might want to look it up. Were a lot of aborigines killed in a largely unplanned and uncoordinated way generally by members of the public rather than public officials? Yes. Is that bad? Yes. Is that genocide? No.

Lisa H. says:

03:25pm | 09/11/10

While Aborigiannal loobyists and historians argue the toss, laying blame and guilt over killings and counter-killings, whole countries at war have forgiven each other and moved on.

We are friends with the japanese, the germans… and still these historial accusations of racial violence go on between Aboriginal and other Australians, played out in the media and culture at large.

When will this type of history cease to be a political football?

Fran says:

03:44pm | 09/11/10

Jenni,

I agree that it was a terrible result of people trying to establish a colony and taking away other people food, hunting rights and land. My point is that genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. There was at no stage from the British government to order a whole people group destroyed in fact they were ordered to try make peace if possible.  After a bunch of attacks often the white settlers where called to arms.(In fact attacks on family groups was punished by hanging).

And if there was genocide it was only aboriginal group wiping out whole other tribes. In fact, I dare say that the aboriginal if they could would have killed every single white person in Sydney Cove if they could of. So the Aboriginals are the one who would be guilty of genocide if any one is at all.

We are trying to justify a old problem with todays knowledge, it simply doesnt work we cannot hold governments or people groups to account for thier actions more than 200 years ago. What about the killing of women and children by Aboriginal peoples is this right? No. Should Aboriginals group be held accounts for this? No. Same story switch the skin colour.

If we are ever going to get equality for all people of Australia the past has to be that, the past. we cannot dredge up old history and be held account for it we shouldnt forget it either. But it doesnt help anyone recognising one group over another group base on time there grand fathers were here.

Lindsay says:

05:05pm | 09/11/10

Fran and Hamish

Genocide was first defined in a detailed way in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Australia ratified the Convention in 1949 and it came into force in 1951.

Notably, Genocide is defined as,
… any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
a. killing members of the group;
b. causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
c. deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
d. imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e. forcibly transferring children of the group to another group (article II).

Australia openly engaged in systematic and forced removal of indigenous children over an extended period of time in furtherance of a policy of so called ‘protection’ and then assimilation. 

If you want to provide a more informed opinion in the future, refer to Part 4 of the ‘Bringing Them Home Report 1997’ - commissioned by the Governtment of the time and available on the Australia Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Councils website.

Gregg says:

09:57am | 10/11/10

And Lindsay,
Do ask yourself how many aboriginal children were in Australia at any point in time.
And then see what your records say about how many were removed.
And then also see just how many have said they were presented with opportunities they would never have had.

Sam says:

02:03am | 24/12/11

Strait out of the quadRANT hand book, no wonder those loons feel a need to pump out their crap, their fan base seem unable to present a genuine argument without repeating the same crap for years,  warrigal creek massacre was a revenge attack against the local tribe, whose only crime was to punish a stockmens son by murder for raping a YOUNG girl, if only this society would stop sick people from continuing, the wars buckley wrote about were due to cultural system breakdown, all they could tell was whites bring disease and death and because whites went to such great lengths to befriend with an agenda, (wasnt out of intrest in US), trust also.broke down and now next door are buddys with the death bringers, under international law, the real law over aus, FORCED ASSIMILATION IS A FORM OF GENOCIDE, Australia are requied to provide basic sevices to all australians regardless if they want to be like you or not, and we.dont want to be like that, all fearful and scared of everything different, you can keep it

Hamish says:

12:18pm | 09/11/10

Ali, I’d say the answer to your last question is most certainly a ‘yes’. Remember KRuddster’s first act as prime minister? When the Labor Party have no idea what they are doing, they think of some empty, tokenistic and potentially dangerous symbolic gesture for indigenous Australians. Seems to keep the true believers happy.

Ghan again says:

12:53pm | 09/11/10

Ali
They is.
even if your ancestors humped camels through the desert.

James1 says:

03:29pm | 09/11/10

Keep in mind that a large part of that 2 percent also have a considerable number of non-Aboriginal ancestors.  At what point is one able to claim Aboriginal identity, exactly?  One grandparent?  One great-grandparent?  This issue always confuses me.  Does one-eighth Aboriginal ancestry qualify one as entirely Aboriginal?  The more I think (and read) into it, the more I think that race and ethnicity are constructs.

Lisa H. says:

03:15pm | 09/11/10

In relation to the ‘noble savage’ myth, I would also like a more honest intellectual examination of the role of violence in tribal life.

I have Aboriginal family myself, but I find the saccharine, self-serving presentation of pre-colonial Aboriginal paradise insultingly simplistic.