- Apr 1, 2008
- 3,525
- 638
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Monbulk, Upwey, Strathmore, St Alba
Pat Dodson seems to think so (Age Nov 16), but is Gillard just pulling another swifty?
Society/Culture Deja vu 1967? Should Aboriginals be recognised in the Constitution?
- Thread starter Monniehawk
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Aug 16, 2010
- 1,083
- 47
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Banned
- #2
Why would aboriginals even be interested in inclusion in a colonial constitution? How does it serve aboriginal rights and sovereignty for them to meld in the the Australian Constitution Act? It makes no sense to me.
It would have to be minimalist. The end game with people of aboriginal heritage has to be integration back into mainstream society. By setting them apart, not teaching them English, poisioning them on welfare etc we are not helping them.
- Jan 13, 2001
- 15,892
- 6,917
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Man City
Some may actually see it as PC going too far. I have strong doubts that it would get up. Just think it, for it to succeed it must:
1. Receive more than a 50% Yes vote nationally
2. Receive more than a 50% Yes vote in a majority of states (territories do not count)
I really can't see it happening at the current time, if the Republic couldn't get up then this won't. People historically in this country have not votes Yes, there have only ever been 5 or 6 carried out of over 40. Hold it fine with the next ferderal election but don't expect it to get up.
1. Receive more than a 50% Yes vote nationally
2. Receive more than a 50% Yes vote in a majority of states (territories do not count)
I really can't see it happening at the current time, if the Republic couldn't get up then this won't. People historically in this country have not votes Yes, there have only ever been 5 or 6 carried out of over 40. Hold it fine with the next ferderal election but don't expect it to get up.
The 8 that have got up, have so when both sides support it. Both are saying they will, but we haven't seen the text yet. The republic did not and was really destroyed by the split in the republicans. Gillards biggest problem will be containing the nutters in the left from confirming too many rights on aboriginal people. That said Australians generally don't like one section of the community put out there as special so it may struggle even if we get consensus
- Moderator
- #8
Who exactly would be pushing for 'rights' to be enshrined in the Constitution exclusively for Aboriginal people?
Even if you believed in 'Affirmitive Action' type policies, this is not the way to go about it!
I was of the belief it mainly has to do with officially eliminating the terra nullius debate?
That's exactly what dodson wants, he is dead against assimilation and wants a seperate existance fo aboriginal Australia. He wants to codify aboriginal rights in the constitution because he sees the 67 referendum and rudds sorry as nothing usefull as the did not lead to anything concrete.
- Moderator
- #12
Provide me with proof that Dodson wants to enshrine a seperate bill of rights in the Constitution for Aborinal people. What he has said he desires is:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/genuine-attempt-to-write-first-peoples-into-nations-contract-20101114-17sm8.html
Otherwise you are just pandering s**t.
So am I. The Borg are all for it though. Resistance is futile.
Didnt we do away with the White Australia policy?
Or perhaps we should be the ones assimilating with the Aboriginal way of life. They were here first after all right?
Or is it majority rule?
I love how rednecks such as yourself argue for some form of cultural and ethnic homegenity. Why stop there? Why not enforce religious homegenity as well, and simply have the State outlaw all religions, cultures, languages, customs and ethnic groups that dont fit into conformity with majority rule?
Keep Australia White, Christian, English speaking and slack.
Max Rockatansky
Cancelled
- Jul 24, 2010
- 1,150
- 442
- AFL Club
- Gold Coast
- Other Teams
- Silverton Hotel
What way of life? Most of them live in the suburbs & do the same things you and i do.
- Apr 1, 2008
- 3,525
- 638
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Monbulk, Upwey, Strathmore, St Alba
- Thread starter
- #17
*Sigh* I guess we still have a long way to go as a nation..
- Jan 13, 2001
- 15,892
- 6,917
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Man City
If it is not symbolism please explain exactly what it is?
I can't see exactly what it will achieve, will it improve aborignal health & education in remote area? Will it help improve job prospects or solve the problem with violence in aboriginal communities?
Save the money, put it into fixing these problems which have been constantly neglect by governments (both federal & state) for decades. This would be appreciated far more by the majority of aboriginies and the few jumping up an down on their soap boxes can shut the FU
What utter tripe, healthy debate shows exactly how far we have come. Are some Australians better than others? Do some australias have additional Rights. Should some Australians remain apart from society. In NT QLD and WA? This can be seen as one more poison pill we are giving aboriginal Australians when we should be behind twiggy's campaign to find more jobs for aboriginals, even though many in the aboriginal industry are against that.
- Apr 1, 2008
- 3,525
- 638
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Monbulk, Upwey, Strathmore, St Alba
- Thread starter
- #20
The healthy debate is not the cause of my concern, it is the attitudes within some of them! Please don't misinterpret my words.
Are some Australians better than others?
No, but some are different. A bit like saying blondes are better than redheads. Aboriginality is a significant difference, under threat and worthy of recognition as a central part of our heritage.
Do some have additional rights?
Ummm, yes. Special conditions demand special rights in our society and are largely justified in any civilised society. You don't have to look far for examples on that.
Should some remain apart from society?
Neither stated nor implied! Quite the opposite, actually. Just simply pointing out that we have significant Australians in danger of being subsumed. A loss that will ultimately deplete us all. Accepting them does not mean we are forced to conform to their culture - nor them to ours.There is no parallel with Apartheid or Shariah law!
"...jobs...even though many in the aboriginal industry are against that."
Strike! I'd like to see some figures on that one! That is purely a (misguided?) opinion which forms the major obstacle to your call for a "healthy" debate.
It is worth remembering that Dodson is neither a separatist nor assimilationist. He simply asks that Aboriginals be entitled to retain their aboriginality as it identifies them in much the same way as my Anglo-Celtic origins identify me. He isn't calling for a separate Aboriginal state, additional concessions or the like. He simply wants mainstream Australia to understand the Aboriginal circumstance and to respect them.
Dodson's address in the inaugural H.C. Coombs North Australia Lecture (1996) and again in 2005 reiterate these ideas lucidly and clearly. Worth a read.
My concern is that mainstream Australia is often sidetracked by irrelevant side issues and emotive, uninformed opinion. Dodson's reverence for Nugget Coombs exposes (perhaps unintentionally) the dichotomy of attitude when he embraces Nugget into the Aboriginal fold without 'assimilating' or 'tolerating' or any other form of patronising differentiation. The Aboriginal community, via Dodson, clearly reciprocated the respect Coombs had shown to them. Culture, colour and creed were irrelevent to both Dodson and Coombs. They gave due recognition to equal, but different, fellow Australians!
Oh, that we could only do the same without the defensive kneejerks.
Dodson in his article in the age certainly spells out his position as a seperatist. Accerting negatively "the reconcilliation process is seen...as just a new framework of assimilation"
He goes on saying beyond symbolic gestures " indigenous peoples rights can be enshrined in the constitution .... ensuring ..... They are forever protected and guranteed" what seperate rights?
Anyway most people I would think would be happy with mentioning in aminimalist way aboriginal being the first Australians, and removing some of the powers from sec 51, but will not agree to seperate rights for one group if this referendum fails it won't be good.
He goes on saying beyond symbolic gestures " indigenous peoples rights can be enshrined in the constitution .... ensuring ..... They are forever protected and guranteed" what seperate rights?
Anyway most people I would think would be happy with mentioning in aminimalist way aboriginal being the first Australians, and removing some of the powers from sec 51, but will not agree to seperate rights for one group if this referendum fails it won't be good.
If this is your case, then I look forward to seeing the referendum voted down, and doing my own part of that.
This is just Gillard fulfilling a flakey promise to the Greens. She doesn't give a rats about it. Given it to a committee and that's probably the last we'll see of it.
Any changes would be either symbolic and meaningless or enshrine customary law (spearing people etc) and self determimation (separatism) - which would not get a chance of being voted in.
Any changes would be either symbolic and meaningless or enshrine customary law (spearing people etc) and self determimation (separatism) - which would not get a chance of being voted in.
- Apr 1, 2008
- 3,525
- 638
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Monbulk, Upwey, Strathmore, St Alba
- Thread starter
- #24
Ye Gods!!
How is this reasoned debate? Where on earth did this idea come from? It only demonstrates much of the ignorance and confusion surrounding the issue.
The OP referred to moves for recognition of indigenous Australians in our Constitution, and suddenly the topic has been kidnapped bewilderingly (and with a little paranoia, I suspect) to enshrining primitive law and separatism!
Still, this is one inevitable result of this type of discussion.
I could find no reference to separatism in Dodson's Age comments. Decrying assimilation is hardly presenting separatism as an alternative. In the Coombs lectures, Dodson accepts the reality of a Kardiya (white) rule, but just asks for recognition of indigenous people. Separatism (even Assimilation) would be counter-productive to his cause - not to mention a little on the lunatic fringe, where Pat Dodson is patently not!
Many of the failed attempts may have been at least superficially righteous, but each was tainted with a mixture of paternalism, politicall opportunism and outright bigotry. Nasty concoction.
Assimilation is not an answer as it actually means subsuming indigenous people. Tolerance is another patronising term which implies derision. Who on earth would prefer to be tolerated rather than accepted or respected?
Interventionism is purely patronising. It imposes rather than empowers. Another failed 'solution' maybe because it had its roots firmly in political expediency rather than any genuine desire to provide justice.
Dodson in Coombs Lecture (1996) “We were told that we could be equal if we changed – if we stopped being ourselves, left our country, forgot our laws, abandoned our social and cultural autonomy. We had to abandon our circle and be absorbed into the Kardiya (white) circle”.
The aspirations of all Australians are further echoed in his cry on behalf of his brothers and sisters, “We want basic services. We want health, housing and education. But not at the price of losing our own soul, our identity, a say in our lives..”
Then, the telling clarion cry, “….We refuse to sacrifice the essence of what makes us Aboriginal.”
Just as I would refuse to sacrifice my Anglo-Australian background.
Nice post.
Similar threads
