Society/Culture Notional Take Back Australia Day

[Demonic Ascent]

We're in agreement here.



Not in agreement here. No doubt actual racists were trying to subvert The Voice campaign, but if you hang your hat entirely on that as the reason, then you're stating unequivocally that The Voice model was flawless and that Albanese's choice to not negotiate, even just a teeny tiny bit, was completely justifiable, as well as the lack of detail on what the set up would look like.

My take is as a Yes voter, is that I can see the problems with The Voice campaign and why it failed and whilst there may have been racists tipping some fringe racists into voting No, that would have been on the fringes. Certainly not justifying a 40+% fall in the polls.



I don't think it matters, hence why I said:



I saw an interview with Stan Grant the other day and he was depressed about it, talking as though it was totally a vote against the indigenous people. I felt bad for him because I understand why he holds that viewpoint, but he is missing the alternate point of view that the whole campaign was largely botched.

You simply cannot go from 80+% polls to a 39% result in 18 months due to fear campaigns and a sudden uptick in racism. Albo gets a too big a leave pass here from those who wish to stick their heads in the sand and blame other factors IMHO.

Those who pushed the No campaign (Advance and the LNP) absolutely came from a racist perspective and used disinformation/misinformation to prey upon upon the dormant racism in the wider community. It may not be overt racism but it is latent and ultimately what the No campaign and the No vote boiled down to.

This garbage about "there was no detail" is precisely the point, you don't put that kind of detail into a constitutional change. If they did provide specific details the racists would have just used another excuse, "I support it but not that way" same as the Republic referendum.

 

[demondavey]

A few years back now supposed anti migrant Hastie attended a protest demanding expedited visas and settlement of white South Africans farmers. They even carried signs at the rally making it known they were considered the “right ones” to be allowed to migrate to Australia:

View attachment 2504699

Now I wonder why Hastie didn’t think these migrants would make Australians feel like “strangers” in their own country……..

Dutton was on this as well, no surprises there. But I guess all the brown and black migrants we let in just become exempt from tax, go straight to benefits and have a different set of laws to abide by because they need it.

I mean, if you’re a racist like Episode IV then you’d believe that.

 

[schneebly111]

Dutton was on this as well, no surprises there. But I guess all the brown and black migrants we let in just become exempt from tax, go straight to benefits and have a different set of laws to abide by because they need it.

I mean, if you’re a racist like Episode IV then you’d believe that.

The funny thing is there’s no shortage of farmers in Australia so any South African farmers resettled here would have been surplus to requirements, therefore probably unable to make a living and needing welfare and government supported retraining to reskill in something useful, all on taxpayer dollars.

They truly would have been dole bludgers.

 

[Gough]

The funny thing is there’s no shortage of farmers in Australia so any South African farmers resettled here would have been surplus to requirements, therefore probably unable to make a living and needing welfare and government supported retraining to reskill in something useful, all on taxpayer dollars.

They truly would have been dole bludgers.

The Afrikaans still farm like it's the 50s too, they still have a large almost slave like workforce and innovation has passed them by. It would be Bourke and Wills levels of incompetence them trying to farm out here.

 

[FIGJAM]

There's significant history in Australia of referendums failing, and the negative campaign was funded extensively by special interests determined to convince the common people that voting yes would impact their lives.

There's two problems with this:
1. On the basis of what was proposed, there would've been little material change to the everyday lives of the people most afraid of it. Over time perhaps, but the proposed Voice wasn't onerous nor imposing in ambition. It didn't seek to right the whole wrongs of Australia's history.

The problem here is that the people arguing against it lied, and did so without consequence. A society without standards of evidence is a society without truth.
2. Sometimes, you have to take a hit in order to do the right thing.

A slave owner is going to take a financial and time hit when slavery becomes illegal, but that hit is necessary to be borne because owning another human is wrong.

History does not repeat exactly, but it's a pretty clear pattern of people indisputably racist gaming the system - whatever that system is - to keep themselves comfortable and in power, and those lower in the hierarchy siding with them out of fear of a change in material conditions.

On Point 1, I agree that in all probability that there wouldn't have been too big a change. And if there was, we could have collectively changed it. Hence why I voted yes on this concern.

But I also can see why people simply might not have liked the model, don't much trust politicians and saw Albo refusing to do a bit of a deal here or there on some points (ie. why??) and the structure of the panel for The Voice was at best poorly articulated by Albo, but was in my view a bit 'wishy washy'.

On Point 2, this is also why I voted Yes with the risks that I've detailed firmly in mind.

What was done by Albanese around education was civics education related to the referendum process; what is done, what is proposed, the result of the changes, etc. Facts. Outside of that, the Yes campaign was conducted privately by advocacy groups, and how Albanese is supposed to influence them is something I'd be interested in hearing.

You've said your self that Albanese was supposed to educate people based on facts, so he needed to articulate why the model was water-tight and just what the post referendum future would look like.

And he did terribly. Not only post "No campaigns", but immediately. I've pointed to the evidence of the polls tapering off after his draft wording.

With these diminishing polls in Albos face, he stood fat on the wording and didn't budge an inch with the opposition. I think many people would have queried why there wasn't even the slightest of concessions.

The next side of it is, I genuinely do not think you're willing to hear another view on this; telling people that they 'wish to stick their heads in the sand' is a pretty surefire way to indicate that you yourself are pretty insulated in your views.

Likewise!

In my defence and relative to your unwillingness to listen to alternate viewpoints, I do at least concede that there was some movement from scare campaigns and probably some undercurrent of converted 'on the cusp' racists, but am of the viewpoint that that the shift of over 40% of the best polls to the end result could not be exclusively the result of these two things alone and that ignoring issues with the model and the communication by Albo and others was something of a trainwreck.

 

[FIGJAM]

Those who pushed the No campaign (Advance and the LNP) absolutely came from a racist perspective and used disinformation/misinformation to prey upon upon the dormant racism in the wider community. It may not be overt racism but it is latent and ultimately what the No campaign and the No vote boiled down to.

What I find most intriguing about the Libs engaging in a supposedly racist pro-No campaign, is that it seemingly had **** all influence on their traditional heartland which largely voted Yes.

 

[Gethelred]

You've said your self that Albanese was supposed to educate people based on facts, so he needed to articulate why the model was water-tight and just what the post referendum future would look like.

What I said was that Albanese's role in promoting the referendum was through bringing it forward and publishing the details. Outside of that, his role is strictly constrained as far as advocacy for either side of the referendum goes by legislation limiting his involvement.

And just because you didn't see something doesn't mean it wasn't available. Websites, tv and internet ads with links to the full terms and descriptions were overwelmed by the alternative messaging from the private wing of the Yes and No campaigns.

And he did terribly. Not only post "No campaigns", but immediately. I've pointed to the evidence of the polls tapering off after his draft wording.

With these diminishing polls in Albos face, he stood fat on the wording and didn't budge an inch with the opposition. I think many people would have queried why there wasn't even the slightest of concessions.

... after which, you or others would've seen him doing so as weak. Pandering. 'You clearly don't feel all that strongly about it you're willing to change it at the first obstacle.'

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. This is how the Australian commentariat treats Labor in power: criticised by the left as not radical enough; criticised by the centre-left for letting the No campaign hit him over and over with it without doing anything; criticised by the centre right for not pandering to account for criticism whether real or manufactured; criticised by the right because they want something to criticise him for.

Likewise!

In my defence and relative to your unwillingness to listen to alternate viewpoints, I do at least concede that there was some movement from scare campaigns and probably some undercurrent of converted 'on the cusp' racists, but am of the viewpoint that that the shift of over 40% of the best polls to the end result could not be exclusively the result of these two things alone and that ignoring issues with the model and the communication by Albo and others was something of a trainwreck.

Dude, in the post you quoted I legitimately asked you what you thought Albanese should've done instead, and you declined the opportunity to try a reversal.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

What I find most intriguing about the Libs engaging in a supposedly racist pro-No campaign, is that it seemingly had **** all influence on their traditional heartland which largely voted Yes.

Same as the rest of their campaigning over the last few elections (state and federal). Doesn't stop them dog whistling to racists.

 

[ferball]

Heh. We all know one.

There is another way of looking at this though. A while ago I mentioned the Left and the "corporations" being strange bedfellows in these times; that comment was alluding at least partially back to this situation.

Australian workers rights, and the fight for them, are well documented. Apart from Sundays being mostly sacrosanct (Christianity), workers had no guaranteed paid annual leave, no weekends, very few public holidays and little in the way of job security until the mid 60's and 70's. No aged pensions, no dole... that actually came about because thousands of Australians coming home from the war needed to be looked after (mid to late 1940's).

Certain cultural expectations have become part and parcel of Australian life as a result of largely forgotten battles and events back in the day. In effect, the workers rights slowly gained by earlier, oft-maligned generations are the reason Australian workers today have such high expectations to begin with.
Which is, incidentally, one of the reasons I roll my eyes every time I see the boomers (and X'ers) being disparaged.

On the flip side, of course, we have those who don't necessarily have those same expectations, and are quite willing to work under conditions modern Australians would raise an eyebrow at.

There are many corporations who find it quite agreeable to pay someone working the graveyard shift the same rates as a regular day worker, by way of example. It's not a situation your average Australian is going to find all that sustainable, but there are plenty of migrant workers who will.

So the corporation gets to advertise itself as supportive of diversity whilst getting cheaper labour in the process. A somewhat symbiotic relationship.

What factors would contribute to this situation as being "good" or "bad"?

I suppose, when you think about it, when considering the question of what it is we're taking Australia back "from", this sort of thing might be taken into account - the steady erosion of working conditions (and living standards) as a result of excessive and unnecessary migration.

So the real solution to this is to enforce the workers rights we had back in the 70s/80s (before Hawke's Accord and then Howard) and make them available to everyone including migrant workers.

But that won't happen because the "right" (ie the neoliberal complex that runs the country - IPA/LNP/Old-Media) uses migrant workers to lower wages. That's why "ordinary Australians" don't want to pick fruit anymore or do the work that people once did because the pay made up for the difficulty or anti social hours. Because people from overseas will do it cheaply and send money back home as well. Its not a sustainable lifestyle now but it was over 30 years ago.

The right loves migrant workers but plays a shell game against the left centre where it uses racist rhetoric to distract the left centre from the real issue which is that wages should be higher for all workers in Australia across the board, especially the people who do the work migrant workers do. (Which should include migrants.)

 

[ferball]

Sorry, could you actually elaborate succinctly on how working conditions have been eroded due to migration? Apart from about 4 paragraphs of absolute nothing you finally managed to weave the word migration into lesser living standards and working conditions.

Working conditions would be at the best they’ve ever been due to the application of fair work and legislation to focus on the worker. The left and corporations certainly aren’t strange bedfellows at all, in fact history will tell you they are polar opposites in terms of what they stand for.

Fairly sound conspiracy theory drivel from you. Consistent at the least.

So one thing I've noticed since the 90s is that some wages have gone backwards.

When I was young I used to pick fruit and plant trees and both jobs paid well. It was hard work but you could have a great life traveling around the country, save money and still buy plenty of beers and a bag of choof on the weekend. A heap of the money we earned went back into the local community thru food, accomodation and booze (and weed,) or second hand cars etc etc. It was a great social experience and people from all works of life, "uneducated" (not stupid tho) people who left school at 15 could spend the night on the beers and singing songs in some random country pub with law students from private schools.

Then heaps of backpackers started joining in, wages dropped and then at times the farmers lobbies would say they couldn't get the workers they needed. Now you have Islanders living in supplied accomodation that is owned by the farms they work for, being supplied food by the same farms and the farm enterprises make money out of that, taking some of those people's wages (that are already lower than they were 30 years ago) to further their own profits.

Its reminiscent of company towns controlling commerce in the US a century ago. It also isn't that far removed from the blackbirding and indentured labour that Australian businesses and farms (in the Pacific and here) relied on over 100 years ago and as a trend its moving more in that direction. There are already examples of people being sent to slavery like conditions on Australian farms from Pacific Islands.

The same thing seems to be happening in the US but with tech workers from Asia.

 

[RCAB]

So the real solution to this is to enforce the workers rights we had back in the 70s/80s (before Hawke's Accord and then Howard) and make them available to everyone including migrant workers.

But that won't happen because the "right" (ie the neoliberal complex that runs the country - IPA/LNP/Old-Media) uses migrant workers to lower wages. That's why "ordinary Australians" don't want to pick fruit anymore or do the work that people once did because the pay made up for the difficulty or anti social hours. Because people from overseas will do it cheaply and send money back home as well. Its not a sustainable lifestyle now but it was over 30 years ago.

The right loves migrant workers but plays a shell game against the left centre where it uses racist rhetoric to distract the left centre from the real issue which is that wages should be higher for all workers in Australia across the board, especially the people who do the work migrant workers do. (Which should include migrants.)

A lot of migrants are underpaid right now, or aren't even aware that award wages are a thing... I don't know if this is a left or right issue, but it's certainly an issue, a systemic one at that.

I think that's maybe the thing that scares the wealthy the most when they oust themselves regarding their "woke mind virus rhetoric" that eventually EVERYONE will clue in.

They're always trying to convince a large section of gullibles that migrants are the problem for the very issues they create or harbour.

 

[ferball]

A lot of migrants are underpaid right now, or aren't even aware that award wages are a thing... I don't know if this is a left or right issue, but it's certainly an issue, a systemic one at that.

I think that's maybe the thing that scares the wealthy the most when they oust themselves regarding their "woke mind virus rhetoric" that eventually EVERYONE will clue in.

They're always trying to convince a large section of gullibles that migrants are the problem for the very issues they create or harbour.

Sometimes I think we're so focused on culture wars we forget the class war is the real one.

 

[ferball]

Culture wars have been used to divide the poorest people for a long time.

 

[Gough]

Culture wars have been used to divide the poorest people for a long time.

Only the Beatles can match Dylan's output in the 60s. Nine albums not a dud among them and he virtually invented the Americana genre with the Band in his downtime.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Thus is racism maintained.

Think about it. Do you genuinely think all those who supported slavery thought black people were lesser beings?

Obviously not, spose we could throw in a 'whataboutism' in response to your question here.

Seeing how we're going back in time..........

Do you think all australians, who supported the white australia policy thought non whites were lesser beings?

Personally I very much doubt that, given, and I'll fairly assume - the white australia policy would've been sold as 'what is best for the majority of our society' - Sold to the populace as nothing nefarious.

My point is, at their times slavery and white australia policy was much more publicly acceptable then what it would be now.

Also racism is maintained, interesting point, do you think voters do this conciously? Cynical question I know, Is it 'Must maintain the racism' or is it more 'well this works best for me'............being forever one who has faith in humanity, at an individual level, I'm going to fairly assume the latter.

 

[Gethelred]

Obviously not, spose we could throw in a 'whataboutism' in response to your question here.

Seeing how we're going back in time..........

Do you think all australians, who supported the white australia policy thought non whites were lesser beings?

Personally I very much doubt that, given, and I'll fairly assume - the white australia policy would've been sold as 'what is best for the majority of our society' - Sold to the populace as nothing nefarious.

My point is, at their times slavery and white australia policy was much more publicly acceptable then what it would be now.

Also racism is maintained, interesting point, do you think voters do this conciously? Cynical question I know, Is it 'Must maintain the racism' or is it more 'well this works best for me'............being forever one who has faith in humanity, at an individual level, I'm going to fairly assume the latter.

Seriously, reread the post. We're in agreement, but you're simply unwilling to follow the thought through to its conclusion.That conclusion being: if wider society is willing to allow racist things in order to remain inconvenienced, there is only a semantic difference as to whether they are racist or not.

Seriously. If you'd answered the question instead of twisting yourself into a pretzel to avoid answering it, you'd have been closer.

You truly make an art of missing the point sometimes, CB.

 

[ferball]

Only the Beatles can match Dylan's output in the 60s. Nine albums not a dud among them and he virtually invented the Americana genre with the Band in his downtime.

He was a freak. In a good way.

This guy called Jesse Welles has put out two or three albums worth of material over the last 18 months that is very reminiscent of Dylan. And some of his collaborations are very much like The Band too.

 

[Gough]

He was a freak. In a good way.

This guy called Jesse Welles has put out two or three albums worth of material over the last 18 months that is very reminiscent of Dylan. And some of his collaborations are very much like The Band too.

My brother gave me Richard Manual's biography for Christmas and it's superb.

 

[demondavey]

Obviously not, spose we could throw in a 'whataboutism' in response to your question here.

Seeing how we're going back in time..........

Do you think all australians, who supported the white australia policy thought non whites were lesser beings?

Personally I very much doubt that, given, and I'll fairly assume - the white australia policy would've been sold as 'what is best for the majority of our society' - Sold to the populace as nothing nefarious.

My point is, at their times slavery and white australia policy was much more publicly acceptable then what it would be now.

Also racism is maintained, interesting point, do you think voters do this conciously? Cynical question I know, Is it 'Must maintain the racism' or is it more 'well this works best for me'............being forever one who has faith in humanity, at an individual level, I'm going to fairly assume the latter.

Publicly acceptable doesn’t mean you’re not racist.

Seeing we are going back in time…

 

[demondavey]

So one thing I've noticed since the 90s is that some wages have gone backwards.

When I was young I used to pick fruit and plant trees and both jobs paid well. It was hard work but you could have a great life traveling around the country, save money and still buy plenty of beers and a bag of choof on the weekend. A heap of the money we earned went back into the local community thru food, accomodation and booze (and weed,) or second hand cars etc etc. It was a great social experience and people from all works of life, "uneducated" (not stupid tho) people who left school at 15 could spend the night on the beers and singing songs in some random country pub with law students from private schools.

Then heaps of backpackers started joining in, wages dropped and then at times the farmers lobbies would say they couldn't get the workers they needed. Now you have Islanders living in supplied accomodation that is owned by the farms they work for, being supplied food by the same farms and the farm enterprises make money out of that, taking some of those people's wages (that are already lower than they were 30 years ago) to further their own profits.

Its reminiscent of company towns controlling commerce in the US a century ago. It also isn't that far removed from the blackbirding and indentured labour that Australian businesses and farms (in the Pacific and here) relied on over 100 years ago and as a trend its moving more in that direction. There are already examples of people being sent to slavery like conditions on Australian farms from Pacific Islands.

The same thing seems to be happening in the US but with tech workers from Asia.

My point was more that if you look through legislation from fair work you’ll discover that there are many complexities and awards that offer penalties and other benefits.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Seriously, reread the post. We're in agreement, but you're simply unwilling to follow the thought through to its conclusion.That conclusion being: if wider society is willing to allow racist things in order to remain inconvenienced, there is only a semantic difference as to whether they are racist or not.

Seriously. If you'd answered the question instead of twisting yourself into a pretzel to avoid answering it, you'd have been closer.

You truly make an art of missing the point sometimes, CB.

Ok, looks live we've got our wires crossed and we've misunderstood each other.

I'm not twisting myself in knots to avoid stating the conclusion, certainly not deliberately

Yes, I agree that society, by voting in self interest at an individual levels maintains the 'racism'. Just stating also it's not for nefarious reasons, it's for reasons of self interest (largely)

I did answer the question Gethy, my first words were 'obviously not' in regard to
'Do you genuinely think all those who supported slavery thought black people were lesser beings?'

So If I've somehow missed it, what is your point then? (not tryna play dumb here btw, genuine question)



.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Publicly acceptable doesn’t mean you’re not racist.

Seeing we are going back in time…

In 200 years time, when no nations exist and we're just one human race (if we still exist), then we'll be looked at as racists.

Publicly acceptable now, totally abhorrent in 200 years time.

 

[demondavey]

In 200 years time, when no nations exist and we're just one human race (if we still exist), then we'll be looked at as racists.

Publicly acceptable now, totally abhorrent in 200 years time.

Maybe focus on my query re publicly acceptable in the past equating to racism. Stay on topic.

 

[ferball]

My point was more that if you look through legislation from fair work you’ll discover that there are many complexities and awards that offer penalties and other benefits.

Fair enough.

What I've said is still the case tho.

I just don't think awards are followed and I doubt any penalties are enforced when people don't pay migrant workers fairly. From the stuff I've seen anyway, for what that's worth.

 

[ferball]

I did answer the question Gethy, my first words were 'obviously not' in regard to
'Do you genuinely think all those who supported slavery thought black people were lesser beings?'

How do you think that? Its at odds with reality. Even after slavery it was commonly accepted in many parts of the US that black people were "lesser beings". It still is.