Prejudice and racism

[nigel99 144]

Tomorrow in Australia we have a referendum to amend the constitution with the intent to recognise Aboriginal Australians. It gives them no more power or special rights. It looks like it will be defeated and yet in 1967 a referendum to give Aboriginals citizenship got a 91% yes vote.

I'm too young to know what the 60's and 70's were like, but it seems globally we are going backwards and rapidly becoming more divided and prejudiced.

[Phil1111 911]

"Indigenous Australians account for only 3.8% of Australia’s population. But they die on average eight years younger than the wider population, have a suicide rate twice that of the national average and suffer from diseases in the remote Outback that have been eradicated from other wealthy countries."

Above from a ABC story on the issue.  Canada has gone through the same sort of issues and has now started to deal with them through legislation and compensation. Manitoba just elected a native Indian leader even though they only make up 18% of the population.

[gowlerk 1,914]

The referendum question is very vague with unpredictable results. It seems flawed to me and I would vote no based on the little bit that I have read about it. It is not a vote on a constitutional amendment because the amendment has not been written yet.

[wmw999 2,123]

I was reading something about that a couple of days ago; it was looking like Yes would win, but a couple of Aboriginal political figures, from very different political leanings, have been urging a No vote, obviously for different reasons. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/11/world/australia/australia-price-thorpe-voice-aboriginal.html

Wendy P. 

[Coreece 190]

10 hours ago, nigel99 said:

I'm too young to know what the 60's and 70's were like, but it seems globally we are going backwards and rapidly becoming more divided and prejudiced.

Well the whole "gas the jews" thing in Sydney is taking us back to the 40s, and the anti-religious sentiment is taking us back to the 20s.  We've finally invented time travel.  Not really what I expected, but hopefully we get it right this time.

[nigel99 144]

8 hours ago, wmw999 said:

I was reading something about that a couple of days ago; it was looking like Yes would win, but a couple of Aboriginal political figures, from very different political leanings, have been urging a No vote, obviously for different reasons. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/11/world/australia/australia-price-thorpe-voice-aboriginal.html

Wendy P. 

I contemplated voting no, because in reality this is a symbolic gesture that doesn't actually change much. 

Ultimately my daughter (who works in remote Aboriginal communities) and a talk by an Aboriginal Professor changed my mind in that it is better to vote yes for a small step forward than vote no in the hope of sparking more debate.

It has certainly drawn out people's views though, and it is surprising how comfortable people have become in expressing racist views.

[mistercwood 287]

10 hours ago, gowlerk said:

The referendum question is very vague with unpredictable results. It seems flawed to me and I would vote no based on the little bit that I have read about it. It is not a vote on a constitutional amendment because the amendment has not been written yet.

Incorrect. The amendment text is known and has been public since the start (one minor correction was made since the very first time it was made public):

Quote

"Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice; 
2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
3. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.

A majority of No voters make the case that we don't how the composition of the Voice will be put together, as those laws will be created and put through the normal parliamentary process only if the Voice gets through.

It's arguably been a FUD campaign since the start, lots of scaremongering around the potential for unexpected nasties to get pushed through under the umbrella of the Voice. It's not been convincing to me, because any law passed to enact the Voice still needs to be in compliance with the Constitution, and no one has been able to give me an example of a nasty result that would be able to pass that hurdle.

Ultimately the Voice is essentially just a symbol, it doesn't have any real power at all. But I don't agree that a symbol has to have power in order to be valuable in other ways.