'Reconciliation is dead': Indigenous Australians vow silence as referendum fails

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.

I suggest kindness and empathy in dealing with those less fortunate.

Aboriginal people ARE special in Australia.

They were here for 60,000 years until we turned up.

They are deeply disadvantaged and need and deserve every possible assistance to address the terrible social issues their community faces.

Not much was being asked for here except the requirement for parliament to listen to aboriginal take on issues impacting aboriginal people.

Look, if you don’t feel the love that’s fine, but would you mind not blocking other people from trying to lift others up?

People in Australia are so selfish and greedy and grasping and unwilling to let someone else receive some kindness in case they miss out.

> and focus on the power disparities of today's society

That's basically what this is about. Aboriginal people have much less power and much worse outcomes. This referendum was proposing to give them a little bit more, in a pretty gentle, non-binding way. That was rejected.

In general, I've found that many many arguments about systemic inequality basically boil down to a fairly simple question: is it better to solve a problem slow and steady, or fast and (maybe) risky. Generally the people with more to lose, the people with more power, tend to say 'slow and steady is good enough for me'. The disadvantaged however would prefer a faster solution. Those with power often argue for slow and steady by saying 'the fast way is also risky'. That's basically what happened with this referendum. People voted for doing nothing over a measure which may have not done what it set out to do, but also may have helped.

I'm with you for most of what you say. It's a hard situation in Aus because the Aboriginal people were treated like shit and there's no recourse for them.

In New Zealand the Maori were treated slightly better, not much, but they did sign a treaty with the settlers and that legal document has forced the government here to say yeah the land was taken and there should be recompense, and various ideas around what the state should look like. There's push and shove on the issue, it's not perfect, probably never will be. But it seems like a better setup. Part of it is a number of reserved seats in parliament that Maori only vote for.

I do think that representation and the treaty has had an impact on cultural integration and it could have had similar benefits in Australia.

I’ll take the other side. There’s nothing wrong with acknowledging race. Today people equate race with a biological essentialism that was grafted onto it in the recent past, but that’s not what race ever meant. Acknowledging race is nothing more than acknowledging that different peoples exist and exhibit group differences. Those differences can generally be readily assessed based on cultural and phenotypical cues without resorting to genotyping. It’s a social construct, but so is all human knowledge. And there are rough edges, but that doesn’t invalidate it. The distinction between “chair” and “table” is also socially constructed and can have rough edges, but that doesn’t render them or “furniture” as a whole useless.

I wholeheartedly agree with liberals that indigenous minority groups, and some others with special circumstances, like Blacks in the US, should receive special protections to preserve their identities and safeguard their interests in the face of a situation where they don’t have the numbers to counteract majoritarianism. I also think that the founding people of a nation deserve similar recognition. My father is from an immigrant family. My mother has ancestors who fought in the Revolutionary War. They have qualitatively different relationships with America on that basis. He comes from an aspirational, urban, working class family, she from a well-established, rural, petit bourgeois family, and they have qualitatively different relationships with America on that basis, too. Solving one problem doesn’t require giving up on the other.

A return to the original meaning of tolerance is warranted. Which is learning to cooperate despite differences, not erasing them. And, importantly, it’s a two-way street, not a struggle session in which one side is made to atone perpetually for real or perceived past sins.

There’s a point where these differences disappear, but they’re surprisingly durable. Just read Albion’s Seed and you can see how smaller ethnic differences between groups of English colonists are still at work in the political landscape today.

> In my eyes, it seems unreasonable for anyone in today's day and age to expect something from someone else based on the actions of their ancestors,

So you say, but in finance there exist hundreds of years old loans and annuities.

Inheritance is real. If your grandpa robbed my grandpa and passed the wealth down to you, what to make of that?

Say in WWII, the nazi's stole some valuable art from a jewish family and it ended up the position of some german family who passed it down to their kids and their kids. Now descendants of the family that were robbed find about who now has that art and wants it returned. Do they have rights to it seeing as how they were not the ones who were robbed?

This appears to be the logic here. Current law says it has to be returned. But how many generations have to pass before it becomes like the land taken from indigenous populations?

Well, everybody is for helping the poors but few people give money in the street.

So we could use your argument in reverse and say people will reject any practical realization of a beautiful theorical idea because reality is always imperfect.

The guy may drink the money. He has a dog. He is still going to be on the street, that doesn't solve the problem.

I give money and gets remarks from some friends like I'm doing a bad things.

As an Australian who did vote in this referendum, this is more or less my take as well. To me personally this one felt like it came out of nowhere, had very poor communication about what anyone was actually voting for. The Yes camp initially seemed to take it as some kind of forgone conclusion that everyone would be for it and if not you were a racist and there was no need to explain it further. When they later did start trying to explain it, they really didn't do any better and the best they seemed to come up with was, vote yes then we'll figure out what the solution looks like afterward.

Essentially this made the 'Yes' vote a vote for uncertainty and the 'No' vote a vote for certainty, which made the no vote an easy sell compared the yes vote.

I think if they had better figured out what the voice to parliament would actually be in practice then it would have been a lot easier to sell or at least deflect some of the criticism and frankly scare tactics from the no side.

Why is an autonomous state (a grander version of the outstation idea) within the bounds of the Australian constitution not considered?[1] Allot a certain percentage of the federal budget to the state for the next 50/100 years and let them manage their affairs (including internal conflicts)?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outstation_(Aboriginal_communi...

This isn’t a good description of the proposed changes at all. Here is the entirety of the change:

— 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. —

To summarise, it’s an advisory body that can make non-binding representations to government on issues relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It is also exclusively a federal government body. On top of this, that same federal government controls everything about this advisory body (composition, functions, powers and procedures).

Don't forget the foundation of genocide and displacement, followed by centuries of subjugation, propaganda, "reeducation", exploitation, economic and political maginalization and racism.

Democracy without compassion, which this referendum is an example of, is just the political equivalent of the tragedy of the commons, nicely sanitized for mass consumption.

A smug system of hidden, institutionalized marginalization and oppression.

"That people who have only been on this continent for 235 years would refuse to recognise those whose home this land has been for 60,000 and more years is beyond reason."

Top quote the article...

> It's the core concept of democracy. You lose, you are mostly out. You know, democracy.

Democracy isn't about winner takes all. Its about you balance the needs and aspirations of everyone in a society: literally the demos.

Sometimes, as in my country (UK), democracy is practiced by imposing a thresholding function on decision-making processes ("first past the post") but it's worth remembering that this is largely for political convenience. It doesn't have to be that way, and plenty of places do it better - and have healitier, more equal societies as a result.

The core concept of democracy is proper representation of interest groups.

If groups are being excluded and abused, that's not democracy.

You can not truly call the practice of killing most indigenous people then saying “Now we vote!” a democracy process.

They didn't get a vote when their country were taken by force to install a majority of people acting and voting against their interest.

If we were in a Douglas Adams novel, aliens would now invade, take away our homes and our rights.

After a couple of generations they would have a vote on giving us some of our rights back.

They would vote mostly among themselves using their proven cosmocratic framework.

That which you describe was called roughly "dictatorial majority" when I learned about these things in school, and the difference between it and democracy was that in a democracy, the majority behaves considerately and tries to keep the minority happy. Happy enough to want to participate in the next election, and happy enough to be considerate if the next election ends differently.