Man, I didn't know Australia was full of idiots. There was absolutely no reason to vote no to this. It was simply a group that would give feedback to the Australian Senate. Feedback from a marginalized group of the land you stole. Feedback that could simply be ignored by the Senate. It was simply giving that group a voice. How you could vote against that, I have no clue.

[–] olof@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 year ago (23 children)

Is it just racism? I also don't get it.

[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

No, it is not just racism. There would have been an element of that, but it's certainly far from the main reason. That idea is contradicted by the facts that a very significant portion of Indigenous people and Indigenous activists voted against it.

Linking to this useful post, explaining why various progressive groups were against it.

[–] Anchorite@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Significant proportion, but a minority still.

But yes it’s not racism alone, also confusion, selfishness, disinterest, spite, partisanship, a long list of reasons

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago

I'd say apathy more than anything. So many people didn't bother to actually find out what was going to happen. Yes side messaged it poorly. No side preyed on low information, making it divisive and about non relevant semantics.

[–] DampSquid@feddit.uk 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ironically, "Yes".

[–] Welt@lazysoci.al 2 points 1 year ago

I'd go with "yeah nah".

load more comments (21 replies)

[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You've actually explained one of the reasons many Indigenous people rejected this: it is just feedback that could simply be ignored by the Senate. That's powerless, and we've seen from royal commissions into Aboriginal deaths in custody that the feedback does get ignored. Why accept such a bad deal, pretending it's a victory or progress?

The Black Peoples Union interview with ABC explains why they took the 'no' position.

[–] MJBrune@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year ago

I saw this stance and I still don't know why you wouldn't want a position to give you more of a platform. It's still progress to give minority groups a larger platform than they had before.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (50 replies)

[+] temp_acct_001@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (7 children)

[deleted]

[–] pezhore@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm not familiar with the Australian political terms, can you share what this means:

inner dialogue between their mobs and local governments

To me, that sounds like the Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islanders are free to think about what they want, and then form a potentially violent, roughly organized group of people to confront local officials... But I assume I'm missing something.

[–] eatthecake@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

From google: 'Mob' is a term identifying a group of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people associated with a particular place or Country. 'Mob' is an important term for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, as it is used to describe who they are and where they are from.

[–] BananaTrifleViolin@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

In Australian slang a mob can just mean any grouping of people, not necessarily a criminal group or a group of rioters. It's not uncommon for people to refer to their own ethnic or political grouping as a mob; at least from what I've seen when reading Australian websites.

And by local government I think they are referring to the states and territories governments.

[–] Kushia@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is correct, mob in this context is a number of indigenous people belong to one particular community. There are various different mobs out there which is one of the reasons why a singular controlled voice was never going to work.

[–] BananaTrifleViolin@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Yeah as someone outside Australia I've been surprised at how biased and simplified the reporting has been. A complex constitutional issue is being painted as a simple "good people, bad people".

When I read about the changes myself (after having to go hunting for some actual detail - the reporting is pretty poor on this) it honestly seems more like virtue signalling rather than useful or meaningful reform.

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Its the eternal false dichotomy of "one side of a dispute must be the good guys, meaning the other side are therefore the bad guys."

[–] Kushia@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Last time I looked at the count 40% of indigenous people voted against the voice, there's definitely no good/bad side in this regardless how some might choose to vilify others. We have compulsory voting as well.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Relevant: the Black Peoples Union position on the referendum (interview on ABC).

An aggregation of written statements collected from socialist, anarchist and radical Indigenous groups, showing the diversity of thought on the matter: http://old.reddit.com/r/AustralianSocialism/comments/161r8r1/megathread_of_leftist_statements_on_the_voice/

(PS: don't just take all the 'yes' and 'no' summaries in that list at face value, a couple of them are misinterpretations or oversimplications)

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] fruitleatherpostcard@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Australia has been gas-lit by foreign trolls paid by China and Russia.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] Metal_Zealot@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Don't give Canada ideas

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Phegan@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Common Australian Racist L

[–] masquenox@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

I mean... what else would you expect from a white supremacist colonial project?

load more comments