51–60 of 73 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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...
Might is right. If they can not defend the land it's not theirs.
It's the core concept of democracy. You lose, you are mostly out. You know, democracy.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's possible to recognise them without giving them a special place in the constitution, thereby enshrining race in the constitution (the opposite of the concept of justice being blind to race).
It should be about culture, not race.
Reconciliation is a concept that I've not been able to wrap my head around, and I'm interested whether anyone here has read books that have swayed them one way or the other that they could recommend, especially with what's happening in Israel and Palestine at the moment. 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, o…
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.
Reconciliation is a concept that I've not been able to wrap my head around, and I'm interested whether anyone here has read books that have swayed them one way or the other that they could recommend, especially with what's happening in Israel and Palestine at the moment. 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, o…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Genetics absolutely has something to do with it. If a non-native Australian came along and started self-identifying as an aboriginal they'd be lambasted, and excluded from this advisory body as it's not meant for them. States and nationalities =/= ethnicities. Someone can be an American by being a citizen of that country, past or present. Someone can be Californian by being a resident of that state, past or present.…
That's an advisory body based on genetic traits that manifest superficial changes, that's what I was responding to. You're right that you can obtain a nationality but not an ethnicity. That's why I explained that you shouldn't think of it as ethnicity but closer to nationality.
Look at the beginnings of Australia. Would you think it odd if the colonial government had decided to somehow recognise the current inhabitants of the land?
Given that they didn't and instead committed various atrocities, why do you think it's wrong to retroactively recognise the affected people? The people today in our reality are just as descended from the people from then as the people of the fantasy land.
Non Australians commenting on this article who want to take a critical view would be encouraged to research outside editorialised media opinion. This referendum was asking for the equivalent of a new representative body in dc comprised of only native Americans and all levels of gov would be required to seek their advice on all policy that effects them which as any of would understand is everything. What are the chanc…
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 Com…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 f…
>It doesn't have to be that way, and plenty of places do it better - and have healitier, more equal societies as a result. Where?
This means that there are 12 parties in our parliament (not counting those from Greenland and the Faroe Islands), but only 3 in the UK parliament.
I can't say we are healtier, but we are more equal with our votes than the UK are - if the UK had the same system the conservatives wouldn't have had the numbers to dictate Brexit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Willingly moving into apartheid is a terrible idea.
> apartheid It is autonomy, not apartheid. There are many ethnic/religious communities around the world who have fought for autonomy to varying degrees of success.
Also it's been done before https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_reserve