How do we sleep while our beds are burning?
I love this song, it’s still in my playlist
There is a recent cover version by AWOL Nation & Rise Against (or maybe just Tim McIlrath, not 100% sure).
Removed by mod
Australian Government: “Should we finally grant the victims of our historic genocide a symbolic advisory role on matters that impact those victims”
Australians: “Git Farked”
Edit: That last viz “by age group” is really about how society progresses one death at a time.
They’re not telling the indigenous people to get fucked, they’re merely saying, “I’m too ignorant of the many many crimes committed against you for me to possibly vote in your favor. Perhaps if we were more educated, but alas… That would require voting for someone like you and I’m simply too ignorant…” See the difference? It’s a far more diplomatic way of telling someone that you really couldn’t give a shit whether they get fucked or just go off and die somewhere.
Thefartographer’s going to be prime minister and get a Nobel peace prize one day
If you’re using a racist slur to satirize racists, you gotta know Poe’s Law applies to you here.
Just curious, is it a slur or a contraction? Like calling Finnish as “Finn” or Aboriginals as “Abo”? I mean, I’m Finnish and I don’t find the Finn as insulting. Not that I actually have a horse in this race but to me it sounded like a contraction of a word rather than a slur.
It’s a slur by historic usage
@NoMoreCocaine - it’s definitely a slur. I think what makes something a slur is the way it has historically been used, not the technicalities of its construction/how the word was derived.
The other factor is how the people it is being applied to feel about being called that, which of course is related to the first point.
In the case of the word above, it has been used to demean and denigrate people for a long time, and is widely considered to be an offensive and racist slur.
To give a comparison, it’s “just” a contraction in the same way the N word is “just” derived from the Latin word for black.
It sounds the same as how here in the UK, referring to someone as ‘Pakistani’ is fine, but referring to someone as a ‘paki’ is NOT. I know plenty of Pakistani-origin people who refer to each other as paki but generally the use is in a demeaning way when it’s used by someone outside that group.
Finn isn’t a contraction in English. Finnish is always an adjective and Finn is always a noun. By the looks of it, the original word was Finn. It’s the same situation as Scot/Scottish or Kurd/Kurdish.
Can you not use hate-speech in your post please?
Ummm, nah.
All this over an advisory board with no real power? How could that even be harmful?
Conservatives oppose it for the same reasons indigenous groups want it.
Nope, its a vote to change the consimtitution to add a body which is for one racial group and then to decide its powers after its been created. Its undemocratic and racist
You’re undemocratic and racist.
It is undemocratic and racist if the position is (edit: not!) filled by an elected person and it is based on the race of people. That’s like directly derived from the very definition of those words.
It can still be morally correct though!
You’re being a dolt. They’re there because of their quasi sovereign pre invasion nationality, you see it as color they see it as an attachment to the land.
Yes, that’s why I say it can still be morally correct to create this position in parliament. Quite frankly I think they should get more than just this one position. It boggles the mind how land can just be taken and the native population just ignores like this for centuries.
But if it’s based on race it’s racist. That’s a fact. Unless you redefine racist to be only against minorities. Or only against non-white people. But for me racism is action based on the race of people.
Agreed.
Nope. Not even by the definition of racism. It’s equity, equitable things can be based on protected classes, sure.
As opposed to what exactly, non humans?
Your delineation of race is bigoted and frankly stupid. Also, morally incorrect.
My edit didn’t go through. It should read
It is undemocratic and racist if the position is (edit: not!) filled by an elected person and it is based on the race of people.
(I blame the federated nature of lemmy for that, but in the future I need to double check if any corrections do reach the intended server.)
I am aware that some people think racism can only be done by white people or by the majority. My definition of racism is that it is action based on the race of people.
I’m from Germany and quite frankly, I think the concept of race is indeed stupid. We got rid of that concept and its everyday use 75 years ago. But it is commonly used in the anglosphere (no doubt due to the big influence of the USA and it’s domestic problems with african-american citzens), so that’s the word I use in internet discourse as well.
I’m from Germany, and frankly, you’re talking shit.
Hilarious. Germany.
have you considered that you may be racist?
No I haven’t cos I’m not. I’m only interested in preserving democracy. That means equality and egalitarianism. Representative government, which we already fucking have.
White Australians just standing up for democracy and egalitarianism. How noble. First nations people dying at 50 yo will no doubt salute your brave stance
White Australians making decisions on things they don’t understand because of guilt for things the British empire did. How noble.
The Brits were dicks. But its current white australians getting their knickers in a twist being merely asked to listen to the people who’s land they stole.
As other commenters have pointed out, anything coming out of the Voice is non-binding, so it’s powers have been already decided and it will be effectively powerless. There are legitimate arguments that have been made for and against, but I don’t think yours is one of them.
Moreover, I think you are looking at it the wrong way. It’s not so much that it is giving a specific racial group a special government body as it’s giving a group of people that stand apart from the Australian government a voice. If this group of people were not a single racial group, but otherwise everything was exactly the same, would you still vote no?
As other commenters have pointed out, anything coming out of the Voice is non-binding, so it’s powers have been already decided and it will be effectively powerless.
On first sight, coming from a German perspective, I’m asking “why put it in the constitution if everything is non-binding”, over here we we have various councils that represent minorities and they’re all plain and simply registered associations, nothing special. But, well, then they’re also actually listened to. So on second sight given the degree of ignorance aboriginals are generally afforded I’d say it’s probably a good idea to make the “fucking listen” part mandatory.
…and now my head is playing the dead heart on repeat, should’ve seen that one coming.
I’m not campaigning here so I’m not really making a coherent argument, and I know that isn’t helping.
Still, here’s the main point - look at the constitution. What’s it about and what’s it for? It starts by outlining theformationa and function of the house of reps, senate, and judiciary. There’s a section on the states and one on commerce. That’s it. Its a how-to manual for the federal government.
So how then does an advisory body fit into thatdocuments? What’s its purpose? It can only be as a third (fourth?) Branch of government because that’s what the document is.
When you get all these people saying “oh its just this or that it has no power its just so they get a say” - that’s not the function of the constitution and its parts. By putting it in there with a legislative blank check - that’s the creation of a part of the government.
I would not support the creation of that body regardless of its makeup. For 300 years no we’ve been running vaguely successful democracies (that’s a whole other conversation) with two legislative branches and a judiciary. Nobody through this whole process has given any reason why this should change or even given a thought to a change management process.
What’s the actual reasoning, the actual effect, the actual risks? Nobody knows! Because if you dare to raise any question you’re clearly just a fucken racist.
Final question - people that stand apart from the Australian government? Can you clarify that? Because that sounds like insurrection to me. If this is some sort of soft revolution, I’m even more against it.
So your argument boils down to, “I don’t want to change the constitution?” If a purely advisory body was created by an act of parliament then you’d be okay with it?
What I meant by standing apart is that there is this group of people that were living their best lives for 60k years and then another group of people came and said, “This place is ours now and we are going to run it like we want and we don’t give a shit about your customs, so either start doing things our way or fuck off.” They are standing apart because they weren’t included.
My argument is that this is the shut way to make a change and does nothing to address any issue that . All it does is create a new branch of government that is exclusive to one type of people. That’s the start of apartheid, not a solution to the issues of health education and opportunity.
They were and are included you fucking moron. How many first nations people are currently sitting members of state and federal parliament? And besides that every fucking person in this country has council members, state MPs and federal MPs already. Not included my shiny metal ass
Name calling is unnecessary.
Indigenous people definitely were NOT part of the formation of the Australian government and in order to participate they have had to conform in order to get votes from people outside their group, right?
And to reiterate, it’s called the Voice because that’s what it will give them. That’s it. Just a way to have some formal input (that can still be ignored) without having to pander to people that do not understand their way of life. Is it enough? No, but it’s a start at least.
I, for one, know that if I was just living my life and an outside group of people came and told me that they were taking over and I had to do things their way instead if I had any hope of having a say in my future, I would be pretty pissed. I would also be pretty pissed that those same outsiders would presume to deny me a voice for reasons that they can’t coherently articulate without resorting to name calling.
How many of usnin this country are here because exactly that situation occered in their homeland? And now they arrive here and find that instead of equal opportunity for everyone, we are actively implementing apartheid?
In this case name calling is necessary
This is completely false, but unfortunately that is the type of lie that has been spread and amplified by conservatives and their media, and caused a lot of uncertainty and fear in people.
It is clear what the voice is going to be. It is clear what powers it will have. It is clear how it is going to work. Everything else is FUD.
What are you on about? How is it clear? if anything its deliberately unclear. Theres no framework, no restrictions, no indicationonf membership or how it will be chosen, no scope of any kind.
How the fuck does that parse as “clear” in your mind?
If it’s so unclear as you make it out to be, how can you be so certain that it will be all the bad things you’re harping on about in this thread?
What bad things would those be?
You keep repeating the same demagoguery. Shush.
This whole thing is demagoguery on both sides. Contribute or shush yourself
The real reason it will fail is politics. The opposition party decided getting this voted down would strike a blow to the government.
So they’ve just blown racist dog whistles, racist trumpets, set of racists cannons and doubled down on ignorance: “If you don’t know vote No”
They have effectively weaponised division.
They created division by spreading lies, uncertainty and fear. Lies were repeated over and over, and became increasingly outrageous, despite being refuted again and again.
Then they pointed at the division they created and said “this is too divisive, we shouldn’t do it.”
What’s even the point of having a democracy if the majority of the voter base is uninformed
Not just uninformed - deliberately misinformed.
Colonialism intensifies
Voting on yes or no was made very easy when I saw that neo nazis, flat earthers, anti vaxxers and a multitude of other whack jobs are voting no. You are the company you keep in my book.
Well that’s disappointing.
What a bunch of cunts
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Australians look set to reject a referendum proposal to recognise Indigenous people in the constitution by creating a body to advise parliament, with polls showing a clear majority for no in almost all states before Saturday’s vote.
The yes campaign has also been battered by the Blak sovereignty movement, which has led the progressive no case, arguing the voice would be powerless while pushing for truth and treaty to come ahead of constitutional recognition.
The no campaign has leaned heavily on the slogan “If you don’t know, vote no”, which former high court justice Robert French described as an invitation to “resentful, uninquiring passivity”.
The Australian prime minister, Anthony Albanese, spent part of the final campaigning week in the nation’s centre, Uluru, where the proposal for the voice was first formally presented in 2017.
Sitting with senior traditional owners in central Australia, Albanese said Australians had an opportunity to “lift the burden of history” and move forward with a positive vote on Saturday.
“Many Indigenous Australians who are on the frontlines of dealing with these problems in towns and cities and communities and outstations and home lands are very worried about the prospect of losing the voice because they already have little say, and a loss will mean that they have even less.”
The original article contains 827 words, the summary contains 213 words. Saved 74%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
fucking national disgrace…
'cos Aussies love racism
Keep it classy, Australia.
Literally nothing stops the government making “the voice” without changing the constitution. The only reason they want it in the constitution is so future governments can’t change the function of the body.
The whole thing is an organised circus for political gain and dividing the population.
In the past, the government had a “voice” for the indigenous for like 10 years. Just bring it back, no constitutional change needed.
If you’re going to try put an aboriginal rights group in the constitution, just make it basic human rights group with representation for everyone. Basic human rights that are severely lacking in Australia. Freedom of speech? We don’t even have that.
Isn’t the fact that it was taken away before a justification for enshrining it in the constitution?
Like every other advisory body, it’s the role of the elected government to manage (as it would continue to be if added to the constitution, they could just reduce it to one underfunded person instead of disbandening it, or create a new group).
Just vote for the party you want to represent you. The current government doesn’t have a “voice” for the indigenous despite proposing this constitutional change.
It’s like complaining about others possibly hampering your climate change efforts so you instead make none at all
Who is preventing your speech?
Let me guess, ‘woke green loonies who use cancel culture’.
Referendums are always such a spineless way out of doing the right thing.
