Australia set to recognise Aborigines as first people of continent
Australia set to recognise Aborigines as first people of continent
Julia Gillard says 'time is right to say yes to an understanding of our past' as report recommends end to state discrimination
Alison Rourke
guardian.co.uk, Friday 20 January 2012 03.17 EST
Australia is poised to make historic changes to its constitution, recognising Aborigines as the country's original inhabitants and removing the last clauses of state-sanctioned racial discrimination.
The amendments could be put to the Australian people in a referendum before the next general election in 2013, after the prime minister, Julia Gillard, endorsed the unanimous findings of a panel of 19 experts.
Section 25 of the constitution recognises that states can disqualify people, such as Aborigines, from voting. Section 51 says federal parliament can make laws based upon a person's race. Both were put in the constitution in 1901 to prevent certain races from living in areas reserved for white people or from taking up certain occupations.
The prime minister, Julia Gillard, welcomed the report. "We are big enough and it is the right time to say yes to an understanding of our past, to say yes to constitutional change, and to say yes to a future more united and more reconciled than we have ever been before," she said.
More:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/20/australia-aborigines-race-discrimination-referendum
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Demit
(11,238 posts)but the first thing I thought when I saw this headline was 'that's mighty white of them'.
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)that they ought to be grateful that they are actually acknowledged as such.
malaise
(267,808 posts)that the first people of America are the indigenous Indians
Number23
(24,544 posts)Monk06
(7,675 posts)were this backward.
SwissTony
(2,560 posts)"glass houses" and "throw stones".
whathehell
(28,969 posts)Posted from General Discussion
"A common feature of Swiss life until the mid-1950s, Verdingkinder were primarily children from poor families in the cities, forcibly removed from their parents by the authorities and sent to work on farms".
(snip)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16620597
Sorry, but no nation can claim "purity" when it comes to oppressing others.
SwissTony
(2,560 posts)I think you make my point but on a more general level. Both the US and Australia have much to regret concerning their policies wrt indigenous people. I didn't want to start a US vs Oz rant, because it's glass houses and stones on both sides.
BTW SwissTony (actually "SwissToni" was a comedic used-car salesman on the British show "The Fast Show". He likened every activity to making love to a beautiful woman. He wasn't Swiss either.
whathehell
(28,969 posts)But the fact that no nation is "pure", at least historically, when it comes to oppression, remains true.
"BTW SwissTony (actually "SwissToni" was a comedic used-car salesman on the British show "The Fast Show". He likened every activity to making love to a beautiful woman. He wasn't Swiss either".
Thanks for the update on Brit Television.
I actually AM a fan of Brtish TV, but more for their dramas than their comedies, Monty Python
and Fawlty Towers excluded.
SwissTony
(2,560 posts)'But the fact that no nation is "pure", at least historically, when it comes to oppression, remains true.'
whathehell
(28,969 posts)we're good!
SwissTony
(2,560 posts)whathehell
(28,969 posts)SwissTony
(2,560 posts)I guess drinking it doesn't improve your spelling.
whathehell
(28,969 posts)I guess it's later there than here, though, if you're drinking...Hell, it's only noon here!
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)I've never heard of that show.
SwissTony
(2,560 posts)Some of it is "Repeat until funny" stuff. First time you see it, you get a bit of a smile (or maybe not even that) and the humour doesn't set in until you seen a bit more of it.
But I love the show.
Violet_Crumble
(35,954 posts)btw, like Tony, I'm Australian. I doubt any country settled by the British Empire can claim purity, but it's how we try to make atones for the genocide and undo what damage we can that makes a difference. Australia under a Labor government has taken big steps to try to do that, but there's still a long way to go.
Has the US recognised native title when it comes to indigenous Americans? Australia has. In 1992 the High Court accepted native title and struck down the concept of terra nullis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mabo_v_Queensland_(No_2)
Has the US govt ever issued an official apology to indigenous Americans for what was done to them? Australia has.
http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/our-country/our-people/apology-to-australias-indigenous-peoples
I work in a large organisation, and that apology was the only thing I've seen where everyone's stopped working and stood in front of the TVs in our breakout areas watching. Nothing's done that before, not 9/11 or Julia Gillard becoming PM. Our former conservative PM, true to form, refused to attend the sitting of Parliament, and the Liberal leader gave a speech afterwards making excuses for the treatment of Aboriginal Australians.
On the down-side, and it's interesting to note that the example I'm going to use is from when John Howard was PM, there was a call back in the late '90's for a Royal Commission examining the issue of government funding to our indigenous population. What abysmal funding there was wasn't being pointed in the right directions, but because the Liberals were in power, instead of it being a Royal Commission, they duck shoved it to a very small government agency I was working in, where they hoped no-one would take any interest in the inquiry or its findings. And they got it right. The findings of the inquiry was that there needed to be better and more focused funding to indigenous communities, and the government of the time totally ignored it. So, yes, we have a long way to go yet...
I'm totally disgusted and disillusioned by Julia Gillard, but I'm glad when she comes out with something I agree with for a change. But knowing the history of referendum results here, I've got grave doubts that any referendum on removing racist stuff from the constitution will succeed, mainly because how referendums are run means that unless there's a vast majority supporting change it's not going to get across the line....
whathehell
(28,969 posts)and beyond and the legal history is a series of advances and withdrawls over the years, so it is hard to compare. Some recognition of tribal sovereignty is recognized in our constitution:
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power to regulate Commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes"
This infers that Indian tribes are comparable to states and nations. Other laws were passed in the 19th and 20th centuries that formalized tribal courts and property rights.
Now we have the situation where Native Americans have constructed gambling casinos on their land and sucessfully withstood legal challenges by the adjoining state governments where gambling was illegal or strictly licensed. The courts sided with the tibes, affirming that they were not subject to such legal constraints by state governments on their tribal land. Casinos are now flourishing across the US on tribal land.
Monk06
(7,675 posts)But at least we admitted aboriginals were here first. That's why we call them First Nations.
And the treaty process to give them back control of there land is now twenty years old.
The Ozzies have a long way to go.
Violet_Crumble
(35,954 posts)xocet
(3,870 posts)By Kathy Marks
Saturday May 26 2007
EXTRAORDINARY though it seems, it was not until 1967 that Australian Aborigines were recognised as citizens of their own country.
Before that they were classified as native wildlife, along with kangaroos and koalas.
This weekend Aborigines are converging on Canberra, the national capital, to celebrate the 40th anniversary of a referendum that led to the constitution being amended.
The anniversary is a reminder of the massive inequalities that still exist in housing, health, education, employment and life expectancy.
...
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/asia-pacific/aborigines-mark-40-years-as-human-beings-684824.html
lunatica
(53,410 posts)If the majority of the people in government are racists they can pass Constitutional Amendments hurting minorities that have negative repercussions for decades, if not centuries.
Example: We're still suffering profoundly because of the Jim Crow laws passed by a racist majority after the Civil War. If you want to see why there is grinding poverty in this country right now, and who are the groups most affected, look to racist laws which were created to deliberately disenfranchising them. Some of those laws have been around for generations. Teabag governors are doing it now in quite a few states when they pass laws regarding who can vote and who can't. And the dog whistle words like 'States Rights' are code words to disenfranchise women and minorities. This country is full of those right now.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I liked this post, but the Jim Crow laws were really only promoted by a very vocal minority(like the Teabaggers of today), and mostly in the Southeast. Maybe 25% of the total U.S. population at the very most(and that is a somewhat pessimistic estimate on my part I might add).
Unfortunately, the passage of Jim Crow and the anti-"miscegenation" laws were a rather prominent example of how a rather smallish yet influential minority can make the rules for everyone else.
Truth is, 50 years ago, the far right often tried to claim that most people were on their side, and blithered out and/or wrote all sorts of agitprop to try to get people to actually believe their bulls**t. Nowadays, they usually say that racism was greatly exagerrated and that blacks actually had it okay in the South. Same general M.O., slightly different tales.
You've got that small minority who really truly believes in their agitprop(although many of them know it's based on lies and deceit), and the hundreds of thousands of brainless sheep who follow them simply they are unable to think for themselves. This same thing also happened in Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)There were sundown towns all over the country. Suburbs, when they began to be built, were segregated. Even today, the predatory lending of subprime loans targeted communities of color across the United States and we have two systems of justice. This wasn't all done by a few nuts in the southeast.
hunter
(38,264 posts)This wasn't accomplished by restrictive covenants, sundown laws, or anything like that. It was all under the table, wink-and-nod crap.
Apartment owners and landlords simply didn't rent to "Negroes or Mexicans" it was unwritten, and unremarked. People who were not white couldn't get loans to buy houses. Restaurants would hide non-white families away in the corner and give them poor service. The police would harass "suspicious" people, meaning anyone who wasn't white. Driving or walking while black (DWB) enforcement was a major police activity. We had neighbors who would call the police if they saw a black guy walking down the street, and the police would show up to interrogate that person, demand to know what they were doing there, etc. If you were Mexican you'd best be holding a leaf blower or a vacuum cleaner if you didn't want trouble.
I went to one high school reunion (that's all I could take) and quite a few people told me straight up, without shame or embarrassment, that they'd left our hometown or California entirely, because their were too many Mexicans now. Most astonishingly, they don't consider themselves to be racist. I think that's why the South takes such a bashing, because the South was more explicit in their racism, and the white suburbanites in our community could claim they weren't like that. After all, anyone, black or white, could use a public drinking fountain.
I fled my home town and have lived my entire adult life in communities with diverse populations, mostly in places where white guys like me are the minority. When I visit places that are entirely white it feels creepy, like I can just hear the Twilight Zone theme music playing in the background, like people are missing somehow, that they've been sucked into another dimension, yet the people remaining somehow don't notice...
SwissTony
(2,560 posts)There was an Australian current events show in the 70s (sorry, no link) that followed a number of couples who were supposedly looking for a house to rent. One couple was indigenous, well-spoken and neatly dressed. The other couples were white, varied from downright dirty to well-dressed. At real estate agent after real estate agent, the indigenous couple were told there was nothing on the books. None of the white couples were told that.
I'd like to think that things have improved (and I'm pretty sure they have). We Aussies have come a long way, but we're not there yet.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)Here in the US, if anything, we're moving backward. For a while, there was a larger black middle class here than there had ever been. But as the subprime vultures targeting communities of color, a great deal of the wealth accumulated by minorities has likely vanished in the last few years. And with the Republicans shamelessly flogging their racist agenda, racism that used to be tacit seems now to be more out in the open.
whathehell
(28,969 posts)I successfully sued an apartment building for firing me
for showing racial "undesireables" apartments.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)whathehell
(28,969 posts)EFerrari
(163,986 posts)My kids were in school there because I'd been in UC student housing. It was at that time a white enclave. In the process of trying to buy that house (which I was unable to do, finally) I found out how Albany stayed white while all around it there were black communities.
In Albany, a date was set for the realtors to present their offers on a property en masse. The bids were sealed and no one knew what or who they were bidding against. That was "just the way it was done". My mom, who is visibly Latina and has an accent where I'm not and don't, acted as my agent. Both of us were too busy at the time to really understand what was happening. She was commuting up there from her own commercial RE business to help me out and I was teaching, in grad school with two young teens. But looking back, it was a complete waste of time to send my little brown mum into that situation. As it happened, I bought a house in a great mixed Berkeley neighborhood instead but it was hard on my kids who had to change schools -- which is the apocalypse for 13 year olds.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)....without realizing it. However, as I said to EFerrari, it's very important to distinguish those who might have a few prejudices, but usually don't mean much harm, and there were quite a few, and the hardcore bigots who'd resort to extremes, like those assholes who attacked the Freedom Riders in the Southeast.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)And many people went along with that, simply out of pure groupthink.
There is a difference between those with some small amount of prejudice here and there, and who usually mean no harm, and those raging, hardcore assholes who have an actual deep seated hatred of certain groups, and will do anything to keep them down. Unfortunately, the latter was very much approved of by the status quo, and they were the ones elevated to power.
And yes, you are right on this: Sundown towns weren't at all restricted to the Southeast........in fact, there were quite a few out West.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)and that I didn't know anything about even the things that had happened during my lifetime, and I've been trying to fix that.
And just in digging around in my own experience, I've found that between the people who had blind spots on race and the people that were willing to go b*lls to the wall to obstruct integration out of insane hatred, there were many more people in between who were ready, willing and able to take economic advantage of things like red-lining. It wasn't about hatred for those people. It was about money. If discrimination could line their pockets or advance their careers, they were there. They didn't even think about approving or disapproving the status quo, it was about their bottom line. Race was just one more lever, one more variable to manipulate for them.
This is my realtor or insurance broker or loan officer or high school principal or country planning officer. These people don't have horns, they blend right in and they know exactly what they're doing today.
So, I guess although I'd like to agree with you, I don't. It isn't a small group of whackjobs. It's more like most people who "go along to get along" in a culture that is so saturated with discrimination, we don't even see a figure in the carpet because we don't even see the carpet at all. JMO.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Sadly, you are correct: There also were, in fact, a good number of people who saw dollar signs in their eyes when they came to the full realization of how this institutionalized racism could be used to their advantage. And it still happens today to an extent.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)nanabugg
(2,198 posts)Isn't that like "discovering America?"
tabatha
(18,795 posts)Violet_Crumble
(35,954 posts)I don't know if Americans ever heard of Yothu Yindi, but they did play 'Treaty'* at the closing of the Sydney Olympics...
And a bit more Yothu Yindi
Then there was the Warumpi Band, which I was kinda fond of at the time...
* While 'Treaty' has aged with time, the lyrics haven't and are as current as they were back in the late '90's...
Well I heard it on the radio
And I saw it on the television
Back in 1988
All those talking politicians
Words are easy, words are cheap
Much cheaper than our priceless land
But promises can disappear
Just like writing in the sand
Treaty Yeah Treaty Now
Treaty Yeah Treaty Now
Nhima Djatpangarri nhima walangwalang -
Nhe Djatpayatpa nhima gaya nhe-
Matjini.... Yakarray - nhe Djat'pa nhe walang - Gumurrtijararrk Gutjuk -
This land was never given up
This land was never bought and sold
The planting of the Union Jack
Never changed our law at all
Now two rivers run their course
Separated for so long
I'm dreaming of a brighter day
When the waters will be one
Treaty Yeah Treaty Now Treaty Yeah Treaty Now
Treaty Yeah Treaty Now Treaty Yeah Traty Now
Nhima djatpa nhe walang
gumurrtjararrk yawirriny Nhe gaya nhe matjini
Gaya nhe matjini Gaya gaya nhe gaya nhe
Matjini walangwalang Nhema djatpa nhe walang - Nhe gumurrtjarrk nhe ya-
Promises - Disappear - Priceless land - Destiny -
Well I heard it on the Radio - And I saw it on the Television
Just like writing in the sand
Treaty Yeah
Treaty Now ...
tabatha
(18,795 posts)Not really to my taste. It is too "modern pop".
I had some Aboriginal music some years ago, that I really liked. I could not find it on Youtube.
I will have to search my mp3 files - I do not remember the artist's name - but I remember it was awesome.
SwissTony
(2,560 posts)[link:
|L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)where the Constitution proclaims equality and yet, generations later, Natives are forgotten and still starving in concentration camps on unproductive wasteland.
mojowork_n
(2,354 posts)First, let's hope the referendum passes. The 19 "experts" were all in complete unanimity
and God knows it's only time.
But along with pointing out the horrible inequities and injustice, towards the elder population,
someone should point out that quite a few of the newcomers to Australia (just like quite a
few of the original settlers in these United Colonies) were convicts from the Old World.
Unwashed, undesirable and unwanted at home.
And that imbalance and injustice STILL hasn't been corrected. In the U.S. at least (don't
know about other countries), send out a resume or fill out a job application and if you have
a small felony on your record, or the farthest you got was a GED, a majority population
person is still more likely to get the job (or interview) than someone with a degree, whose
name clearly identifies them as being from a minority population,
When are they going to put up a referendum on that?