The Voice vote:
Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None |
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| My vote: |
| Yes |
|
54% |
[ 13 ] |
| No |
|
37% |
[ 9 ] |
| undecided leaning to yes |
|
4% |
[ 1 ] |
| undecided leaning to no |
|
4% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 24 |
|
| Author |
Message |
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| watt price tully wrote: | | think positive wrote: | you forgot judgemental
voting no doesn't mean someone is hostile or racist.
for the people i have spoken to its a trust issue. we simply don't trust we are getting the whole, or the ending story. |
No, didn’t use the word judgemental because David’s post simply wasn’t. |
he always manages to disguise it, but its always there
you dont see it because you're agreeing with him!!
Stui agrees with David, his mum doesnt, yet Stui can except that with out name calling
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
 |
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
My mum’s with Stui’s mum, I suspect. And I haven’t once name-called anyone who is thinking of voting no (and TP, please feel free to point out where I have, which you should be able to if you’re so willing to accuse me – you can reckon it’s what I secretly meant even if I didn’t actually say it, but that’s just your projection if so. I can only be responsible for my own words.)
MTTM, I feel like we’re on the same page with a lot of stuff, but I can’t help but agree with Stui: I think you give too much credit to Albo. Yes, the Voice suits corporate interests, and I think there’s a lot of room for a critical analysis of the referendum framing that takes in the cultural ascendancy of the PMC / knowledge class, and how politics is currently triangulating around a corporate centrism that both marginalises the right and freezes out any structural progress or radical political action from the left. But linking it to a pro-war agenda is making too many leaps, for mine. I think the sad fact is that, in a country like ours, consent for militarism isn’t all that difficult to manufacture. If the US says jump, we will say how high, and the political and media establishment will lock in behind, Voice or no Voice.
I feel one could make similar arguments against voting in favour of same-sex marriage using the same framing you’re using here. Frankly, if there were any truth to that, and even if we’re all going to be blown to a cinder tomorrow, I’m glad that that important step in respecting and commemorating the love of LGBT people was taken. It was worth doing regardless, and the issue was fought and won on its own merits and to its own ends (regardless of the legitimate arguments about it being insufficiently radical, etc.). I feel this referendum will be the same.
Like you I assume, I come from a place of supporting Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination. Putting everything else we’ve discussed to one side, if it’s true that the Voice has 80% Indigenous support, that alone is good enough for me. I defer to that preference.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Some people – like those on here who think it’s funny to ironically post an acknowledgement of country as their signature – may well be hostile to Indigenous people and their interests. They will obviously vote no. But for those of us who value respect and empathy, there should be a willingness to exercise some humility and listen, be open to more integrated decision-making on issues affecting Indigenous people, and carefully consider whether we have an opportunity here to push the country in a better direction. |
I value respect and empathy, I’m still voting no because I simply don’t trust it.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Magpietothemax wrote: | | watt price tully wrote: | | Magpietothemax wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: |
I think you should separate The Voice from the other stuff, It's not part of an overall agenda, frankly Albo isn't that smart. It is what it is and can do far more good than harm, IMO, if it get up. |
I agree, Albanese is not very smart.
But he is not relying on his own intellect.
He is receiving his instructions from political strategists of the ruling elite, who understand full well that every issue is interconnected in an overall class strategy aimed at suppressing working class opposition in every way possible to austerity measures and preparations for war. |
Ah the international cartel?
Do The left wing conspiracy theorists balance right wing conspiracy theorists? 🤔
I’m getting the popcorn but will still vote for the voice. |
No conspiracy theories here, WPT.
When I say "ruling elite", I am referring to the Australian ruling elite.
Do you seriously believe that there is no connection between capitalist governments and their respective ruling elites?
Don't you think there is a possiblity that Albanese is listening to the various political strategists spawned in right wing think tanks close to the Australian intelligence agencies, the military, and corporate donors ?
The PwC scandal reveals the revolving door between the capitalist state and private corporations.
There are no left wing conspiracy theorists, because conspiracy theorists are exclusively restricted to the far right wing.
Never in my comments have i made reference to an "international cartel"
That is a product of your imagination, and a falsification of what i am saying.
Enjoy your popcorn, and vote however you like. |
Conspiracy theorists are exclusively right wing; I don’t think so.
In terms of the voice as I noted above the links to AUKUS are tenuous to say the least. To paint those for or against as homogeneous through labels of ruling elites serves to gloss over difference, nuance and complexity. The other groups who see things in black and white terms, “either or” are religious fundamentalists. This time it’s economic fundamentalists so convinced of their way of seeing.
Far enough that seems to be your view.
My view is that life, politics and economic relations are much more complex than a binary way of seeing the world that you’ve presented (admittedly in a bulletin board) This is also true for the Voice that is, the reasons and consequences of having a voice to parliament merely a supports a bourgeois
Elite, it doesn’t.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I read a nice quote today.
Paraphrased, if you say NO to Indigenous people dying younger, having poorer health, education and employment prospects, then vote YES for the voice.
I get that people don't trust the Government, who would? But I'm hoping that enough people take a leap of faith armed with the desire to do (what I think is) the right thing.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
slangman
Joined: 11 Aug 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The model of equality is to ensure no one is singled out.
I can’t see how voting Yes is anything but racist irrespective of the outcome it might or might not fulfill.
Replace First Nations with any other race would cause an outcry of racism and inequality from the same people that are promoting the Yes vote.
We are all equal within the eyes of the law and constitution and it bewilders me as to why we need to regress to past prejudices based on skin colour after coming so far to the equality of opportunity that we all now have.
What amazes me more is that people are erring on the side of voting Yes without being 100% certain of what the Voice will actually entail and whether it will ever succeed in its objectives.
I still haven’t heard or read how it’s implementation will do anything to improve Indigenous lives and their futures.
_________________
- Side By Side - |
|
|
|
|
Magpietothemax 
magpietothemax
Joined: 28 Apr 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The ABC is not a "neutral body". It is a propaganda instrument of the ruling elite. We saw an example of that when Stan Grant ejected from Q +A a Russian student who dared to raise that Ukrainian military forces have killed thousands of the Russian speaking population in the Donets since 2014. This was unacceptable to Grant and his ABC minders, because it contradicted the narrative of both Labor and Liberal that Putin is a monster who launched an "unprovoked war".
Likewise now, any true analysis of what is behind the Voice referendum, the corporate interests and a thin layer of wealthy Aboriginal academics and entrepreneurs, who seek to entrench their privileges at the expense of the vast majority of the aboriginal population suffering in extreme economic misery, is off the agenda for the ABC.
_________________
Free Julian Assange!!
Ice in the veins |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| slangman wrote: | The model of equality is to ensure no one is singled out.
I can’t see how voting Yes is anything but racist irrespective of the outcome it might or might not fulfill.
Replace First Nations with any other race would cause an outcry of racism and inequality from the same people that are promoting the Yes vote.
We are all equal within the eyes of the law and constitution and it bewilders me as to why we need to regress to past prejudices based on skin colour after coming so far to the equality of opportunity that we all now have.
What amazes me more is that people are erring on the side of voting Yes without being 100% certain of what the Voice will actually entail and whether it will ever succeed in its objectives.
I still haven’t heard or read how it’s implementation will do anything to improve Indigenous lives and their futures. |
Calling proposals like this racist is a bit of a blinkered position that requires a fairly rose-coloured view of Australia and its history. It’s essential to understand that this proposal isn’t emerging from a vacuum, and isn’t about one random ethnocultural group looking for special privileges. It’s about the fabric of this specific country we’re in and the dynamics that have shaped it since day one.
New Zealand provides a useful comparison: it has dedicated Māori seats in Parliament, which is one of the more radical (and some would say effective) steps that Lidia Thorpe and others who reject the Voice support being implemented here. I guess you’d probably see that as racist too, but if so you might also be surprised to know that it’s been that way for over 150 years and that most people there seem to have no issue with it.
What that arrangement in NZ reflects is that there was a treaty between the prior inhabitants and the Anglo-majority newcomers, and that concessions and compromises between those parties needed to be made accordingly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maori_electorates
| Quote: | | The establishment of Māori electorates came about in 1867 during the term of the 4th Parliament with the Maori Representation Act, drafted by Napier member of parliament Donald McLean. Parliament passed the act only after lengthy debate, and during a period of warfare between the government and several North Island Māori hapū. It was seen as a way to reduce conflict between cultures. The act originally agreed to set up four electorates specially for Māori; three in the North Island and one covering the whole South Island. The four seats were a fairly modest concession on a per-capita basis at the time. |
It’s worth considering that bolded sentence in particular carefully. This wasn’t "wokeness" or "political correctness gone mad" 1867 style; it was a recognition that the white Anglo establishment couldn’t just bulldoze over the older cultures there and expect everything to be sunshine and lollipops. They needed to negotiate in order to keep the peace and assure Māori leaders that they had a (literal) seat at the table and that their interests would be represented.
The situation here in Australia is different for a lot of reasons, but that doesn’t mean it’s better. Many, perhaps most, Indigenous people do not identify with or feel represented by this nation, which has so effectively (in the past, entirely deliberately; today, if not intentionally then in practice) marginalised, suppressed and taken away everything they value. They’re subjects of an ongoing illegal occupation, essentially – like it or not, that’s how many see it – and their original sovereignty of this land has never been officially recognised in any meaningful way. You’re not going to change anyone’s mind on that by waving an Australian flag, talking about unity and telling Indigenous people to shut up and enjoy their equality of opportunity. Unity isn’t won on one side’s terms, and a country doesn’t magically hold together because some people reckon it should. Many countries in the world have minority groups with varying degrees of autonomy, often not because their governments wanted to be nice but because it was the only way of keeping things together (or, to put it more delicately, to keep people pissing inside the tent).
There will always be activists who reject such compromises and prefer independence, sovereignty and severing ties altogether. But that’s usually not what the establishment wants, so, where such sentiments are prevalent, usually compromises need to be struck.
What does a compromise in this case look like? Something exactly like what we’re discussing, more or less. The Voice is not the work of radical activists trying to fundamentally change how this country operates. It’s actually a measured compromise approach, one that can only work with an acceptance of the broader structures that shape Australia as we know it. It’s not tipping the table over; it’s asking for a seat at it. I think it would be wise to take that opportunity, if integration and unity are things we’re genuinely seeking.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Last edited by David on Wed Jun 21, 2023 12:10 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
|
|
Magpietothemax
magpietothemax
Joined: 28 Apr 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| slangman wrote: | The model of equality is to ensure no one is singled out.
I can’t see how voting Yes is anything but racist irrespective of the outcome it might or might not fulfill.
Replace First Nations with any other race would cause an outcry of racism and inequality from the same people that are promoting the Yes vote.
We are all equal within the eyes of the law and constitution and it bewilders me as to why we need to regress to past prejudices based on skin colour after coming so far to the equality of opportunity that we all now have.
What amazes me more is that people are erring on the side of voting Yes without being 100% certain of what the Voice will actually entail and whether it will ever succeed in its objectives.
I still haven’t heard or read how it’s implementation will do anything to improve Indigenous lives and their futures. |
The Voice is an initiatiive based on Identity Politics. Identity politics claims that the main division in society is race, which is totally false. The main division in society is class - in particular, the conflict between the two fundamental classes of society: the working class and the capitalist class. Those who claim that race is the main division in society seek to exploit divisions of race, promoted by the capitalist class, to advance their own privileges. This is exactly what we are seeing with the Voice. A thin layer of wealthy indigenous academics and entrepreneurs, seek to cement a privileged and influential position for themselves by becoming members of a non-elected body which would be created by the Voice legistlation. They also seek to make money for themselves by negotiating deals with corporate interests, especially mining corporations.
The aim of those who promote identity poliitcs is to create for themselves the facade of being "progressive", whilst in reality reinforcing the racist divisions in society that the ruling class at all times strives to exacerbate. At the same time, a no less significant aim of theirs is to make truckloads of money.
_________________
Free Julian Assange!!
Ice in the veins |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Do you support any pro-sovereignty initiatives, MTTM? If the Voice fails (and it well might, at this rate), what do you think First Nations activists should be fighting for?
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The Waitangi Tribunal is what you get when you get a Treaty: a legal agreement that carries with it obligations (although, as with the Voice, it seems its recommendations can be and often are ignored).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waitangi_Tribunal
Despite the one-sided framing of that article (it’s the IPA, enough said!), the tribunal is probably a good example of what the Voice could be if it had more teeth. Sadly, I think Thorpe and others are right that we’re getting the skim milk version here.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Magpietothemax
magpietothemax
Joined: 28 Apr 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Do you support any pro-sovereignty initiatives, MTTM? If the Voice fails (and it well might, at this rate), what do you think First Nations activists should be fighting for? |
No, I don't support any "sovereignty" initiatives whatsoever (this is the standpoint of Thorpe). These are all nationalist and therefore deeply regressive. In today's global economy, not one problem can be solved on a nationalist basis. I am for the unity of all working class people, on an international scale. the interests of impoverished Aboriginal people, whether living in remote communities or in city suburbs, are the same as those of workers in Australia of all ethnic backgrounds, who confront surging inflation and a succession of drastic real wage cuts, as well as government budget cuts to health, education, disability services etc.
_________________
Free Julian Assange!!
Ice in the veins |
|
|
|
|
slangman
Joined: 11 Aug 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | slangman wrote: | The model of equality is to ensure no one is singled out.
I can’t see how voting Yes is anything but racist irrespective of the outcome it might or might not fulfill.
Replace First Nations with any other race would cause an outcry of racism and inequality from the same people that are promoting the Yes vote.
We are all equal within the eyes of the law and constitution and it bewilders me as to why we need to regress to past prejudices based on skin colour after coming so far to the equality of opportunity that we all now have.
What amazes me more is that people are erring on the side of voting Yes without being 100% certain of what the Voice will actually entail and whether it will ever succeed in its objectives.
I still haven’t heard or read how it’s implementation will do anything to improve Indigenous lives and their futures. |
Calling proposals like this racist is a bit of a blinkered position that requires a fairly rose-coloured view of Australia and its history. It’s essential to understand that this proposal isn’t emerging from a vacuum, and isn’t about one random ethnocultural group looking for special privileges. It’s about the fabric of this specific country we’re in and the dynamics that have shaped it since day one. |
if Australia was not aware of its history then I don’t understand how every adult has an equal vote, every person has equal access to health, education and welfare. There is a reason why the rear view mirror is substantially smaller than the front windscreen. Those who focus on looking back generally get left behind.
What indigenous people need is not the voice, but their own leaders and elders stepping up and inspiring others to do better for themselves and take control of their own lives. How many prominent aboriginal people showed their faces in Alice Springs a few months ago??
Where were Lidia, Goodes, Langton etc when the going got tough??
How will the voice change any of that?
EVERY Australian irrespective of their background is equal in law so regressing to special privileges to any one group is the epitome of racism.
The fabric of this country will forever be compromised, undoing all the work done to get us to the stage where all we’re equal.
Maybe some people subscribe to the theory that we’re all equal, just some are more equal than others.
_________________
- Side By Side - |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
