Not just them. The Sami people of Scandinavia were subjects of eugenic experimentation during the early-mid 1900s. The Ainu people of Russia/Japan had their names and culture stripped, and were forced to marry Japanese, and live as Japanese citizens. Many branches of that culture is dead.

There’s the Icelandic people who fairly recently were subjected to forced sterilisation.

Can I believe that third parties fuel this kind of thing to wreak havoc? Absolutely. But I can also believe that we’re fully capable of doing this ourselves. Mankind is hateful.

Theoretically… Yes.

Again, I’m not from the area and i only have what I was told. I was just putting what I was told how I understood it, maybe I misunderstood, maybe its Maybelline.

Maybe I misunderstood my friends position… but yeah your post is the only one showing both positions.

Lol i dont know, i was playing telephone… I may have just jumbled it all up. You guys are ridiculous.

Would the Aboriginals think differently about the colonists who arrived first, second, last?

Arguments included:

“If you don’t know, say no” Incredibly reductionist, could be used to justify any position, but a very effective soundbite. It’s only when you extrapolate it, that you realise the issues. Imagine if someone told you “If you don’t know whether a girl/boy will say yes to you, never ask them out on a date”. Uncertainty is an inherent part of most of human nature. A lot less humans would be born if no one had the presence of mind to find out more about whether a person liked them, or just took a gamble and asked for a date.

“This will allow aboriginals to claim and take your land” Because Australia was declared “terra nullus” on ‘discovery’, and therefore regarded as uninhabited under English law, colonisers basically took and claimed all the land and dispossesed the Native Australians. And ever since, there’s been a resistance to recognising prior ownership and use by native Australians, because that might threaten current ownership of land. No one wants land and property they own to be arbitrarily taken away from them with no recompense (ironic, yes?), so it’s very easy to create fear in current landowning/propertyowning Australians by saying increased recognition of indigenous Australians in any form could have their land taken from them and given back to indigenous Australians.

“This will be a 3rd chamber of parliament” There are currently two houses of Parliament of government, in which candidates are voted and elected by a majority of their constituents. The houses form the core mechanics of how laws are created, debated and enacted. By portraying the proposed advisory body as a 3rd legislative body on par with the 2 existing houses, and pointing out the body was to be formed from indigenous Australians, the no campaign capitalised on fears of changing our entire political system, and the false impression of giving indigenous Australians incredibly disproportionste and unfair weighting within the political system.

“Enshrining a specific ‘political’ body made up of only indigenous Australians in the constitution makes us unequal, because they don’t do that for other Australians”. This one tries to capitalise on feelings of equality, and therefore fairness. Because I don’t get X, they shouldn’t have X. And neatly creates the assumption that the status quo is equal, so why change it. Ignoring that indigenous Australians are a very small percent of population, and therefore less than 5% or so of the voting population, so unlikely to ever form an effective voting bloc or have their needs and desires reflected in mainstream politics like the average Australian might. Also, the statistics for quality of life are extremely poor when compared to the average Australian, in terms of social and financial mobility, education, health, prison incarceration rates, birth complication rates etc. The average life expectancy of an indigenous Australian is at least 8 years lower than the average Australian. These have been persistent gaps in societal outcomes that haven’t closed despite decades of government focus and money, hence trying something new, like the Voice.

“It won’t do anything, so there’s no point creating it” The argument was that this body has no executive powers, and can only talk ‘at’ the government, and there’s no obligation in the current wording in the referendum, that the government even needs to listen. So it won’t achieve anything at all, it will be useless and ineffective.

“It does too much” The argument was that it was too powerful, and would put too much unequal power in the hands of indigenous Australians, and that it would therefore be unfair and unequal. That it would allow indigenous Australians to create laws, change them, create treaties between them and Australia, recognise indigenous land rights etc.

Lots more out there, but that’s it for now from me

The problem is you’re trying to rationalise racism, which isn’t rational.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-19/fact-check-yes-no-campaign-pamphlets-aec/102614710

There’s the bare bones of the thing. The yes side had the exact same grasp of messaging that the Democrats in the US do. Which is to say none.

First off to be precise, this was a ”proposal to recognise Aboriginal people in its constitution and establish a body to advise parliament on Indigenous issues".

Some examples of what I think were sadly effective for the no campaign:

“This will allow indigenous peoples to reclaim your land”

“It will only further divide our nation”

“We don’t know how this might be misused”

These all play on peoples fear. On the other hand some indigenous peoples also were campaigning for a no vote, primarily because they thought it wasn’t strong enough.

This gave voters a lot of reasons to hide behind while voting no.

And all this was not helped by a rather poor yes campaign that barely did anything to address misconceptions.

Then go look it up, lazy. That other person has no obligation to teach you a customized course on the Australian referendum to recognize indigenous peoples. Use the internet that you’re reading their post with to look it up yourself if you’re so hungry for detail. I’d be willing to bet you can find scanned copies of each pamphlet if you tried. I’d Google it to find out for sure, but then you’d want me to read them to you.

The referendum was (if I understand it correctly) about adding an advisory body of indigenous people to parliament. This wouldn’t have given them any power to make decisions, only to advise parliament on things.

The No Campaign just straight up lied to people saying it would let them write laws, take away your land, etc…

Our history is shameful but also our efforts to redress past wrongs recurrent and inspiring. Negativity about a well-intentioned referendum helps nobody. I’ll note that this was driven by the Labor Party, not by Indigenous Australians, who don’t trust the good intentions of politicians who carried out policies like the Stolen Generations on behalf of the poor unfortunate blacks of the time. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

uni educated people overwhelmingly voted yes. so yep pretty much

The ‘No’ campaign was largely nonexistent. The ‘Yes’ campaign was enough reason to vote ‘No’. And the ‘No’ voters are just as educated as ‘Yes’ voters. It’s just that some people can’t understand why other people would disagree with them.

The only Territory to vote yes, out of all our States and Territories, was the Australian Capital Territory which is the most educated and most involved with governance.

You are correct on all counts.

Also, the Yes slogan eventually became “if you don’t know - find out” and “just Google it”.

race ‘cultural group’

I never saw any arguments against the Voice that weren’t either simplistic ideology (“it’s racist to have an advisory body for indigenous people!”) or outright lies and conspiracy theories. Claiming that it wouldn’t have gone far enough isn’t a good argument to do nothing instead. Does anyone really think that a treaty is more likely now than if we had voted yes?

You haven’t actually said anything. Wind and fury, signifying nothing. The definition of s blow hard.

Just a useless liar, called out for his weak bs.

They were just lying about the extent of the law to fear monger, true. Wonder if they might’ve said something when that act was initially passed though.

Cool story bro…

I had decided to abstain from commenting on this subject further. Pretty much every reply I have received is a variation of ‘fake news’ or ‘racist cunt’.

Yeah, kneejerk reactions get tiring. I tend not to use reddit-like or twitter-like forums much because of how low-effort and unempathetic most posts are. ‘Read the news title, get angry’, might as well be the motto. I’m glad you appreciated it.

Affirmative action based on […] economic prosperity would help the most people in need and capture many more who would otherwise fall through the gaps.

This absolutely is and should be fought for, alongside other movements. The concentration of wealth at the top has just accelerated after the main COVID crisis. Our whole economic system funnels wealth to those with capital, and their influence on our political system and mass media is the root cause of most issues in our society. My caveat is that affirmative action re: economic prosperity won’t solve this, the problem runs so deep that affirmative action will ultimately be inadequate, treating the symptoms rather than the cause. We need a systematic overhaul… far far far far easier said than done.

That said, economic equity doesn’t cover everything, as many Indigenous people have other priorities that aren’t strictly economic, a major one being land rights. A somewhat-known recent example of the issue is mining companies destroying sacred land or historical artifacts, another is traditional use of the land to live off of. I admittedly don’t know enough about land right to explain in proper detail, but it’s one of the main demands that protesters have demanded for decades and decades.

I would argue that abolishing slavery, universal suffrage, and anti-discrimination laws have done far more to solve systemic racism than racial affirmative action.

I agree, and I would say that this doesn’t mean affirmative action isn’t still important. To take a metaphor from the Civil Rights struggle, that anti-discrimination is taking the knife out, there is still a need to heal the wound before we can say things are fine. We’ve abolished the most blatant aggression like non-suffrage, but done very little to make amends on things like colonisation and centuries of repression and land possession.

Generations of loss and disadvantage evidently still exist, and will remain without positive interference. Disadvantage is cyclical, it doesn’t heal by itself, poverty is an self-evident example of the cyclic nature of powerlessness. And to re-emphasise, this applies generally to disadvantage, not just disadvantage caused by colonisation or racial disadvantage.

As a side note, I’m not sure if it’s even correct to frame this as about race, Indigenous classification just inherently matches up with race since the historical inhabitants of Australian land were all, to use a racial term, Black indigenous Australians, and we’ve historically just grouped them all together when it comes to the social concept of race because they’re not White or Asian. The ill-advised and quite frankly worthless Voice proposal was about them being the native peoples, not about them being a certain race or having been racially discriminated.