The sad truth
Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price’s comment that:
… she did not believe there are any ongoing impacts of colonisation, but in some cases, a “positive impact”.
… begs to be disputed. There is zero positivity in the planned extermination of the world’s oldest culture. But that was the plan.
However, in fairness to Senator Price she, as with most Australians, is most likely unaware of the extent of the cruelty and intent administered by governments against the First Nations people for over 200 years.
Let’s look at the evidence as proven by historical events.
* * * * *
The video of Lang Hancock’s disgusting proposal to what he believed was the “Aboriginal problem” is again, thanks to Senator Price, doing the rounds on social media. Hancock suggested that by doping their drinking water – that caused sterilisation – was one simply way to ensure the extinction of the race.
Anyone seeing this video for the first time will be shocked, even angered. And rightly so. Even more shocking is that Hancock’s sinister idea was not dissimilar to government policies that ran their course not a generation earlier.
In a younger Australia there was an agenda in both the colonial and early federal governments; that being the extermination of Aborigines. Not only was it the will of ‘man’ that the Aborigines be exterminated, but also the will of God. Or so they believed.
Was the total extermination of Australia’s Indigenous people deliberately intended? Of course it was. It was OK to shoot Aborigines. God – they presumed – had no problems with good white Christians killing Aborigines as it was the white man’s belief that God had condemned Aborigines to extinction and the white man was simply hurrying things along for Him. It had His stamp of approval. It was ordained genocide.
But the massacre of Aboriginals was frowned upon by latter governments, however, it did not mean that they were not considered a doomed race. These governments had a sinister role to play in that consideration; that of the evolutionary masters. That of God.
Let us trace this.
The nineteenth European scientific discourse of the Great Chain of Being “arranged all living things in a hierarchy, beginning with the simplest creatures, ascending through the primates” and to humans. It was also practice to distinguish between different types of humans. Through the hierarchical chain the various human types could be ranked in order of intellect and active powers. The Europeans – being God-fearing and intelligent – were invariably placed on the top, whilst the Aborigines – as perceived savages – occupied the lowest scale of humanity, slightly above the position held by the apes. Such ideas were carried to and widely circulated in the Australian colonies and helped shape attitudes towards Aboriginals. So dominant was the concept that it helped develop the fate of Aboriginal people, even before Australia’s colonisation. The image of the Aborigine simply confirmed prejudices based on this doctrine of evolutionary difference and intellectual inferiority.
In harmony with the Great Chain of Being, the “theory of evolution in the social sciences” (known as Social Darwinism), was accepted by nineteenth and early twentieth century Australians as further justification for their treatment of the Aboriginals. Central to the theory of Social Darwinism was the ideology that the Aborigines, who were considered to be less-evolved, faced extinction under the impact of European colonisation and nothing could, or should, be done about it. Government policies reflected these ideologies and provided the validation of oppressive practices towards the Aborigines, founded on the perceptions of racial superiority.
Four of the major policies are those relating to protection; segregation; assimilation; and the integration of Aboriginal people into the wider community.
Protection was influenced by the evolutionary theory that Aborigines would die out as a result of European contact. Subsequently, all that could be done was to feed and protect them until their unavoidable demise. The policy thus took on short-term palliative measures that saw enforced concentration of Aboriginals in reserves and missions – protected from European contact and abuse (such as hunting parties) to await “their closing hour.”
This policy was a humane one based on its presumptions, however, nature had not selected Aboriginals for extinction. Only the colonisers had. Subsequently, governments eventually and willingly used protection policies as a mechanism for social engineering. The policies of protection changed its fundamental goal to segregation. Their differences are difficult to identify although their purposes are not: the Aboriginals belonged to a dying race so they were protected from the wider community; the Aboriginal race had failed to die off, so they were segregated from the wider community.
The social theories that legitimised and institutionalised racism were never more evident than in the practices of segregation. Segregation created two social and political worlds in Australia: one white and one black. Whilst the Aboriginal race had ignored extinction, government policies reflected the attitude that, nonetheless, by the 1940s they had still failed to progress since European contact. “Sentiment thus ruled that continued segregation of the Aborigines from the wider community would ensure white racial purity” (source unknown).
Segregation was pervasive in all aspects of public or political life. Church or social organisations discouraged Aboriginal participation, and access to community facilities such as swimming pools or theatres were severely restricted, if not refused altogether. Custom in many business establishments was also refused for fear of offending the white clientele. Perhaps the most damning indicator of this racism, however, was the neglect of medical treatment and health services by white practitioners. Policies of segregation were to degenerate into practises of apartheid when, in South Australia for example, association between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people became a criminal offence under Section 14 of the Police Offences Act 1953.
The policies of protection and segregation were continued even though the Aborigines had not faced their final hour. ‘Full-bloods’ remained on reserves until their demise, yet the problem for the government came in the form of the ‘half-caste’. These people looked increasingly like white people but behaved like ‘Black’ people. The only way this could be countered was to assimilate them into the general population.
Assimilation of the lighter-caste population was still an endeavour to destroy Aboriginality: by absorbing them into the wider community – the breeding out of the colour, “the process of genetic change” – it was hoped that they would eventually disappear. A radical suggestion that selective mating would breed out the colour was also proposed.
Of the endless record of horrors associated with colonisation and racial supremacy, some of the assimilation policies adopted in the 1950s equal the worst. In particular the taking of children away from their families by the Aboriginal Protection Board – as their legal guardians – and disposing of them as they saw fit. As a prelude to the Reconciliation Convention, the Government reflected on this practice:
Children were taken away under government policies of protection and assimilation aimed at having indigenous people adopt European culture and behaviour to the exclusion of their family and background. The assimilation policy presumed that, over time, indigenous people would die out or be so mixed with the European population they became indistinguishable (The Path to Reconciliation, 1997, p 24).
Yes, I would argue that the total extermination of Australia’s Indigenous people was deliberately intended. If not by the bullet, then by the policies of those governments that saw them as a stain on white purity. God favoured the white man and they set out to do His work.
Summary: The sad truth
The Great Chain of Being, along with Spencer’s evolutionary theory had considerable influence on social thinking in nineteenth century Australia. This influence was to impact upon the Aborigines who, in theory, were destined to die out having now encountered a more superior race. ‘Their passing was graphic proof of evolution itself.’ (Reynolds, 1987:125). This led to their dispossession and disadvantage, which under the philosophy of natural law were considered justifiable acts.
Government policies towards Aborigines were a measure of, in particular, Spencer’s influence. Convinced that the Aboriginal race would die out, the government pursued a policy that protected them from the wider community while they awaited their inevitable demise. This policy, in essence, continued under the guise of segregation when it became clear that their numbers were increasing. Segregation created many racial divisions in Australia’s social and political life.
An increasing number of ‘mixed-bloods’ in the community threatened white purity, and the policy of assimilation was therefore an endeavour to breed out Aboriginality. One of the practices was to remove children from their families and culture, presuming that over a period of time they would become indistinguishable with the wider European population.
The colonisation of Australia has been very good for white people.
— Michael Taylor 🇦🇺🏴 🖤💛❤️ (@AusIndiMedia) September 15, 2023
References
Beckett, J. (1988). editor Aborigines and the state in Australia. The University of Adelaide, South Australia.
Broome, R. (1994). Aboriginal Australians. 2nd edition, Allen and Unwin, St Leonards, NSW.
Critchett, J. (1990). A ‘distant field of murder’: western district frontiers 1834-1848. Melbourne University Press, Carlton.
Duguid, C. (1973). Doctor and the Aborigines. Rigby Limited, Adelaide.
Evans, R; Saunders, K; and Cronin, K. (1993). Race relations in colonial Queensland: a history of exclusion. University of Queensland, St Lucia.
Evans, R; Moore, C; Saunders, K; and Jamison, B. (1997) editors 1901 our future’s past; documenting Australia’s federation, Pan Macmillan, Sydney.
Goodwin, C. (1964). ‘Evolution theory in Australian social thought’ in Journal of the history of ideas, volume 25, pages 393-416.
Hunter, R; Ingleby, R; and Johnstone, R. (1995). editors Thinking about law: perspectives on the history, philosophy and sociology of law. Allen And Unwin, St Leonards, NSW.
Kearney, G. (1973). editor The psychology of Aboriginal Australians. John Wiley and Sons, Sydney.
Kingston, B. (1988). The Oxford history of Australia volume 3: glad, confident morning 1860-1900. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.
Kociumbas, J. (1992). The Oxford history of Australia volume 2: possessions 1770-1860. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.
McConnochie, K; Hollinsworth, D; and Pettman, J. (1993). Race and racism in Australia. Social Science Press, Australia.
McGrath, A. (1995). editor Contested ground: Australian Aborigines under the British crown. Allen and Unwin, St Leonards.
Reay, M. (1964). editor Aborigines now. Angus and Robertson, Sydney.
Reynolds, H. (1987). Frontier: Aborigines, settlers and land. Allen and Unwin, Sydney.
The path to reconciliation. (1997). Commonwealth of Australia booklet, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
A shorter version of this article was originally published in 2020 as They’re going to die out anyway. Senator Price’s comment warranted re-publication.
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
29 comments
Login here Register here-
Sully of Tuross -
uncletimrob -
Harry Lime -
Anthony Judge -
Keitha Granville -
Terence Mills -
Andrew Smith -
Clakka -
Michael Taylor -
David Ayliffe -
Michael Taylor -
Zathras -
Fred -
Brad -
Canguro -
Terence Mills -
GL -
leefe -
wam -
Brad -
Anthony Judge -
Clakka -
GL -
Terence Mills -
frances -
Caz -
GL -
Clakka -
frances
Return to home pageMeanwhile, “I Hate Elites” Price has been flying high on the Taxpayer’s dime, billing taxpayers $76,509.19 for 76 business-class flights between her election last May and July 2023.
She spent 67 nights in hotels, in the same period, at a cost of $19,062, according to data released under freedom of information laws.
This was reported in today’s (20/09/23) Sydney Morning Herald.
I don’t know who Price thinks she is representing, but none of the indigenous adults that I know will have a bar of her.
As for there being no ongoing impact from colonisation, I beg to differ.
No cattle class for she,Sully…she’s no ‘elite’ apparently.
The referendum debate is a sad exemplification of the world’s troubles. Any disagreement is framed as “you wrong” — because “me right”, and necessarily so. Parliamentary debate can be succinctly described in such terms. Truth by vote — or truth by media volume (like howler monkeys)? This contrasts strangely with the most insightful thinking on the nature of reality which currently accepts that whether matter is a wave or a particle depends on how one engages with the matter. Of course “you wrong” is readily reframed as “you bad”, etc. — and “me good”, and necessarily so. Of course Jacinda Price is “right”, just as it is prudent to recognize how civilization has moved on from the aberrations of its past. But of course she is “wrong”, because the aberrations have repercusssions to this day. Crushing of the Inca Empire by Spain? Past wars whose history is written by the victors? The impact of the Inquisition? Slavery? Hiroshima? The future will be bemused by the “holier than thou” attitude associated with selective memory on when our ancestors last indulged in activities we now righteously condemn. Are both campaigns engaged in blackmail — or is it whitemail? Time for “yes and no” or “neither yes nor no”?
All we can do to nullify the words of the NO campaign is to vote YES, in thunderously large numbers.
Look who is voting NO and refuse to be a part of THAT grouping.
I am totally confused as to how Senator Price’s and Warren Mundine’s families are backing them – Uncle Toms, the whole mob !!
If Price is, as reported, flying around Australia promoting the No case I hope she isn’t charging her travel and accommodation to the taxpayer – the No case has some big backers and presumably they have made sizeable donations although they seem very coy about coming forward to be identified.
Price can service her electorate of the NT as any senator would and she has allowances to accommodate this but we should not be asked to fund her referendum frolic.
Resurgence in social Darwinism under different guises, to avoid the worst of Galton and neo US 20thC purveyors of eugenics inc. Madison Grant and deceased white nationalist John ‘passive eugenics’ Tanton; for past generations used to deflect from fossil fuels and the <1%.
According to SPLC, Tanton was the racist founder of the modern anti-immigration movement, was on ZPG with Paul ‘Population Bomb’ Ehrlich, admirer of the white Australia policy, visited (Ehrlich too), hosted by SPA locally and up to a decade ago sound Republicans were warning their colleagues; this week announced on Twitter that a Michigan court gave permission for his private papers to be released (sure highly embarrassing to many public figures in US & Anglosphere), but will be appealed.
From Science Direct: ‘How a network of conservationists and population control activists created the contemporary US anti-immigration movement’
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160932715200622 (2 minute read)
Not by coincidence, there are now clear links between Tanton’s mob and Koch’s i.e. share the same fossil fueled donors network in the US for same outcomes, ‘social Darwinism’ masquerading as socio-economic policies ‘owning’ the GOP; in London not just metaphorical, their outlets physically share same office space i.e. infamous Tufton St.
In Australia there are too many links, not just with the right, but also with the ALP and too easily led or lured in by ‘greenwashing’, but making Australia an easy touch with old white Australia sentiments?
The same social Darwinism, or greasy poles, is related to the ascendancy of Price, while one knows one of NT CLP preselection candidates who threw themselves under a bus for CLP/LNP, IPA, News and Abbott et al.; to be fair, maybe without realising what the end game was, and one will not be surprised if Price gets thrown under a bus (a la Assange – Trump campaign).
Michael, a moving article, thanks.
It caused me to reflect on the roots of the colonial project in Oz. Apologies for lack of citations. I assembled it from a notes file on the subject from a number of years ago.
At the end of the day, the entire business relating to the colonial venture in Oz was (and remains deeply) about the acquiring of property, by any means.
England rushed to Oz, simply so that they could lay claim before the French (or other Europeans) laid claim, as they had done, for example, in Canada and other parts of the Americas, as the rush for empire was at full throttle. The Crown was, as usual devious in its pursuit, it considered using the faux privateers of the East India Company, but they already had their hands full killing in the Americas. But ingeniously, they realised they could kill several birds with one stone; ridding themselves of costly and unsightly petty peasant criminals from the ‘hulk-ship’ penitentiaries in the Thames, sending them off to Oz as colonising inhabitants, and also rid themselves, by assigning control to pesky, drunken, brutal, incompetent Gold Braid from the Admiralty. A fine nobbled noble start indeed.
But of course Vicky was canny, the ambitious and toadying neophyte Cook and his perfidious elitist offsider Banks had already advised there were a few scattered natives here and there, and none to be seen elsewhere (where Cook and Banks had not gone). So Vicky directed the later Gold Braid that the natives had to be paid for their land. And there was a colonial law that stated amongst other things that the payment (if at all) had to be quid pro quo.
But of course, the drunken Gold Braid decided the ‘blacks’ only sought to subvert them in their noble quest, so war to elimination was the only reasonable course to take, by God.
Ultimately it dawned that they were putting Vicky in a bind. The freed convicts and few free settlers were starting to do private deals with the natives – this would leave the Crown hanging out, and the Gold Braid’s necks on the chopping block. What to do? Ah ha! A legalistic double whammy! Immediately and concurrently, order that all such private deals were void and prohibited, and communicate to Vicky that indeed the land was terra nullius, and by definition, the natives did not own the land, therefore could not be paid for it, and that there could be no deals or contracts entered into with the natives in that regard, and also, of course, there’s the Doctrine of Reception.
The Doctrine of Discovery and terra nullius. The Doctrine of Discovery was the legal principle used by European colonisers starting in the 1400s. Following Columbus’ voyage in 1492, Pope Alexander VI issued four orders (papal bulls) which would become the Doctrine of Discovery; being able to claim land for their nations by “discovering” “new” lands. Collectively they claimed that the presence of indigenous peoples on lands did not prevent them from being terra nullius by arguing that the Indigenous communities occupied the lands but did not own them by European definitions of ownership. These principles of terra nullius and arguments were adopted to varying degrees into the legal frameworks of colonised countries across the world and continue to impact the rights of indigenous peoples.
The roots of these doctrine go way back. Terra nullius (a latin phrase – nobody’s land) is likely from the peak of the civilisation of old Geeks and Romans who for example refer that the primitive Scythians had no property, as they were in a ‘state of nature’. By British tradition, this concept held that property rights were developed through stages of civilisation. – property is a man-made institution, there is no such thing as property ownership established by nature.
In the Law of Nations: Swiss philosopher Emerich de Vattel in 1758 (France) in his legal treatise on international law pronounced that Land and people being in a ‘State of Nature’ (not civilised) were identifiable by having no agriculture, no farming, no such tools, no boundaries, no notion of landed property (better than ‘desert and uncultivated’) – thereby giving a comparatively modern refined definition of terra nullius, which sadly remains today, albeit used to uphold Eddie Mabo’s claim of ownership.
And then there’s the matter of prevailing law. We come to jurisprudence and the Doctrine of Reception. For property in colonies, in common law the doctrine of reception (properly, reception of the common law of England in a colony) refers to the process by which the English Law becomes applicable to a British Crown Colony, Protectorate or Protected State.
In Commentaries on the Laws of England (c1765-69) (Bk I, ch.4, pp 106–108), Sir William Blackstone described the doctrine as follows:
“Plantations or colonies, in distant countries, are either such where the lands are claimed by right of occupancy only, by finding them desert and uncultivated and peopling them from the mother-country; or where, when already cultivated, they have been either gained by conquest, or ceded to us by treaties. And both these rights are founded upon the law of nature, or at least upon that of nations. But there is a difference between these two species of colonies, with respect to the laws by which they are bound. For it hath been held, that if an uninhabited country be discovered and planted by English subjects, all the English laws then in being, which are the birthright of every subject, are immediately there in force… But in conquered or ceded countries, that have already laws of their own, the King may indeed alter and change those laws; but, till he does actually change them, the ancient laws of the country remain, unless such as are against the law of God, as in the case of an infidel country.”
(Note: the ‘infidel country’ reference here was mainly intended to prohibit customs considered barbaric by the British, such as cannibalism, once a territory was colonised, in an age when communications between the British government and her far-flung colonies could take months on end.) …. Of course this months of distance in any circumstance gave cover for the Crown, and license for the Gold Braid to run amok.
In other words, if an ‘uninhabited’ territory is colonised by Britain, then the English law automatically applies in this territory from the moment of colonisation; however if the colonised territory has a pre-existing legal system, the native law would apply (effectively a form of indirect rule) until formally superseded by the English law, through Royal Prerogative subjected to the Westminster Parliament.
Whoa! What a can of worms! And getting deeper, but clearer as time passes.
The best made plans of mice and men and thieves. Nothing ever goes as planned. And indeed, it has not. Not only are these arcane laws rendered false by science, they are deeply racist and serve only elite thieves a convenience. In having a good old think about these matters in the context of Oz, it is an easy path to understanding the arrogant debasing of the ‘native’, the dying out, extermination and / or assimilation and the stealing of children. It is an easy path to understanding the denial of the boundaries of tribes and first nations, and their lore and law. And it’s an easy path to understanding the conservative rationale for continuing a Constitutional genuflection to the Crown. It is not all the desperate acts of the terrified nor of deranged madmen. It is the devious and purposeful drafting of schemes by which to justify theft and elimination of previous owners.
It’s a story of devious pomposity hidden from the gulled common people. It’s a story that through today’s educated eyes can be seen as nothing but a horror story that persists. There’s ever so far to go.
Something for Jacinta to suck on.
YES on the 14th will be a small but very meaningful increment.
G’day, Clakka.
They must have been spellbinding lectures to put those notes together. Frankly, I find it fascinating.
It’s interesting you mention the French.
During the Castle Hill Rebellion of 1804 (also referred to as the Irish Rebellion) the French had a warship off Sydney waiting for the signal that the town had been taken by the rebels. Sydney wasn’t taken, as we all know.
Even my own Kangaroo Island, if Flinders had arrived three days late, would have been French. Flinders beat the French captain, Nicolas Baudin to the island by a whisker.
Great article Michael. The Tories are claiming Albo has created the racism with this but that’s bullshit. The referendum has exposed disgraceful racism even from some people with First Nations heritage – consider the self-hate and denial of different groups including LGBTIQ people, Jacinda Price and in some ways all of us. Your article so important. Thank you.
Thank you, David. Appreciated.
The best description of this referendum I read was that it didn’t actually divide Australia. What it did was to hold up a mirror to the cracks in our society to reveal the ignorance, racism and intolerance that exists.
However there are some who want to widen those cracks and exploit them merely for the sake of political convenience which they value above the common good.
The White Australia Policy and it’s inherent paternalism lives on in the hearts of many.
MT: Great article, well done. JP’s ignorance is blatantly obvious and her statement should be rejected by all ATSI mobs.
What troubles me is that the No campaign is getting away with misdirection. We have ex High Court Judges discounting the No campaign’s specious “concerns” of endless HC challenges, through having to counter the broad spectrum of anything negative as dreamed up by the “No”ers and Jacinta Price’s baseless utterances.
It is sub-clause (iii) that is the key – it is up to Parliament to determine how the whole is going to work AFTER the referendum.
Good work there Michael and Clakka. “The best made plans of mice and men and thieves. Nothing ever goes as planned. And indeed, it has not. Not only are these arcane laws rendered false by science, they are deeply racist and serve only elite thieves a convenience.”
Looks to me the descendants of the original theives are still plotting.
The referendum is the latest iteration of a long march towards dispossession of First Nation peoples.
I thought I was getting a handle on the games being played, then up pops NT tribal representative David Lurnpa [Cole] “Everything all governments do on this continent is all about minerals and resources. All interaction and dealings with aboriginal, original, people is about control, oppression and land grabbing — since 1788 to today. The state, territory and federal quasi-governments are really corporations, vying to steal the land for multinational and national corporations.”
So there it is again, corporations and their stinking legal shenanigans.
And you still believe the referendum is out to help First Nation peoples?
The referendum is a scam, as will be the one promised by Dutton if this one fails.
Vote NO.
Let the First Nation people themselves negotiate with a Sovereign, not packs of snake-eyed corporate duds passing themselves off as politicians.
Exemplary piece Michael; objective & defensibly factual journalism, and well-reinforced by Clakka’a reply. It’s to the collective shame of other protagonists that the ‘alternative facts’ seem to get a hearing alongside the solid truths; Steve Bannon would be proud if he knew of Australia’s own effort at flooding the zone with shit.
In the sense of how these early colonial attitudes were put into play and the social & political policies that were the guiding beliefs at that time that underlaid the rationale for the seeming correctness of the atrocities that were endorsed as a natural consequence of a white-skinned colonial enterprise embarking on a program of genocidal extermination of the indigenous inhabitants, it’s worth reminding ourselves that these policies has been in play for several centuries, had been endorsed at the highest levels of European & English governments & monarchies, along with the blessings of the Roman & Anglican Primates, had been reinforced by various scientific bodies of the day… where the anthropological view was that white-skinned people were inherently superior to those of different hues; all of these collective bodies of opinion were of course nothing more that self-serving rationale that acted as a kind of emotional & intellectual veneer covering over what was essentially an ambitious competition between European nations to conquer the rest of the planet and rob and steal whatever they could for their own benefit, and if that meant the genocidal extermination of indigenous populations whether in the Americas, Africa, Asia or Australia then so be it. After all, these people were inferior, merely a step up from the apes, and had no more rights than any other member of the animal kingdom. The ignorance & cruelty that underpinned these false rationales has, as we know only too well, led to centuries of suffering for the descendants of the millions murdered, and only latterly also a begrudging acceptance from the murdering classes of the mistaken nature of their blood-lust and the cruelties inflicted on the innocents.
The Swedish author Sven Lindqvist outlines all of this in his 1992 book, Exterminate all the Brutes.
If we took ourselves back to that period of European expansion in the 18th Century we would have seen the British competing with the French who were already spreading their influence throughout the Pacific and Asia (Vietnam), the Portuguese who had settled Portuguese Timor back in the 16th Century. The Dutch were expanding their influence throughout the Indonesian Islands and had a well established presence at Kupang in West Timor when Cook was charting the East Coast of New Holland.
The British were lagging in the region with a limited presence in Papua sharing the island of New Guinea with Germany.
It was inevitable in that era of expansion and colonisation that New Holland and New Zealand would be prizes to be grabbed by the more dominant power of the era. But who knows what La Peruse would have achieved had he not been sprung by Arthur Phillip at Botany Bay in 1788.
Interestingly most of those early colonial powers have through, one process or another, since relinquished their possessions in the Asia Pacific region but not the French and then we have Australia and New Zealand.
The least we can do is vote YES !
Um…er…what the? This is sad, very very sad. I was going to make a comment about nuts falling from trees but…
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/anti-voice-campaign-director-says-white-people-will-be-paying-to-live-here-if-referendum-succeeds-20230920-p5e68c.html
Great piece of writing, Michael. And Clakka, thank you for the extra notes.
Jacinta has slipped into power with a buttery refund claiming ease. Her press council speech, praising the endowment to Aboriginal people of a tap to go with the sugar flour and tea, reflected her Uncle Tom servile attitude needed for her political survival as a CLP member. Remember our senators are renewed ever 3 years and the CLP are certain to get one senator elected.
In the 50s the urban Aboriginals of the NT had denied their Aboriginality so they could access society from the front door not out the backyard. In 69 the Kormilda students were in my grade 9 class with ‘coloured kids’ from powerful urban families, like the Coopers whose grandfather brought footie from Prince Alfred’s College(SA). (Rueben Cooper wrote a letter about the racist insults of spectators(simple sam is still going) but I cannot find the reference) plus two boys whose fathers had gone to gaol for living with an Aboriginal and a McGinnis whose father and uncle had been instrumental in freeing themselves and other ‘half castes’ from the Aboriginal dog tags and government control becoming Australians not Aborigines but they still copped the institutionalised racism. As an example, we were not allowed to ask who was Aboriginal so if the kids were a bit light we had to check their finger nails to decide whether they were Aboriginal or not. The 1967 referendum allowed them to reclaim their Aboriginality. this has some info on Rueben: https://ris.cdu.edu.au/ws/portalfiles/portal/22706546/Thesis_CDU_9206_Stephen_M.pdf
GL, can anyone imagine a treaty formulated by either the YES or NO proponents as not having a financial vector? A treaty without reparations, I find that hard to believe. Still, dreamers dream on.
Is it useful to recognize commentary on the referendum to be like that on many football matches? A key word used in media commentary is how one team “thrashed” its competitor. Does the “Yes” campaign aspire to “thrashing” the “No” campaign — with the “No” campaign aspiring to “thrash” the “Yes” campaign? Thats the spirit of the game of democracy?
Thanks Brad.
With respect, I do not believe ‘the referendum is a scam’.
Reconciliation and returning ancient (and modern) rights (and particularly land) to First Nations folk around the world has been on the agenda for years. In many countries this process has been enacted and finalised or is in various stages of implementation. Oz remains the stand-out laggard, and in that regard, many eyes and diplomatic pressure have been upon Oz for decades.
After Howard deviously and precipitously put paid to the reasonably successful ATSIC via the stroke of a poisoned pen, it was much later, the First Nations Constitutional Convention was convened through a bi-partisan-appointed Referendum Council. Delegates were selected from participants in regional Dialogues held around the country.
Discussions at the Convention built upon a discussion paper produced by the Council (and published in more than ten traditional languages) and reflected the diversity of views raised by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in consultative Dialogues with the Referendum Council over six months. The discussion paper drew upon the community meetings, each of 100 First Nations folk, with 60% of places were reserved for First Nations/traditional owner groups, 20% for community organisations and 20% for key individuals This culminated in a meeting in 2017 of 250 First Nations leaders at Uluru where the discussion papers were digested to form the Uluru Statement from the Heart.
Later again, seeking to find a method to implement the Uluru Statement, the LNP government set the wheels in motion, commissioning the Professor Calma and Professor Langton Report and the Co-Design process – a detailed Voice proposal. The process was led primarily by First Nations Peoples and included feedback and refinements from over 9,400 individuals and organisations. The final proposals and recommendations in the report are the product of a genuine and thorough co-design, led by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and many of their experts along side various other experts aligned with and engaged by them.
What is notable, is that Ken Wyatt (a First Nations person of Yamatji, Wongi and Noongar ancestry) LNP Minister for Indigenous Australians, introduced the report to the LNP government twice (first in December 2021), and understand that that it was not even reviewed and debated by the party, but later outright rejected by PM Malcolm Turnbull. It is well understood that Turnbull’s tenure as PM was fragile, and there was enormous pressure for him to ditch the report’s proposals by far-right MPs aligned to corporate and vested interests, such as the Minerals Council and various pastoral and farming interests etc. In disgust Ken Wyatt resigned from parliament and his membership of the LNP. The entire matter languished as the LNP under Morrison proceeded to pull themselves to pieces.
In 2022, Albanese Labor as an election promise, pledged to implement the Uluru Statement from the Heart, in full. The Uluru Statement being what the First Nations folk had asked for. It became formalised at last year’s GARMA festival, and parliament passed the instruments for doing that in June this year. The first and simplest part of the Uluru request is to make provision for that in the Constitution, and that requires a referendum. It is that on which we will vote 14th October.
The second part of the Uluru request requires that once the Constitution amendment is passed, legislation be established to pursue Makarrata, and implement the Voice ongoing. To ” … make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.” This part of the entire Uluru request is necessarily, like all such legislation, extremely complex, and will take the input of expert specialists in law, finance, and other structural matters, all ensuring it does not detrimentally cross over other legislation, leaves no loopholes and does not subvert the Uluru Statement intent. The drafted Bill will then be put before parliament for review and passing into law. A normal process to allow the Voice to proceed.
In its entirety, Albanese Labor has committed to the Uluru Statement specifically to eliminate undue and uncontested corporate vested-interest influence over parliament and law-making on matters pertaining to First Nations folk. It is no irony that very right wing conservative members of the LNP under corporate influence trashed the process back in Ken Wyatt’s days. And it is a foundation of those same LNP players seeking to take political skin off Albo, that is spreading misinformation and disinformation in the ‘NO’ campaign – a campaign backed by unscrupulous vested-interest corporates who want the horrific, corrupt and loophole ridden processes of the last 100-200 years to remain.
Brad, as for your “Let the First Nation people themselves negotiate with a Sovereign”, I remind you that the Oz Commonwealth and States are sovereign by various Acts of parliament assented to by the Crown. Secondly, the matter of sovereignty is extremely complex and in the short history of the notion of sovereignty, is somewhat convenient but deceptive, implausible and irresolvable. To seek to circumvent parliament and go down that path would be a financial and legalistic nightmare that would be unlikely see an outcome for many, many decades, if ever.
I urge you to vote ‘YES’, Brad, all the best.
On a Friedeggburger note: Only the Costello media could turn this “Whoopdee-de-frigging-do.” non-news into news headlines.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/frydenberg-set-to-announce-decision-not-to-run-in-kooyong-next-election-20230921-p5e6fc.html
It would be news if Frydenberg was going to return to politics but to say that you won’t be doing something is not news : it is reassuring for the nation as he was co-treasurer with Morrison when the tripled the nation’s debt.
This is for you Michael – and for everyone here, there, and everywhere.
The referendum has caused Australians to look in the mirror and when they don’t like what they see, smash the mirror. It is comparable with domestic violence when the perpetrator says ” look what you made me do”; dutton is the root cause of all this nastiness. He has followed Tony Abbott’s strategy thinking it will give him the next election.
Jacinta Price is lured into supporting the No campaign or risk losing her Senate seat. But she would be wise to remember there is no honour among thieves, or politicians and Dutton will dump her asap, he being a hater of all things indigenous and anyone not pure AngloSaxon. No one will have any sympathy for her, least of all her own people.
As for Mundine he has old Gerard propping him up, so he may end up in the senate where Labor will use every opportunity to tear him to shreds. And with my blessing.
I fear No will end up winning and no Prime Minister will be brave enough to try again. The bitterness will last for generations. Whatever plan B Labor might have it wont be enough to satisfy anyone.
On a side note: Yet another of the nasty vile little creatures that the Libs attract like flies:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-21/rockingham-liberal-candidate-peter-hudson-apology-pregnancy-text/102882594
Being a Victorian, I thought I’d give you a taste of what was going on in state government in the mid-19th century.
During the period when First Nations folk were being herded from their land and into missions and onto reservations – a process that continued well into the 20th century, generally until the period of the ’Stolen Generation’. And all the while continuing massacres of the ‘Aborigines’ was in full swing right across the country.
In a report to the Legislative Council, the 100+ pages of documented evidence from the general community and officers of the state, makes shocking reading – including a mish-mash of confabulations, contortions and horrendous eugenics-style assumptions and proposed solutions.
Below, is a selection of quotes from the executive summary by the committee Chair, Thos. McCombie.
It had little if any affect. Make of it what you will.
REPORT of the SELECT COMMITTEE OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
on
THE ABORIGINES
VICTORIA 1858-9
“Your Committee have found that the subject was brought before the Legislature of New South Wales, previous to the separation of Victoria, on five different occasions ; but in no case were any effectual measures adopted for the amelioration of the Aborigines.* …”
“ * The first was in 1838. Aboriginal Select Committee at Sydney. The late Lord Bishop, chairman; Report printed, and no further notice of the matter.
2nd. In 1843, Dr. Thomson, of Geelong. Returns ordered, from which it was supposed extensive measures would result; but no further notice taken of the matter.
3rd. In 1845, another Committee, under the late Mr. Windeyer as chairman, to resume again. Mr. Windeyer died, and no further notice of the matter.
4th. In 1849, another Committee, under Mr. Foster. This report was cruel in the extreme, recommending all asylums for the Blacks to be done away with, and to expend the amount on educating the Whites.
5th. In 1850, recommendations from the Governor and Executive of New South Wales, which contain some humane considerations ; nevertheless, they were never acted upon. “
“From the evidence which the Committee have obtained, it appears that at the first settlement of the Colony in 1836 there were from six to seven thousand Aborigines distributed over its area. So great has been the mortality amongst them, however, that so far as can be ascertained, there are not more than a few hundreds remaining, who are in a state of abject want, with the exception of the Yarra and Western Port tribes, under the immediate charge of the Guardian of Aborigines and a few who settled on or near the old Aboriginal Station at Mount Franklin. …”
“The great and almost unprecedented reduction in the number of the Aborigines is to be attributed to the general occupation of the country by the white population; to vices acquired by contact with a civilized race, more particularly the indulgence in ardent spirits; and hunger, in consequence of the scarcity of game since the settlement of the Colony ; and, also in some cases, to cruelty and ill-treatment. …”
“Your Committee are of opinion that great injustice has been perpetrated upon the Aborigines—that, when the Government of the Colony found it necessary to take from them their hunting grounds and their means of living, proper provision should have been made for them. Had they been a strong race, like the New Zealanders, they would have forced the new occupiers of their country to provide for them ; but being weak and ignorant, even for savages, they have been treated with almost utter neglect. …”
“I should not, without the most extreme reluctance, admit that nothing can be done—that with respect to them alone the doctrines of Christianity must be inoperative, and the advantages of civilization incommunicable. I cannot acquiesce in the theory, that they are incapable of improvement, and that their extinction before the advance of the white settler is a necessity, which it is impossible to control. I recommend them to your protection and favorable consideration, with the greatest earnestness, but at the same time with perfect confidence; and I assure you that I shall be willing and anxious to co-operate with you in any arrangement for their civilization which may hold out a fair prospect of success. It is impossible to contemplate the condition and the prospects of that unfortunate race, without the deepest commiseration.” …”
“Dr. Pickering, the only writer on the subject who personally inspected the races whom he described, and who therefore stands high as an authority on the subject. He says—” I would refer to an Australian as the finest model of the human proportions I have ever met with in muscular development—his head might compare with an antique bust of a philosopher.”* Their perceptive faculties are peculiarly acute, they are apt learners, and possess the most intense desire to imitate their more civilized brethren in almost everything. …”
“The general tenor of the evidence will bear out the conclusion which your Committee have arrived at—that, while the Aborigines are endued with keen perceptive faculties, there is a considerable deficiency in their reflective faculties, and a certain want of steadiness of purpose in their characters, which appears the great obstacle to be overcome in reclaiming them, and bringing them within the pale of civilization and Christianity. …”
Thank you Clakka.