To be shocked that Australia voted NO on this referendum?

[koalaknickers]

"The Voice to Parliament was proposed in the Uluru Statement from the Heart, a 2017 document crafted by Indigenous leaders that set out a roadmap for reconciliation with wider Australia.

Australia's Indigenous citizens, who make up 3.8% of the country's 26 million population, have inhabited the land for about 60,000 years but are not mentioned in the constitution and are, by most socio-economic measures, the most disadvantaged people in the country."

Australia rejects Indigenous referendum in setback for reconciliation (msn.com)

I have family out there. I just assumed that they would have voted YES. I hope they did. Perhaps I should ask them.

The whole “aboriginal people can be white too” hints at one of the problems to me.

I mean….bluntly? If someone does not “look” Aboriginal and did not grow up on a protected area or similarly disadvantaged place, it’s hard to see how the fact that they are [insert percentage here] Aboriginal or whatever is supposed to be a disadvantage or source of discrimination for them. And if that is the case, any sort of legal change that could potentially bring advantages to them becomes highly dubious - it can all start to look like a way for the more sharp-elbowed, good-at-working-the-system type of white person to gain special status for themselves.

I don’t know enough about this particular piece of legislation to know how I would have voted. But stuff like this makes me suspect that it’s a bit more complex than “IF YOU VOTED NO YOU ARE RAY-SISSED” etc.

I've been listening to lots of talk back radio and it is certainly true that some people who voted NO were definitely not racist and were actual Aboriginals themselves and the largest populations who voted YES came from the inner city areas of the largest cities.
There were two parts to the referendum put up ..

• an acknowledgement of first peoples and
• a VOICE to advise Parliament and committees.

It has been interesting to hear the many reasons why people voted Yes or NO.
Some remote Aboriginal areas voted 75% YES, other Aboriginal regions voted NO though I suspect that the over all the Aboriginal vote was YES. There were respected Aboriginal people leading both sides.
NO voters gave their many reasons, some ..
not enough detail, they did not approve of a racial difference in the Constituation set for all time but prefer each Australian to be equal under the Constitution, the poor performance of similar VOICES ie ATSIC (which became corrupt with some Aboriginal leaders taking advantage of others), a need for the bulk of money to support better specific problems and actual outcomes rather than setting up a beaurocracy, not feeling like a VOICE set up in Canberra would accurately represent the Aboriginals in regions and many other reasons.

Aboriginal Australia is made up of hundreds of tribes not just one. Every area has unique circumstances.

YES voters were obviously disappointed (and many NO voters) as the whole ordeal has been challenging and quite divisive.
Ultimately the YES voters thought the inclusion of the extra words were the right way and the NO voters thought the chosen words should have been different.
Over all the result was about a 40% - 60% split.

Powerful Aboriginal leaders who expressed views were Jacinta Price, Warren Mundine, Linda Burney, Marcia Langton, Lidia Thorpe and others - all of whom are deeply respected and include Parliamentarians and schollars of note.
It is a very complex issue.

I think it likely that a simplified change to the Constitution could have succeeded - one that acknowledged the fact that Australia, though written as being Terra Nullius, was, as noted by written records of those who came in ships, occupied by dark skinned people who, it transpired, were members of many neighbouring tribes and who had been living sustainably on their land for thousands and thousands of years.
To acknowledge the truth that because the people seemed primitive they were dismissed as occupants and that violence between settlers and the Aboriginals (and huge deaths by transmissable diseases) resulted in the demise of the many peoples, cultures and languages with whom no treaties were made.
New Australians prevailed - over took the ancient cultures - to form the Australia of today. To acknowledge the survival of fragments of the oldest culture and the oldest peoples and to support conservation of language and ancient artworks, culture and preservation of the health and well being of the people would have, I think, been voted in a clear YES.

There are many marginalised groups in Australia, not all being Aboriginal of course. So to entrench a VOICE to Parliament in the Constitution would have set a racial division that some voters did not think right.

“Please read the official information that Australians had access to before voting in the voice referendum, and you will have a better understanding of why people voted the way they did.
**
Yes, of course there would have been an element of racism. However, racism wasn’t the only reason why people chose to vote no.”

Just to add to this pp link about AEC info: Please note the AEC information provided
by both yes and no campaigns was not fact checked. (I’ve NRFT so apologies if this info is being repeated)

The AEC do not fact check info they send out for a referendum. I know, my head still hasn’t stopped spinning from this revelation.

There are now calls for fact checking to be legislated.

The Guardian fact checked both - and they yes side was correct in information, and no side had misleading information and was therefore incorrect. The AEC have acknowledged it was not fact checked.

So, this AEC pamphlet comes to peoples’ homes. People read it; and believe it all and, misinformed, then vote according to what they’ve read.

Misinformation was absolutely rife but the AEC form was not the only source of misinformation. We had misleading politicians, misleading media, and the thing many of us are going to read the most - social media - plenty of misinformation on social media:

https://www.aec.gov.au/referendums/files/pamphlet/your-official-yes-no-referendum-pamphlet.pdf?=v1.0
https://www.aec.gov.au/referendums/files/pamphlet/your-official-yes-no-referendum-pamphlet.pdf?=

I’m sorry I haven’t read the entire thread but OP asked if they were U to be “shocked.” I voted YABU, simply because in the entire history of Australia, no referendum has ever passed without bipartisan support. This referendum didn’t have bipartisan support, and it didn’t pass. It shouldn’t shock anyone who has studied Australian politics. There are nations that have referendums practically every other Tuesday as part of their political system (like Switzerland). But this is the first referendum Australia has had in 25 years and they rejected the last one too (no bipartisan support). They have only passed 44 referendums since 1901.

The last one they rejected was about Australia becoming a republic, another referendum that would have had long historical effects. I suspect the issue may have been that people who voted “no” were against adding anything to their constitution, probably affected by the “no” campaign’s “whataboutery” that if they started adding things to a 122-year old document, what about when X group wants to be in the constitution? And Y group? I’m not saying that’s a fair argument at all (the group asking for this change has been there LONGER than the constitution), but it can be effective in swaying a lot of on-the-fence or even slightly conservative voters.

It is the virtue signallers from the UK, bringing the UK into it. I've said that throughout the thread. It's not necessary. Once again, I have defended Australia. These people thrive on division and do nothing but stir up trouble. As your post suggests, it's worked.

The majority of people who identify as Aboriginals are whiter than me

Perhaps I should amend my post to say that I didn't see anyone who looked obviously Aboriginal.

I am sure those who are very white must experience less racism as a result. I have white nieces and nephews and a mixed race Islander niece. All born and bred in Oz. They tell me their very different experiences of life.

My brother who is white lives with Aboriginals and tried to get one of his young friends a job and the boss gave him a mouthful of abuse full of racial slurs for suggesting such a thing. My brother had an Aboriginal girlfriend for years and being with her he saw how she could be treated. Also, by extension, he was often shunned by people because he was with her.

I know this is all anecdotal, but when you hear lots of stories like this it does make an impression.

This is very topical at the moment. All over the news.

But I would welcome a thread about racism in the UK.

Recognise though, that that Original People, the First Australians, are the ones whose lands were colonised. We to come here or most of our ancestors wanted to come here. First Nations People - they are owed a chance to improve their lives. They are owed a debt. (Despite the popular bullshit, they aren’t asking for handouts.). On average, First Nations people are still living at levels of Great Depression Era Poverty. And they are amongst the most roadblocked people in the world. We should not get to take nearly everything of theirs and then say ‘okay, now we are all equal.’

Yes, I believe they are owed a debt.

I’d wonder about the precedent you set by giving different rights to ‘Original People’ given all the immigration and frankly, racism that exists.

And I mean precedent, not all Original People stories are the same, but the concept could very much be seen as the same. ‘White privileged’ enshrined in the constitution?

What did you see?

I was staying in Maroubra with family. As I am sure you know Maroubra is an Aboriginal word.

Traditionally, Aboriginals did live in what is now called Sydney, until they were displaced. Now they have social housing which is often unfit habitation.

I know the past cannot be undone, but the Aboriginals are living where they are allowed to live, not where they would have traditionally lived.

"Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples living in social housing face common social housing challenges of low income, higher incidence of mental health issues and poorer health along with specific challenges due to the impacts of colonisation and its ongoing manifestations in racism and inequity. "

Social and emotional wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Aboriginal controlled social housing | BMC Public Health | Full Text (biomedcentral.com)

In 2020, the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison denied the history of slavery in Australia.

Slavery in Australia: What is blackbirding and how did racist policies shape our nation? (smh.com.au)

I know from my brother's experiences living in Aboriginal communities, that there is a great lack of trust towards many white people and authority figures. That doesn't surprise me.

I’m not at all surprised by this outcome, but it is very sad. I was very shocked when I visited Australia to learn how some people speak about and see aboriginal people. This was a very stark contrast to how neighbouring New Zealand view their Māori heritage.

I think that because their land was taken from them, their children (The Stolen Generation), they were placed in chains and used as slave labour to build the railways, they were promised pay they never received, their cherished spiritual sites that held great meaning for them were built over, the White Australia Policy which only stopped in 1973, their families, community and whole way of life were torn apart, even today their life expectancy is a lot lower than non-Indigenous people,

The following is from a free site, but you need to register. I have picked out parts rather than paste a big wall of text:

The 'Aboriginal Problem'
After colonisation, it was commonly thought that First Nations people in Australia would inevitably die out. However, the growing number of people of mixed race (at that time referred to by the derogatory term ‘half-cast’) soon made it clear that the ‘Aboriginal problem’ wasn’t going to disappear.

The government’s solution was to discontinue its policy of protection, which separated First Nations people from white society by placing First Nations people on reserves and missions, and to instead adopt an assimilation approach. Assimilation policies proposed that ‘full-blood’ First Nations people should be allowed to ‘die out’ through a process of natural elimination, while people of mixed race were encouraged to assimilate into the white community.

During the assimilation era, many First Nations people were forced to leave reserves, which were often reclaimed by governments for housing and mining. Although life on the reserves was oppressive, it was also difficult for First Nations people to find work in the towns and cities due to the prevalent racism in wider society. First Nations people were often refused access to community venues and services, including hospitals and swimming pools. As a result, rather than being assimilated, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were often forced to live in poverty on the fringes of town

Stolen children
Assimilation policies focused primarily on children, who were considered more adaptable to white society than adults. Consequently, one of the main features of the assimilation era was the forcible removal of First Nations children from their families.

Between 1910 and the early 1970s, generations of First Nations children were removed under these policies, and have become known as the Stolen Generations. Children of mixed race were particularly vulnerable to removal, as it was thought they could be more easily assimilated into the white community due to their lighter skin colour. The policies of child removal left a legacy of trauma and loss that continues to affect First Nations communities, families and individuals

Contradictory logic
Assimilation, including child removal policies, failed its aim of improving the life of First Nations people. One of the main reasons for this was the contradictory logic behind assimilation – it expected First Nations people to take responsibility for becoming the same as white people, yet never gave First Nations people the same rights or opportunities to do so.

Regardless of their efforts, First Nations people weren’t accepted as equals in society, and were still considered an inferior race. This essential belief in the inferiority of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and cultures undermined the objectives of assimilation policy and led to its failure.

The devastating impact of assimilation policies on families and cultures continue to affect First Nations communities today.

Careers Page | Australians Together

Exactly this.

Why are they owed a debt?

because they were colonised! including having their children taken! Honestly your contributions to this thread are really offensive.

Thanks again to @ALittleTeawithmilk for all the information you're providing and corrections you're making. This thread is awful and shows what indigenous people are up against.

where have I said I don't accept you can have a different opinion? Don;t be rude to me. I could be a LOT ruder to you and the disgusting things you've written. I have 'the ability' to read what you've written and respond as I wish to. You're entitled to write what you want, and I am entitled to respond to it. Just because its your opinion, doesn't mean people can't disagree with it, thats how a forum works. I think your opinion typifies the problems in Australia, and the way you've written about mixed race people and their colour shows your extreme ignorance of the experiences of mixed race people in colonies like Australia.

@Olivesmum78

Why are they owed a debt?

Aboriginals who live in remote areas have a very different lifestyle to those who do not live in remote areas. All people who live in remote areas of Australia are at a huge disadvantage, not just Aboriginals.

Are you Australian? Your language leads me to think you're not.