Opinion Irreconciled Australia - Reconciliation is dead, no matter what the Albanese government might say

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

Archive

On Saturday, Australia rejected the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The majority of Australians chose to slap away the outstretched hand, the gracious offer from a colonised peoples to “walk with us” for a better future, and instead said, “Nah, we’re good, thanks.” The pain of this rejection is palpable. Campaign leaders, many of whom have spent their lives working toward reconciliation, have entered a week of silence to “grieve this outcome and reflect on its meaning”. “We now know where we stand in this our own country,” they wrote, adding that talk will turn from reconciliation to justice. It’s hard, as a non-Indigenous person, to fathom this level of rejection, with the vote having become a proxy on “Indigenous peoples’ right to exist in our own land”. It is, according to Kuwarra Pini Tjalkatarra elder Geraldine Hogarth, like a “knife in your heart”, and many are now pondering how to explain it to their kids. As my co-columnist, Yorta Yorta man Daniel James, told 7am, “this is like someone has got a loudhailer right next to your ear, and they’re shouting ‘No’ time and time again”. Reconciliation is dead, as “Yes” campaign leaders warned just before the vote, with recognition off the table for the foreseeable future. (Peter Dutton, unsurprisingly, has crab-walked away from his “second referendum” idea.) Why, then, must the Albanese government insist on claiming that Australians didn’t vote against reconciliation, when that is precisely what they did?

Debate will continue for years over the various factors that contributed to the defeat of the referendum. Racism, fear, apathy, misinformation, politics, Murdoch bias, dark money and the mainstream media’s refusal to counter lies all played their part. But it was simply bizarre for Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles to appear on Insiders on Sunday and declare that Australians hadn’t voted against reconciliation – a claim not out of place in the pages of News Corp. “The Australian people always get it right, and we acknowledge the result of this referendum,” Marles said deferentially. “But I don’t take last night as any vote against reconciliation.” But what else could it be taken as, after Indigenous leaders, asking for very little, tried to meet the wider population in the middle and were rejected? What else could it be taken as, when Indigenous leaders said that’s exactly what it would be taken as?

Whatever non-Indigenous Australians’ reasons for voting “No” – whether grounded in racism, fear, apathy or simply not liking this particular model – they voted against a low-risk, low-effort, once-in-a-generation opportunity to listen to First Nations communities and have that listening mechanism enshrined in the Constitution. The conservative “No” camp’s most persuasive argument, according to polls, was that this would “divide Australians by race”. It was a claim that was false on several levels: the Voice was about Indigeneity, not race, and it’s obvious there is currently an enormous gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous lived experience. But inherent in it was the suggestion that First Peoples were not worthy of distinction in the Constitution, that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture was not something unique and worth holding space for in our founding document. Throughout the campaign, the assimilationist talking points got louder and louder, and the word “integration” was used with increasingly frequency. In the end, the majority of Australians voted not for reconciliation but assimilation, for a campaign that told them reconciliation wasn’t even necessary.

As Indigenous rapper Briggs put it the day before the vote, Australia remains “little Britain”, a country without “a real national identity”. It’s sad to be confronted with the fact that 60 per cent of Australians like it that way, and are not interested in walking with First Nations people to create a new nation, one that recognises the 65,000 years of culture that exists here. There is very little the 40 per cent of us who voted “Yes” can offer Indigenous Australians in this moment, other than a promise to keep standing with them, to show up for them, to donate and campaign and educate. The only comfort, if it is any consolation, is that younger generations overwhelmingly voted for that new Australia – a nation with a proud Black history and a proud Black future.
 
Shit like this is the reason why when you conquer a land and there are primitive native peoples, you just go full genocide. Then there is no one left to cause trouble like this in the future.

Does my suggestion sound outrageous and disgusting? Yes. However, does it guarantee a future where shit like this isn't a problem? Also yes.

I hate it when political groups, like troons, bring up their "right to exist," as if a vote on them having more than one man one vote or not allowing them to compete in women sports is actually secretly a vote on whether they'll all be gassed to death.

If only
 
Last edited:
Croikey, call the waaahmbulance.

The article doesn't mention that many of the leaders of the No campaign were indigenous, because they thought it was a waste of money and didn't want the country officially segregated by race as that would be a barrier to equality like it has been every other time it has been tried. But noooo, it's Rupert Murdoch waaaaah.
When you know then even some indigenous voted no, some white leftists should wonder some question but they're too stubborn for that.
 
If there were only two lessons from history that I could transmit to future republics it would be:

1) Castrate all the male slaves so if slaves become a problem in the future it's self-correcting because they will go extinct.

2) Kill all native peoples of any land you conquer because if you don't it will come back to bite future generations of your people in the ass.
 
Why not just give abbo friends a daily allotment of free paint thinner, gasoline or glue? We all know they would love it!
 
Feel free to commiserate with our chugs on being conquered and coping with the next several generations, if you can afford a trip to the casino to speak with them that is.
 
It's not the gas huffers, they're too busy being fucked up huffing gas and beating and raping women and children to employ the language of American-developed race grifting

These people are the ones who appointed themselves the representatives of the gas huffers because they make good money yelling at wypipo
In this case, it's this woman lmao
1697481523021.png
 
This is that white replacement thing people were talking about but the country would cease to exist if they gave to it those albinos it would be like africa they would have a civil war and it would be brown skinned man murdering brown skin person and it would be just as dangerous as Haiti and whitepeople would be forced to leave former Australia or be murdered for being white. It would be a actually genocide. Armies of brown skinned men backed up Iran would be firing guns with one hand and sniffing gasoline with the other
 
Having trigger warnings about how something might contain references to dead people is retarded, so I can understand why Aussies were fed up.
 
Are there any abos who have normal jobs and contribute to society? I don't mean white retards self identifying as abos, I mean half abos or more.
 
Why would you ever want to give special power and privilege to a primitive race? Being “first” some where isn’t a special marker of control and if it is, the Americans are indigenous to the moon and own it.

Because they apparently have special knowledge and better ways of knowing.

If not for western civilization, they'd be living in a marxist Utopia.
 
After the way the Australian government went all Nazi in their response to the coof, not surprised. Suggest many Australians will take every opportunity to flip off the government through their votes.
 
Still confused about what this vote was exactly for.
Going by the statement itself
the ancestral tie between the land, or ‘mother nature’, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born therefrom, remain attached thereto, and must one day return thither to be united with our ancestors.
It seems to come down to the abos saying
>Hey Aussies, give us a claim to all of Australia that we can later leverage to take it from you
And the Aussies voted on it and ended up with a clear 'no'. Of course the abos and their proxies had literally nothing to retort other than the usual 'muh waycisms muh xenophobia muh whateverisms' copes. It gets so sad they're actually admonishing the jewish press for not shilling enough on their behalf.

Now I know that this may seem cruel, but I agree with the Australians here. Get all this dark-skinned trash out of Europe and we can talk about handing over entire continents to glorified wildlife. Until then everyone can kindly fuck off.
 
After the way the Australian government went all Nazi in their response to the coof, not surprised. Suggest many Australians will take every opportunity to flip off the government through their votes.
It's been amusing watching world governments honestly scratch their heads about why "just trust us" no longer works...... and as far as I can tell, they're being sincere.
 
Back
Top Bottom