How is it that I, a middle-aged woman with career success living a life far more secure than that of many, can be feeling so reduced to nothingness by some of the discourse in the Voice debate, asks Miriam Corowa.
More realistically, I think he’s just betting that you can just reason down a no vote to a racist fact. IIUC the line of thinking from this video. I’m yet to hear a non-racist view of a (conservative) no vote.
The “progressive” no vote, I have some respect for, but I also don’t think it’s a mainstream view, nor is it actually reasonable. It expects some sort of magical thinking that not having a voice will somehow get us closer to a treaty.
Not every indigenous person needs to come to a consensus. The vast majority of community leaders have come up with a plan. Focusing on the minority of voices is really just rhetoric in place of an argument.
The “progressive” no vote, I have some respect for, but I also don’t think it’s a mainstream view, nor is it actually reasonable.
Allowing people to conflate all no voters with Nazis, because yes there are Nazis around, is chucking the baby out with the bath water.
The progressive no campaign absolutely has a point. Arguably a treaty has been achieved in Western Australia with the Noongar people and the world didn’t implode.
There is the possibility that voting for a voice now means a treaty would lack political capital or public approval for decades to come because we already voted for a voice.
Despite what some here may claim I count myself in the progressive no camp; this won’t be solved until we have treaty and merely saying that we will “get to it” in the future isn’t enough.
Martin Luther King said this on white moderates and their timelines and I believe it is true here, where this referendum only reflects actions on a white moderates timetable.
I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice…
who constantly says: ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action’; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom.
To reiterate, I do have respect for the view, but you actually stated the bit I find unrealistic:
There is the possibility that voting for a voice now means a treaty would lack political capital or public approval for decades to come because we already voted for a voice
I don’t think the voice is an insufficient response to delay a sufficient one, and I do know what the insufficient response looks like. The reason is:
This is driven from the statement from the heart. Having a voice is a driving force for the treaty, not a delay. It’s also not a white person’s consolation prize. The statement is softly spoken and expects slow and steady progress, which I believe is consistent with indigenous values.
A no vote on a referendum is far more likely to stall out any progress on a treaty because it looks like a conservative no. This discussion isn’t whether to hold a referendum (which is far greyer). It’s what to vote for. To be even clearer regarding the unrealistic idea here imagine 80% of people were progressive no voters. In that state a no vote looks like a call for a treaty. But there aren’t that many. Very generously progressive no maybe a bit above 10%. That just gets lost in the conservative no and will absolutely be used say Australia does not want a treaty.
In no world is a voice worse than no voice. I agree with you that this sort of thing is often used to bait out a raw deal but that is not what’s happening. You can kind of see it in the desperation from the conservative no. The total fabrications and language used. They do not want it because it’s not a consolation prize.
He’s lumping progressive no voters in with Nazis right out of the gate, you will get no where talking to him.
More realistically, I think he’s just betting that you can just reason down a no vote to a racist fact. IIUC the line of thinking from this video. I’m yet to hear a non-racist view of a (conservative) no vote.
The “progressive” no vote, I have some respect for, but I also don’t think it’s a mainstream view, nor is it actually reasonable. It expects some sort of magical thinking that not having a voice will somehow get us closer to a treaty.
Not every indigenous person needs to come to a consensus. The vast majority of community leaders have come up with a plan. Focusing on the minority of voices is really just rhetoric in place of an argument.
Allowing people to conflate all no voters with Nazis, because yes there are Nazis around, is chucking the baby out with the bath water.
The progressive no campaign absolutely has a point. Arguably a treaty has been achieved in Western Australia with the Noongar people and the world didn’t implode.
https://www.wa.gov.au/organisation/department-of-the-premier-and-cabinet/south-west-native-title-settlement
https://www.atns.net.au/hobbs-and-williams-on-the-noongar-settlement
There is the possibility that voting for a voice now means a treaty would lack political capital or public approval for decades to come because we already voted for a voice.
Despite what some here may claim I count myself in the progressive no camp; this won’t be solved until we have treaty and merely saying that we will “get to it” in the future isn’t enough.
Martin Luther King said this on white moderates and their timelines and I believe it is true here, where this referendum only reflects actions on a white moderates timetable.
To reiterate, I do have respect for the view, but you actually stated the bit I find unrealistic:
I don’t think the voice is an insufficient response to delay a sufficient one, and I do know what the insufficient response looks like. The reason is: