I prefer the more direct 'evasive' to describe Burney, but I'm not a gentleman like Graham. Burney is dodgy: she will not answer questions, and she will not debate Jacinta Price because she knows she would get done like a dinner. She and her quavering voice give me the pip. And she need not think that her lie about aborigines being dealt with as 'flora and fauna' will be forgotten.

To be blunt, the inhabitants of Australia at the time of British settlement were too primitive to deal with in the way some people now think they should have been. They didn't have a written language; they fought each other with bits of wood; they ate each other.

Graham ably sets out the more polite and less unpleasant reasons by Burney is wrong, and will always be wrong, obstinate and ignorant person that she is.

There are some other aspects of the debate which middle Australia discusses in private but which don't make it into mainstream media. One is the observation that the most vocal proponents of the Voice are of largely Caucasian descent but choose to identify as aboriginal. They are using the invader's widely used language and writing, something which didn't exist prior to settlement. If the Voice gets up I suspect it will be these mixed race urban people who make all the noise, not those from remote areas.

From what I understand Tasmanian aborigines were here before the dominant mainland type. Any that didn't make it across Bass Strait were wiped out so perhaps the two groups should have a peace treaty to start things rolling. Another oddity is the fact the SA and Vic mini Voices provide for Torres Strait islander recognition, yet TS is thousands of kilometres from those states. Perhaps it's the vibe that matters not the technicalities.

Well, that puts it in a nutshell.

Seems to me, the ace in the Yes campaign, is almost entirely built on emotional response, and vague on historical realities.

The Aborigines the oldest living culture? The ancestors of all of us were around 200,000 years ago. All living cultures have been continuous since that time. All living cultures are equally old.

It's time for recognition and reconciliation. We do stand alone as the only colonial country yet to do so.

Why? Because too many of us are out and out racists without a decent bone in our body.

Time these mongrels were pulled into line and obliged to end their racist activities that shame us all!

Christians and Christianity do not discriminate. Suffer little children to come unto me, never came with a colour code!

And as those children mature into adults nothing real changes except certain natural born, R soles attitudes.
Alan B.

As david f says. We are all supposed to have come 'out of Africa'.

Modern aboriginal identifiers keep parroting the propaganda about their ancestors. All I can say is: they wasted 650,000 years while other cultures were creating proper civilisations. Australian Aborigines were never a civilisation by any meaning of the word.

Dear ttbn,

The Aborigines did not create a civilisation. They did what they needed to do to survive. That's what all of us do.

Settle down, peoples, no need to be nasty. All human cultures have language, religion, kinship, economies, trade, oppression, and so on. It wasn't due to stupidity, that the locals didn't have guns or patisserie.

It is a matter of record that conflicts and massacres went on for 140 years, with black casualties far outnumbering white. Skulls and other parts of vanquished blacks were sent off to Europe, just for fun. We'll get them all back from Germany, well before ye olde English give them up.

Separate point: Albanese's a tosser, and The Voice is woke-ness

david f

No, it's not what we all do. People who don't establish a civilisation are bludgers who deserve to live in caves. Australian Aborigines, as they were observed by settlers - Watkin Tench comes immediately to mind - were miserable and primitive; as I said above: they wasted 650,000 years, while other ancient cultures were bettering themselves. Aboriginal life was horrific. People are just too browbeaten to say it.

There was nothing to 'take away from them' as one young Communist admirer has said recently. They have been given much by civilised settlers, and they are still getting the same benefits and opportunities we all enjoy. The opportunities are a problem for some of them, who would prefer to sit about and take, take, take.

The fact that most aboriginal-connected Australians have done well for themselves shows that they don't need handouts and special 'voices' unless they are not bludgers; and then they don't deserve it.

Edit error. Unless they ARE bludgers, which is what the losers among the relatively small number of aboriginals are.

Recognise the Aborigines in the Constitution. One stroke with a pen and, presto they're recognised in the Constitution !
The rest of the debate has already been compensated & paid for multiple times over !

Graham starts with these two sentences in which he completely demolishes his entire premise.

"The perennially prevaricating Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Linda Burney was at it again, this time on Twitter, inferring there was something particularly deplorable about Australia's European colonisation because there was no constitutional recognition here, unlike other comparable countries.

It's another volley in the argument that if you're opposed to The Voice it's because you are irremediably and systemically racist, unlike anyone anywhere else in the world you would like to call your peer."

No it isn't.

To leap from the first to the second is exactly what he accuses Ms Burnley of doing.

The self projection is so obvious. Indeed I was recently blocked by Graham on Twitter primarily it would seem for using reasoned debate. It seems these leaps of logic are not to be challenged.

Come on everyone, we really do need to be doing better.

Who really cares or needs to be recognised in the constitution when billions a year are spent and will continue to be spent, all with no genuine results. Should yes get up, a few will become really wealthy, a number will become wealthy and the majority will see no change despite what is being said by yes people. History repeats over and over. NO, NO, NO

.

.

As we all know, ever since Cook landed in Botany Bay, home of the Eora people, in 1770, the British colonisers considered that Australia was uninhabited, by virtue of the doctrine of terra nullius.

It was not that they ignored the existence of the Aboriginal peoples, but that they discounted them as a species of subhuman primates that had not yet attained the degree of civilisation that warranted due consideration of their attendant rights. But as a number of reputable anthropologists subsequently pointed out, this was largely (if not totally) due to their ignorance of the intricacies of Aboriginal culture.

That was 253 years ago now and we are about to be asked to vote on whether we should acknowledge their existence in our constitution and allow them to have a say in laws concerning them.

A national referendum is planned sometime before the end of this year. The precise terms of the referendum have not yet been published and probably won’t be before the ballot papers are in hand.

Professor Anne Twomey, one of the experts advising the federal government on this referendum, explains that a simple constitutional amendment followed by more detailed legislation makes sense.

"We don't want things frozen into the constitution that might be hard to change in the future. We want to have flexibility".

"So, if the Voice isn't working well, if there are problems in it, say corruption or some sort of other issue, then you can legislate to resolve that."

That sounds good sense to me, so unless there is something contrary to that in the wording, I shall probably vote “yes”.

.

.

As I recalled on a previous thread, ever since Cook landed in Botany Bay, home of the Eora people, in 1770, the British colonisers considered that Australia was uninhabited, by virtue of the doctrine of terra nullius.

But it was not because they ignored the existence of the Aboriginal peoples, it was because they simply discounted them as a species of subhuman primates that had not attained the degree of civilisation that warranted consideration of their attendant rights. They were deemed part of the local flora and fauna, indigenous animals. But as a number of reputable anthropologists subsequently pointed out, this was largely due to their ignorance of the intricacies of the Aboriginal culture and lifestyle.

That was 253 years ago now and we are about to be asked to vote on whether we should acknowledge their existence in our constitution and allow them to have a say in laws concerning them.

Today, it is estimated that 10% of Indigenous Australians have already attained or are studying for a bachelor's university degree or above (compared to 51% of the total Australian population).

A national referendum is planned sometime before the end of this year. The precise terms of the referendum have not yet been published and probably won’t be before the ballot papers are in hand.

Professor Anne Twomey, one of the experts advising the federal government on this referendum, explains that a simple constitutional amendment followed by more detailed legislation makes sense.

"We don't want things frozen into the constitution that might be hard to change in the future. We want to have flexibility".

"So, if the Voice isn't working well, if there are problems in it, say corruption or some sort of other issue, then you can legislate to resolve that."

That seems good sense to me. Unless there is something contrary to that in the wording, I shall probably vote “yes”.

The racist arguments of the politically conservative religious organisations don’t hold water so far as I am concerned (c.f., Jeremiah 2:13 KJV).

This is how I see it :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrLTe1_9zso&ab_channel=rich963

.

I think the voice is a recognition of the fact that for most of the existence of Australia, the Aborigines have been treated badly. Others have settled on their land. An alien religion has been forced on them. Their children have been removed from them and subjected to an alien culture and religion. The wages supposed to been paid to them have been stolen. In the Australian Memorial the wars that Australia fought have been remembered with one exception. There is no recognition of the war fought against the Aborigines. In addition to the Voice, the war against the Aborigines should be recognized along with the other wars Australia has fought. There is much nonsense written about the Aborigines. They have been called a civilisation. That is nonsense. What is not nonsense is the fact they have not been treated decently, and the Voice gives them a chance to comment on laws that affect them.