Foxy is on about constitutional recognition, which is not what the Voice represents, it is about having a racial based Voice in Executive Government. We all agree that they should have been recognized as the first Australians, but this is not what the Voice is intended to do.

A look at the culture and life of the Sentinelese gives some link to ancient tribes 60,000 years ago and their link to Australia. They use the same weapons and culture.

http://www.grunge.com/588948/the-truth-behind-the-sentinelese-the-most-isolated-tribe-in-the-world/

http://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/who-are-the-sentinelese-the-tribe-who-allegedly-killed-us-national-in-andamans/320597

Creating an Indigenous voice to parliament is NOT
racist. On the contrary, it presents an opportunity
for Australia to address and overcome racism and
discrimination.

The argument that a voice would create inequality by
inserting race into the constitution is not only
disingenuous. It is also plain wrong.

The Australian constitution already includes several
provisions about race, one of which gives parliament
the power to make laws for - "the people of any race
for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws."

This is often referred to as the race power, and it makes
Australia the only country that has empowered its federal
parliament to make laws based on race.

Aside from being incorrect, claims that a voice will
create racial inequality are also disingenuous because they
are not made to support greater equality in Australia,

Denying Indigenous Australians a voice in decisions that
affect them will only serve to maintain racial inequality and
continue the marginalisation and disempowerment of First
Nations people.

Jose,

After your litany of lies about indigenous Australians posted on the forum which have been exposed by myself and Steele, its hard to trust anything you say; "building a home and school for aboriginal children"..."dig the grave hold the burial ceremony and commit her to the ground" I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say, good for you.

As for the Sentinelese; "The tribe have made it clear that they do not want contact. It is a wise choice. Neighboring tribes were wiped out after the British colonized their islands."

"especially since you refuse to provide references."

Oh I got it from the Spectator!!

"trolling through discredited journals"

And why are they discredited? Because they say things SR would prefer to think of as untrue. As I said "you'll reject each for entirely spurious reasons".

Oh btw, I previously guessed the name of one of my original sources was Man in Ochre. After some checking my old notes I now realise it was "Adam in Ochre". (there were a series of Adam in... style books.)

____________________________________________________________________

Slightly off topic but nonetheless interesting. When reading the full account of the people marooned in Moreton Bay which Paul originally thought showed no deaths but later realised it actually supported Blainey's numbers, I came across this story. While with the natives the westerners put a pot of water on the fire to boil. But the natives had never witnessed boiling water before and recoiled in terror, taking to the bush. They only returned when the evil boiling water was tipped onto the soil and was then covered over. Imagine....such a highly developed society <sarc> as the aboriginals and completely clueless about how to boil water!!

"A remote desert elder says he will vote against an Indigenous Voice to Parliament in the upcoming referendum, arguing there is not enough information and people do not know what they are voting for. "

"Mr Hargraves argued the Voice would not help with issues impacting First Nations people,"

"He added he did not trust the Voice to properly represent his community."

As we are constantly told here and in the media, only racists oppose the Voice. So obviously this "remote desert elder" is racist against the poor oppressed natives, no other possible explanation.