Well, Joe, we don't know what the questions will be; but,now well into " Breaking Up Australia", I am even more convinced that the referendum must fail. No matter what the questions are, or how they are worded, the activist judges on the High Court will give the 3% whatever they want. But, what will Aboriginal-identifying Australians vote? The 2011 Census revealed that there were under 690,000 of them, nearly 80% living in cities and urban areas, with about 20% in remote locations. Of about 100 remote locations, some had as few as 2 people, most had 20 to 40 people. Do we really believe that the majority of Aboriginals really want to leave modernity and it's benefits in cities and towns to go bush, have nothing, and suffer under brutal, undemocratic traditional law? I would not have thought so. Did you read ABC News online today, describing the foul-mouthed thug, Noel Pearson and they way he addresses government education officials and white women? The average person identifying as Aboriginal is fine, but their self-appointed 'leaders' really, really hate us, Joe.

Hi Ttbn,

I suspect that there would be a wide range of Indigenous preferences in any Referendum, predominantly at Options 1, 2 and 3 but tailing off right through to Option 8. Amongst some organisational elite staff and remote leaders, there may be a spike for Option 4, a Treaty, or even for Option 5, a separate State within Australia (not that the elites would ever go there to live). Some urban radicals would prefer Options 6 and 7, a separate, independent State with or without non-Indigenous people.

But this may be part of the problem: that Indigenous people themselves are not in agreement about what they want. I suspect that non-Indigenous people would favour Options 1 and 2, with some Greens favouring a Treaty. Of course, nobody knows what would be in a treaty but one might sound good.

If it comes down to it, my bet is that the majority of Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, would favour Option 1.

So what this whole Recognition process might lay bare is that there isn't much agreement, reconciliation or concurrence, certainly not any unanimity, within either Indigenous OR non-Indigenous society, let alone across Australian society, about Indigenous Recognition. Its initiators may be wishing that they had never tried to start this whole business.

Cheers,

Joe

But would people who are 50% aboriginal and 50% European origin get
the same as someone who is 75% European and 25% aboriginal ?
What about someone who is 10% aboriginal, 15% Asian and 75% who knows what ?
What level would enable them to be able to live in the new state ?
What would be purpose of the new clauses ?
Would they have a purpose ?
Can you see where this is leading ?
It would become a bureaucrats paradise.
Just have nothing about peoples race in it at all !

Hi Bazz,

When the Black State proposal was first made back in the early twenties by Colonel Genders here in Adelaide, it seemed to be assumed that, like it or not, all 'full-blood' Aboriginal people would be required to go there, sealed inside an 'inviolate' area populated only by other 'full-bloods', missionaries, nurses and administrators. Back then, Aboriginal people were pretty sophisticated, so they wouldn't have a bar of it.

Presumably it wouldn't be in the most lush and productive parts of Australia, but out in the sticks, where there are currently very few non-Indigenous people, since they might have to be 'trans-located'. I would confidently suggest that not one single urban elite member would re-locate there, so god knows how it would be staffed. And the slightest whiff of compulsion would rightly bring charges of Apartheid, not that the current elites and radicals seem to understand that Apartheid may not be a Good Thing - it's separatism, after all, so it must be good. People have learnt so much since the twenties.

It's all a fantasy, Bazz, nobody is going to move to some bush site IF they haven't done so already. And I haven't noticed any charge into the bush on the part of the elites. Or the radicals either. The poor buggers already living out there would gladly swap, I'm sure.

And if not a separate State within Australia, i.e. funded from Canberra, then a completely independent State separated off from Australia is an even bigger daydream.

Cheers,

Joe

Actually I should not have mentioned the new state as that was not
really the point I was making.
The question is;
What facilities, rights, advantages, finance is to be given to those
who claim to be aborigine ?
Will a 10% aborigine get the same as an 75% aborigine ?
Will a 50% aborigine get the same as me a 0% aborigine ?
If not why not ?
Who will arbitrate these percentages ?

After all I was born here as were my parents.
As was my great grandfather.

Hi Bazz,

It could be that what passes for discussion about Recognise! has pushed the reactionary discourse about difference and special rights, has reached its logical end. As you suggest, the best resolution is to recognise the needs of people as they arise and cater for them, regardless of their 'difference' or claims for special rights.

Matt Ridley has a brilliant article in today's Australian on the bankruptcy of identity politics: he contrasts the equal rights struggle of Dr Martin Luther King with today's grab-bag for special rights: as he points out, since when did a genuine Left ever give preference to the colour of one's skin rather than the content of their character ? How on earth can special rights be progressive ?

And, as you point out, how do you calibrate extra rights with one's degree of ancestry or skin colour ? Aboriginality today, at least in 'settled' Australia, is of course far more historically and sociologically diverse than any definition by 'race' or 'culture', so the most equitable way to provide services to people must surely be on the basis of need, regardless of ancestry.

Just by the way, watching the previews of tonight's SBS series on Aboriginal society, it seemed that someone (maybe Tom Ballard?) made some outrageous comment to the effect that Aboriginal culture was so fundamental that it outweighed the rights of Aboriginal people themselves to live as they pleased - maybe I got that wrong. No, if people wish to live comfortable lives in the cities, and to gain the education and skills to enable them to do that, it's nobody else's business but theirs.

Cheers,

Joe