Joe,

You're not listening.

Indigenous Australians have now formed a historic
consensus.

They ask for constitutional recognition through
a First Nations voice in the Constitution.

Not a racial non-discrimination clause, which was
opposed by politicians. Not uncertain symbolism in
the Constitution.

They ask only to be heard in decisions made about
them.

A practical reform. Not a veto, but a voice.

I can't make it any clearer for you.

If you still don't get it - living in Adelaide
go ask Robert Foster to explain it to you.

Jesus, Foxy, what the hell does that MEAN ?! I'm not a complete idiot, I've knocked around Indigenous people for sixty years or more, my wife was Indigenous, we made Aboriginal Flags in the early seventies, we started a scurrilous Indigenous-oriented journal, we've lived in communities, and worked in Indigenous student support programs for twenty-odd years. We were obsessed with Indigenous matters for our forty-odd years together, and I still am.

And I still don't know what is the rationale for yet more 'voice'. For Christ's sake, people should use the multitude of 'voices' they've already got. I'm always listening but I don't hear anything startlingly new, except idiotic supremacist garbage. What is it that I'm not hearing already ?

Joe

Joe,

If you can't see or understand that the nation
has unfinished business - then there's no point
in continuing our conversation. I have tried to
explain things to you on this discussion
and have been accused of using Google too much,
being told to kiss your arse, and so on.

Frankly I'm over talking to you.

I don't believe that you are interested in learning
anything or hearing anything. All you want is an
excuse to have a platform and continue as Prof. Robert
Foster stated - to "put your own spin on it."

I'm no longer interested in hearing it. I've heard
it all before, many times.

Foxy,

No, frankly, I "can't see or understand that the nation has unfinished business". Certainly, there are real issues out there which only the Indigenous people themselves can resolve, as communities and as individuals, since they've had 'self-determination' now for nearly fifty years. A multitude of 'voices' for nearly all that time.

And if you can't articulate why there needs to be more something-or-other, then I can only assume that you don't know why either.

I'm interested in completely equal rights, no more and certainly no less, and they've been in place for generations now. What else then ?

Joe

And incidentally. Foxy, as you would know, Dr Foster's quote was more like: "He's right, but it depends what spin you put on it".

But my memory is faulty: perhaps you have the full quote. It was in relation to my article: 'Re-Thinking Aboriginal History', which can be found on my web-site: www.firstsources.info , on the Protector's Letters page.

Joe

Joe,

What Prof. Robert Foster, who as you know specialises in
South Asutralia's Aboriginal history said regarding
your work was:

"Mr Lane's conclusions rather oversimplifies three
otherwise quite complex phenomena. What Mr Lane
is saying is not untrue but it is how you choose
to spin it."

And we know how Mr Lane chooses to spin it.
And will continue to do so.

The Uluru Statement takes on board objections to a
racial non-discrimination clause, and calls instead
for a First Nations voice in laws and policies made
about them as a way of preventing repetition of
past discriminatory policies.

The proposal has a long history - Indigenous advocates
have argued for decades for fairer representation in
their affairs but in recent iteration arose precisely
in response to objections to a racial non-discrimination
clause.

A First Nations voice in the Constitution would guarantee
Indigenous people a say, without transferring power to
the High Court or undermining parliamentary supremacy.

It presents a way of improving Indigenous policy through early
Indigenous engagement, rather than subsequent litigation.

Anyway, I'm done arguing with you.

I shan't be responding any further.