this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2023
14 points (93.8% liked)

Land Back

208 readers
1 users here now

Reclamation of everything stolen from the original Peoples

LANDBACK Organizing Principles

  1. Don’t burn bridges: even when there is conflict between groups or organizers remember that we are fighting for all of our peoples and we will continue to be in community even after this battle
  2. Don’t defend our ways
  3. Organize to win
  4. Move from abundance – We come from a space of scarcity. We must work from a place of abundance
  5. We bring our people with us
  6. Deep relationships by attraction, not promotion
  7. Divest/invest
  8. We value our warriors
  9. Room for grace—be able to be human
  10. We cannot let our oppressors inhumanity take away from ours
  11. Strategy includes guidance
  12. Realness: Sometimes the truth hurts
  13. Unapologetic but keep it classy

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
14
Australia rejects proposal to recognise Aboriginal people in constitution (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
5 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Not to minimize the pain a lot of people are going through right now, but I want to provide some context:

While a lot of people who voted no on this referendum had poor intentions, there was a significant percentage of progressives including indigenous people who voted no based on concerns that this proposal would be an unreasonable compromise, and potentially be an obstacle in the way of establishing a body/system that would have actual power rather than being advisory only.

A lot of the media and politicians worked hard to silence the questions and concerns especially of indigenous activists, including the most progressive party removing an indigenous senator for refusing to endorse the proposed system, it seems clear to me why a lot of people did not trust the proposal.

It remains to be seen what proportion of the no vote came from pro vs anti indigenous rights proponents, and how the population will react to other proposals such as treaty and truth telling, but it's certainly not as clear cut as the media narrative that "most voters don't want indigenous rights", and in my opinion, there is a lot of potential for much more substantial positive change in the near term, based on the efforts of the past few years and decades

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Personally I think the "progressive no" vote was a myth.

The purported argument was that this proposal was unsatisfactory, so reject this one and get a better offer. A nonsensical argument really - accepting this proposal was the gateway to getting a better outcome on every issue to go through parliament in future. This proposal could have paved the way to the body/system with actual power.

The "progressive no" term was coined by this guy from Black People's Union: https://youtu.be/G0kFfqb-63s

He's not really promoting the type of futuristic utopia most people think of when they use the term progressive.

Their list of demands includes a few odd statements:

We also do not acknowledge a treaty/ies as a solution to reconcile the historical and ongoing issues faced by First Nations people. The goal of national and economic liberation will only be achieved once the capitalist and colonial social relations cease to exist in Australia. National liberation will always be an intrinsic part of the revolutionary struggle against capitalism, colonialism and imperialism.

… and some interesting demands:

  • The abolition of private property.
  • The return of all crown land and waters and all land and waters used as a primary resource to the custodianship of their rightful Indigenous owners.
  • The redirecting of taxes related to land and water usage and ownership paid by non-Indigenous homeowners to their relevant Indigenous Nation.

Old mate continuously refers to the voice as tokenistic, “there’s other advisory bodies” and “this one doesn’t even have any power” et cetera. I’m not aware of any other advisory bodies that were backed by the constitution with a clear mandate from the Australian people. Imagine a government ignoring the voice to parliament when the Australian populace has supported them.

This guy’s whole argument is “no compromise”. He wanted the referendum rejected, to galvanise first nations people to demand more. That’s not how modern democracy works in Australia.

It’s also very frustrating that he happily perpetuates the misunderstanding that he somehow speaks for First Nations people generally. That’s pretty fucked IMO. Honestly, I think this guy has a lot to answer for - I genuinely feel that he has done First Nations Peoples a disservice.

load more comments (2 replies)