Yes? No?

[springyzone]

Not necessarily asking for people to reveal their own personal opinions, just-

What do you think is going to come in?

My prediction-no by a landslide, except perhaps in some inner Melbourne electorates.

[springyzone]

---

@countessalmirena wrote:

"That people who have only been on this continent for 235 years would refuse to recognise those whose home this land has been for 60,000 and more years is beyond reason," they said.

"It was never in the gift of these newcomers to refuse recognition to the true owners of Australia.

---

Underlining is mine. I find that reference to “true owners” a problem.

That sort of wording is indicative of race-based division and an underlying sense that people whose ancestors were here for thousands of years have more right to Australia than people whose ancestors were here for hundreds of years, or who came to Australia perhaps 50 years ago… to make a new life, to flee oppression, whatever it may be. It is disturbing; it doesn’t speak to me of reconciliation but of separation.

To turn the vote outcome into a racism and prejudice accusation against the majority of Australians is illogical . "Much will be asked about the role of racism and prejudice against Indigenous people in this result.” — It seems clear that Yes23 don’t accept other viewpoints as having validity and worth, and read their own interpretation into the motives of others. 

---

I object to anyone talking about 'the true owners of this land'.

I'm not denying history but times change. I'm getting pretty old now and I've lived here longer than many current aborigines.

But the real poison behind that remark in red is it implies that the longer your ancestors have been in a place, the more 'ownership' you should have. But once someone has citizenship, is someone really a lesser citizen if they have only been here 20 years as against someone else's 50?

None of us have actually been here 200 years or 60,000 years, for that matter.

I really don't think it was a vote about racism at all, people just didn't want division. I think the whole referendum did more harm than good.

[*sons_n_daughters*]

Before every staff meeting we have at work, it must be read out about acknowledging the true owners of the land we are on. It takes a good 2-3 minutes. Everyone just shuts down. Every email that is sent from the hierarchy, has the same carp at the bottom of every email. I guess it makes them feel warm and fuzzy.

I own the land I am on because I paid for it. Sadly, I still pay for it through council rates. I don't give a toss who may have lived on it 60,000 years ago. If those people from 60,000 years ago, or even 500 years ago want to come and repossess it, go your hardest.

[springyzone]

That last sentence gave me a good laugh.

Seriously though, you are 100% right. I also resent hearing that particular chant before every official thing.

At least it usually says 'original custodians of the land' and not 'true owners'.

My main objection to it is it is dangerously close to a prayer in what is meant to be a secular setting. Back in my youth, we had the oath of allegiance " I love God and my country, I will honour the flag, I will serve the Queen and cheerfully obey my parents, teachers and the law.”

Just imagine the absolute uproar if we insisted on that today.  Yet in a lot of ways, most of it was more immediately relevant. It was reinforcing the idea that people should value their country and that a person should be a law abiding member of society.

I totally get that the idea of God, the flag, the Queen and authority are all controversial topics now, but we have replaced it with a sort of prayer, which is chanted even though the 'original custodians' (and usually not their descendants either) are there to hear it.

It is very divisive & puts a lot of backs up. There should be better ways to achieve this recognition of the past, one that doesn't involve vilifying the British settlement either. Or the wave of post war migrants etc

[domino-710]

This just about says it all.

[padi*0409]

There was one of the indigenous Yes proponents threatening to stop those "ceremonies" if the Yes vote didn't go through.

If anything, that probably sent a few people towards the No vote Dom....................

[rogespeed]

Or those custodians of the land living within subject settlements could pool part of their discretionary funding and so over time pay for desired community infrastructure as per traditional practice of sharing the hunt. 

While the determined and proud pursuit of care and consideration of the land is noble , seems to me some regaining of custodians of themselves might be in order ...

[springyzone]

---

@domino-710 wrote:

This just about says it all.

---

You know, I do not begrudge them the fees at all. If you hire a marriage celebrant, for example, you'd be paying similar.

My objection is that Welcome to country ceremonies have almost become obligatory. Or the chant has, at least.

If they took out the obligation, if they made these more of a cultural appreciation thing that organisations could book only if they really wanted to, we could come to them with a different perspective, I think.

I'm finding that what sets a lot of backs up is the idea that people need to be welcomed into what they perceive as their own country. Maybe if it just became a 'welcome' ceremony. Welcome to the opening of this building, or welcome to this game etc, it would be better received. We could enjoy them.

I actually like the idea that Aboriginal groups can generate ways to work and make their own money, whether in small businesses, art, performance.

[domino-710]

Springy - perhaps you missed the bit about being an artist.

Acting out. 

[springyzone]

---

@domino-710 wrote:

Springy - perhaps you missed the bit about being an artist.

Acting out. 

---

I might have.

It is sort of acting or doing a performance which is why a fee is okay with me.

Just I don't think organisations should be shamed into thinking they have to have it unless they want it.

[domino-710]

Organisations should be shamed for hiring ' actors '. lol