I quite liked Annabel Crabb's article on the Voice, as it does explain the difference with the 1967 referendum, and pretty much acknowledges that it's legitimate that the public is confused about the new referendum.
I see on the increasingly trashy X (my God, I'm getting a lot of Right wing, MAGA guff thrown at me now, but the clear successor to it is still not apparent) that the Lefty pro-Voice folk whose tweets make it through to me are very impressed with the new advertisement featuring John Farnham's song and think it might just turn things around for them. I'm way less convinced - I thought the ad featured some odd acting by the (I think) key male actor, who seems to stare in puzzlement at the TV while it features some key pro-aboriginal moments in history. I would have to watch it again to fully understand the narrative it's trying to show in that actor.
Personally, I'm still conflicted about it all.
On the one hand, I don't want to be on the side of Peter Dutton and the cynical No case which is playing this for party political advantage. I also don't want to be seen as on the Lidia Thorpe radical side against it.
On the other hand, I am very cynical about many of the presumptions of the Yes case - primarily, that governments have not been listening for the last several decades to the myriad of aboriginal organisations; and that adding another layer of bureaucracy in terms of who the government needs to listen to is likely to achieve any significant change. (It will, to be very cynical, probably increase the income of a class of aboriginal activist who are already firmly entrenched in the roles of advice to government.)
Then there is "the vibe" - the Yes case is nominally painted as a racially unifying act, but the general "vibe" of aboriginal activism over the last 30 years seems to me to be moving in the opposite direction. It has included attempts at rehabilitating (really, romanticising) the pre-colonial lifestyle and conditions; increasingly common power flexes over matters such as access to national parks because of claims of sacred or special status (including over sites never previously the subject of such talk); increasing and sometimes opportunistic claims to aboriginality by persons with either little (or no provable) actual evidence of aboriginal ancestry; and (if you believe the signs held by young activists at any rally) a denial of the very legitimacy of the Australian government and land ownership in toto (it's "unceded land", after all.) Similarly, the "welcome to country" fits right into a view that it's not really the land of everyone, but somehow still theirs.
I reckon the general trajectory of aboriginal activism has moved away from something like a late 1960's multicultural view of everyone working together co-operatively, with opportunity being open to all, to an increasingly divisive attitude centred on a type of identity politics that concentrates on grievance rather than opportunity.
As I have said before, Noel Pearson used to be an activist who leant towards the "must take responsibility for our advancement" attitude, and he occasionally still makes some noises along those lines, but I think it fair to say that such a conservative-ish attitude is far in the minority.
To flip back again - to complain about the general attitude - the "vibe" - of recent decades of indigenous advocacy is not to deny that historical institutional racism casts a very, very long shadow, and deserves forms of compensation and assistance to those who are economically disadvantaged from it.
But I don't see that this means we have to pretend that all claims are true or useful: I'm not of a postmodern view that terms are open to a change of meaning at a whim, such as I complained about in my recent post about the Dark Emu agenda. And I do think that academia has played a gullible and often unhelpful role in this game of grievance amplification.
So, I don't know what to do.
If I vote yes, it will be in the expectation that it will further entrench the inherent conflicts across indigenous advocacy, and result in a likely greater waste of money than under the present system, and be taken as a general support for a trajectory in advocacy that I do not support.
If I vote no, it may be taken as support of the radicals who I really do not want to support.
I think just leaving the ballot blank is an option, but that feels a bit too much like sitting on the fence, too.
Suggestions, anyone?
Update: Noel Pearson is now arguing that if the Voice is established it would mean:
... Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders would no longer be able to say, “it’s the government’s fault” for failing to improve educational outcomes, as well as housing and health policies for remote communities.
But how does that make sense when the government is not bound to follow the advice of the body, and (as I have said from the start), what is bound to happen is that on the most contentious issues, the Voice will make a recommendation and there will immediately be dispute about whether it is the right recommendation from within aboriginal activism.
I mean, I can give credit for Pearson still pushing a line that it's important for the indigenous to take responsibility for some of the problems that befall them, but there is just no reason to believe the argument that the Voice is a way to end "blame the government".
4 comments:
I'm seeing no compelling reason to vote Yes so I have no real option but to vote No. Of course, a good reason could come along but I haven't seen one yet.
I find it interesting that there is a strong split in No voters between those who take a moderate position, saying it's not practical, it's good to be conservative about our constitution, etc - and those who are of the Lydia Thorpe position, that it doesn't go far enough and that what we really need is a Treaty. Interestingly, a number of my rusted on socialist friends are of this position - there is not a unified left position on this issue at all.
I agree with Tim that there is no unified position on the Left.
The problem I have with the Voice is that it will be composed of the same voices that have putting forward ideas for the last several decades. What is needed are new voices. When a company is failing one tactic is to change management, another is to call in consultants. In Australia though our indigenous affairs have been the same voices. We need to invite people onto the Voice with specific expertise in relation to the problems confronting indigenous people. Call in overseas experts, hopefully less politically constrained that people here. Utilise experts in health and human behavior. The Yes advocates want us to keep relying on voices that keep failing.
Yes, I agree, John, that there feels like the Voice is the product of the (now) old guard of aboriginal activism, which doesn't have much to say other than broad brush things like "we know things work best when we are listened to" - which doesn't really advance anything.
Yet the younger set in activism is into even worse platitudinous statements which (as I said in the post) swirl around a nonsense idea that the entire Australian government is an illegitimate replacement of prior nationhood.
One little examined (it seems to me) aspect of the 'Yes' case is the oft-repeated statement that it there is unanimous - or near unanimous - support among the Aboriginal corporations of the land for the Voice; and yet no one questions the authority or usefulness of these corporations. Who *are* they? They were set in place under the Keating government, I think, but largely seem to have presided over a period of stagnation in Aboriginal affairs. They are a large part of the reason many of the more desperate Aboriginal communities remain almost completely locked off from the outer world. And they seem to combine a governance role with a profit-making role - ie, combine business and government - in a way that would certainly raise questions about self-interest if it was attached to any other governance body. Should we really just uncritically accept that their support of the Voice is a good sign?
Post a Comment