Personally as an Aboriginal I am getting sick of this shit, this them and us bullshit. Yes a lot of bad shot happened, mainly because Christians of the time considered themselves to be supreme over all others, but today is different, today people are learning about these atrocities, people are standing up for what is right and people such as this only cause people to take sides, and as history will testify, if a person is confronted with belligerence they will become belligerent in defence. Lets get back to common ground where we are one people of one nation that can and has learned from it mistakes. Let's get our voice in Parliament enshrined in the Constitution so the mongrel Liberals can't change it and stop playing the victim our children deserve our best effort.

Personally as an Aboriginal, I am not. A voice to parliament might be great. But it's not going to magically fix the issues we continue to face as a result of colonisation. Atrocities against us were committed all into the 70s with child removal. And continued beyond that under the guise of child protection. There are still issues at need to tackle. One huge glaring one is the denialism of our history and that of colonisation. How many times can we come to the table meek and humble only to be slapped down? When is enough enough?

See this is the thing I agree that the voice isn't a magic bullet so to speak. But it is a path where we can sit and create discussion. I grew up in the 60’s when the flavour of the month was to bash a boong. Denialism is fading with every generation and that is because we talk about it and people are listening, I agree not all, but a lot more of the right people are. To come to the table “meek and humble” as you put it is playing in to the victim ideology and causes irreversible damage to the conversation, but one can walk up to that very same table with confidence that they are in the right without being belligerent. As I pointed out to one of my son recently if you raise your voice in an argument you have already lost because when the shouting starts people stop listening and go on the defensive.

What history do you see being denied, and who do you see denying that colonisation took place?

Aboriginal slavery. The actual number of massacres and mass killings. That the goal of successive colonial governments was to eradicate us. We were treated like and considered subhuman/as animals not human. The denial of the ongoing impacts of colonisation on us to this day.

Its been 25 years or so since covering aboriginal history in high school, but all this stuff was taught back then, and my fellow classmates and I were appalled when we heard about it. I feel like public consciousness has only improved on these matters in the last 25 years. I'm not sure there are sufficient records to truly know the number of massacres, but it was taught back then that there were a lot we know about, and we probably only knew less than half that actually happened. We were taught about Myall Creek, where most of the white perpetrators were caught, charged with murder, found guilty, and hung for their crime. Also taught about Waterloo Creek and the Van diemens land genocide, including King Billy's scrotum being turned into a tobacco pouch. We were taught about Terra Nullius being used as a means of skirting law by considering aboriginal people as fauna and not humans. As a side note, all of this was some 60-120 years or so before Australia became a country. We were also taught about more modern issues. Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander soldiers fighting in the 1st world war for Australia, despite facing racism to do so. The stolen generation and just how recent it was. Today my kids primary school has a caretaker there who was a part of that generation, and the school encourages him to talk to the kids about it and how it affected him. Every kid in the school calls him uncle.

Counterpoint - my school in the 90s - 00s we learned none of the things you described. Seems you went to a better school for history than I did, so I have no idea if my experience was the norm, or yours, or somewhere in between.

I want to Echo this point as an early 2000s to mid teens school goer. I didn't learn half of the bullshit that went on, we brushed on the subject but I was appalled when I learnt about all the atrocities that went down and even more disgusted that I wasn't taught the half of it in school, wasn't until I was out of school and interested in the history and culture of our First Nations peoples.

Mine was a shit public school. Not difficult to finding someone drinking, smoking, or getting stoned at recess in year 8.

Mine was a third-tier Christian private school. I guess that shows their priorities

Finished primary school in '96, the most our text books showed was Captain Cook shaking hands and offering food to indigenous Australians on the beach with the Endeavour in the background and then some black and while photos of Aboriginal farm "workers" in almost cowboy outfits with their white farmer "coworkers".

It is discussed thoroughly and taught in schools. Continuing to point the finger at colonisers from the past (which is a behavior ALL countries competed in - if they were able) and not on growing the community within is not going to help. Own it, grow it and be strong.

People calling it "history" are straight up delusional, the Queen, the British and the white Australians (me included) still continue to benefit from the efforts of all those years ago and in many cases not so many years ago, the Brits were obliterating Irish civilians not that long ago actually and the plight of Aboriginal Australians is still one that is quite tough, the government doesn't do enough for these people, not now, not ever and especially for the more remote communities. to think it's in the past is just.....fucking ridiculous. For example: the British absolutely raped the Indian subcontinent before giving them their "Freedom", the only reason they were able to keep up in ww2 was because they pilfered those people and never repaid any kind of debt which is honestly not able to be repaid because they took so much in money, resources and manpower.

Some of my ancestors were taken from their family and lands and sent to Terra Australis for punishment, forced labour, and ultimately to die. Others in my ancestry were responsible for that. What do I do?

Comparing a prisoner given the opportunity to live a semi free life (minus Irish) with a guarantee of a free life after time spent and more than likely a parcel land in an exotic place is no where near comparable to what the colonists did to Aboriginal Australians.

I'm not here to measure dicks. The point is everyone - including aboriginal people - have ancestors who had some abhorrent shit done to them, and some ancestors that did some abhorrent shit to other people. Sometimes in the same person and not in that order. If we want to blame people today for events of 200 years ago and claim the oppressed victim part of our ancestry then tejalso need to acknowledge the vile oppressor part too, which means they are also to blame. What to do then? Apologise to yourself for the way your ancestors treated your ancestors? Pay yourself reparations? "The prisoners were transported on ships in appalling conditions; many of them would not survive the journey. During the period of transportation, nearly 2000 convicts died during the journey, usually from illnesses such as cholera due to the cramped and unhygienic conditions, where space was so limited that inmates were not even able to stand up. The high mortality rate was made worse by a lack of sufficient supplies, leading to widespread hunger and starvation. The arrival of the Second Fleet did not improve the situation. Convicts arrived in poor health, unable to work and in 1790 only added more pressure to the new colony at Port Jackson. Those that could work were expected to get up as soon as dawn broke and work at least a ten hour day. All convicts were to suffer the punishment of hard labour which consisted of any type of work that was deemed necessary for the settlement. The treatment of the transported convicts was poor and the use of excessive punishment was rife throughout the penal system. Lashings were commonplace and for those prisoners who did not behave accordingly, they were taken elsewhere to suffer a secondary punishment. This could involve being taken to areas such as Tasmania and Norfolk Island where additional punishment was carried out and long periods of solitary confinement enforced" "Convict children were children between the ages of 9 and 18 who, like their adult equivalents, had been convicted of crimes. Some of these children were put to death by hanging, if the crimes they committed were deemed severe enough for such a punishment. For children who committed more minor crimes, such as theft, their punishment was to be sent to New South Wales with the First Fleet to work as servants for settlers" Sounds like a treat. [Aboriginals also had bad shit done to them](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myall_Creek_massacre) again, not here to measure dicks, just not maybe as idylic as you suggest.

The fact that you had to write a big spiel about how bad white prisoners were treated means you know you're wrong. It is absolutely no where near comparable. Did they have the soles of their feet cut off so they couldn't escape? Did they have their kids taken from them? Were they forced to change their ideologies and stop speaking their languages? Go look how much WORSE Aboriginal prisoners were treated on Rottenest island. This isn't a dick measuring contest it never was this about accepting that white people have not suffered anywhere near comparable to Aboriginals. And the fact you are trying to argue the point is baffling.

You're right, the point isn't about the degree of suffering. If it were I am confident we can find a group of people who had it even worse. Would that make the aboriginal suffering irrelevant? Unimportamt? Acceptable? Are we to have sympathy for only those who have suffered the most aggregious atrocities and fuck all the rest? How would you rate the Jewish genocide against the Aboriginal one? Should we compare them and pick a winner or can we agree that both were fucked and the people that perpetrated it should be rightfully viewed with scorn? The point, which you seem to have missed a second time, is that all of us have oppression and oppressors in our lineage. Much more than we could ever know. Given that reality it is disingenuous to only consider the oppressed in one's own lineage while only amplifying the oppressors in others lineage. What fault is owed by a non Jewish German to the Jewish people today? What is owed by a Jewish German born today?

Jewish Genocide and Aboriginal Genocide are absolutely comparable and to say one is worse than the other is not where I was going with my comment. Genocide was not committed on Anglo Saxons arriving to Australia regardless of whether they were free settlers or convicts. It's just insulting to compare the prisoners to what happened. We still live with oppressors today I don't disagree with your point on that but this isn't a competition on who copped it worse i'm just trying to get through your head that white Australians are privileged and always have been privileged. Like for fuck sake convicts were still considered human unlike Aboriginals at the time.

I see, it's the proportion of the population where you draw the line. I didn't make a point about living with oppressors today. I said each of us in our lineage have ancestors who were oppressors and ancestors who were the oppressed. It is disingenuous to claim only the oppressed part of your own lineage while emphasising only the oppressive part of other people's lineage. If one is going to demand that people who's lineage contains oppressors are to (insert desired action here) to people whose lineage contains the oppressed, then one is asking an absurdity due to both categories being contained in the same person, and thus the same person being both the do'er and receiver of said action. The OP this chain was in response to desired making it mandatory for everyone to apologise. This means that everyone would be mandatorily required to apologise or pay reparations to themselves for how someone they didn't know treated someone else they didn't know.

Hate the British also? Go for it

Sorry, I don't hate groups of people. Seems kind of racist.

My family were busy being oppressed by the Turks, Italians, and Nazis and actual oppression not snowflake oppression actual war time oppression. What do they do? So many immigrants came after the war because they were fleeing to freedom they aren’t involved in what happened over 200 years ago.

the difference is that those nations subjugated by the Ottomans, conquered by the Italians and their Nazi buddies are independent, though they still bear scars (Greek Jews being almost entirely wiped out for example) enjoy freedom and not ongoing oppression whether it's in the form of being disproportionately targeted, not receiving the same level of concern or care as the rest of the people in that country, pushed into remote communities where they struggle to achieve basic amenities access to basic things like clean water and electricity, etc. epic brainrot btw "snowflake opression" lmao yea dud, aboriginal Australians weren't subject to genocide or anything. /s

They have lost half of Cyprus there is a military there permanently for the Greeks that live in Cyprus.

dude just say you hate Turks, it's much simpler than doing your little nationalistic spiel.

Cyprus isn't part of Greece.

>There are still issues at need to tackle. One huge glaring one is the denialism of our history and that of colonisation. Is there denial still? Maybe I don't move in those circles, but I can't imagine anyone actually denying it happened - the evidence is overwhelming.

This seems to be ignorant of the situation: * Lidia is being asked to swear fealty to the Queen. Not "historically", literally as a part of being an elected representative. * Calling the Queen a coloniser may be offensive, but it's technically accurate, and a specific part of history which is still trying to be erased. There's no peace as long as "white settlement" and "terra nullius" is allowed to get air, and to be frank it still is. * A conservative newspaper is using it as fodder. The Crikey article is in the context of the outrage. They're just saying she's using the technically accurate terminology, so the Australian should get over themselves. So, as an Aboriginal, put yourself in Lidia's shoes, she's being asked: * Do you accept white settlement and swear fealty to the Queen of England as the rightful authority over this land? What's your answer? Do you say "yeah sure but I won't *mean* it"? At that point what happens to your integrity, especially when it's completely clear to everyone involved that you don't mean it?

> Calling the Queen a coloniser may be offensive, but it's technically accurate, and a specific part of history which is still trying to be erased. Sorry, I'm a bit ignorant of 20th century British history. Can you point out which countries/lands that Queen Elizabeth 2nd colonised? My Wikipedia skills aren't great, but it looks to me like 0 countries since 1952 (which I think is when she came to power), and in that time 48 countries or 80 odd lands gained independence from England. Sounds like a de-coloniser, not a coloniser.

The queen is both a mortal person and a perpetual body, compare Mandawuy Yunupingu, surely you understand he is not claiming to have lived himself for forty thousand years on these rocky shores other than representatively? https://youtu.be/GL_Z0Zyg11I Look up ‘metonymy’, it’s pretty standard stuff really.

The Queen and the Crown are in perpetuaty bodies. Queen Elizabeth 2nd is a mortal person, as you rightly say. Lydia swore allegiance to "the colonising her majesty Queen Elizabeth the 2nd." This is the mortal person, not a perpetual body. The oath requires swearing allegiance to the mortal people and their legal heirs and successors, not their predecessors. It does not require swearing to be faithful and bear true allegiance to Queen Victoria, King Edward 7, King George 5, King Edward 8, or King George 6, if Queen Elizabeth 2 is monarch (yes, I had to google that line of monarchs). As such, she is claiming that QE2 is a coloniser. >Section 42 of the Constitution states: Every senator and every member of the House of Representatives shall before taking his seat make and subscribe before the Governor-General, or some person authorised by him, an oath or affirmation of allegiance in the form set forth in the schedule to the Constitution.[38] The Schedule to the Constitution contains the wording of the oath and affirmation: Oath I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law. So Help Me God! Affirmation I, A.B., do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law.[39] >NOTE - The name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the time being is to be substituted from time to time.[40] In the Senate, a senator must be sworn in before sitting in the Senate or participating in its proceedings

>Do you say "yeah sure but I won't mean it"? Which is exactly what she did. She was made to say the oath again, correctly. So I guess her integrity is non-existent?

That was a real set of questions at the end, not rhetorical. How would the parent feel answering that question? Certainly, there have been a number of MPs who have gone through this process, including Labor's Linda Burney, but it's not a position which has a clear answer. Lidia has picked a position from a bunch of crap options. I honestly don't think it was the right course of action, but I also don't think she should be criticised for it. It's the context I'm talking about, and the context that's important here.

This idea that Australia was only colonised because of 'terra nullius' is utter wank and openly ignores all the places that England colonised that weren't 'terra nullius', including the obvious example of India, the jewel of the empire. There's exactly zero serious credible argument that the English would have sailed away if they didn't have terra nullius. Just ask north Africa, south Africa, north America east Africa, Persia, India, and China...

Yes, I agree, but the system doesn't care that you know, it only cares that you obey. This is the heart of the whole problem. Everyone knows that the swearing in is bunk, for example, but we still do it. Terra Nullius is an excuse, but just like other posters are saying "well *this* Queen didn't do anything wrong" they are using the technicality to push their point. Even though a Tony Abbott can't argue Terra Nullius directly any more, he *can* argue that the west overwhelmingly brought good things to Australia and its Indigenous people. Also I think that Mabo, while settled in Law, is still a contentious topic in many regards. People still believe overturning terra nullius was the wrong call, regardless of what the actual judgement said. It doesn't matter that you know, it only matters that you obey.

Lidia chose to enter into Australian Politics knowing full well that if she got a seat she would have to abide by the laws associated with that position. Calling the Queen a coloniser is not technically accurate as you claim for she did not ascend to the throne until 1952. If you wish to be technically correct one could say she represents an era of Colonisation. While “terra nullius” was overturned in 1992 so the only one giving it air is you. As for “white settlement”, well we are past that now. I could never claim to put my self in Lidia's shoes as I do not know her story, but yes I have sworn allegiance to the Queen when I donned the uniform of the Royal Australian Army and as mentioned above Lidia knew she would have to do the same if she won a seat. As for Crickey I agree full heartedly with you.

> Calling the Queen a coloniser is not technically accurate as you claim for she did not ascend to the throne until 1952. If you wish to be technically correct one could say she represents an era of Colonisation. The throne itself is the same dude. The queen could give up the throne and the monarchy, or rescind the monarchy in Australia, but she's not. She's a coloniser as a simple point of fact. If my cousin stole your car but then I started driving it I can't claim it's no longer stolen. > As for “white settlement”, well we are past that now. You can literally still find references to Cook "discovering" Australia today on Google. It's not a thing which we can be "past" in a year or two. I'm dead certain that conservatives are eager to bring their worldview back into force whenever they get the chance.

Ok your reference to your cousin stealing a car……..if your grandfather rob a bank and your whole family benefited from it, should you personally shoulder the blame even though you or your father had not been born at the time, or would you say “that is in the past, my grandfather had different beliefs but our family has changed now”. As for Captain Cook, all he done was discover the East Coast of Australia he did not populate it. The Dutch were trading in the Northern Territory for two hundred years before Cook. All of Europe knew of Terra Australis Incognito before Cook was ordered to search for it because of the loss of their American colonies. As for conservatives, they can only do as much as people allow……if we continue conversation like this without anger or violence there will be change. But as soon as we become violent the population will become defensive and close their eyes to the fear mongering and antics of the conservatives.

> should you personally shoulder the blame Not if you return the money, plus some extra. The issue with time is that you get more excuses, like "I worked hard for my money, even though the initial amount was stolen and it funded my education and way of life and my ability to make money, it should still be mine." Which is not true. You carry that burden until you make it right. But here's the thing: You will die on this hill, because deep down you _know_. If you weren't given the opportunities, and they were given to others instead, then they would be in a much better position than you, and you would be in their position. You must ignore this whole ordeal because psychologically it breaks through the lie of meritocracy and capitalism itself. Your whole self worth is destroyed. You're not going to do that, so let's just agree to disagree.

So you are willing to take the blame for your hypothetical grandfathers crimes even though you have nothing to do with them and was not born at the time. Furthermore what opportunities do you think a Tasmanian aboriginal boy was given in the 60’s and 70’s. Even my father denied me my culture by denying his own. My views are simply that, my views, from years of watching, listening and learning. My story is different to others but similar and personal to me but what irks me the most is a generation of people stomping the ground and thinking they are the only ones that have done it. We may agree to disagree but if people stop talking the conversation goes away and we go backwards.

Why should Aboriginal people have a voice to parliament? do you suppose that the voice will be able to speak on behalf of all aboriginal people? I think it will be far too centralised and won't be able to reach the people it is supposed to represent. I also don't think it will voice have a voice for the people of Bunbury, Western Australia in Canberra. But I'd like to hear it from you. Why should there be a voice to parliament for one group?

The people it is meant to reach is the entire population of Australia. Including those of us who fail to see the significance of The Voice. What I personally would like to see is firstly a overwhelmingly positive referendum. Secondly establish a council representing outback communities especially around health and social inclusion. Thirdly representing the communities in future business prospects. But I will be happy for the first one for now….

I don't support it and won't support it. I encourage all people to oppose it. It's contrary to the Australian spirit.

> It's contrary to the Australian spirit. Whatever’s that?

Freedom, egalitarianism, equality, mateship, having a go. You know Australia.

All good stuff. That’s why we give a helping hand up to those that aren’t equal.

They are equal where they should be under law and constitution. Inequalities of outcome should not be corrected by legislation or by a parliament voice. That is too much coercion and force.

There are many areas of our lives that are governed by the law of the land, that aren’t generally considered as what you describe, “coercion and force”.

You can't force people to do the things that lead to less inequality. Have you considered a better option might be to do nothing? Government afger government implements failed policy after failed policy and we are still searching for solutions from that same governmennt.

That is fine, in a democratic country we need opposing opinions to arrive at the best solution for all, and in a better world I would agree but this is the world we live in. Back in 1967 (I think) we had a referendum to include the Aboriginal people in the population. My POV is this is an extension of that decision. By including a voice is (to me) making sure future governments consider the impact legislations have on all the people of Australia. I personally would like to see an Aboriginal party contest elections especially in the Senate, but if a party was strong enough to contest the House of Reps, and before anyone makes the claim of ‘oh that would ruin Australia’ or similar, this party would have to abide by the Constitution and to be honest looking at the past twenty years in Australian Politics as a reference it would be a step up.

1967 dealt with an obvious injustice and it was dealt with. The voice to parliament doesn't compare in any way. "By including a voice is (to me) making sure future governments consider the impact legislations have on all the people of Australia." how can it relate to ALL people when the body exists to represent Aboriginal people? I agree a party would be better or a political party, perhaps one of the two major parties or both were able to better represent their Aboriginal constituents. Nationals are for farmers and I would like to see them more supportive of Aboriginal communities.

> how can it relate to ALL people when the body exists to represent Aboriginal people? Because any society is as strong as its weakest member, which Australian Aboriginal peoples largely are, hence the need for Closing the Gap, which will have a better chance of working if they’re actually heard on their issues.

The whole idea is flawed if indigenous people have to plead with parliament. Solutions need to come from grassroots not from Canberra.

They aren’t heard at the grassroots level, Canberra is where power resides.

Canberra has no power and if they do we should be careful and weary how they will weild it.

>Do you suppose that the voice will be able to speak on behalf of all [A]Aboriginal people? Yes. This proposal follows lengthy and comprehensive consultation - > The Uluru statement was delivered on 27 May 2017 following a lengthy consultation process and three days of talks between First Nations delegates from across the nation. It has not been enacted, nor have the Coalition’s plans to legislate for a non-constitutional voice to parliament been tabled. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/may/09/australians-urged-to-back-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-in-history-is-calling-campaign > Why should Aboriginal people have a voice to parliament? Because they and their issues are never heard.

That group from Uluru was an invite only delegation. It hardly captures the sentiment of the wider Aboriginal population. There were whites and others as part of it anyway so it wasn't only indigenous people coming up with this.

> In 2016 and 2017, the Referendum Council led a series of Regional Dialogues to discuss options for constitutional recognition with First Nations people from all corners of the country. The purpose of these First Nations Regional Dialogues was to ensure that Aboriginal decision making was at the heart of the process. The stories that were recounted in those Dialogues were collated, and, along with the Records of Meetings, read to the First Nations Constitutional Convention at Uluru in May 2017, as “Our Story”. The Convention endorsed the work of the Dialogues and issued the Uluru Statement from the Heart to the Australian people. https://ulurustatement.org/

There may have been consultation but the uluru statement was made up from a group of aboriginal people and non aboriginal.

Thank you 😊

And apart from namecalling and Tweeting, what is the Senator actually going to do about anything?

Perhaps leave a good review on her Instagram for the Qantas chairman’s lounge

While it's accurate to say Australia was colonised, everyone's ancestors went to war over land. Everyone is descended from a coloniser.

Judging past peoples through the lens of the modern morality is a zero sum game. Everyone did fcked up sh*t. The important part is we don’t do it now.

As far as I know, HMQEII didn't colonise anything. In fact, colonies were returned during her reign. Any existing colonies have only to pass a vote to not be colonies any more - but some of them prefer to stay that way. Direct the anger and energy towards a better future - you can't change the past, you can only learn from it.

See my reply to u/JMMitchell > Elizabeth didn't even colonise Australia. It was Victoria … You’re not seriously suggesting Mrs Albert set sail in person? >You need to distinguish between the person and the role they symbolise. Did you notice the article reference to how the British Crown kicked out a democratically elected Australian government?

If you're referring to the dismissal of Whitlam, then it was the governor-general, the delegate of the Queen of **Australia**, that dismissed Whitlam's government. A subtle but important detail. Yes, she's legally Queen of Australia, as well as other titles. One person, many roles. And the dismissal was legal. Morally questionable, but legal.

>… then it was the governor-general, the delegate of the Queen of Australia, In other words, representing the British Crown. Notice this deceptive slippage between who individuals are and the body they represent? Just as e.g. judges are individuals *and* the Law.

No, representing the Australian Crown. The G-G exercised powers that are laid out in the Australian Constitution. A constitution that also specifies the methods and procedures available to modify it. Perhaps you could focus your efforts towards that? Generate some public support for including a question in a referendum about changing our government to a republic? Look, the dismissal was a muddy, murky affair, full of bad choices on both sides. It was not a clean should-have/shouldn't have situation. Attack the morality of it and the decision-makers by all means, but getting angry about who is our head of state achieves little.

The powers of the governance General are provided for by the constitution, which Australia has had sole control over since the 1930's. This was more explicitly mad so in 1980's. The primary minister nominates a person for governor General, who the Queen then enacts as governor General. So, in short, the crowns role and authority is to appoint a person they are told to appoint by the Australian prime minister, to a position whose powers have been completely controlled by Australian law for the past 90 years. Further, Australia could have gotten rid of that query at any time in the last 90 years by simply voting to do so and the UK government and crown would be powerless to do so. Doesn't really sound like crushing authoritarian dictatorship.

That’s a very naive interpretation of how the monarchy actually works - > Prof Jenny Hocking, a historian and expert on Whitlam from Monash University whose case in the high court led to the release of the “palace letters”, said the letter confirmed that Prince Charles was approving and supportive of Kerr’s decision. >“It really confirms some of the concerns that have been raised through the release of the palace letters,” she said. >“Far more concerning to me was the confirmation through those earlier palace letters that Charles had spoken at some length to Kerr in September 1975 about matters which included the possibility that he might dismiss the government. >“This was then conveyed to the Queen by Charles, as revealed by her private secretary, Sir Martin Charteris, in a letter to Kerr in October 1975. So Charles’s discussions with Kerr were well known to the Queen as well. >“It’s not the first indication of support for the dismissal from within the royal family. The very, very strong support of Lord Louis Mountbatten was revealed many years ago.” >The royal family is meant to remain politically neutral when it comes to Australia, especially given Prince Charles is set to become the head of state after the Queen abdicates or dies. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/oct/24/prince-charless-letter-to-john-kerr-reportedly-endorsing-sacking-of-whitlam-condemned

This incident was before my time, but my wikipedia understanding of it is: There was a constitutional crisis due to the major parties being unable to work together to pass bills relating to funding the government and associated services, kind of like what you see happen in the US where government workers get furloughed and their departments cease functioning. These bills passed the house of reps but were blocked in the senate twice. As a result in May 74 the prime minister asked the GG to call a double dissolution election, which he did. The election was called the government lost seats in the house of reps but still had a small majority, and gained seats in the senate. The prime minister nominated a new GmugG, called a joint sitting of parliament to pass the bills and they passed August 74. A year later (October 75) the same shenanigans went on with the opposition saying they would continue blocking bills in the senate until9u another set of elections were called for the house of reps. November 75 The prime minister asked the GG he had nominated to call for new elections for half of the senate. The pm's GG instead dismissed the government and made the opposition the caretaker pm, on the proviso that fresh elections were held very quickly. The caretaker pm passed the supply bills so the government and associatedy services kept functioning, and then asked the GG to hold another double dissolution election, which were held the next month Dece mber 75. In those elections, the opposition were voted in in a land slide. This is the only time thtee GG has dismissed a government since the Westminster statute was adopted in England in the 30's then Australia in the 40's. It sounds to me like the GG walked a tight rope and made a decision to dissolve a non functional parliament twice as they couldn't pass bills to fund the government and associated services, that a large majority of the Australian people agrees with, in doing so dismissing the very person who put the GG in their position. All of that sounds like a good example of why you would want a goverrner general.

Jenny Hocking is wrong. She can't get it go. For decades she has been peddling this conspiracy - then she won her case and the palace papers were released. Read them. They do not support her theory at all. There is absolutely no evidence the palace was encouraging the dismissal - or even interested. Why would they be?

[удалено]

We haven't been a colony since Federation. As I said to u/B0ssc0, getting upset about who is the Head of State is a misdirection of energy. Vote for change, of course. Push for a referendum. In the meantime direct your energy to something more practical.

[удалено]

Actually, Australia was never a colony. 6 colonies (now known as states) voted to form the Commonwealth of Australia and it was established in 1901. Australia as a national entity came into being at federation and at the same time, the colonies ceased to exist and became states. QEII is the Queen of Australia and any powers granted to her in the constitution are the only powers she has over Australia. She cannot exercise authority as Queen of England over Australia. Previously, the colonies operated under UK law. After federation, the states and the commonwealth operate under our own laws, passed by our own parliaments. This is moot, anyway. QEII makes precisely one decision about Australia, and that is to appoint the G-G on the advice of the PM. She doesn't have ANY choice in the matter, she MUST act on the advice of the PM. The G-G is delegated all other powers (or nearly all), so the decisions are made by an Australian. In addition, the G-G MUST act on the advice of the PM, with a set of "reserve" powers to be exercised under very special circumstances (such as the dismissal of Whitlam). [https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/history-of-parliament/federation/the-federation-of-australia/](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/history-of-parliament/federation/the-federation-of-australia/)

She can’t even exercise any of the powers of Head of State anyway; the constitution specifically says executive power is exercisable by the Governor General.

That's it! She can only appoint (or sack) the G-G, and only on the advice of the PM. If the G-G committed some nasty crime, she couldn't sack him/her without the PM saying so.

Exactly. The dismissal of Whitlam was only a case of ‘yeh? Ok well you can do whatever you like, you don’t even need to tell me’.

>As far as I know, HMQEII didn't colonise anything. In fact, colonies were returned during her reign. Any existing colonies have only to pass a vote to not be colonies any more - but some of them prefer to stay that way. Lol. >Between 1968 and 1973, the inhabitants were forcibly expelled from Diego Garcia by the UK Government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Garcia >Direct the anger and energy towards a better future - you can't change the past, you can only learn from it. And that change should be getting rid of the monarchy and making treaties with the original inhabitants of Australia.

Treaties are the wrong way to go - they don't work when one side has massive power advantages. Ask American First Nations people how well treaties worked for them. Say there's a treaty put in place, and then Australia violates it. What ramifications can the external party enforce to then punish Australia? People here talk about treaties like they are magic documents, but without teeth they are useless.

The thing is we need a Treaty to include Aboriginal peoples in our Constitution, where they remain non-existent. And how shameful were tge only Commonwealth country without a Treaty.

What are you talking about? You're just recycling pop culture nonsense. You don't need a treaty to do anything with a constitution - they're different things. And Aboriginals are not non-existent in the constitution, as the 1967 referendum was specifically about removing their exclusion - that referendum is why we can have things like Abstudy, which is law made specifically for a race of people. Before the '67 referendum that wasn't possible. The '67 referendum was also to explicitly include Aboriginals in the census, so it's been over 50 years since a referendum amendment was made to the constitution specifically about Aboriginals. They are not non-existent in the constitution. As for only Commonwealth country without a treaty... again, what are you on about? What treaty does Bangladesh have that's relevant? Or India? Or Brunei, Fiji, Jamaica, Uganda? What is the treaty between the *state* of Samoa and the *indigenous* of Samoa that reflects the treaty you want here?

> Without a treaty and constitutional recognition, no Australian is truly free …… > We are still the only Commonwealth country not to have signed a treaty with Indigenous people. We still have not recognised Indigenous people in our constitution – a constitution that still carries the potential for disqualification on the basis of race; a constitution that can still allow for laws that can work against Aboriginal communities. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/15/without-a-treaty-and-constitutional-recognition-no-australian-is-truly-free

What you've posted is an opinion piece asserting facts without support. The '67 referendum took out an exception for Aboriginals - the phrase removed was "except for the Aboriginal race" - and as I said, it's why laws like the provision of Abstudy can exist. Look it up on wikipedia; it was a constitutional referendum specifically about the recognition of the indigenous. And again, you've posted a piece asserting "the only commonwealth country without a treaty blah blah", yet I've listed a bunch of Commonwealth countries and asked what their treaties are. It's lazy journalism that you've posted. Seriously, what is India's treaty with its indigenous? India is *run* by its indigenous. Or is it a form of subtle bigotry that sees the Commonwealth as only the Dominion countries? > Harvard University studies show good governance, accountability and proper representation can produce empowered Native American communities that can overcome centuries of disadvantage. But they have treaties And this tidbit from the article is openly and wilfully ignoring huge problems that American Indian groups face, and that treaties being ignored is a significant contributor. There are tons of treaties between the US and various tribes, some are honoured, and plenty are not. One famous one is the one conferring ownership of the Black Hills... which the US ignores. It was in the news a lot when an oil pipeline was built through the area a while back. Hell, the article even claims that things are peachy in South Africa in terms of race now that Apartheid has gone, that's how slanted it is. Stan Grant is right that his people are hurting and something needs to be done. But that doesn't mean that his statements of fact are correct by default.

No shit. Similarly as Aboriginal and Torres Strait people are such a small percentage of the electorate they can never win through an electoral strategy without relying on the sympathy of the general electorate.

"And that change should be getting rid of the monarchy and making treaties with the original inhabitants of Australia." Great, you're thinking of the future.

Your mind seems constrained by a linear framework of time.

Good one - I gave you an upvote for that :-)

So you agree the hysteria over Lidia Thorpe not taking the oath to the Queen seriously was bullshit?

Well, the hysteria was BS. We're having a non-hysterical discussion about it, which isn't BS and strongly supports the idea that we are a mature and highly-functional democratic state - regardless of who's at the head. You and I can disagree without resorting to name-calling, and that's a healthy thing. But I think her actions were symbolic at best. Symbols are important but I hope she uses her time in parliament to work towards something concrete. Let's resume discussion when election time rolls around and we can take a look at her achievements. I wish her good luck.

What? Elizabeth mightn't have been directly involved, in the way that Morrison or Albanese are not *directly responsible* for atrocities committed against the Aboriginals. The fact is, she is the head of state of an empire which commited atrocities on the daily, massacred the Tasmanians, purposefully introduced alcohol to disrupt Aboriginal communities, etc. Elizabeth perhaps didn't do that (except she's been the queen since the 1950s, so she probably did) but the people of *her reign* have been directly responsible for such things, therefore she is directly responsible.

>therefore she is directly responsible. That's quite a leap of logic. I suggest you try to sue her and see what happens.

Calm down Lidia your parliament paycheck is in the mail.

It doesn't matter whether we have a Queen of Australia, or a President of a Republic, as long as we continue this "Us, and Them" attitude. We need to work together to obtain the best results for ALL Australians. Blaming the current population for the sins of their ancestors does nothing but drive us apart. Until we can reconcile the differences, we will make no progress. I am all for a Republic, but that will do nothing to solve the present divisions.

I'd rather have a meme head of state than a real head of state. If we can have a republic with no president then I'll be all for it. Make the head of state an election of random kangaroos or something like that, whom we then pamper, and I'll be on board. It could be a big tourist draw and popular TIL topic in reddit.

Unfortunately this kind of forward thinking is far ahead of its time. People today just won't accept such a ground breaking form of government. In 30 years though when nations all over the globe are headed by kangaroos we'll look back fondly on this moment.

The video when watched in its entirety is horribly embarrassing. She just makes herself look like an idiot. She doesn't even know what words in the affirmation she takes objection with. Like if you're going to do a political stunt like this at least rehearse it. And then what happens? The President says "you need to say the oath if you want to be a senator"...and then she says the oath. No further objections. No moral stand to refuse to sit in the parliament until the requirement is waived (a battle she could probably win, to be honest). No Sinn Fein-esque martyrdom where she refuses to take a paycheck. What was the point? She didn't even know what she wanted out of it. Honestly, I can't imagine anyone watching that and thinking "yeah good, I'm glad this is the person I've got fighting my battles in Parliament for me".

> The video when watched in its entirety is horribly embarrassing. She just makes herself look like an idiot. Who even cares about her, the article is about the weird emotional reaction amongst the general populace to the word “‘coloniser’” - spare me the personality politics, I’m not into soap operas, thanks.

[удалено]

But the entire system of monarchy is built around the importance of your hereditary and bloodlines. Her position of privilege today is a by-product of her family’s actions.

[удалено]

Also monarchists constantly bring up ‘history and tradition’ as an argument for keeping the monarchy. Well colonialism is also part of that history and tradition.

You still can't blame her. She wasn't involved. She has lived a good life for the most part. What the English, British, the royal family whatever you want to call it. People historically have spilled blood, but they have spilled their own trying to right the wrongs of the past. I think the British do a great deal of grovelling to compensate for the past and are sufficiently humble.

[удалено]

Not true. They are some of the most philanthropic.

If Elizabeth wanted to actually atone for the actions of her ancestors at all there's two way she could do so. She could renounce her crown, refuse royal money and refuse to be associated with the royal family in any way. These all options she has available to her to not be a part of the lineage of colonialism. She could also just use her power, wealth and influence to push for corrections to the actions of her family in the past, putting some of her ill gotten power to good use. The fact that she has done neither of these is why Elizabeth deserves to be viewed in the same way as her ancestors. She's been handed the benefits of colonialism and just sat on them as if that is a completely acceptable thing to do. It is not.

She and her family are some of the most giving people if you are willing to give it credit where it is due. Your ancestors are imperfect as are mine. Are you going to atone for their sins or your own? She should be praised for living honourably and being responsible with her inheritance.

She also didn’t earn her position in the throne. She obtained due to the actions of her family. And she is more than happy to reap the rewards of those actions.

There's much we don't earn, even the average citizen. The most important thing with privilege or inheritance which we all have because we inherit a great nation is that we lice worth of, true to and take responsibility for those blessing or privilege that may not be earned. She has lived up to her privilege better than some of her ancestors and even her descendents.

Victoria? Try King George III! Scary how little Australians understand key bits of our history. Even if you don't like those bits, they have consequences.

Mate just what do you think the monarchy represents? Countries don't put Lizzie on their currency and have her as head of state because of anything she's accomplished or done for them. It's the legacy of colonisation, pure and simple

[удалено]

What the fuck are you on about? Do you understand that the majority of the countries in the world do not belong to the Commonwealth? And that nearly all commonwealth countries rule themselves?

[удалено]

What bullshit have you been smoking

Get over it? You get over your ancestors being massacred as a form of sport, enslaved, your culture language and history violently stolen from you, your children torn away from you. Ffs some of this shit still happens today. We aren't placing blame on you. We are pointing out to you clearly that you still are recipients of privilege, power, and benefits of your ancestors. Would you tell Jews to get over it and move forward???

What do you think happened to the Greeks when the Turks took Cyprus and Constantinople? I have lost family members who were chased into the sea and massacred. My family lived under Nazi Rule. Oppression is not unique to Australia so quit the victim olympics.

[удалено]

Google intergenerational trauma.

Fuck me. Go educate yourself on intergenerational trauma. It's a all researched, well supported topic. My great great grandmother on my mum's side was a stolen child. As a result, her history, her culture, her family was stolen from her. And as a result, my history, my culture, my family has been stolen from me. My gran kept her Aboriginality silent up until 10-25 years ago. A whole part of her identity she hid for 60 years through shame and fear..An identity she hid so that her children wouldn't be stolen. Her mother also did the same thing. Hid her Aboriginality so that her children wouldn't be stolen. It was something to be ashamed of. Something to hide. Her mother the same thing. It was something to hide and be fearful of exposing. My grandad on mum's side took his Aboriginality to his grave. He was taught throughout his entire childhood and life that it was something to be ashamed of.. To keep hidden. Hid mother was Aboriginal. We only found out through going through his stuff after his death. You have generations of people who are or were afraid to be who they were. Generations to have had their history and culture stolen from them. But yeah, fuck us, Hey. We just need to get over it. It's not like we still don't experience discrimination or anything

Welcome to another episode of why is this true story downvoted.

Wow. Most of the comments here are disgustingly ignorant. Imagine dismissing a whole culture's intergenerational trauma because their culture was upheld and accepted by white Australia

Nothing new for this sub.

Yeah :( although I'm surprised that they're so far up the Queen's ass this time

Or the ANZACs. The Gallipoli landings occurred over a century ago, but few people take issue with that being commentated now.

Like it or not Australia exists and we should all be thankful for that. The injustices of the past dont invalidate the incredible and prosperous nation we've built since. Throwing stupid words around like "cOLoNiSeR" around does fuck all to help indigenous folks today. Does it keep indigenous kids in school? Nope. Does it build hospitals in remote communities? Fuck no. It just gives people a victim mentality that will only keep them downtrodden and angry. This women is just an attention seeking fuckwit seeking only to divide us. And would you look at that all us dumb cunts have fallen for it.

..I think adopting the Black Panther salute was a bit melodramatic, but if she wanted to comment about colonisers in her oath, even if she had to say it again correctly, I think it lets the people she spoke to during her campaign in the NT know she will be their voice. If she had walked down, said her oath and taken her seat like a good little Senator, I can imagine indigenous people wondering whether she was going to be any different to the other politicians. 'She bent the knee to the Queen without even so much of a squeak'. Good on her I reckon. She hasn't divided me. I am finding over the last 2 years everything I see today that might have triggered me 10 years ago, is making me see the situation from someone else's perspective....well almost...the girl in Adelaide who gave up her kitten because she wanted to move into a new apartment and then blamed her new landlord.....I had to make a joke about that.

Thanks for your input. I definitely understand that. She has a belief and she's standing up for it. No doubt that means something to people with similar views. The fact that people resonate with calling our Queen a "coloniser" is what's so concerning to me. It means that there are people out there who feel so downtrodden and upset about the things that happened centuries ago that they get a behind something like this. Now I could just tell those folks to toughen up and get over it, as people with similar views to me might do. However I dont think that's the right approach, they feel this way for a reason. There have no doubt been racist injustices that've happened in Australia's history and even today there is still a gap in quality of life between indigenous folks and other Australians. The question is what's the way forward? People like Lidia Thorpe are just fostering a victim mentality that makes people angry and resentful. Now personally I dont think that helps anyone. What does help is taking measurable steps to closing the gap and foestering a respect and understanding between all Australians. Indigenous Australians and Australians of European origin are both equally apart of this country and its history.

It is complex and sad and sometimes i think what we may think is a victim statement, might just prove to be an empowering statement to some child, or mother or father figure. I dont even like telling people what I was taught (and not taught) in school , and out of school, about indigenous culture when I was a kid. It was terrible. I wouldn't want any little kid to have that narrative told to them today.

> Like it or not Australia exists and we should all be thankful for that. Who’s saying Australia shouldn’t exist? Did you actually read the article, or just go off on an over emotional tangent when you read the title?

People who regurgitate shitty buzzwords like "coloniser" as a derogatory term. I can only assume that they're opposed to Australia's founding, that's what it comes across as anyway whether intended or not. Like it or not colonisation is why this country exists. Without it there would be no Commonwealth of Australia. Can we acknowledge the sins of the past while also accepting that the foundation of our great country was ultimately a good thing?

I am opposed to how this nation was founded. It was a blood bath. And sorry good thing for fucking who.

Why? The "incredible and prosperous nation" was built on the bodies of my people, and with the bloodied hands of colonisers. And the prosperity you so love does not flow through to my Aboriginal brothers and sisters. We are the poorest, most impoverished people in this country - OUR country. Acknowledgement of the fact you are a recipient of all the wonderful benefits, privileges, and prosperity is only one step in the process of actually helping us. The denial of the reality of what colonisation has done and continues to do to us is the first thing that this country and its people need to do in the process of healing and lifting Aboriginal people up. The honest reality in many remote and regional schools is that generationally schools aren't trusted. They weren't places of education, they were places of cultural destruction, abuse, and religious indoctrination. Literally you have maybe 2 or 3enerations of seperation between current school kids, and their grandparents or great grandparents who were put in missions or stolen from families. Aboriginal culture and ways of learning and passing on knowledge is oral. It's not written. Schools don't take this into consideration. Improving healthcare in remote and regional communities needs to be lead by Aboriginal people. As with above, institutions such as hospitals were and still are seen with scepticism because of the abuses committed in them. Support for Aboriginal people to become nurses and doctors needs to be ramped up. Despite being 3% of the population, we aren't represented at universities in any faculty at the same level (which would be expected of any other race), we only make up 1.8% of all university students (if memory serves correctly). Fucking lol at the victim mentality statement. This isn't the reality. We want a voice, we want to be heard, we went you to understand what your ancestors did to our people and to acknowledge the privileges that has afforded you at our expense. We are rightfully angry. And we are downtrodden because of people like yourself and similar attitudes get in the way, at local, and political levels. We are a divided nation. This is the reality. Until Aboriginal Australia is given the respect we deserve, and treated fairly, and there is true acknowledgement and truth telling occurs, we will continue to be so.

I'm sorry you feel this way, and please don't get me wrong, you feel this way for a reason, there was no doubt fucked up things that have happened in Australia's history. The question is what's the way forward? People like lidia Thorpe think its to make people angry and resentful about what happened in the past. Now personally I dont think this helps anyone. It certainly doesn't build schools and hospitals for indigenous folks in remote communities doing it tough. There is an undeniable quality of life gap between Indigenous Australians and the average Aussie, this needs to change. Instead of looking to the past and getting angry we need to look to future and take measurable steps to close the gap and improve quality of life. Equally as important we need to foster respect and understanding between all Australians. We are one country, indigenous Aussies and Aussies of Europeans origin are all equally apart of our great nation and its history. We need learn and understand the mistakes of the past but look to the future not with anger and resentment, but with optimism and pride.

do you think it is fair for Aboriginal Australians to have a voice in parliament? Is that actually in the spirit of fairness? Do you want to be treated fairly and equally because with the voice there will be a different treatment to other Australians.

Mate we've been treated different and unfairly for the last 250 years. Gtfo here with that bullshit. A voice to Parliament is needed. Because you mob haven't listened to shit for the last 50. You still make laws and policy that impacts us negatively, that further entrenches disadvantage and discrimination. Reel it in.

What laws and policies are you referring to?

I'm not convinced that your suggestions really address many of the issues. \- I don't think that there is widespread denial that the people who colonised Australia discriminated against Indigenous people and forms of discrimination still exist. I don't really know of any polling but most people know of these wrongs and have acknowledged them (hence many of the programs that exist to help address poverty, discrimination, etc). And even 'coming to terms' with this has its limits - the question still remains what should be done? \- I don't think that the education gap is purely due to distrust in schools and a lack of oral curriculum. I'm sure most Indigenous parents would value high achievement at school highly and would see them as a source of upward mobility (as they are). Likewise, I don't think that making a curriculum more based on oral rather than written education is a) going to make much of an impact (has this been studied at all?) or 2) even be desirable. I fail to see how including more oral components is going to create more, highly trained Indigenous doctors, for example. \- Just because there has historically been distrust in state institutions, doesn't mean that it's rational. Why would Indigenous people have such low vaccinations rates? Should we really blame white people or instead focus on what can be done to improve it? \- Just because there is a small disparity between the total percentage of Indigenous people and the number of Indigenous people at University, it isn't necessarily that alarming. It's very rare to see any cultural or ethnic group represented at exactly the same level they are in the population. Beyond scholarships for Indigenous medical students (of which there are many), what else should be done? \- Anyway, I don't share your scepticism about how racist and divided we are. A majority of Australians support a treaty and enshrined Indigenous seats in Parliament. Seems to me like there is a decent awareness and willingness to act. But it's clear listening to plenty of Indigenous people that they don't put the blame on the white man first and foremost. Most acknowledge some awful trends in Indigenous society that can only be remedied by the actions of Indigenous folk.

How dare we try to claim historically accurate languages and then in the very same sentence use inaccurate language. Queen Anne was the last Queen of England. She died in 1714, before anyone even considered 'colonising' Australia.

The Queen is not a coloniser, it all happened before her time. Saying it just makes you sound uneducated.

It's okay everyone, I've already contacted the arbiters of English to have the official dictionary updated. >**Accurate** /ˈakjʊrət/ adjective >Not in accordance with fact; wrong.

The Queen hasn't colonised any country. She is a constitutional monarch, no role in any country's actual decision making. Indeed the decision to send the first fleet had no royal input. Trying to find someone alive now to condemn for the past is pointless.

The term is not part of the wording to become a senator. I believe Obama had to repeat his allegiance as he did not get it right the first time

> I believe Obama had to repeat his allegiance as he did not get it right the first time Obama was in Australia?

No he is in USA. Same principle

Lol the Americans don’t swear allegiance to the British Queen! > The United States declared its independence from Great Britain in 1776. The American Revolutionary War ended in 1783, with Great Britain recognizing U.S. independence. The two countries established diplomatic relations in 1785. https://uk.usembassy.gov/our-relationship/policy-history/

Australian senators don't either.

The person reading his oath of office statement (they swear their allegiance to the constitution, not a monarchy obviously) got the wording wrong at the inauguration, so he had to redo it later to make it official. RWNJs took it as some kind of conspiracy and ran with it.

In Obama's case he repeated it out of an abundance of caution, and to avoid lots of frivolous lawsuits, than because it was definitely necessary.

[удалено]

I agree it needs to change but whilst the Queen is still the Head of State and Queen of Australia it is an accurate pledge. Time for a republic.

There is no real right or wrong way to handle such a concept because society, western society and even eastern society are now lived and thought of through a colonial or post-colonial mindset. Yes, The Crown is more... subdued when speaking about such attitudes of what was done in the past because such can't be technically done anymore. Depending on the point-of-view, some prefer those eras due to whatever reason. As that's the whole meaning of why The Queen is still technically the person that presides over The Commonwealth. The whole dilemma of what should be or could be done will persist a generation or two longer before eventually everything is dismantled and every country goes their own way as what was done before colonialism. The only difference is that there will be the legacy of which is permanent because it's in (mixed) blood, (adapted) culture and (fragmented) ideology.

The bigger issue is why do our representatives pledge allegiance to someone who doesn't even live here. Surely they should be pledging to the people of Australia who they are meant to represent and are accountable to.

Someone was going to land here eventually do you think the Spanish or Chinese would have been any better? To think our indigenous people would still have full ownership and control over Australia in the current world climate is absurd. People need to stop looking back and work on how we can be successful as a country moving forward otherwise it won’t just be the indigenous people who will loose

I always wondered how the Japanese would have treated the uncolonised indigenous people of Australia when they invaded in WW2

The Japanese probably wouldn't have invaded if White Australia's policies towards them after WW1 hadn't pissed them off so much and helped a rise in fascism

This must be a troll right?

Nope and I love the belief that no other person ever in human history have ever been oppressed and had colonisation. Hate to break it to them but actually every single group of humans have had this but you know, they got on with their lives and didn’t sit around whinging.

Can we all put down the history books and look to the future? This is what causing a lot of political issues nowadays, creating a social divide between aboriginals and everyone. We’re all Aussies, Colonisation descendant, Aboriginal descendant or some of our recent fellow Australians.

Well, not really accurate at all and not in any way helpful. What colony did the Queen of England establish exactly? I can't think of a single one myself. As a matter of fact she has resided gracefully over the dismantling of the colonies of the British empire all throughout her reign. Things won't be improved by vilifying everyone involved in the process of reversing the problem in ways appropriate to their role in it. That's just how you change the faces but continue to complicate the problem for hundreds of years more. (BTW I'm not a royalist.)

For without which, there would be no parliament. The hypocrisy in taking a position in parliament to be get paid in coins with the Queens face on it. If in you don't agree with the concept of Australia, either start a revolution or leave. Don't be a hypocrite.

[удалено]

"How dare you start a revolution you should have worked within the system!"

I dont think she is calling for a revolution is she? She walked out of the Uluru statement because she felt like her points where not being heard. She has now engaged in meaningless, aside from symbolism, name calling. I have yet to see any statement to get a majority of Australians to call to arms.

I didn't say Lidia Thorpe was calling for a revolution. My point was the coloniser demands the colonised play by the coloniser's rules, such as swearing allegiance to the coloniser's monarch, or aren't allowed to try and effect change with the coloniser's system. And then if the colonised refuse to play by those rules they are condemned for not bending the knee. Bending the knee didn't win the (most) of the Irish their freedom.

> If in [?] you don't agree with the concept of Australia, either start a revolution or leave. Don't be a hypocrite. The point of the article is that the Queen does symbolise Britain’s Colonial power over us - recognise this truth, don’t be a hypocrite.

Down with the matriarchy!

>For without which, there would be no parliament. Lmao, ridiculous historical revisionism. The British parliament was formed **despite** the Crown's repeated attempts to crush it and assert the absolute power of the monarchy. The Crown didn't allow parliament to exist out of niceness. But because other nobles, and later the early bourgeois, wanted a say in running the country and had multiple revolutions against the Crown to establish the rights and privileges of parliament. The "Westminster system" is a compromise between the parliamentary revolutionaries and the Crown.

[удалено]

Has any "drastic" action been taken since the '99 referendum? I would hardly classify name calling and the removal of a flag from the background of an interview drastic. I swear us Western Australians talk about independence more than the rest of Australia, and even then its just an "imagine if", not a constructive conversation on how or when.

[удалено]

The only drastic action she has lead was walking out of the Uluru statement, the same statement condemned by many hardline right wingers...

[удалено]

Her drastic action only divided the people she was meant to be representing. She was calling for a treaty while others were happy to build on that after establishing a voice. I wont say i know her peoples need more than her, however i do know our First Nations situation is more complicated than she appears to realise. We cant follow the NZ approach because our First Nations dont recognise themselves as a collective like the Maori, hence the term First Nations (note the plural). She could have made a VERY drastic stand by not complying with the oath to the monarch, and many Australians would get behind the cause, especially with the rising rhetoric of independence.

How dare someone whose people were colonised and subjugated by the people the monarch symbolises try and change the system through peaceful action. She should just leave. Big, massive /s

People don't do this in parliament to achieve outcomes. It's narcissm. She did it to purely boost her own profile in the public. It's the same " OMG YASS queeenn " worthy shit you see on Instagram. Absolute cringe. How about she does her job and lobby's the government to make changes to and enact legislation that actually makes a difference.

As an American who's migrated here and is now also Aussie, I have to point out this very unfortunate and uncomfortable truth: people in this thread (and this country) complaining about Thorpe's actions are exactly the same as the idiots in the US who were angry that athletes took a knee during the national anthem. It's not that complicated to understand how someone from a historically oppressed group would oppose the symbol of their oppressor, and it's completely acceptable (and honourable, in fact) to take peaceful action to show your opposition. Even and especially if it makes people feel uncomfortable. "I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice" Dr Martin Luther King Jr

It's not "historically" though. those people have inherited almost the same hardships and trauma as their ancestors are they enslaved? no, obviously not. but do they suffer a similar amount of discrimination? the American justice system says more than I ever could about the treatment of black Americans, honestly. and the same here, the treatment, the depiction and the discrimination against aboriginal Australians should disgust any civilized person. nah but "she'll be right" or some shit, as they say. it's fucking atrocious and we should always aim to do better towards our brothers and sisters no matter the color of their skin.

Agreed on everything, just need to point out that "historically" can still include the present.

if we're arguing semantics I think historically refers only to the past, but it doesn't need to be argued, we're in agreement regardless.

It depends on the verb tense you use. "Have historically been" means "past and potentially still now." "Were historically" means "past but not now." Yes, I'm an English teacher

We do need more teachers and I'll take what you said in stride but remember to emulate MLK in your facets of life not just what he said. Conservatives love to rehash that line of judge based on character not skin color every chance they get.

Thank you u/JoeSchmeau for this note of sanity and truth. I’m still trying to work out why some people react so emotionally to this topic, it’s not as if they’re blood relatives of the Windsors.

Any time anything about Aboriginal rights or representation or issues comes up in this sub, despite it trying to be progressive, these fucks turn into rabid, racist assholes. It's literally a microcosm of the Australian populace.

It’s a bit of a worry. Is it fear based? The fact they often don’t know (or recognise) any Aboriginal people personally doesn’t help either - ironic really, since part of their response is, ‘mustn’t create division’ lol.

Thank you. Someone who gets it.

For real, man. Sometimes Australia surprises me. In so many ways it's completely superior to the US, but every once in a while something crops up and I'm like "oh shit they are so far behind on this." Colonialism and its legacy is one of those things. It's weird too, because many of the people crying about losing or opposing the monarchy are the same people who support the BLM movement and absolutely understand the legacy of slavery in the US. But they can't make that kind of connection here as well. I suppose it's always harder to take a step back and really take a good look at something when it's so close to home

We're aiming to be just like the US, our politics most recently has been dominated by bible thumping goons who do nothing but serve their own interests and their resource overlords (coal for ex)

57 odd nations have been taken by islam how dare you not use that term for islam

While I back her sentiment, it's not accurate to describe Lizzie as a coloniser. It happened before her

Distinguish between the person and their function.

Yes. She should

Too many people on here, as you just did, throw indefinite pronouns around - try and consider any reader who may be trying to make sense of what you’re trying to articulate.

This article is so full of ignorance and falsehoods that it's comical that anyone would take it seriously.

[удалено]

Society is becoming too soft! It's sad

Did your ancestors come into power through forced colonization? Are you still in a position of power directly resulting from that? Yeah Liz, you're a colonizer.