...from the quill of Antisthenes the Younger
Do Aborigines want to change the Constitution? What a silly question. But first – who are the Aborigines today? No or no reliable birth certificates, no DNA to tell us… Visitors to Australia are often puzzled, seeing “Aboriginal” spokesmen on TV, and ask – Aren’t the Aborigines supposed to be black? The truthfull answer would be, “Yes, Aborigines usually have dark skin, and no, TV, academic and political ‘Aborigines’ mostly do not”. But thanks to sec 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 and the infamous “Bromberg’s Bolt Ban” (see Fog of Chaos Travails of Bolt and Everything bad is good for something) very few would bother to answer.
Aborigine-ness or the lack of it has nothing to do with the colour of the skin, of course. Only the perpetualy aggrieved try to make it so. Our hypocrites apparently see no contradiction in the apartheid being so bad in South Africa, and so good in Australia. Aborigines, but only those defined and approved by them, should be treated differently from the rest of the population.
Furthermore, real Aborigines are smarter than their city-based advocates and know that only the parasitic class will benefit.
If not the Aborigines, perhaps the Aboriginal ‘communities’ will like the change?
“To many observers who understand Aboriginal culture the term “Aboriginal community” is an oxymoron demonstrated by community dysfunction every day.
What is interesting is not so much how readily the wishful-thinking, white urban elites adopt Eurocentric political forms and project them on to Aborigines, I guess that is to be expected of those ill-informed about traditional Aboriginal culture, but that the Aborigines of the urban elites themselves are so equally ill-informed about their own culture that they do exactly the same thing, fully expecting them to work. Take Warren Mundine’s idea of Aboriginal “nations”. The whole concept of “nationhood” is foreign to the Aboriginal experience and has no parallel in Indigenous culture before it was introduced by white anthropologists in a rush of misguided projection. The fact that there were no “national” structures that British settlers could treat with is demonstrated by the fact that in places where political units capable of signing treaties existed, as in New Zealand, settler governments did actually sign treaties.
But this is not about the definition of a “nation” — those arguments, and the consequences, will no doubt be covered elsewhere as the constitutional debate gathers more airtime, headlines and opinion columns.
Since “self-determination”, every remote community has (by an large) systematically and enthusiastically rejected all major aspects of mainstream culture. Mainstream education has declined to the point where grandparents are more likely to be literate than either their children or grand children. – – – Indigenous communities tolerate levels of poor education, poor health outcomes, violence, substance abuse, and child abuse that would not be endured elsewhere.” / Frank Pledge – Traditional culture invented yesterday
It should be clarified – the Abbott’s (in fact joint Gillard/Abbott) proposal is to insert a preamble to The Constitution, which as such has none. It will require a referendum. The draft Preamble is expected in September 2014. Whatever the actual wording, it will do nothing to improve the lot of Aborigines; everybody with a modicum of common sense knows that. So if it doesn’t change anything why bother? Is it just Abbott’s feel-good confidence trick? See Rousseau shouldn’t re-write our Constitution.
In a normal, or rather an ideal system it indeed would not matter and be only yet another empty symbolism (like all those Sorry theatres and Apology histrionics) for the greater inner glow of the coffee latte set. However, our political system is skewed by the rampant judicial activism. We have too many mediocre lawyers as judges – appointed by a political party for purpose of advancing that political party’s agenda. Invariably their mediocrity is covered by overblown egos. They are sure they can do better than the politicians who appointed them (and who made the laws), and the ignorant plebs who voted those politicians in. They do not interpret and apply the laws, they ‘improve’ them in their own, predominantly Left image and even make them. The human rights, aboriginal rights and all other assorted rights lawyers know that any ‘rights’ claim, however fanciful and unprecedented, will get a sympathetic hearing from the activist judges, who comprise at least three quarters of the States and Federal judiciary.
Cui bono? Not the Aborigines.
What possessed Abbott? Is he trying to get lawyers on his side? Is he pandering to the lowest common denominator? See Fog of Chaos Symbolic symbols. I believe the real answer is that he is a pretend conservative, a light pink under the eggshell blue. He is only a politician and never will be a statesman. He is far too insecure and his overwhelming desire to be liked does not bode well for Australia.
Niki Sawa on Abbott: He was not elected Prime Minister to indulge his whims and fancies. If anyone’s whims or fancies warrant humouring, it’s the voters’ …