this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2023

27 points (96.6% liked)

Australia

4418 readers

157 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

The Environment, post it to Aussie Environment
Politics, post it to Australian Politics
World News/Events, post it to World News
A question to Australians (from outside) post it to Ask an Australian

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

When posting news articles use the source headline and place your commentary in a separate comment

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

lodion@aussie.zone

Fluid@aussie.zone

bestusername@aussie.zone

eatham@aussie.zone

Nath@aussie.zone

Yes campaigner takes aim at Jacinta Nampijinpa Price over welcome to country stance (www.abc.net.au)

submitted 2 years ago by unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone to c/australia@aussie.zone

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 22 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Mountaineer@aussie.zone 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I don't think they're divisive as such, I'm not friends with anyone who would have problems with acknowledging that the land we are on was once XYZ tribe land.

But everyone is annoyed with the rote recital of stuff like this:
"City of Adelaide acknowledges that we are meeting on the traditional Country of the Kaurna people of the Adelaide Plains and pays respect to Elders past and present. We recognise and respect their cultural heritage, beliefs and relationship with the land."

We don't start every meeting with "God Bless the King".
We don't start every interaction with a reminder "I'd like to acknowledge that this office and the building within which it resides remains the property of Peregrine Corporation."

It's become rote noise.

At the start of a large public event, where an MC is introducing speakers or the AFL grand final is about to kick off, it makes a lot more sense.

[–] calhoon2005@aussie.zone 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Up until recently, a lot of councils in Victoria started their meetings with the Lord's Prayer.

[–] Mountaineer@aussie.zone 1 points 2 years ago

Sounds like that's a fixed problem then.
I wonder if the Scouts still recite it before every meeting?

[–] Cypher@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Are they not divisive? I have never liked being treated like I’m some visitor in my own country.

I suppose even a broken clock is right twice a day because I feel dirty agreeing with anyone from the far-right.

[+] Ilandar@aussie.zone 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] Cypher@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

You and I appear to have a differing understanding of sovereignty and what that word means.

The Australian Government has sovereignty of Australia, no one else, not even the supposed Monarch.

You can argue all day about historical legalities and it doesn’t matter a damn bit because the Australian Government holds absolute authority in Australia and that is reality.

If you're redefining what the word sovereignty means please let me know.

Again, the Welcome to Country ceremonies are literally for welcoming GUESTS. I am not a guest, I am a citizen, and these ceremonies are extremely insulting.

These ceremonies are divisive because they’re treating citizens like temporary guests who are being begrudgingly welcomed.

Let me repeat, I am not a guest or a visitor. I was born here and I’ll die here. This is my home. Any insinuation otherwise is insulting to the point I would consider them fighting words if they were uttered in a pub.

That is entirely separate to recognition of the history of invasion and genocide which the Indigenous population suffered under British and then Australian governments, which I am fully aware of and recognise.

[+] Ilandar@aussie.zone 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] Cypher@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

So long as I am treated as a “guest” in the language and actions of the people pushing for these changes I will never accept or recognise any form of sovereignty from them.

Simple as.

Sovereignty isn’t some colonial European concept, it is a concept which all States and leaders have understood throughout history. Chinese and African history are full of the establishment, maintenance and collapse of Sovereignty long before modern Colonial powers even existed.

My understanding of sovereignty isn’t based on a legal system it is based on power, the power to effectively govern within ones declared borders and maintain those borders against foreign powers.

Sovereignty was never ceded because it was LOST through conflict.

[–] phonyphanty@pawb.social 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

To be honest, that's pretty lame. It sounds like just because you feel weird about them calling you a guest, you won't accept their clear sovereignty in Australia.

[–] Cypher@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Define sovereignty, because clearly we don’t mean the same thing.

My position on my status as a citizen and not a “guest” is clear and also very reasonable, if you have a problem with it please elaborate.

[–] phonyphanty@pawb.social 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I agree with other commenters' definitions of sovereignty. In Australia there are competing sovereignties. An imperial one -- "Australia", conquest, absolute power. And an Indigenous one -- spiritual connection, ancestry, sacred ties. In each of these sovereignties, the word "sovereignty" has a different definition and is deployed for a different purpose.

Indigenous sovereignty existed for 60 millennia, and then the British stole the land and denied that sovereignty in place of their own. The Australian state has the means to enforce its own sovereignty through things like laws, police, prison, disenfranchisement, poverty, but Indigenous sovereignty still exists. This is a fact. If I stole something from you and claimed it as my own with a threat of violence, it'd still be yours, even after thousands of years.

Under Australian sovereignty, you're certainly a citizen. Under Indigenous sovereignty, it's more complicated, and from what I understand Indigenous people have a variety of perspectives. I haven't heard anyone use the term 'guest', but I have heard 'invader'. It's an uncomfortable label, but it's entirely reasonable given the colonial history of Australia. Others have more inviting perspectives on this conflict between sovereignties.

Here's an article about it if you're interested: https://www.smh.com.au/national/what-s-indigenous-sovereignty-and-can-a-voice-extinguish-it-20230113-p5ccdk.html

[–] Cypher@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Thank you for sharing your perspective on what sovereignty means, it’s more than the other person I was trying to discuss this with did.

All Im really seeing from that article is that sovereignty according to some activists means

-spirituality -connection to land

Which matches closely to the original Western interpretation of

-derived from god -occupation of land

I really don’t see much difference, and I don’t see much worth in either. Realised sovereignty, the effective ability to enforce it, is the only thing that matters at the end of the day.

These activists are making out like in 60,000 years they never went to war, never stole land, and never enforced their claim over another group of people.

Of course they did. Then it happened to the lot of them. That sucks for them but that’s how it goes.

That’s why everyone spends so much on Defence.

[–] CurlyWurlies4All@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

In your world view, where does 'sovereignty' come from?

[–] Cypher@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Sovereignty stems from actual control of a region and its populace, the ability to set laws and enforce them, and the ability to maintain control of the borders against foreign powers.

[–] CurlyWurlies4All@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I find that interesting because that is at odds with the Australian Government's view of where it's sovereignty stems from.

In Australia we have two competing claims to sovereignty by right of heredity over the continent: that of the Crown and of Indigenous peoples.

But what you're suggesting is essentially 'might makes right.' I control this land therefore I am sovereign.

In Arnhem Land and other locations, where Indigenous people only came into contact with Europeans in the 20th century, their law remains the predominant legal system.

Those pockets of uninterrupted continuity of law and culture have enabled Indigenous peoples Australia-wide to refuse to be erased, despite the weight the nation has thrown behind the elimination of their culture.

You're right that the Australian state’s legitimacy does not rest upon a treaty with First Nations. In a constitutional monarchy, both the Crown and the parliament borrow their authority from a combination of heredity and the people: the Crown by consent and heredity, and the parliament through the electoral process.

First Nations are not recognised as nation states under international law. But that legal system was authored by those same nation states whose invading colonies are founded on Indigenous lands and now draw their authority from them.

The phrase "sovereignty was never ceded" might sound like a rabble-rousing protest line, but it's deeper than that. White Australia landed on top of black Australia and then either ignored the laws of the land or purposefully tried to destroy it depending on the mood, it's refusal to reconcile with the first people of the land is what has landed is where we are today.

If sovereignty comes by right of heredity, then we need to strike an accord between the two competing claims. If sovereignty come by way of 'might makes right' then the oppressed claimants should violently revolt, we will have a war in the streets and one will be left standing. Or we could revolutionise our understanding of sovereignty, reject heredity all together and recognise that sovereignty stems from the people alone. The only other option is that we try and muddle through, each make some concessions to each other.

[–] Cypher@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It is less “might makes right” than “might is reality” when it comes to sovereignty in my view.

Look at our anti-protest laws and tell me with a straight face that our sovereignty is granted by the people and not by the States ability to enforce its will through the exclusive use of violence within its borders.

As for your suggestion of violent rebellion, well that’s exactly how sovereignty is taken but if you’re being realistic we both know that isn’t possible.

In my opinion this talk of sovereignty only harms public opinion of reconciliation efforts.

Tell me, in Arnhem land if someone is murdered which legal system deals with the murderer? Your answer tells us all we need to know about the reality of sovereignty.

[–] CurlyWurlies4All@slrpnk.net 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I can tell you that in Tiwi the disconnects between who deals with what crime is a constant source of conflict between elder leadership and federal police. Quite often the police said 'oh it's black on black violence, you lot sort it out.'

The talk of reconciliation is literally dealing with issues like this. Sovereignty. Traditional Law. Cultural Recognition. Until it's dealt with there can be no true reconciliation.

I totally get what you're saying with regards to the state's exclusive right to violence but in a lot of places this murkiness between what the law says and what people do is such a powder keg.

PS. I'm not downvoting you, or even trying to be rude or abrasive, just trying to lend you my own perspective and experiences.

[–] unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone 4 points 2 years ago

I can see where you're coming from, the way I see it is more like "welcome to land", everyone owns the country, however, we recognise that it is on unceded land.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 3 points 2 years ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Senator Nampijinpa Price told The Australian on Monday that she believes welcome to country ceremonies at sporting events and public gatherings were "definitely divisive".

"There is no problem with acknowledging our history, but rolling out these performances before every sporting event or public gathering is definitely divisive," Senator Nampijinpa Price told The Australian.

Marcus Stewart, from the Uluru Dialogue, said he believed Senator Nampijinpa Price was deliberately spreading misinformation as part of her campaign against an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

Welcome to country ceremonies have become more common as part of public events in recent times, but according to Reconciliation Australia the protocols have existed for thousands of years.

Senator Nampijinpa Price's comments follow Nationals leader David Littleproud revealing a split in the Coalition over Indigenous affairs policy going into the next election, after Opposition Leader Peter Dutton proposed symbolic constitutional recognition alongside legislated local and regional advisory bodies for Indigenous Australians.

Mr Stewart said a lack of consensus from the Coalition on Indigenous affairs policy would only delay progress for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

I'm a bot and I'm open source!