Trying to finish some overdue work. Have many ways of deferring, procrastinating.
Meanwhile, things are unravelling (or, from another perspective, the pre-1945 norms of violence and horror are reasserting themselves, now that social democracy is in its grave. It depends how you want to look at it).
I don’t know how things would be re-ravelled, tbh. Or I have some hunches, but I don’t believe they could be implemented.
Briefly, this – on the lack of empathy. (Which I tweeted about here).
Item one – the Voice
Australia is about to vote on the most mild and sensible of propositions – whether there should be
a) a change to the constitution simply to acknowledge the fact that it wasn’t terra nullius when Cook/the First Fleet turned up
b) an advisory body chosen by indigenous people that is a Voice to parliament about indigenous affairs (that Parliament can then ignore it, and frankly probably would!)
The only reason that the advisory body thing is in the referendum is because previous such advisory bodies have been unilaterally abolished, and those crazy paranoid indigenous people think it could happen again. Go figure, eh?
And it will, if you believe the opinion polls, go down in flames (most referenda do – Australians are not the larrikins they used to like to believe.) It turns out that plenty of them are willing to believe any old cobblers they read on the internet (funded by the usual suspects – see Jeremy Walker’s work on this). Many of the people voting no, have never, I suspect, tried to put themselves in the shoes of an indigenous person. Easier to think about UN conspiracies, 12 foot lizards etc etc.
Cry beloved country indeed.
Item two – the Middle East.
To quote me from a DM
“Empathy is the word. And a fundamental lack of imagination. All these people saying “kill all the jews” or “kill all the arabs.” Dealing with their own frustrations and fears by indulging in the Two Minutes (or decades!) Hate. I do think Orwell was onto quite a lot with that – Big Brother knowing that he would have to redirect rage and anger at an official enemy. And people keep falling for it, because it gives them temporary relief from their deep-seated fears and anger…”
On that one, now that the political, military and security establishments of Israel have been shown to be asleep at the wheel, the response will be, well, quite like what Uncle Sam did after 911. There’s enough ambitious/high-level people who fear seeming weak/incompetent (to anyone, and perhaps most importantly, especially themselves), that they will try to compensate – to tripledown – with mayhem. And traumatised, terrified people will cheer them on.
It will be, baring a miracle, a bloodbath, almost literally.
marchudson.net 
Marc, do you really believe changing our Constitution will address all First Australian problems?
As for an “advisory body”, this would just be more of the same, we have had ATSIC, the NIAA and many others, just what would be different this time?
It is not that past government polices don’t/can’t work, it’s the fact that they have been abused, in many case by those implementing them.
Hi Jon,
I beg you. I implore you. Re-read what I wrote. Out loud.
At no point have I EVER said that changing the Constitution will “address all First Australian problems”. Nobody has. You’ve set up a straw man there. I hope you will see that.
On your second point – what do we lose by finding out if it will be different this time? Do you not think that those people who have made the detailed proposals about how the body would be made up are not aware of all the problems with previous bodies? Surely you do not think that these smart people are naive, or ignorant of their own history.
Jon. Please please PLEASE read what I wrote in the post, and in this reply out loud. Share it with someone whose judgement you trust.
I know you will vote (have voted?) no. I think that’s just so sad. This is a wonderful opportunity for Australians to grow, to have empathy, to listen. You know that there are specific First Australian problems. Well, the vast majority of First Australians think that this – recognition and a non-binding advisory body – would be steps on the journey to better outcomes. I think they are right. Only steps, not strides. But why not take those steps?
Best wishes
Marc
Marc, I have empathy for First Australians in fact I have relatives who are of that persuasion. The sad fact is those who are advising government on the VOICE are the same as those who advised on ATSIC, NIAA and many other advisory boards.
If I miss read your comments, I’m sorry, but I fail to see changing are Constitution will do any thing but cause friction within our community.
Jon, you have misread – and fundamentally strawmanned my comments. It would be great if you could reflect on how and why you did that – on how your “goggles” – (and we all have them, but some of us are more aware of them than others) led you to such a mischaracterisation. It might give you pause for thought.
Again, to repeat myself the structure of this advisory body has been designed differently, so it won’t be a small cosy bunch of people – it will spark wider interest and wider conversations (not just in parliament, but beyond). It’s promises to be very different to previous oes.
What. Have. We. Got. To. Lose?
(as for “cause friction” – the status quo is full of friction – and much diminished life opportunities for First Nations peoples. You know this.
What. Have. We. Got. To. Lose?
What. Are. The. Different. Alternatives? More of Dutton??? Seriously?
What. Have. We. Got. To. Lose?
Marc, once again my apologies if I misread your comments, but as I have tried to point out, we have the same First Australian’s leaders as we had ten plus years ago advising government.
I truly wish the lives of those marginalized in our society could be improved by changing our Constitution, but I fail to see just how such a change would do it.
It is not a matter of Constitutional change, or new policies, or more money, the real issue in my view is implementation or the lack of it.
I don’t know if you have read the NIAA’s charter, but it is word for word what we have been told is the Voices aim.
But the die will be cast in two days time and we will all get to see the result, which ever way the vote goes.
what do we lose by trying. i don’t know how many times someone can ask the same question and not gt an answer.
In answer to your question; I’d happily try anything, but locking it into our Constitution, no way.
Jon, you’ve displayed very little ability to read what I’ve written on this subject. You’ve instead repeatedly responded to either things I didn’t write or that NOBODY has written.
Right here, in this latest response, rather than answer the question “what do we lose by trying” you reply to a DIFFERENT question, about what else you’d try – and you’re even bafflingly vague there!
You say you’d “try anything”. Perhaps the anything you try could be to get thinking about why such a simple thing as the Uluru Statement has triggered such *repeated* deafness in you?
PS You know that constitutions get changed, right? I assume that you don’t object to the first bit – about recognition, because the presence of First Nations peoples is merely an historical fact.
And you know that the creation of the advisory body is only going to be “in the constitution” because previous bodies have been unilaterally abolished (I KNOW that you know that) and First Nations people fear it would happen again.
And you presumably know that the advisory body can only offer advice, and only about matters that impact First Nations’ peoples. It can’t raise interest rates, declare war on New Zealand, or steal anybody’s home or put microchips in anyone’s head. The clue is in the name – It’s an advisory body. Parliament can file the advice it serves up in the circular file (and all-too-often it will, in the unlikely event it is created).
I literally don’t understand what your fears are, because you’ve never articulated them, not to me at least. You instead persist in responding to things you think people have said that they didn’t say. Again and again and again. And again. I am flummoxed by it, to be honest.
I know that you are going to vote no. The only reason I persisted in trying to engage with you was to change your mind. I knew I would fail, and I have.
It is highly likely that enough people will vote the same way you are voting that this simple request, that would be a *small* part of making everyone’s lives better, will fail.
I see no point engaging further with you if you’re simply not going to answer the straightforward questions I’ve put. Over to you, you can have the last word if you want it.
jonangel
If you haven’t voted yet, conjure up your best empathetic self and respond generously to the request of a large majority of first nations people of Australia to vote Yes for the Voice proposal.
Marc, we don’t always agree (enough said), but yes “Orwell” was on the right path. Channeling ‘hate’ and ‘fear’ are a politicians tools of trade. But as I have pointed out many times we keep re-electing the same ones!
But why is there this deep seated anger/hate, well if you witness your mother, father, brother or sister killed, you aren’t going to love those that did the killing, are you?
Distrust, hate and anger run deep and politicians manipulate it for their good.
I could link this to our recent debate, but I won’t.
Enjoy the day,
John