Australia set to recognise Aborigines as first people of continent

[Babur]

Excellent news, at last Australia will makes changes to its constitution, recognising Aborigines as the country's indigenous inhabitants and also removing the last remnants of state-sanctioned racial discrimination.

Just in comparison, does the US constitution recognise Native Americans as the indigenous inhabitants of America? India has faced substantial problems integrating the indigenous tribes of India into the country.

Australia set to recognise Aborigines as first people of continent
Julia Gillard says 'time is right to say yes to an understanding of our past' as report recommends end to state discrimination


reddit this
Alison Rourke
guardian.co.uk, Friday 20 January 2012 08.17 GMT
Article history



Australia's Aborigines can be discriminated against under sections 25 and 51 of the constitution. Photograph: Gary Calton
Australia is poised to make historic changes to its constitution, recognising Aborigines as the country's original inhabitants and removing the last clauses of state-sanctioned racial discrimination.

The amendments could be put to the Australian people in a referendum before the next general election in 2013, after the prime minister, Julia Gillard, endorsed the unanimous findings of a panel of 19 experts.

Section 25 of the constitution recognises that states can disqualify people, such as Aborigines, from voting. Section 51 says federal parliament can make laws based upon a person's race. Both were put in the constitution in 1901 to prevent certain races from living in areas reserved for white people or from taking up certain occupations.

The prime minister, Julia Gillard, welcomed the report. "We are big enough and it is the right time to say yes to an understanding of our past, to say yes to constitutional change, and to say yes to a future more united and more reconciled than we have ever been before," she said.

The panel's report followed public consultation with more than 4,500 people and more than 250 public meetings. The panel's co-chair, Aboriginal elder Professor Patrick Dodson, urged bipartisan support for the proposals.

"This is a time when truth and respect for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples needs to be achieved through the recognition in our constitution," he said. "Strong leadership and our national interest are critical for our nation to go forward."

When Australia became a federation in 1901 there were only two references to Aborigines in the constitution: one denied federal parliament the power to make laws with respect to Aboriginal people in any state, while another excluded what it termed "Aboriginal natives" from the census. Both of those sections were scrapped in a 1967 referendum (by a majority of 90%), leaving a constitution that made no mention whatsoever of indigenous people.

Referendums in Australia have historically been hard to pass. Only eight out of 44 have succeeded since 1906, partly because any alteration to the constitution must be approved by a "double majority". This demands that, as well as a majority yes vote being required nationally, a majority must also be reached in four of the six states.

The opposition leader, Tony Abbott, has said he will study the document. "We have some reservations about anything that might turn out to be a one-clause bill of rights but we accept that millions of Australians' hopes and dreams are resting on constitutional recognition of indigenous people," he said.

The report also called for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages to be recognised as the country's first languages. It calls for continuing respect for these cultures, languages and heritage.

The government aims to hold the referendum at or before a general election, due in 2013.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...?newsfeed=true

[Burnum]

About time, I was involved in political groups who pushed hard for this.

I also dislike the picture they chose for the article, it's kinda insulting.

[boofhead]

Burnum - why insulting?

Apart from these mysteries I would like to say, in colloquial terms, ''great call''.

[Burnum]

Burnum - why insulting?

They could of chosen a Picture a little more representative of Indigenous Australians. Only a minority of Indigenous Australians actually follow a traditional lifestyle or a traditional religion. Most in fact, are pretty devout Christians. The Bible is much the only book to be ever translated into a Indigenous language. There are more Aboriginal Muslims, then there are followers of a traditional religion.

Unfortunately though, if people want to sit in the desert and drink beer and be drunk and do drunk stuff around their kids then money can't stop it

Which was encouraged by government during the early 70's when the Government discovered that Farmers and drovers, would not pay Aboriginals a legal wage. This limited the employment opportunities for Aboriginals in central Australia, most Indigenous Australians in remote Australia are illiterate or barely fluent in English. The Government had fantastic program where they provided work for Indigenous Australians that lived in remote communities. The Howard Government decided to cancel that program when when they staged that intervention (not that I was opposed to the intervention, but it was merely a band-aid solution, to a still existing problem).

Besides, a lot of remote Australian communities are dry, I don't have the exact numbers. There are legal provisions in declaring themselves a dry community, the punishment for goon runners violating are pretty harsh seizure of property related to the crime and a Gaol sentence.

[Kitsunegari]

Maybe they wanted to emphasize the age-old traditions of these peoples since, after all, it was an article on their history?

[Balian76]

so as a foreigner, my opinion accounts for little?

Or the opinion you might form after learning of our sometimes shameful history worries him maybe.


It is great news but we're not there yet, I'm not getting to excited I know what Australia is like.

[Nevins]

To answer your question in the OP: the US does not recognize them as the "First" inhabitants because they are a pseudo parallel nation with their own organizational units and governance.

[Babur]

To answer your question in the OP: the US does not recognize them as the "First" inhabitants because they are a pseudo parallel nation with their own organizational units and governance.

are any Native Americans campaigning for similar recognition in the US constitution though?

[Nevins]

are any Native Americans campaigning for similar recognition in the US constitution though?

Not really, but I don't really get as much exposure to NA issues because I live in the Midwest where reservations are few and far between. Far more common out West.

[Menelik_I]

Excellent news, at last Australia will makes changes to its constitution, recognising Aborigines as the country's indigenous inhabitants and also removing the last remnants of state-sanctioned racial discrimination.

Mixed bag :

1- Does is matter to recognise them has ''fight inabitants'', except white guilt and a twisted sense of logic want to make superior ? Being the first who lived there don't make you special, you still part of the Australian society.

2- Good to get right of obviously twisted constitutional clauses, but weren't these already voided for many years ? so it is a de facto change following a de jure change.

Just in comparison, does the US constitution recognise Native Americans as the indigenous inhabitants of America? India has faced substantial problems integrating the indigenous tribes of India into the country.

1- Why should they ?

2- Aren't all Indians indigeneous

[Babur]

Mixed bag :

1- Does is matter to recognise them has ''fight inabitants'', except white guilt and a twisted sense of logic want to make superior ? Being the first who lived there don't make you special, you still part of the Australian society.

white guilt? why not just recognise them as equals in the constitution?

2- Good to get right of obviously twisted constitutional clauses, but weren't these already voided for many years ? so it is a de facto change following a de jure change.

indeed but this is merely removing the last vestiges of it

1- Why should they ?

because the Native Americans did face discrimination in the past and have lost their lands

2- Aren't all Indians indigeneous

I was referring to these peoples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adivasi

Not really, but I don't really get as much exposure to NA issues because I live in the Midwest where reservations are few and far between. Far more common out West.

ah ok well I guess we will have to ask members from there then

I have a Grandmother who was half Indigenous Australian, do I qualify to get excited? I don't think I will until it actually happens.

apparently not

Or the opinion you might form after learning of our sometimes shameful history worries him maybe.

it is part of the history of the British Empire to an extent

It is great news but we're not there yet, I'm not getting to excited I know what Australia is like.

yeah

[Menelik_I]

white guilt? why not just recognise them as equals in the constitution?

There is a difference between recognising them has Equals and declaring them ''first inhabitants of Australia''.

because the Native Americans did face discrimination in the past and have lost their lands

So what ? They aren't being discriminated against today, can't they move on to something else ?

I was referring to these peoples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adivasi

I lost all respect for India ... didn't the last mass migration happened in late 1700's or something ?
You are all indigenous.

[Copperknickers II]

I lost all respect for India ... didn't the last mass migration happened in late 1700's or something ?
You are all indigenous.

Indeed, I don't think 'indigenous' is the right word for Indian tribes, since the Dravidians and Aryans have been in India for longer than the tribal 'indigenous' populations of some places, such as New Zealand.

[Babur]

There is a difference between recognising them has Equals and declaring them ''first inhabitants of Australia''.

they were the first inhabitants though, but why can't they be treated as equals.

So what ? They aren't being discriminated against today, can't they move on to something else ?

they claim to face discrimination though

I lost all respect for India ... didn't the last mass migration happened in late 1700's or something ?
You are all indigenous.

I was referring to the descendants of the earliest migrations out of Africa to India.

[Menelik_I]

they were the first inhabitants though, but why can't they be treated as equals.

I am all for them being treated equally, I am against them being given special favor for being ''FIRST!''.

they claim to face discrimination though

Claim is not the same thing has suffering. The world have enough victimqueens.

I was referring to the descendants of the earliest migrations out of Africa to India.

It has been 6000+ Years since the last migration from Africa to India, no one can claim to 100% African immigrant there.

And even if their descendant were ''FIRST!'', WTF it has to do with anything ?

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

they were the first inhabitants though, but why can't they be treated as equals.

Because the European colonisers thought themselves superior for having lived in squalid cities where life expectancies are short. Not that that's right.

[Blaze86420]

There is a difference between recognising them has Equals and declaring them ''first inhabitants of Australia''.

What the kind of nonsense is this? They are the first inhabitants.

[Menelik_I]

What the kind of nonsense is this? They are the first inhabitants, the BS is mind blowing here.

Does being ''first'' makes them special ? If yes, then it is BS.

[Fluttershy]

What the kind of nonsense is this? They are the first inhabitants.

So what though? Im all for them making it so everyone's equal, but special treatment for being "first" seems bizarre

[Phier]

By definition the only place there are indigenous humans is Africa.

I wouldn't be surprised if the origin of the word was based on the quaint and biologically idiotic idea that humans 'developed/evolved' in several locations spontaneously.

The Aborigines at least can claim they were the closest to 'indigenous' being they may have been part of the first long term successful wave out of Africa and the first humans to Australia.

Not sure what saying "FIRST!" means though.