If Australians knew the whole truth about Indigenous history, Lidia Thorpe’s royal outburst would not have been a shock | Celeste Liddle (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 3 days ago by NaevaTheRat@vegantheoryclub.org to c/australianpolitics@aussie.zone

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 21 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Tau@aussie.zone 14 points 3 days ago

Last year, Australia showed how unengaged and racist this country remains by refusing to insert an Indigenous advisory voice

Convenient that the author forgot to mention that the very person they're writing about was a vocal No voter. You can say many things about Lydia Thorpe but politically unengaged is not one of them, and while she might be a little bit racist it's definitely not against Indigenous people.

I'll also note that the Tent Embassy had a giant banner hung up urging people to vote No, guess they're all politically unengaged and racist...

[-] NaevaTheRat@vegantheoryclub.org 5 points 3 days ago

That's true, although she wanted a different voice and treaty right?

If you look at where majority no came from you'd have a hard time convincing me it was because people thought the voice wasn't radical enough.

[-] yistdaj@pawb.social 5 points 3 days ago

Lidia Thorpe has also believed before the vote that a No vote would prove Australia is racist, just as a yes vote would prove Australia is racist. Given that, I think Lidia would agree with the author here.

[-] yistdaj@pawb.social 9 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

To clarify, Lidia claimed that both the racist no campaign and the yes campaign drowned out the progressive no campaign.

[-] metaStatic@kbin.earth 2 points 3 days ago

I had zero clue there was even a progressive no campaign until after I voted no.

[-] goodthanks@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago

Then why didn't you do some research to inform your position? I don't understand people who form political opinions without backing them up with research. A lot of people in Australia are borderline illiterate, and are at the mercy of the media. But the educated ones should at least exercise their privilege and read before making decisions. My dad is a lawyer, but wouldn't even read the uluru statement from the heart. Voted no based on spite, which is shameful. Couldn't even justify his own position intelligently.

[-] yistdaj@pawb.social 2 points 1 day ago

As someone who voted yes in a very no place, I was actually a bit frustrated by how poorly the yes campaign communicated with people - right up until those pamphlets came out, most of the people I was talking to had never heard of the referendum, and only after that most people started looking up what it was about.

I would argue the no campaign had a huge head start on the yes campaign, there was negative speculation going on a year before the referendum, and it gradually snowballed into misinformation before the yes campaign even started. So the stuff people found was all negative. For the people I was talking to, I was the only person they knew who thought a voice was a good idea.

One of the people I was talking to mentioned how they hadn't even encountered a single ad promoting a voice to parliament until a week before, and it didn't bother talking about how it would work or why it's a good idea. They did eventually vote yes, but only after I talked to them about what I understood about it. In fact, my experience is that most people leaning no were willing to vote yes after hearing enough about it.

I think a huge issue is that the yes campaign either failed to reach here somehow, or just relied on the media and self-research for informing people. And the media was very insistent on platforming no campaigners while almost never platforming yes.

One of the most confusing things to hear was how people in the capital cities had heard so much about it when people here had barely heard of it. Some people missed the referendum date entirely.

[-] goodthanks@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

I agree the yes campaign was a poor one. Also, there were 2 opposing messages being put forward simultaneously:

The voice is a big leap forward and will improve the lives of indigenous people.
The voice is just an advisory body with no real power.

I voted yes, but didn't think the voice was an impressive proposal. I just thought the outcome of a no vote would be worse. The fact that so many people didn't understand what was proposed is partly a media issue, and partly a government incompetence issue. But it also raises the question of why so many people will feel passionately about a position they haven't even fucking bothered to research. We can't have democracy unless citizens put in a bit of fucking effort to understand the society they live in, which includes political proposals.

[-] CTDummy@lemm.ee 8 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Last year, Australia showed how unengaged and racist this country remains by refusing to insert an Indigenous advisory voice

Right, those are the options. Either you voted yes or you’re unengaged and racist.

If I were, like so many others, to believe what it is I have heard and seen since Thorpe took to the floor, I would be convinced she had broken through the barricades, thrown open the doors, stormed to the front and then proceeding to call his majesty everything under the sun. I certainly wouldn’t get the impression that she, as an Australian senator, attended an event she had been duly invited to, engaged in an act of peaceful resistance by turning her back as God Save the King played and then proceeded to yell a few hard truths about the Crown and the history of this country

This writing is just floundering and bordering on dishonest. While I agree too many people are clutching pearls about it, yelling at the King is what it is. Other First Nations members and elders have stated their disapproval for obvious reasons. While the reactionary “shock” about it is tiring; this side of it is as well. As pointed out it wouldn’t be with the crown these things would negotiated anyway. It would be with the commonwealth/parliament. So yelling at the king during this sort of ceremony about it is not only inappropriate due the event but also due to it being the wrong person to bring this to.

[-] NaevaTheRat@vegantheoryclub.org 5 points 3 days ago

Right, those are the options. Either you voted yes or you’re unengaged and racist.

Got another reason?

[-] Tau@aussie.zone 6 points 3 days ago

The same argument that won the gay marriage plebiscite - people should be equal under the law and, by extension, our constitution.

[-] NaevaTheRat@vegantheoryclub.org 7 points 3 days ago

Yes yes rich and poor sleeping under bridges and all that. A convenient excuse that paves the way for never trying to improve things. Besides if we were all equal we would have treaty, as their ancestral rights would be recognised.

[-] metaStatic@kbin.earth 3 points 3 days ago

and a treaty was explicitly not on the table

[-] mranachi@aussie.zone 5 points 3 days ago

I'm inclined to suggest some minor edits... "Either you voted yes or you're unengaged and/or racist and/or have been manipulated by a brazenly racist no campaign."

[-] vacuas@aussie.zone 6 points 3 days ago

I know about indigenous history and I was still shocked. She’s unhinged. Not sure how lidia Thorpe gets away with her aggressive outbursts, especially after the racial abuse she spewed at that security guard that one time. She’s disgusting

[-] maniacalmanicmania@aussie.zone 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

No she's not. It was a protest and it was effective. The King of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth was called out on a world stage.

Lidia Thorpe is a legend.

[-] UnfortunateDoorHinge@aussie.zone 1 points 1 day ago

Lidia Thorpe is an example of someone who thinks they are superior to everyone else, and who thinks everyone owes her something.

[-] vacuas@aussie.zone 1 points 3 days ago

How was it effective?

[-] maniacalmanicmania@aussie.zone 7 points 3 days ago

She got the publicity she was after.

[-] vacuas@aussie.zone 3 points 3 days ago

Well fair point there

[-] sola@aussie.zone 6 points 3 days ago

Exposes people who I wouldn't want to associate with. The people upset at Lidia would definitely be more likely to screw me over to gain favour with someone more influential. Those don't align with my morals.

this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024

36 points (100.0% liked)

Australian Politics

1274 readers

3 users here now

A place to discuss Australia Politics.

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone.

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

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

lodion@aussie.zone

daniel@aussie.zone

Whirlybird@aussie.zone

billytheid@aussie.zone