I thought a group dedicated to ensuring the matters affecting any group of peoples are represented in Parliament would be a good thing. And if this is not “good enough”, how will it have a worse outcome than voting no.

  • spiffmeister
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    In my mind there are two main branches of reasoning: One comes from either racism or a feeling of aggrievement (“why do they get something I dont” kind of thing). The second stems from a misunderstanding of systemic issues, a sort of demographic blindness like “this is a policy that only affects X and that’s racist” kind of thing. Arguably the aggrievement fits in here too. This obviously ignores the fact that demographic differences do exist.

    Of course there’s also the “progressive no” argument that people like Lidia Thorpe argue for, but imo the other two are more common.

    • Narc0@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yours is the most just understandable explanation so far. But I don’t know if I understand this ‘progressive no’ argument.

      I believe we, the Australian people, owe the indigenous peoples a greater weight on those opinion. This is their land after all.

      • Knoll0114@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not everyone would agree with you on that belief though, hence some of the disagreement.