world

Australia PM unveils draft Indigenous recognition referendum question

14 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Thomson Reuters 2022.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

14 Comments
Login to comment

In formally recognizing indigenous populations

No that would be indigenous and aboriginal populations.

They aren't the same thing !

And the USA doesn't .

Categorizing indigenous populations as native isn't correct.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

I see. Are nit-picking and splitting hairs the same thing? Maybe you can tell us, as this seems to be one of your areas. By the way, the focus of the article is not the USA, but don't let that stop you. You might also check out this recent release on the subject by your imperfect, but at least not insane (think 2016-2020), president:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/10/08/a-proclamation-indigenous-peoples-day-2021/

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Kyo wa heiwa dayo ne

In formally recognizing indigenous populations

No that would be indigenous and aboriginal populations.

Aboriginal populations is a subset of indigenous populations.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Aboriginal populations is a subset of indigenous populations.

that’s it?! With one sweeping, unsubstantiated statement, he has solved the riddle put to him. Genius!

now, go away and let the adults continue their ‘conversation’.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Indigenous and Aboriginal refer to the same populations. The term Indigenous is slowly replacing Aboriginal in use but there is no difference in the populations those terms define. It is, in a sense, semantic nitpicking. Here is a good description of how we came to this situation.

https://animikii.com/news/why-we-say-indigenous-instead-of-aboriginal

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Categorizing indigenous populations as native isn't correct.

indigenous

adjective

originating in and characteristic of a particular region or country; native

Indigenous and native are synonyms. They mean the same thing. “Aborigines” and “aboriginal” would refer to the indigenous or native population of Australia (and, coincidentally, the non-Sinicized native inhabitants of Taiwan) in the way “Native Americans” and “First Nation” refer to the indigenous or native peoples of the US and Canada respectively

2 ( +2 / -0 )

What it boils down to is the term aboriginal is considered derogatory and offensive mainly because it had been used in Australia as a pejorative for so long. The term Indigenous is replacing aboriginal in polite / official conversation.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Australia PM unveils draft Indigenous recognition referendum question:

Does a nation need a referendum to recognize the rights of the indigenous people?

It is their country, forcefully occupied by powerful intruders.

How many of this 'minority' group died of poisoned water before..?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

venzeToday  11:47 am JST

Australia PM unveils draft Indigenous recognition referendum question:

Does a nation need a referendum to recognize the rights of the indigenous people?

Better than rounding them up and putting them into labor camps like in your country.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The term Indigenous is replacing aboriginal in polite / official conversation.

In Australia the term "first Nations" is replacing Aboriginal and Indigenous in official conversations.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Does a nation need a referendum to recognize the rights of the indigenous people?

Yes they do. The laws enforced are not first nation laws but those of the nation created by colonization and emigration. The first nations people have voting rights as all adult citizens do, but they do not have political parties and the numbers to radically alter the laws or political landscape. There are first nations people in politics but I do not know if all major parties have had first nations members sitting in parliament.

It is difficult to both retain a traditional life based around limited technology and be an active part of a highly technology reliant system. A quandary many nations have faced before and none have quite got it right yet.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Opposition spokesperson for Indigenous Australians, Julian Leeser, told local media the speech was a "positive step", but that Australians needed to know how the function would work

That, is the key statement of the Article.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Does a nation need a referendum to recognize the rights of the indigenous people?

It is not a problem of recognizing their rights. The problem to be solved is how to incorporate their representation into Australian lawmaking. The current Parliamentary system does not have specific mechanisms to hear and incorporate the needs of indigenous groups. Their communities are a very small proportion of the population of the legislative districts they reside, and vote, in. Their elected members of Parliament have other more powerful constituencies demanding action on their desires and those most often drown out the voices of indigenous groups, until there is some outrage such as a mining company digging up a grave site. Even if indigenous groups are given a few seats in Parliament to represent only the indigenous with their MPs elected only by indigenous populations, those MPs will have the same voting power as any other member and since they will most assuredly be a minority in Parliament their voices will continue to be ignored. There has to be another way for them to have a voice in legislation that affects them.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites