The only argument I can think of against the point that the constitution should be race blind if we're all supposed to be equal in this country involves the classification of Australia as terra nullius in 1770. If we're all supposed to be equal under the law, and the original classification and settlement of Australia without consulting the Aboriginals was a violation of that law, then an extra line in the constitution to go towards making amends isn't beyond the pale.
That said, it's a complicated argument to take on board if you're a Chinese or Indian immigrant from Malaysia, where one race gets more power than all others in the constitution, and it's been pretty terrible for everyone else in the country that isn't part of that race. I don't expect them to take it on board, and seeing that very few people on the yes side of this debate are tackling that very tricky question isn't helping.
True, but really it shouldn't be too hard to work out. They've been around, independently of everyone else, for 60,000 years. That'll be abundantly clear in their DNA.
I'm not saying that everyone claiming that they're Aboriginal should be subjected to DNA testing, by any means, but if a claim is egregious it's definitely a tool that could be easily utilised.
Look at someone like Bruce Pascoe. Claims aboriginality, but with four ‘white’ grandparents, would be 1/16th at best. Could he and others like him be elected? And would they have the right to have their voice heard in the same way full-blooded aborigines?
I figure if you've got the ancestry and the community accepts you there shouldn't be a huge problem. They make up a very small fraction of the Australian population, so that limits abuse on this front dramatically.
I recall there being a lot of disagreement over who did and did not count as indigenous in Australia. Particularly in Tasmania, where there are no full-blooded Indigenous people remaining. Some of the people I met claiming Aboriginal status were indistinguishable from Europeans. I suspect that most of the people making that claim are telling the truth and have some indigenous ancestry, but not all of them. It will only get to be more of a complex issue as people intermingle. It's already controversial with regards to who can do political activism in this space and who gets the government benefits afforded to indigenous people.
And putting race in the Constitution would require the Australian government to have an opinion on the subject in perpetuity.
The history of putting race explicitly in a constitution is not great.
I mostly agree with the notion that what you call distractions are distractions. There is a sense in which some of the answers to these distracting questions, though, are relevant to diagnosing the causes of the gaps for which the Voice is an ostensible solution. Couldn't it be that we should ask some of these questions in order to determine the plausibility of the Voice as a solution?
For practical and ethical reasons it would be more appropriate the definition of Aboriginal-ness were determined by cultural belonging rather than genetic markers.
Of course, the next question is: who is the arbiter of what is "Aboriginal culture"? Since this term cannot be set in stone either. How do you maintain in the medium-term a culture that is built on a lifestyle that is fundamentally incompatible with our modern urban life? Would you be happy to include people who might be genetically not Aboriginal but would be more than happy to carry on hunter-gatherer rituals? Would those people receive the same benefits as other members of this group?
This questions might not have any (easy) answers, but I don't see them being discussed.
But then again I might not move in the right circles.
The question who can call themselves "Aboriginal" is indeed very problematic.
Genetics are as not straight forward as some people seem to think, particularly with lots of people being 1/16 or 1/32 Aboriginal by now.
How many "genes" are sufficient? Who do include in the reference gene pool of Aboriginal in the first place? Do those people want to have their genome sequenced?
These types of definitions lead straight down the path of phrenology calipers eventually.
More importantly this question will only get harder to answer with every new year and new child being born, but the constituition is forever (or the duration of this country).
A group that is 2-3% of the population will not remain genetically distinct unless there is strong social pressure not to marry outsiders.
But then this would require a level of overt racism that is problematic regardless of whether you have a special role in the constitution or not.
That said, you state that it is ‘incoherent’ to claim that the status quo is unacceptable and be against this Voice.
I completely disagree. For me, the present situation is unacceptable. It does not follow, however, that this (or any other well-meaning intervention) should necessarily be followed just because we agree there’s a problem and there’s no other obvious alternate policy path at hand.
It’s my belief (others will disagree) that we’ll see progress when a balance is struck between personal (or community) responsibility and state intervention is struck.
No group can prosper when they relinquish their agency, and hand over responsibility for their own and their families’ welfare, to representatives, bureaucrats and well-meaning elites.
The whole concept is being driven by a sort of conceit that we can ‘save’ aboriginal people, if we just get the policy right.
Policy can help, but ultimately it’s got to come from the communities.
I listened to your podcast on the Voice question with interest Josh, and I agreed with most of the points that you raise. (To be transparent I'm a white left-leaning probable Yes voter with some reservations...). Where your podcast was lacking for me was that it failed to address the vocal Indigenous No voters and their reasons, which seem varied. With this level of division across a broad range of voters, I fail to see that double majority will be achievable.
One important element I think you missed, Josh. The Voice is wholly, and representatively, a FNP initiative. Until now, the burden could be said to have fallen upon those arriving to "make the system work for everyone". When you have the superiority in technology (and therefore power) and you set about imposing a system which you believe will be better for all - when it eventuates that it isn't, the accountability at some level rests with you. However, the Voice, if passed, would carry with it the acceptance of FNP for their own participation in a mutual project. There is an important element of ownership being transferred to FNP - if you ask and you receive what you have asked for, you now have control of your own destiny in that regard. It will go a long way to combat the narrative of victimhood.
The only argument I can think of against the point that the constitution should be race blind if we're all supposed to be equal in this country involves the classification of Australia as terra nullius in 1770. If we're all supposed to be equal under the law, and the original classification and settlement of Australia without consulting the Aboriginals was a violation of that law, then an extra line in the constitution to go towards making amends isn't beyond the pale.
That said, it's a complicated argument to take on board if you're a Chinese or Indian immigrant from Malaysia, where one race gets more power than all others in the constitution, and it's been pretty terrible for everyone else in the country that isn't part of that race. I don't expect them to take it on board, and seeing that very few people on the yes side of this debate are tackling that very tricky question isn't helping.
Nevermind the problem of seeking to define and come to some sort of collective agreement around who is and isn’t a member of that race.
True, but really it shouldn't be too hard to work out. They've been around, independently of everyone else, for 60,000 years. That'll be abundantly clear in their DNA.
I'm not saying that everyone claiming that they're Aboriginal should be subjected to DNA testing, by any means, but if a claim is egregious it's definitely a tool that could be easily utilised.
But what’s the benchmark? 1/4th? 1/8th?
Look at someone like Bruce Pascoe. Claims aboriginality, but with four ‘white’ grandparents, would be 1/16th at best. Could he and others like him be elected? And would they have the right to have their voice heard in the same way full-blooded aborigines?
I figure if you've got the ancestry and the community accepts you there shouldn't be a huge problem. They make up a very small fraction of the Australian population, so that limits abuse on this front dramatically.
I recall there being a lot of disagreement over who did and did not count as indigenous in Australia. Particularly in Tasmania, where there are no full-blooded Indigenous people remaining. Some of the people I met claiming Aboriginal status were indistinguishable from Europeans. I suspect that most of the people making that claim are telling the truth and have some indigenous ancestry, but not all of them. It will only get to be more of a complex issue as people intermingle. It's already controversial with regards to who can do political activism in this space and who gets the government benefits afforded to indigenous people.
And putting race in the Constitution would require the Australian government to have an opinion on the subject in perpetuity.
The history of putting race explicitly in a constitution is not great.
I mostly agree with the notion that what you call distractions are distractions. There is a sense in which some of the answers to these distracting questions, though, are relevant to diagnosing the causes of the gaps for which the Voice is an ostensible solution. Couldn't it be that we should ask some of these questions in order to determine the plausibility of the Voice as a solution?
For practical and ethical reasons it would be more appropriate the definition of Aboriginal-ness were determined by cultural belonging rather than genetic markers.
Of course, the next question is: who is the arbiter of what is "Aboriginal culture"? Since this term cannot be set in stone either. How do you maintain in the medium-term a culture that is built on a lifestyle that is fundamentally incompatible with our modern urban life? Would you be happy to include people who might be genetically not Aboriginal but would be more than happy to carry on hunter-gatherer rituals? Would those people receive the same benefits as other members of this group?
This questions might not have any (easy) answers, but I don't see them being discussed.
But then again I might not move in the right circles.
The question who can call themselves "Aboriginal" is indeed very problematic.
Genetics are as not straight forward as some people seem to think, particularly with lots of people being 1/16 or 1/32 Aboriginal by now.
How many "genes" are sufficient? Who do include in the reference gene pool of Aboriginal in the first place? Do those people want to have their genome sequenced?
These types of definitions lead straight down the path of phrenology calipers eventually.
More importantly this question will only get harder to answer with every new year and new child being born, but the constituition is forever (or the duration of this country).
A group that is 2-3% of the population will not remain genetically distinct unless there is strong social pressure not to marry outsiders.
But then this would require a level of overt racism that is problematic regardless of whether you have a special role in the constitution or not.
Well done for wading into this one.
That said, you state that it is ‘incoherent’ to claim that the status quo is unacceptable and be against this Voice.
I completely disagree. For me, the present situation is unacceptable. It does not follow, however, that this (or any other well-meaning intervention) should necessarily be followed just because we agree there’s a problem and there’s no other obvious alternate policy path at hand.
It’s my belief (others will disagree) that we’ll see progress when a balance is struck between personal (or community) responsibility and state intervention is struck.
No group can prosper when they relinquish their agency, and hand over responsibility for their own and their families’ welfare, to representatives, bureaucrats and well-meaning elites.
The whole concept is being driven by a sort of conceit that we can ‘save’ aboriginal people, if we just get the policy right.
Policy can help, but ultimately it’s got to come from the communities.
I listened to your podcast on the Voice question with interest Josh, and I agreed with most of the points that you raise. (To be transparent I'm a white left-leaning probable Yes voter with some reservations...). Where your podcast was lacking for me was that it failed to address the vocal Indigenous No voters and their reasons, which seem varied. With this level of division across a broad range of voters, I fail to see that double majority will be achievable.
One important element I think you missed, Josh. The Voice is wholly, and representatively, a FNP initiative. Until now, the burden could be said to have fallen upon those arriving to "make the system work for everyone". When you have the superiority in technology (and therefore power) and you set about imposing a system which you believe will be better for all - when it eventuates that it isn't, the accountability at some level rests with you. However, the Voice, if passed, would carry with it the acceptance of FNP for their own participation in a mutual project. There is an important element of ownership being transferred to FNP - if you ask and you receive what you have asked for, you now have control of your own destiny in that regard. It will go a long way to combat the narrative of victimhood.