Logic and reason are mist against the stone of ideology and
that is the reality. Humans are more reluctant to give up dreams than realities
and too many of the stories of our aboriginal stone-age history, repeated today
are largely fantasy and have been for half a century.
The public has been immersed in the lies, now mythology,
since the 67 Referendum when the Yes case used outright lies to win the day.
The argument, and it was admitted at the time these were untruths, was that
Australians would not be able to understand what the Referendum was about - in
essence to transfer responsibility from State Governments to Federal for
aborigines who remained living in tribal/clan systems - and the means justified
the end. The means were the lies that aborigines were not citizens, did not
have the vote, were not counted in the census and had been classed as Flora and
Fauna, so not even human.
A very good paper was
written by Helen Irving, Sydney University, in 2015, Indigenous Recognition and
Constitutional Myths to counter this misinformation. Irving supports
constitutional recognition and in general takes the recent academic view of
aboriginal history, but, she clearly felt moved to correct the myths told
during the 67 Referendum which too many still believe. Helen Irving was appointed Professor Emerita
at Sydney Law School in 2021. Her research includes Australian and United
States constitutional law and history; constitutional citizenship; comparative
constitutional design and gender; the use of history in constitutional
interpretation, and models of judicial review.
Unfortunately, as has been said, a lie repeated often
enough becomes a 'truth' and that is what has happened since 1967. And so,
today, most people, including those who should know better like teachers,
school principals and academics, believe the lies.
The mist of reason does not make a dent against the stone
edifice of disinformation masquerading as gloriously dressed mythology.
1. That Australians without aboriginal ancestry owe recognition and
compensation to Australians with aboriginal ancestry because the British
colonised this land more than two centuries ago.
This ignores the fact that everywhere on earth has been colonised as humans
migrated around the globe and that those many different peoples here in 1788,
called Aborigines by the British, had also colonised the land in different
waves of migration. Why is colonisation by stone-age hunter-gatherers, called
Aborigines, acceptable and colonisation by Anglo-Europeans is not? The only
reason there is an issue today is that the British were more enlightened than
stone-age hunter-gatherers and they did not wipe out those they found here, but
instead sought to preserve and protect them.
2. That having Aboriginal ancestry, no matter how small and for most who
register as Indigenous it is minimal and for some non-existent, gives one
greater rights to this land and greater connection to the land including a
spiritual link which no human without aboriginal ancestry can possess.
This ignores the fact that all humans were once stone-age hunter-gatherers and
connected to the land in order to survive. It also ignores the fact that no-one
has lived a true stone-age hunter-gatherer life in Australia for nearly two
centuries. When survival depends on what the land does and provides, then of
course the connection is powerful and we see this in farmers who are deeply
connected to their land because they depend upon it for survival.
And it ignores the fact that if there were some spiritual links to the land and
some unique connection then Aboriginal communities would be other than what
they are – cesspits of filth and environmental vandalism and degradation.
3. That having Aboriginal ancestry, no matter how small, means the rest of
society should respect and honour those with it, particularly anyone over the
age of fifty.
Ignoring the fact that respect is earned and there was nothing to respect in
the stone-age hunter-gatherer lives found here in 1788 and there is nothing to
respect in the remnants of what is called traditional life, but which is a
dysfunctional Aboriginal/Anglo European hybrid found in Aboriginal communities.
There are of course many Australians with Aboriginal ancestry whose efforts are
deserving of respect but that is because it has been earned. If we were to
respect people from the past then surely, we would have even greater respect
for the settlers who created this modern nation out of nothing?
4. That aboriginality and its myths, traditions and cultures can be invented
without any substance in facts and that Australians must accept it all without
question. For example, the British practice of children calling adults who were
not family members, Uncle or Auntie, has now been co-opted by the aboriginal
brigade for any man or woman with some aboriginal ancestry who does or says
anything. This honorific has no source in any of the hundreds of different Aboriginal
clan traditions and is insulting because adults are being asked to use the
terms. These people are not our Auntie or Uncle and in fact they are not even
Auntie or Uncle to most Australians with aboriginal ancestry given the rigidity
still of tribal/clan divides.
5. That nothing negative can ever be said about the brutal reality, well documented,
of stone-age hunter-gatherer aboriginal lives where topics like cannibalism,
infanticide, child marriage, violence toward women are censored and condemned
and where even academics rewrite history to pretend that the world of stone-age
Australia was a Utopia destroyed by colonialism.
6. That reconciliation is needed between Australians with Aboriginal ancestry,
around 900,000, most of them minimal in such ancestry, and those without it,
more than 25 million Australians.
This ignores the fact that the reason why so many are more
Anglo European than they are aboriginal is because we have had high levels of
intermarriage for more than two centuries. Indeed, today, most Australians with
aboriginal ancestry are in mixed marriages. There is no greater reconciliation
and acceptance than intermarriage and no greater testament to the lack of
racism in most Australians over centuries.
7. That Australians with Aboriginal ancestry are owed ‘rent’ because the
settlers created this nation on land where their ancestors lived. Ignoring the
fact that the gift of this modern democracy, one of the best places in the
world to live, is something for which they should be grateful.
8. That Australians without Aboriginal ancestry are to blame for any
dysfunction in Aboriginal communities because it would never have happened if
they had not been colonised.
Ignoring the fact that most Australians with Aboriginal ancestry are doing fine
with the same sorts of lives and outcomes as anyone else, sometimes better, and
that those struggling are generally in communities which, unlike the majority,
are not assimilated into the modern world but remain trapped in backward and
violent tribal/clan systems. Most people talk about indigenous Australians as
if they were one with the same sorts of lives and outcomes when of course they
are not. The Linda Burney, Stan Grant, Ken Wyatt, Lidia Thorpe brigade, to name
just a few of many, have nothing in common with the few who continue to
struggle.
It also ignores the fact that all humans are descended from the persecuted,
abused, traumatised and colonised and most do not live lives of dysfunction
today because of ancestral suffering. If the claims of inter-generational
trauma had any substance, then everyone would suffer from it, particularly
those with some Aboriginal ancestry and they do not.
9. That Aboriginal tribal beliefs, practices, lore should be supported and
encouraged regardless of how violent and backward they might be.
Ignoring the fact that civil law exists to protect all of us and goes beyond
tribe, clan, community or culture for that very reason. Which stone-age
practices should be restored? Cannibalism, child marriage, infanticide, women
as slaves, brutal initiation practices to boys and girls which often killed
them or left them sterile?
10. That longevity of ancestry should give one greater rights as a citizen and
greater power over Government.
This is the premise of the voice which wants to single out Australians with Aboriginal
ancestry for greater rights and power. Ignoring the fact that our democratic
systems have been hard won and evolved in order that tribal systems could be
discarded and every citizen would be treated equally as a citizen and where we
all had the same voice, the vote. To give one group more voice is to betray our
democracy.
These lies have become mythology over the past few decades and the only
positive thing about the voice is that it is making more people question them
and this racist division of our nation which has been stealing its way into
power for too long. Never underestimate the power of a myth for it is a lie
dressed in appealing form and too easily mistaken as a truth.
