How dare you challenge the legitimacy of indigenous oral history.
If you were at my work you'd be hauled off to a HR interrogation room and whipped with rainbow-themed lanyards.
Australian History X
Moderator: bbmods
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54841
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 132 times
- Been liked: 166 times
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54841
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 132 times
- Been liked: 166 times
The Australian Citizenship act 1948 implicitly included Aboriginal people. They were Australian citizens. Although many states had legislated specific restrictions on them, that does not change their citizenship status.
https://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item-di ... id-21.html
http://www.nma.gov.au/online_features/d ... enship-act
https://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item-di ... id-21.html
http://www.nma.gov.au/online_features/d ... enship-act
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54841
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 132 times
- Been liked: 166 times
Sorry, citizenship was automatically conferred by the federal act.
What different states did in the way they restricted things was up to them.
The point of my argument isn't to try to say that Aboriginal lives were all sunshine and rainbows and that all the bad things are just lies. They were actively discriminated against and treated as second class citizens. Lots of bad things happened.
However, trying to advance their cause by spreading falsehoods to embellish what a hard time they had is counterproductive as, as soon as 1 claim is proven false, it casts doubt on others, most of which are legitimate and true.
The statement that "Australian Aboriginals were not citizens of Australia until after 1967" is a blatant falsehood no matter how you try to spin it.
That they didn't have the right to vote in federal elections (as all other citizens did) until Menzies amended the Electoral act in 1962.
Limitations on their rights to vote in state elections and other restrictions placed on them were the results of various state legislations that needed to be modified or repealed to restore their rights and were not impacted by the referendum or other federal legislation.
Unfortunately all of this is much to complex and involved for the current sound byte generation, so oversimplify things to the level of slogans and memes often at the cost of factual accuracy, and that is what started this whole discussion, as that is re-writing history.
What different states did in the way they restricted things was up to them.
The point of my argument isn't to try to say that Aboriginal lives were all sunshine and rainbows and that all the bad things are just lies. They were actively discriminated against and treated as second class citizens. Lots of bad things happened.
However, trying to advance their cause by spreading falsehoods to embellish what a hard time they had is counterproductive as, as soon as 1 claim is proven false, it casts doubt on others, most of which are legitimate and true.
The statement that "Australian Aboriginals were not citizens of Australia until after 1967" is a blatant falsehood no matter how you try to spin it.
That they didn't have the right to vote in federal elections (as all other citizens did) until Menzies amended the Electoral act in 1962.
Limitations on their rights to vote in state elections and other restrictions placed on them were the results of various state legislations that needed to be modified or repealed to restore their rights and were not impacted by the referendum or other federal legislation.
Unfortunately all of this is much to complex and involved for the current sound byte generation, so oversimplify things to the level of slogans and memes often at the cost of factual accuracy, and that is what started this whole discussion, as that is re-writing history.
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54841
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 132 times
- Been liked: 166 times
100% correct, and the fact that so many prominent people have perpetuated this myth is disturbing.David wrote:More about the 'flora and fauna' myth:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-20/f ... um/9550650
Tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth.
100% agree.The most comprehensive dismantling of the myth was undertaken by University of Canberra tutor Samuel Byrnand, who devoted an honours project to the topic in 2015.
Mr Byrnand told Fact Check he was compelled to set the record straight because allowing Aboriginal people to believe they were once classified under a flora and fauna act risked perpetuating "transgenerational trauma".
"There are enough horror stories in Aboriginal Australia; real, actual stories that need to be addressed. We don't need to be making it up," he said.
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
Do high-school students actually study Australian history? I don't think they did in my school. I think in primary school, history was more of the Burke and Wills stuff, not details of citizenship acts. By 11th and 12th grades, studying (almost) any subject is optional, but of all the different history courses, Australian history was regarded as the "veggie" course.
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54841
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 132 times
- Been liked: 166 times
Yep, David, you've proved it was complicated. 
All of the varying state laws were a dogs breakfast. Pre federation in 1901, may states allowed Aboriginals to vote, several later changed that.
My understanding of how the legislation would work is that prior to the Citizenship act on 1948, there was no such thing as an Australian Citizen in the legal sense, regardless of what terms states used. Everyone was basically a British citizen.
Once the 1948 act came in, Aboriginals were Australian citizens, but their rights were still administered by the states as the Federal Government did not have the authority under the constitution to make laws for Aboriginal people until after the 1967 referendum. Following that, my understanding is that Federal Law would over ride state law where there was any inconsistency.
My point (for the 3rd time I think) is not to try to argue that Aboriginals didn't have a hard time. The 1967 referendum was indeed a watershed moment. We should look back with pride that the No campaign was virtually non-existent and that it recorded the highest ever yes vote in a referendum with 90.77% of the vote. Not bad for a country of racists.
BTW, I would suggest that the prevailing attitude toward Aboriginals for a long part of our history fit the true definition of 'racist', ie they were considered inferior, rather than the current way overused definition which seems to be "If you say anything bad about a race, you're a racist"/
For the main though, the attitude (as I think you've said previously) was one of almost extreme paternalism rather than antagonism or hatred.
All of the varying state laws were a dogs breakfast. Pre federation in 1901, may states allowed Aboriginals to vote, several later changed that.
My understanding of how the legislation would work is that prior to the Citizenship act on 1948, there was no such thing as an Australian Citizen in the legal sense, regardless of what terms states used. Everyone was basically a British citizen.
Once the 1948 act came in, Aboriginals were Australian citizens, but their rights were still administered by the states as the Federal Government did not have the authority under the constitution to make laws for Aboriginal people until after the 1967 referendum. Following that, my understanding is that Federal Law would over ride state law where there was any inconsistency.
My point (for the 3rd time I think) is not to try to argue that Aboriginals didn't have a hard time. The 1967 referendum was indeed a watershed moment. We should look back with pride that the No campaign was virtually non-existent and that it recorded the highest ever yes vote in a referendum with 90.77% of the vote. Not bad for a country of racists.
BTW, I would suggest that the prevailing attitude toward Aboriginals for a long part of our history fit the true definition of 'racist', ie they were considered inferior, rather than the current way overused definition which seems to be "If you say anything bad about a race, you're a racist"/
For the main though, the attitude (as I think you've said previously) was one of almost extreme paternalism rather than antagonism or hatred.
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.