Debating The Voice with Conservatives
Debating The Voice With Conservatives
The Australian newspaper published this letter from me on 10 November.
Voice of reason
The concepts of reconciliation, recognition and respect raised in the dialogue on the Indigenous voice are essentially religious and spiritual in nature. Much Australian secular politics tends to see religion as unimportant or meaningless, and yet throughout history religion has been central to social cohesion and identity. The SBS television documentary The Australian Wars revealed major issues of genocide that remain an unacknowledged stain on the national character. The voice will help Australia to atone for the sins of colonial settlement, with the grievous loss of Indigenous culture and population. Asserting that Australia has no problem of national guilt reinforces harmful social division. The voice will promote constructive dialogue, as Chris Kenny explains (“Warren Mundine’s words of wisdom across the Indigenous voice referendum divide”, 9/11). Saying a constitutional mandate will unfairly distort political processes misses the point of this referendum as an essential step on the national journey of healing.
Robert Tulip, Fraser, ACT
The link is behind a hard paywall, so only subscribers to the newspaper can see it. This has led to the discussion in the newspaper online comments section being quite different from what you might expect from a cross section of the community, as those who are willing to pay to read The Australian tend to share the values of the paper. It is interesting that the paper was willing to publish my letter, which supports the lone pro-voice journalist among its regular contributors, Chris Kenny.
The only changes the editors made were to provide the title, ‘Voice of Reason’, and to delete the words “disrespecting Indigenous memory” from the end of the sentence “Asserting that Australia has no problem of national guilt reinforces harmful social division.”
Here are the online comments made in direct response to my letter, with the number of likes from readers. The responses start with the most popular, in descending order. The common theme is that the Indigenous Voice to Parliament is totally wrong and that modern Australia has nothing to atone for regarding colonial treatment of Indigenous people. I provide these comments here to help people understand how conservative people think about race relations in Australia.
Lynn
Robert Tulip please explain to me how dividing a country by race is central to social cohesion. How giving one race two votes is central to social cohesion? How demanding this generation apologise and give monetary compensation for incidents that happened many years ago will lead to social cohesion?
Like 79
Michael
The case for a Constitutionally enshrined voice is vague, emotional, and shame-based. The case against is clear, reasoned, and principled.
Like 72
Linda
Robert Tulip, it isn’t as if we are not faced with guilt over what happened in the past, all the time, through an incessant negative narrative which I believe is damaging Australia’s confidence and standing. I am not sure how much the notion of “atoning for our sins” is much of a call to vote “yes”, as it would be meaningless to the majority of us just trying to get by and sounds like more fancy words of which we already have a surfeit on this subject. This may inspire the academics and voice supporters but is hardly likely to improve lives on the ground.
You have merely confirmed that the voice is to be yet another avenue for the airing of historic grievance when what is needed by indigenous people in remote and failing communities is a better present, and future, before any more generations of children are forced to live without hope and opportunity.
Like 65
Fiona
I’ll take a leaf out of Gina Rinehart’s book, and won’t be shamed into apologising for events or words over which I had no control.
Like 60
Kaye
Exactly. We can feel regret that things were said, done, not done, but responsibility only if we were involved at the time and know we could have changed the outcome.
Like 10
peter
And if we had even the first clue as to who the voice will be, and how it’s utterances will be determined and presented, we may have an inkling as to whether there is likely to be any positive outcome for those aboriginals needing a better life.
But all we get is more and more words about lost culture, past oppression, and the spiritual need for healing.
None of which will make one iota of difference to children suffering in remote camps.
Like 32
Frankie
With respect it seems the Voice is the panacea to all things…. It solves past hurts, it solves gap problems, it tells stories to an unforgiving society, it brings disparate tribes together….it’s spiritual, practical, community, it’s a highway to treaty
sadly with such high expectations it will fail and rightly so ..
we have had the sorry days, sports weekends , nice looking jumpers , celebration weeks etc etc etc
all with similar expectations but …. Nothing about focusing on the heart issues that cause dysfunction and despair in communities that would be supported if real solutions were crafted from within the communities…Australians will support real solutions
no amount of transferred guilt will solve GAP issues, no amount of Anglo virtue signalling will solve GAP issues, no constitutional change will solve GAP issues.
Like 57
Peter
Don’t forget welcoming to my country. How many times do I need to be welcomed?
Like 62
BrendanL
Don’t forget welcoming to my country
If you have to be welcomed repeatedly, then it isn’t your country.
Like 5
Hunter
Quite so Frankie…and in Robert Tulip’s letter today he bases a large part of this condemnation of our history on a fabrication…the frontier wars as presented on SBS. We had skirmishes and nasty incidents but the hyperbole being generated at present does no one any good…truth is paramount and we can handle it..but the fabrication of aboriginal history is a very divisive construct. People who value the truth will not accept it lying down.
Like 43
Jennifer
„The voice will help Australia to atone for the sins of colonial settlement, with the grievous loss of Indigenous culture and population.“
Colonial settlement was arguably not a sin. It was inevitable that this continent would have been settled by someone, likely the French or the Dutch, if the British hadn’t done so first.
Our best regarded historian, Geoffrey Blainey commented that it was a pity that the continent was settled so late in the historical record, in that the cultural and technological gap between the Aboriginals and settlers was so great, and this has led to some of the problems The descendants of Aboriginal people face.
Like 45
Slartibartfast
Robert Tulip. Since none of my ancestors were here at the time and can thus not be held accountable for anything that happened here after 1788, why do you think that I should be ‘atoning’?
I did have a second great uncle who came to Freemantle from England, but as he was banged up in jail I doubt that he, was involved either.
The past is the past. Record it, learn from it, but don’t judge the actions of its inhabitants by the mores of today. There is a bottomless pit of agonising and self-flaggelation waiting there for those indulging in such reflections.
Like 45
Peter
Robert Tulip there has been no grievous loss of population the indigenous population has been on the rise for decades and is now at a level surpassing what it was in 1788. As for loss of culture, that has been seemingly easily replaced with welcome to country and smoking ceremonies which have a long history stretching way back to Ernie Dingo and the 1980s.
Like 44
Ian
If you want frontier wars have a look at places like Aurukun it is happening now, they have just closed the medical centre as the staff feel unsafe, the ambulance was carjacked this week, is this the turmoil we will see with the voice, instead of telling me I am racist sort this out yourselves.
Like 39
Jeffrey
6 stolen cars a night in Alice springs
Like 4
BrendanL
The voice will help Australia to atone for the sins of colonial settlement,
The word atone comes from “at+one”. The original meaning was make one, unite.
Everything in Reconciliation, Recognition and the Voice is about perpetuating the division between those who can claim pre-1788 ancestry and everyone else.
Every repetition of a Welcome ceremony reinforces that division. Every Acknowledgement of Country, every “Always was, Always will be” tells the post-1788 folk that they are interlopers who can never really be at one with the pre-1788 folk.
The Voice enshrined in the Constitution cements division, and permanently blocks any journey towards healing.
Like 38
Rebecca
16 HOURS AGO
I could not disagree more strongly on every aspect which you propose in your letter, Robert Tulip!
Like 30
Arctium
Robert, the claims of frontier violence (if believed) need to be put in perspective; great abuse and violence compared to what? The Urgurs aren’t doing too well in China; Khmer Rouge in Cambodia; Rwandan Genocide: the brutal slaughter by ISIS; and that’s without going too far back in history. Wars, genocides and slaughters have been common in Europe for thousands of years; the list is endless. The Holocaust being the extreme nightmare of what people are capable of doing. By comparison the settlement of this country by the British was benign.
Like 19
Daryl
Robert Tulip.. why do we need a national journey of healing.. I don’t think we’re on one or need one ..
Like 14
CAVE CANEM
I’m not atoning for anything. NO!
Like 8
ScottJ
Robert Tulip
Who says we need healing.
We need action to address the deplorable conditions in remote towns.
Nothing to do with loss of culture.
Like 3
I responded to the these comments as follows. My responses received no likes at all.
The range of questions about the Voice to Parliament in these comments present legitimate and respectable perspectives and concerns. However, the specific intergenerational trauma that Indigenous Australians have suffered, together with their unique cultural heritage linked to our country from time immemorial, and the harm caused by the violent loss of this heritage, all mean that specific actions are still needed to recognise and honour and improve their contribution to Australian life.
A compassionate response is needed to the perception that indigenous voices have not been adequately heard. A Yes vote in the Voice referendum can help enable the conversation to move ahead in a positive way, reinforcing rather than harming national unity and cohesion.
Exaggerated alarm about the potential power of the voice is misplaced, as are worries about eligibility to vote for it. Given that the Voice was identified as the first priority of the Uluru process, in a spirit of generosity, responding with a laager mentality is unwise. The whole purpose is to shine a stronger moral light upon the problems of indigenous disadvantage, and to recognise the enduring damage of past overt institutional racism. It is not a gravy train. Ensuring more systematic and accountable scrutiny to improve government policies that affect Aborigines is hardly a danger.
We should expect that the Voice will bring both practical and symbolic benefits. Honesty about the dire situation for rural blacks can combine with honesty about the shameful history of white Australian disdain for indigenous culture and rights. Speaking as a sixth generation Australian of Scottish and English stock, I believe we should aim for what Prime Minister John Howard once called “a better balance between pride in our past and recognition of past wrongs.” I agree with the need to celebrate national achievements. At the same time, we should be ashamed of the ignorant brutality of our settler forebears, heedlessly sweeping away ancient traditions and destroying priceless cultural heritage.
Language about atonement certainly is outside our normal discussions. The Voice offers hope that we can progress toward being at one as a nation, providing a forum supported by our highest law to enable honest and open conversation.
Like 0
Robbie Tulip