I don’t think they’re divisive as such, I’m not friends with anyone who would have problems with acknowledging that the land we are on was once XYZ tribe land.
But everyone is annoyed with the rote recital of stuff like this:
“City of Adelaide acknowledges that we are meeting on the traditional Country of the Kaurna people of the Adelaide Plains and pays respect to Elders past and present. We recognise and respect their cultural heritage, beliefs and relationship with the land.”We don’t start every meeting with “God Bless the King”.
We don’t start every interaction with a reminder “I’d like to acknowledge that this office and the building within which it resides remains the property of Peregrine Corporation.”It’s become rote noise.
At the start of a large public event, where an MC is introducing speakers or the AFL grand final is about to kick off, it makes a lot more sense.
Up until recently, a lot of councils in Victoria started their meetings with the Lord’s Prayer.
Sounds like that’s a fixed problem then.
I wonder if the Scouts still recite it before every meeting?
Are they not divisive? I have never liked being treated like I’m some visitor in my own country.
I suppose even a broken clock is right twice a day because I feel dirty agreeing with anyone from the far-right.
Without treaty and any serious attempts at truth-telling and reconciliation, non-indigenous Australians are visitors of a sort. It’s why it’s so important Australia makes progress on these issues so as a people we can discuss them from a position of shared authority and as equals.
At the moment, we are still in a situation where non-Indigenous Australians benefit from all wrongdoings of the past without having to make any concessions or even acknowledge what actually happened. Our claim of sovereignty is unlawful, whilst Indigenous sovereignty remains intact. The passage of time doesn’t automatically solve these issues or free us from a responsibility to make things right.
Ideally, things like the Welcome to Country shouldn’t make you feel like you’re a visitor. Instead you should feel proud of our shared history and culture. The only reason it feels divisive is because Australians are still suffering from an internal conflict over these issues. Until we are actually willing to face up to the truth, expressions of Indigenous sovereignty will continue to feel uncomfortable.
You and I appear to have a differing understanding of sovereignty and what that word means.
The Australian Government has sovereignty of Australia, no one else, not even the supposed Monarch.
You can argue all day about historical legalities and it doesn’t matter a damn bit because the Australian Government holds absolute authority in Australia and that is reality.
If you’re redefining what the word sovereignty means please let me know.
Again, the Welcome to Country ceremonies are literally for welcoming GUESTS. I am not a guest, I am a citizen, and these ceremonies are extremely insulting.
These ceremonies are divisive because they’re treating citizens like temporary guests who are being begrudgingly welcomed.
Let me repeat, I am not a guest or a visitor. I was born here and I’ll die here. This is my home. Any insinuation otherwise is insulting to the point I would consider them fighting words if they were uttered in a pub.
That is entirely separate to recognition of the history of invasion and genocide which the Indigenous population suffered under British and then Australian governments, which I am fully aware of and recognise.
You and I appear to have a differing understanding of sovereignty and what that word means.
I think so, because you seem to believe that only one form of sovereignty exists - that of the modern international legal system, which was itself developed by Western colonial states. To suggests this indicates a significant lack of perspective. You also claim you are fully aware of Australia’s history, in which case you should know that the legal claim of terra nullius by the British Crown, upon which modern Australia was built, was not only incorrect at the time but has since been overturned by modern Australian courts. To assert, based on this unlawful claim, that there is only one form of sovereignty in this country and that it is undisputed is to be ignorant of our history.
The reality is that, as I alluded to, there are two competing forms of sovereignty in Australia. Regardless of whether you are willing to accept it, indigenous sovereignty continues to exist in this country and is of importance to First Nations peoples. They have the right to express this sovereignty and Australia, as a signatory to the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, has committed (in principle) to acknowledging and supporting this.
The fact that otherwise rational, often socially left-leaning, non-Indigenous Australians have a complete mental breakdown as soon as anyone challenges their outdated and bigoted ideas around sovereignty is a clear indication of the cognitive dissonance I am referring to. Expressions of indigenous sovereignty should not feel like a threat, and if they are then you need to go away and do some thinking about why they make you feel that way.
So long as I am treated as a “guest” in the language and actions of the people pushing for these changes I will never accept or recognise any form of sovereignty from them.
Simple as.
Sovereignty isn’t some colonial European concept, it is a concept which all States and leaders have understood throughout history. Chinese and African history are full of the establishment, maintenance and collapse of Sovereignty long before modern Colonial powers even existed.
My understanding of sovereignty isn’t based on a legal system it is based on power, the power to effectively govern within ones declared borders and maintain those borders against foreign powers.
Sovereignty was never ceded because it was LOST through conflict.
To be honest, that’s pretty lame. It sounds like just because you feel weird about them calling you a guest, you won’t accept their clear sovereignty in Australia.
Define sovereignty, because clearly we don’t mean the same thing.
My position on my status as a citizen and not a “guest” is clear and also very reasonable, if you have a problem with it please elaborate.
I agree with other commenters’ definitions of sovereignty. In Australia there are competing sovereignties. An imperial one – “Australia”, conquest, absolute power. And an Indigenous one – spiritual connection, ancestry, sacred ties. In each of these sovereignties, the word “sovereignty” has a different definition and is deployed for a different purpose.
Indigenous sovereignty existed for 60 millennia, and then the British stole the land and denied that sovereignty in place of their own. The Australian state has the means to enforce its own sovereignty through things like laws, police, prison, disenfranchisement, poverty, but Indigenous sovereignty still exists. This is a fact. If I stole something from you and claimed it as my own with a threat of violence, it’d still be yours, even after thousands of years.
Under Australian sovereignty, you’re certainly a citizen. Under Indigenous sovereignty, it’s more complicated, and from what I understand Indigenous people have a variety of perspectives. I haven’t heard anyone use the term ‘guest’, but I have heard ‘invader’. It’s an uncomfortable label, but it’s entirely reasonable given the colonial history of Australia. Others have more inviting perspectives on this conflict between sovereignties.
Here’s an article about it if you’re interested: https://www.smh.com.au/national/what-s-indigenous-sovereignty-and-can-a-voice-extinguish-it-20230113-p5ccdk.html
Sovereignty isn’t some colonial European concept
The sovereignty you are referring to is.
My understanding of sovereignty isn’t based on a legal system it is based on power, the power to effectively govern within ones declared borders and maintain those borders against foreign powers.
You are describing sovereignty under the international legal system which was developed by European colonial powers.
Sovereignty was never ceded because it was LOST through conflict.
Again, incorrect. Under the international law that you repeatedly reference, sovereignty cannot be claimed through conquest without a formal treaty process (which there has not been in Australia). Your claim that sovereignty was ceded through conflict is not just false, it’s illegal.
The International “law” you’re pointing out is a non-binding agreement to which Australia is a signatory. Note the non-binding part.
It also didn’t exist when these events took place and retroactively applying laws tends to be a non-starter.
Sovereignty as a concept has existed far longer than Colonial powers as I pointed out which you haven’t rebutted in the slightest.
The International “law” you’re pointing out is a non-binding agreement to which Australia is a signatory. Note the non-binding part.
The United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is not an “international law”. I also alluded to the fact that it was non-binding by stating that Australia was committed to it “in principle”. This is not the gotcha you thought it was, try again.
It also didn’t exist when these events took place and retroactively applying laws tends to be a non-starter.
Terra nullius and international law did exist during the period of Australia’s colonisation. Are you really this ignorant of history?
Sovereignty as a concept has existed far longer than Colonial powers as I pointed out which you haven’t rebutted in the slightest.
I don’t need to rebut it. You clearly described sovereignty under international law in your very first comment. Every attempt you have made to define Australia’s sovereignty has been under those terms. Are you suggesting there is more than one form of sovereignty? Didn’t you start off by claiming the complete opposite? You’ve backed yourself into a corner where the only option left is to admit that I am correct. Congratulations on completely playing yourself.
In your world view, where does ‘sovereignty’ come from?
Sovereignty stems from actual control of a region and its populace, the ability to set laws and enforce them, and the ability to maintain control of the borders against foreign powers.
I find that interesting because that is at odds with the Australian Government’s view of where it’s sovereignty stems from.
In Australia we have two competing claims to sovereignty by right of heredity over the continent: that of the Crown and of Indigenous peoples.
But what you’re suggesting is essentially ‘might makes right.’ I control this land therefore I am sovereign.
In Arnhem Land and other locations, where Indigenous people only came into contact with Europeans in the 20th century, their law remains the predominant legal system.
Those pockets of uninterrupted continuity of law and culture have enabled Indigenous peoples Australia-wide to refuse to be erased, despite the weight the nation has thrown behind the elimination of their culture.
You’re right that the Australian state’s legitimacy does not rest upon a treaty with First Nations. In a constitutional monarchy, both the Crown and the parliament borrow their authority from a combination of heredity and the people: the Crown by consent and heredity, and the parliament through the electoral process.
First Nations are not recognised as nation states under international law. But that legal system was authored by those same nation states whose invading colonies are founded on Indigenous lands and now draw their authority from them.
The phrase “sovereignty was never ceded” might sound like a rabble-rousing protest line, but it’s deeper than that. White Australia landed on top of black Australia and then either ignored the laws of the land or purposefully tried to destroy it depending on the mood, it’s refusal to reconcile with the first people of the land is what has landed is where we are today.
If sovereignty comes by right of heredity, then we need to strike an accord between the two competing claims. If sovereignty come by way of ‘might makes right’ then the oppressed claimants should violently revolt, we will have a war in the streets and one will be left standing. Or we could revolutionise our understanding of sovereignty, reject heredity all together and recognise that sovereignty stems from the people alone. The only other option is that we try and muddle through, each make some concessions to each other.
It is less “might makes right” than “might is reality” when it comes to sovereignty in my view.
Look at our anti-protest laws and tell me with a straight face that our sovereignty is granted by the people and not by the States ability to enforce its will through the exclusive use of violence within its borders.
As for your suggestion of violent rebellion, well that’s exactly how sovereignty is taken but if you’re being realistic we both know that isn’t possible.
In my opinion this talk of sovereignty only harms public opinion of reconciliation efforts.
Tell me, in Arnhem land if someone is murdered which legal system deals with the murderer? Your answer tells us all we need to know about the reality of sovereignty.
I can tell you that in Tiwi the disconnects between who deals with what crime is a constant source of conflict between elder leadership and federal police. Quite often the police said ‘oh it’s black on black violence, you lot sort it out.’
The talk of reconciliation is literally dealing with issues like this. Sovereignty. Traditional Law. Cultural Recognition. Until it’s dealt with there can be no true reconciliation.
I totally get what you’re saying with regards to the state’s exclusive right to violence but in a lot of places this murkiness between what the law says and what people do is such a powder keg.
PS. I’m not downvoting you, or even trying to be rude or abrasive, just trying to lend you my own perspective and experiences.
I can see where you’re coming from, the way I see it is more like “welcome to land”, everyone owns the country, however, we recognise that it is on unceded land.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Senator Nampijinpa Price told The Australian on Monday that she believes welcome to country ceremonies at sporting events and public gatherings were “definitely divisive”.
“There is no problem with acknowledging our history, but rolling out these performances before every sporting event or public gathering is definitely divisive,” Senator Nampijinpa Price told The Australian.
Marcus Stewart, from the Uluru Dialogue, said he believed Senator Nampijinpa Price was deliberately spreading misinformation as part of her campaign against an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
Welcome to country ceremonies have become more common as part of public events in recent times, but according to Reconciliation Australia the protocols have existed for thousands of years.
Senator Nampijinpa Price’s comments follow Nationals leader David Littleproud revealing a split in the Coalition over Indigenous affairs policy going into the next election, after Opposition Leader Peter Dutton proposed symbolic constitutional recognition alongside legislated local and regional advisory bodies for Indigenous Australians.
Mr Stewart said a lack of consensus from the Coalition on Indigenous affairs policy would only delay progress for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
I’m a bot and I’m open source!
