A prominent Yes campaigner for an Indigenous Voice to Parliament has accused No campaigner and Shadow Indigenous Australians Minister Jacinta Nampijinpa Price of "hate" for First Nations people after she called welcome to country ceremonies "divisive".
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socially left-leaning, non-Indigenous Australians have a complete mental breakdown as soon as anyone challenges their outdated and bigoted ideas around sovereignty is a clear indication of the cognitive dissonance I am referring to.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
Thank you for sharing your perspective on what sovereignty means, it’s more than the other person I was trying to discuss this with did.
All Im really seeing from that article is that sovereignty according to some activists means
-spirituality -connection to land
Which matches closely to the original Western interpretation of
-derived from god -occupation of land
I really don’t see much difference, and I don’t see much worth in either. Realised sovereignty, the effective ability to enforce it, is the only thing that matters at the end of the day.
These activists are making out like in 60,000 years they never went to war, never stole land, and never enforced their claim over another group of people.
Of course they did. Then it happened to the lot of them. That sucks for them but that’s how it goes.
That’s why everyone spends so much on Defence.
The sovereignty you are referring to is.
You are describing sovereignty under the international legal system which was developed by European colonial powers.
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 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.
Terra nullius and international law did exist during the period of Australia’s colonisation. Are you really this ignorant of history?
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.