Toxic ideology of separatism?

On the anniversary of the Voice Referendum, Anthony Dillon wrote an article in the Financial Review, entitled "Why the Voice went unheard at the Referendum", covering a range of issues, largely revolving around his assertion of the need to change the toxic ideology of separatism: that is, the belief that Indigenous Australians are significantly different from non-Indigenous Australians.

Anthony opens with the claim that the proposed constitutional change was based on an ideology of Indigenous separatism. It is not the way to get the progress that First Nations people so clearly need.

The Wikipedia entry for separatism indicates that separatism is the advocacy of cultural, ethnic, tribal, religious, racial, regional, governmental, or gender separation from the larger group. As with secession, separatism conventionally refers to full political separation. Groups simply seeking greater autonomy are usually not considered separatists.

On this basis, it is clear that the proposed constitutional change was not based in the ideology of Indigenous separatism. The change to the Australian Constitution was proposed to provide meaningful and enduring mutual recognition "within" the established arrangements for how Australia is governed. It would have been established through legislation by the Australian Parliament and associated democratic processes. It was to have no right of veto or decision-making power, that continue to rest with bodies such as Parliament and the High Court. It would have been part of celebrating the richness of our nation, as Noel Pearson, Peter Dutton and other have put it, wonderfully weaving together indigenous heritage, British inheritance and migration and multicultural success.

In the course of the Referendum and subsequently, we are now hearing continual reference to division and separatism. Each require a distinction to be made, one that Anthony makes and acknowledges each time he uses the word "Indigenous". Our minds and our lives could not viably operate without the capacity to make distinctions. If you could not distinguish colours, you could not read what I have written!

The notion of division and separatism present interesting conundrums. As I asked in a recent post ...

When will we understand that time creates "before" and "after", a distinction which is undeniable, and when it is denied, it constitutes an act of exclusion rather than inclusion?

If we hold that there are no differences, are we sustaining the Great Silence, the invisibility of First Nations people, the Terra Nullius of land and of mind. Or is this about "significant" differences? How "different" does a difference need to be in order for it to be significant? Anthony acknowledges the "gap", yet apparently does not regard this as "significant".

Anthony challenges Megan Davis' statement that the day after the referendum, many Indigenous Australians “didn’t want to leave the house. If they did, they felt sickened, hurt, rejected.” He goes on to say "In reality, in many parts of Australia where there is a mix of Indigenous and non-Indigenous citizens, life continued as normal." It seems there were many Indigenous people experiencing rejection and many Australians continuing life as normal. Both are realities with no need to position one perspective as lacking reality.

Anthony goes on to further suggest that Australians don't shun Aboriginal people - it is the trouble making "blaktivists" that Australians shun - does he mean 6.2m blaktivists, I wonder? I am sure he doesn't. Nevertheless, I wonder how he accounts for the views of 6.2m people, willing to walk with First Nations people, and to accept their generous invitation to support voice, treaty and truth? I also wonder what it is that we all implicitly acknowledge each time we use the words "Aboriginal", "Indigenous", "First Nations", "Torres Strait Islander" and other expressions?

Anthony also expresses concern about the Megan Davis' statement “an Indigenous voice is ‘an idea whose time will come’ because without a consultation body, governments will struggle to create effective policies”. He suggests this is sublime ignorance of the hundreds of consultative bodies for Indigenous people at all levels across the country. Anthony accepts that the gap in health and wellbeing outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians is not closing ie. that it reflects a failure of current policy. So, perhaps the hundreds of consultative bodies are not effective and perhaps the Voice would constitute a "different approach"?

Anthony indicates that to succeed in this country, whether you are Indigenous or non-Indigenous, typically entails gaining a quality education, living in safe environments, and being where the opportunities are. Perhaps we need to ask ourselves what are we doing to extend a quality education, safe environments and opportunities to everyone, wherever they live in the land we now call Australia?