In this referendum debate we’re hearing about the government creating laws “that effect them”.
Who is them?
Certainly not the very westernised educated elites we see fronting the debate.
If it’s regional and remote people, let them speak for themselves because the way it is at the moment, we have these same educated elites taking it upon themselves to speak for others.
That is, doing exactly what they accuse the government of doing.
To borrow from Lincoln, all laws effect all of the people most of the time and some of the people some of the time.
No one is special or immune.
A road or a bridge or a mine may inconvenience some but benefit many directly and indirectly through jobs and royalties.
Random Note — Two standards
I’m sure everyone’s familiar with the way many indigenous (mainly women, I think) when giving a talk, refer to themselves as “a proud Gadigal woman” or Ngunawal, Eora, Awabakal etc, and we accept that as someone who is simply proud of their heritage.
My question is twofold.
What is the point of it beyond promoting the concept of tribalism as opposed to multiculturalism and more to the point:
How would it be accepted if any of us stood in the public square and spoke about being “a proud white man or woman of Anglo Celtic heritage”?
Would that be ok?