Well I stacked the best Indigenous people in a pile (they are so super respected!), squeezed the shit out of them, and pulled a cool white ale called Jeez this is Sour, then smiled at everyone, choking on my own self-satisfaction. The best thing is, there were others there, that shared the can't-believe-were-not-seen-as-racist smirk that we all require... super chillaxed...

Better not!

A good time to repost the link Wilhelm Scream posted earlier. Which will help you too i-d. You repeatedly say that you must ‘call out bullshit’, which is why I thought you would really like to know about, and want me to flag your glaring ignorance of and interest in the mistake(s) regarding Lane.

‘Misreading Dark Emu

By Gillian Cowlishaw (leading anthropologist whose work on Aboriginal Australians has influenced an entire generation of social science scholars)

‘Criticisms of the book Dark Emu and its author, Bruce Pascoe, continue to appear, and to become more puzzling. It is as if the overwhelming popularity of Pascoe and his message have disturbed comfortable convictions about Australian history shared across a wide segment of Australian society.‘

https://johnmenadue.com/misreading-dark-emu/

Its a shame that your field of work, as you tell us, that is, your never ending documenting and educating, is failing you once more, becoming ‘slack’ as you previously said (before you deleted it). I can only imagine your work load. Pehaps slow down before you blow a fuse!

I’ve actually seen and been involved in Professor Langton’s work load. I’ve had some great discussions with her, she’s very kind, but very tough, great story. From what I’ve seen and heard, I think she can cope with the likes of disgruntled Sutton. You probably know that however, as are on a first name basis with ‘Marcia’, and know a lot about her personally. Do you know her professionally, in your work educating and documenting, or socially, or both?

What did you think of Dr Cane’s conclusion, and the video evidence, featuring all the other national and international experts?

Thanks for the link Supafreak.

Wilhelm Scream wrote:

Misreading Dark Emu

By Gillian Cowlishaw (leading anthropologist whose work on Aboriginal Australians has influenced an entire generation of social science scholars)

Criticisms of the book Dark Emu and its author, Bruce Pascoe, continue to appear, and to become more puzzling. It is as if the overwhelming popularity of Pascoe and his message have disturbed comfortable convictions about Australian history shared across a wide segment of Australian society.

Many seem to have accepted that Pascoe has been proven to be quite wrong, particularly with the publication of Peter Sutton and Keryn Walshe’s book Farmers or Hunter-gatherers? The Dark Emu Debate, which assured us that Aborigines were hunter-gatherers and had no ambitions to become farmers.

Is the implication that we need no longer be concerned about their subsequent history? But that history, as created by the settlers, is the major topic of Bruce Pascoe’s book.

I want to show that the detailed, disparaging interpretation of Dark Emu in Peter Sutton’s chapters in Farmers or Hunter-gatherers is seriously misleading. (Keryn Walshe’s archaeology is less relevant here.) The anthropologist’s irritated corrections of some careless referencing and reckless claims made in a popular, non-academic text ignore Pascoe’s themes, arguments and intentions.

Dark Emu is not about whether Aborigines were agriculturalists or hunter-gatherers, but about how they were seen by explorers, settlers and other observers. Pascoe is challenging popular beliefs about Aborigines. His modest aim, he said, “is to give rise to a possibility of an alternative view of precolonial Australia.” The public recognised this message as a valuable corrective to public and political misconceptions. Farmers or Hunter-Gatherers? shows almost no interest in popular knowledge or public sentiment. Thus, the disagreement is less about the status of hunter-gatherers than about “who is to be master” of Australia’s colonial history.

Full disclosure: Like Peter Sutton I began the profound experience of anthropological fieldwork with a remote Aboriginal community in the 1970s. My original research in southern Arnhem Land explored Rembarrnga women’s traditional lives. Subsequently the cultural interface and race relations became the focus of my ethnographic work.

Sutton’s fieldwork gave him a deep understanding and abiding fondness for those Wik people he calls the Old People and their “classical culture.” His meticulous research into their languages and traditional lives attracts respect. But Dark Emu is not about an allegedly static precolonial past. It is about Australia’s history.

Catching fish a lazy way

Sutton subjects Dark Emu to repetitive micro-analysis, but he ignores the book’s main theme, which is made clear when Pascoe quotes a young settler’s observations in 1897 in his introduction:

a black would sit near the [weir] opening and just behind him a tough stick about ten feet long was stuck in the ground with the thick end down. To the thin end of this rod was attached a line with a noose at the other end; a wooden peg was fixed under the water at the opening in the fence to which this noose was caught, and when the fish made a dart to go through the opening he was caught by the gills, his force undid the loop from the peg, and the spring of the stick threw the fish over the head of the black, who would then in a most lazy manner reach back his hand, undo the fish, and set the loop again around the peg.

Despite this ingenious system, the settler concluded:

I have often heard of the indolence of the blacks and soon came to the conclusion after watching a blackfellow catch a fish in such a lazy way, that what I had heard was perfectly true.

Sutton turns the argument around by repeatedly accusing Pascoe of reviving “the old Eurocentric view held by the British conquerors of Aboriginal society.” But when was Eurocentrism discarded? It is true that anthropologists of the twentieth century were dedicated to understanding and respecting Aboriginal traditions and often admired the complexities of kinship, ritual, religion and the economic system. But such work, perhaps inadvertently, reinforced public images of a static society — in the singular — with ancient practices that intrigued intellectuals, but would inevitably give way before modernity. That inevitability is affirmed by the anthropologist’s emphasis on contented hunter-gatherers, thus relieving us all of the colonial guilt that Pascoe’s book evokes in some readers.

Old facts

Sutton focuses repetitively on “the facts.” “Evidence” would be a better term to decribe detailed knowledge of traditional societies and their marked variation across Australia. None of us has direct experience of precolonial societies, so some humility would be appropriate when claiming knowledge of them. Social facts require interpretation and attract debate, for instance about how assumptions shape even the most scientific observers’ interpretations, and how specific terms carry value judgments. Foraging and farming are not only descriptive terms; together they carry a commonsense meaning of progress through time.

I am also fond of facts and there are many facts about Wik history that tell of a century of bloodshed, land theft and interference throughout Cape York before Sutton arrived there in 1970. Sutton lived with people who, he claims, “in many cases had been born and raised beyond the reach of the British Empire.” His companions must have been very old indeed to have escaped the influence of settlers who arrived in Cape York in the ninteeenth century with the protection from the Queensland state apparatus.

Sutton’s professional work as an expert witness in Native Title cases might explain his respect for facts over interpretation. Native Title courts, operating under the Native Title Act, are tasked with identifying traditional owners of particular country. The process is adversarial, so there is little room for considering the ambiguity of the alien concept of “property,” or taking account of changing circumstances, let alone of shared responsibility for an area between the moieties — mother’s country and fathers’ country.

The one thing the Native Title process has in common with traditional Aboriginal practices of dispute resolution is the considerable time involved. In Arnhem Land, I saw Aboriginal people resolving major disputes through slow, careful dialogue. Each speaker sought common ground and avoided causing offence to rivals with the aim of avoiding violence. The process was not adversarial but based on negotiation.

Sutton is incorrect when accusing Pascoe of denigrating Aborigines as “mere hunter-gatherers.” This is careless reading: Pascoe was quoting others’ use of that term, emphasising the pervasive belittling of the natives in early observers’ texts. Such belittling is still with us. The common term is racism.

The past is not the history

Studying the past is not the same as studying history. Sutton claims access to an authentic, unchanged native tradition, but he leaves us ignorant of how the Old People related to white explorers, land-hungry settlers, missionaries and miners and their beliefs about “savages.” Missionaries enticed Wik people to become sedentary, but when a massive bauxite deposit was discovered under the mission houses at Mapoon the people were forcibly moved and their houses burned down. Sutton may admire the Old People but, surprisingly, his work lacks any interest in living, changing, adapting and resistant Aboriginal societies — let alone our colonising forebears that labelled Aborigines “mere hapless wanderers.”

Sutton has not always ignored the Aboriginal present. He was an activist in Queensland in the 1980s, actively promoting recognition of Aboriginal culture and land rights. But his 2009 book The Politics of Suffering was his anguished response to the violence among contemporary Wik people. Sutton held the liberal policies of cultural recognition responsible and endorsed the Howard government’s 2007 Northern Territory Intervention. As fellow anthropologist Basil Sansom observed: “Sutton now argues that Aboriginal culture (Australia-wide) is bad [and] should not be conceded space to flourish.” It is only the Old People’s culture that Sutton admires, and we know what happens to old people.

Affluent foragers

Social evolutionism was upended by anthropologists when they recognised that the agricultural revolution was the “worst revolution in human history.” The American anthropologist Marshall Sahlins famously named foragers “the Original Affluent Society” because they had limited needs and abundant leisure. Humans had lived thus across the whole globe for millennia before agriculturalists developed major food surpluses, storage and denser populations. There followed cities and slaves, poverty and affluence, inequality and injustice — a downward spiral for humanity.

Anthropology students were taught the superiority of hunter-gatherer societies, but Sutton must know that primitivist thought remains alive today in popular imagery and convictions despite the work of anthropologists like Stanley Diamond. Admiration for hunter-gatherer societies is often derided as romantic primitivism, even by some anthropologists.

Pascoe shows how easy and convenient it was for settlers to share the conviction that Aborigines had not developed into modern humans and that a natural evolutionary process meant they had to give way to advanced Europeans. And that idea has not been eradicated. A further, repeated emphasis in Pascoe’s book is how settlers’ farming practices destroyed what Aborigines had preserved. Pascoe — along with most people — sees agriculture as a “development” from a simpler economy and in this he affirms that the continent was inhabited by dynamic societies. Such a view is more in line with scholarly knowledge of the deep human past than is Sutton’s emphasis on the Wik’s stasis. Social change may have been imperceptible for long periods, but human societies are living entities, not static or self-satisfied as the “Old People” appear in Sutton’s work.

Admiration for Pascoe’s book stems from its “profound challenge to conventional thinking about Aboriginal life on this continent” (Marcia Langton) and a critique of Australia’s “underlying supremicism” (Penny Wong). Sutton says primitive imagery of Aborigines is “a colonial-era fiction long expunged from Australian law.” But the Native Title Act was only passed in 1993 against powerful resistance and two centuries of primitivist and racist assumptions. Aboriginal ownership is still vigorously contested, moreover, and Sutton’s professional life as a Native Title anthropologist depends on that contestation.

Social archaeology

Anthropologists are often confused with archaeologists who study the evidence of human societies before written records emerged. Contemporary anthropology retains its focus on cultural specificities and variations, with the practice of ethnographic fieldwork ensuring that the discipline has a contemporary focus on living cultural histories and responses to changing conditions, rather than merely the past.

Perhaps Pascoe’s popularity has annoyed some, but I am more troubled that a classical anthropological text such as Farmers or Hunter-Gatherers? presents Aborigines as the Old People who belong indisputably to Australia’s past. Because it ignores living social history, Peter Sutton’s work can reasonably be defined as social archaeology. Sutton may have missed the work of the anthropologist Eric Wolf, who in 1982 urged social anthropologists to move beyond images of timeless, unchanging native societies and attend to post-colonial histories that are in urgent need of documentation.

By failing to address Bruce Pascoe’s historical themes, Sutton appears to be tilting at windmills. He may be right in seeing Dark Emu as a challenge to work that confines its attention to old Aboriginal people with long memories in remote places. But tilting at the windmill of contemporary popular, public and political thought doesn’t enhance the reputation of our discipline. It is the Native Title Act’s emphasis on Aboriginal traditions that keeps social archaeology alive in Australia and diverts interest from the varied ways Aborigines once lived and have since adapted, responded, resisted and perhaps most importantly thought about the culture that now dominates the continent. It is not Sutton, but Pascoe who encourages such progressive thought.

https://johnmenadue.com/misreading-dark-emu/

dark emu again... sigh...

was a good little discussion on insiders this week ftom the garma festival - except for the albo bit... where he resorted right back to avoiding words, not answering questions, and his tedious wanker advisor approved talking points, again...

does he (labor) really not realise this style of politics is what is totally on the nose for the public? ...and that albo really is not very good at it?

anyway, was a good discussion, with claire armstrong a stand out for nuanced knowledge of the ins and outs of the unfolding 'debate'

yeh yeh, I believe clare is a 'murdoch mouthpiece'... but she was also clearly pro voice... so there's that...

a few crew on sky news are unashamedly pro voice too

and yes, tbb is spot on to say albo is both bombing his own campaign, being a fuckwit (and seemingly, is too caught up in his own little legacy manufcturing campaign) to not utilise the many high end liberal side supporters

twit

sorry, but labor are just as caught up in this toxic nutty era of partisan politics as any maga fuelled bogan wannabe

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-04/megan-krakouer-voice-activist-ch…

Good news Supafreak, good to see that change is possible and that people are deeply engaged.

‘‘Criticisms of the book Dark Emu and its author, Bruce Pascoe, continue to appear, and to become more puzzling. It is as if the overwhelming popularity of Pascoe and his message have disturbed comfortable convictions about Australian history shared across a wide segment of Australian society.‘‘

Sykpan?

‘where he resorted right back to avoiding words, not answering questions, and his tedious wanker advisor approved talking points, again...’.

Sykpan?

You’re very upset about questions not being answered, so, once more, what did you think of Dr Cane’s conclusions?

And once more, do you remember if you watched the videos yet? Or what they were even about? What do you think of them?

Why do dislike ‘Dark Emu’ so much?

What do you think of Cowlishaw’s assessment?

my criticsm isn't of dark emu

just that we're back on it again

it's history wars again meets swellnet files circa 2019

again...

dark emu is basically an acedemic tiff

it is only pertinant because all of academia, the media, and education systems embraced it probably a little bit more than its academic rigor warranted

and they hate to be wrong

the only real relevance is about
terra nullius and treaty I guess, ...but no one's really talking about that...

but carry on...

it's a good discussion to have

"‘where he resorted right back to avoiding words, not answering questions, and his tedious wanker advisor approved talking points, again...’."

you do realise i was talking about albo on insiders?

its well beyond tedious

Sounds like you guys are sick of the topic already, but for what it's worth I thought Dark Emu was a very poor piece of scholarship.

Pascoe had the opportunity to write the book that could start an important discussion about aboriginal Australian society and technology and potentially overturn many misconceptions, but it is too full of legerdemain and contradictions to be taken seriously, and thus undermines his cause.

I don't have the book to hand, so I can't quote it, but I was troubled by his tendency, for example, to use colonial settlers' accounts of apparent indigenous agriculture as evidence in support of his thesis, while also using their less flattering accounts of indigenous culture as evidence of their racism. In this view, anything complementary was true, and anything critical was racism. Well, they were either reliable narrators or they weren't; to believe them only when it suits your arguments is simply confirmation bias.

It seems to me that both such contradictory accounts should be taken with a grain of salt, plainly related as unreliable, and serve as a springboard into a search for better evidence. If that evidence seems to contradict an established consensus, then it should be subject to scrutiny.

Alas, I think the allure of the story was simply too great for Pascoe, the media, and many who want to believe it.

The quoted piece above from Gillian Cowlishaw seems to be more sloppy thinking. The very first paragraph betrays her discomfort with criticism of the work and implies that the criticism is ideologically motivated by people whose "comfortable convictions" have been "disturbed" by the book's "overwhelming popularity".

Yeah, maybe. Or maybe they just want to get their facts straight.

And why should a scholar be "puzzled" by criticisms of a controversial piece of scholarship, especially when she admits, it is full of "careless references and reckless claims"?

Ugh, I could go on, but I feel myself being sucked downwards....

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=834324254720393&set=a.279362383549…

@info, can I return to your comment of 9.06 last night.

On reflection two things strike me about your contribution there. Firstly, you honestly answered the question so kudos for doing that. Second, in regard to your explanation on encouraging mobs to move off country, IMO it is naive to think that will ever happen or work given in the minds of FNP it is a return to the worst of formal colonial government policy. Further, if successful it would be a tacit nod to terra nullius lie and an end to the notion of continuing use and occupation of the land as established in Mabo. In addition to all of that moving/encouraging mobs of country ignores the deep cultural and spiritual links FNP have with their land. No reply required but cheers again for your honest reply.

Some good points rooftop. The thing is though the book has actually stimulated a huge discussion and debate amongst a wide audience, questioning long held stereotypes about Indigenous Australians, and about their contemporary situation.

What did you think of Dr Cane’s interview, and the videos?

Sykpan?

I understand how you feel re being ‘sucked downwards’ rooftop.

When I saw the post where Lane claimed to be the maker of the Indigenous Australian flag, and the rest of the comprehensively full of holes, benign version of colonialism, not unlike Diamond’s, the Spanish said it so it must be true episode, and how quickly a particular type of poster(s) leapt on board, it would have been easy to feel the same thing. That’s a choice. There’s better things to feel though.

There’s some great waves around, time to be there.

AlfredWallace wrote:

sameaswas wrote:

Dumai wrote:

-3,278 Aboriginal corporations

-243 Native title bodies

-48 land councils

-35 Regional councils

-122 + Aboriginal agencies

-3 Advisory bodies

-145 Health organisations

-11 Indigenous Federal MPs

-12 Culturally important indigenous days

-Taxpayers give $33 BILLION annually for 984,000 people (3.8% of the population )

-Expenditure per person in 2012-2013 was $43,449 on Indigenous Australian compared to $20,900 on other Australians a ratio of 2.08 to 1 and increase from 1.95 in2009.Australian taxpayers spend at least $100 million a day on direct support for Indigenous Australians every year or $39.5 billion of direct government expenditure every.single.year.

The figures are based on the 2017 Indigenous Expenditure Report produced by the Productivity Comission.Source : Professor Matthew Bennet ,spokesman for the Sovereign Court of International Justice ( SCIJ ) and international Barrister with a 25 + year legal career and an expert on international law.

with all of this w.t.f. do we need a voice for?

imo nepotism and cronyism for the "elite" city fnp, rellies and mates on 6 figure salaries whingeing none stop...fo.

Sameaswas. What language is that ? I see you can read, write, not so sure.

You sure are speedy at double digit typing, texting. i know your kind, you get the most minute info or background information on anything, whammo instant expert.

Another facsimile poster, we have a few, and in particular one.

Ill sit here awhile and await your reply.

Explain in 25 words or less, less in your case, what you know about the whole referendum for a Voice for Aboriginal people.

To use one of your abbreviations, so we are down on your level IMO, if you vote NO for a voice, why don’t you just leave the country .

Have you ever asked yourself why you live in Australia ? AW.

WOW! what an angry reply, all of the yea mob reps are asking for respectfull debate and yet the yes ppl are the aggro lot.
my post was an agreement of dumai and the fact that nepotism and cronyism is rife in oz politic and beaurocracy, which was main cause of atsic being shut down by howard, it was proven that corruption was rife and fnp whistle blowers exposed the facts.
leave the country? along with all the other "nays"? is that what u think?...really?

No "spokeswoman" and shadow Indigenous Affairs minister Jacinta Price caught lying again.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/aug/07/peter-dutton-say…

Not her biggest lie but more evidence of a pattern of behavior exemplifying the deceit and duplicity at the core of the No campaign. Bullshit artists, the lot of them.

And grifters..."Former Nationals MP Andrew Gee accuses opposition of using case against voice as fundraiser for the LNP" https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/aug/06/former-nationals…

adam12 wrote:

No "spokeswoman" and shadow Indigenous Affairs minister Jacinta Price caught lying again.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/aug/07/peter-dutton-say…

Not her biggest lie but more evidence of a pattern of behavior exemplifying the deceit and duplicity at the core of the No campaign. Bullshit artists, the lot of them.

And grifters..."Former Nationals MP Andrew Gee accuses opposition of using case against voice as fundraiser for the LNP" https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/aug/06/former-nationals…

Big deal she probably honestly thought he had, and if he had or not it doesnt really matter, its very unlikely to change anyones vote.

But the lies and misinformation that Albo and others spin, like this has nothing to do with Treaty or Australia day wont be a target by the voice, are huge lies that really could affect how someone votes.

rooftop wrote:

Sounds like you guys are sick of the topic already, but for what it's worth I thought Dark Emu was a very poor piece of scholarship.

Pascoe had the opportunity to write the book that could start an important discussion about aboriginal Australian society and technology and potentially overturn many misconceptions, but it is too full of legerdemain and contradictions to be taken seriously, and thus undermines his cause.

I don't have the book to hand, so I can't quote it, but I was troubled by his tendency, for example, to use colonial settlers' accounts of apparent indigenous agriculture as evidence in support of his thesis, while also using their less flattering accounts of indigenous culture as evidence of their racism. In this view, anything complementary was true, and anything critical was racism. Well, they were either reliable narrators or they weren't; to believe them only when it suits your arguments is simply confirmation bias.

It seems to me that both such contradictory accounts should be taken with a grain of salt, plainly related as unreliable, and serve as a springboard into a search for better evidence. If that evidence seems to contradict an established consensus, then it should be subject to scrutiny.

Alas, I think the allure of the story was simply too great for Pascoe, the media, and many who want to believe it.

The quoted piece above from Gillian Cowlishaw seems to be more sloppy thinking. The very first paragraph betrays her discomfort with criticism of the work and implies that the criticism is ideologically motivated by people whose "comfortable convictions" have been "disturbed" by the book's "overwhelming popularity".

Yeah, maybe. Or maybe they just want to get their facts straight.

And why should a scholar be "puzzled" by criticisms of a controversial piece of scholarship, especially when she admits, it is full of "careless references and reckless claims"?

Ugh, I could go on, but I feel myself being sucked downwards....

+1

sypkan wrote:

dark emu again... sigh...

was a good little discussion on insiders this week ftom the garma festival - except for the albo bit... where he resorted right back to avoiding words, not answering questions, and his tedious wanker advisor approved talking points, again...

does he (labor) really not realise this style of politics is what is totally on the nose for the public? ...and that albo really is not very good at it?

anyway, was a good discussion, with claire armstrong a stand out for nuanced knowledge of the ins and outs of the unfolding 'debate'

yeh yeh, I believe clare is a 'murdoch mouthpiece'... but she was also clearly pro voice... so there's that...

a few crew on sky news are unashamedly pro voice too

and yes, tbb is spot on to say albo is both bombing his own campaign, being a fuckwit (and seemingly, is too caught up in his own little legacy manufcturing campaign) to not utilise the many high end liberal side supporters

twit

sorry, but labor are just as caught up in this toxic nutty era of partisan politics as any maga fuelled bogan wannabe

watched garma a bit, first day saw a journo say hundreds in attendance then went to an abc journo who said thousands are there and every day the same lie was repeated by abc.
no drone footage and it looked like a heap of public servants flown in?
allso noticed when p.m. left so did the ps lookin mob disappear all at once, coincidence me thinks not?
any swillnutters in attendance please supply drone footage of "thousands"? oh and that means every day footage before albo's selfies and after he left with his entourage...rentacrowd.

GuySmiley wrote:

@info, can I return to your comment of 9.06 last night.

On reflection two things strike me about your contribution there. Firstly, you honestly answered the question so kudos for doing that. Second, in regard to your explanation on encouraging mobs to move off country, IMO it is naive to think that will ever happen or work given in the minds of FNP it is a return to the worst of formal colonial government policy. Further, if successful it would be a tacit nod to terra nullius lie and an end to the notion of continuing use and occupation of the land as established in Mabo. In addition to all of that moving/encouraging mobs of country ignores the deep cultural and spiritual links FNP have with their land. No reply required but cheers again for your honest reply.

Yeah i dont think it will happen because of the historical and political aspects around it.

Id love to see it or similar ideas given as an option to people, something that maybe only some would take up, but at least it gives people an option to break the cycles and create a better life for them selves.

If ideas like this aren't explored i dont think or see any evidence that things will ever change.

Hmm no comment on that last sentence about spirituality.

sameaswas wrote:

sypkan wrote:

dark emu again... sigh...

was a good little discussion on insiders this week ftom the garma festival - except for the albo bit... where he resorted right back to avoiding words, not answering questions, and his tedious wanker advisor approved talking points, again...

does he (labor) really not realise this style of politics is what is totally on the nose for the public? ...and that albo really is not very good at it?

anyway, was a good discussion, with claire armstrong a stand out for nuanced knowledge of the ins and outs of the unfolding 'debate'

yeh yeh, I believe clare is a 'murdoch mouthpiece'... but she was also clearly pro voice... so there's that...

a few crew on sky news are unashamedly pro voice too

and yes, tbb is spot on to say albo is both bombing his own campaign, being a fuckwit (and seemingly, is too caught up in his own little legacy manufcturing campaign) to not utilise the many high end liberal side supporters

twit

sorry, but labor are just as caught up in this toxic nutty era of partisan politics as any maga fuelled bogan wannabe

watched garma a bit, first day saw a journo say hundreds in attendance then went to an abc journo who said thousands are there and every day the same lie was repeated by abc.

no drone footage and it looked like a heap of public servants flown in?

allso noticed when p.m. left so did the ps lookin mob disappear all at once, coincidence me thinks not?

any swillnutters in attendance please supply drone footage of "thousands"? oh and that means every day footage before albo's selfies and after he left with his entourage...rentacrowd.

Id expect locals are free but.

"An adult ticket for the festival is $2,750, while students pay between $1,650 and $1,850 for a four-day pass. Under fives are free."

Source the Guardian

indo-dreaming wrote:

adam12 wrote:

No "spokeswoman" and shadow Indigenous Affairs minister Jacinta Price caught lying again.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/aug/07/peter-dutton-say…

Not her biggest lie but more evidence of a pattern of behavior exemplifying the deceit and duplicity at the core of the No campaign. Bullshit artists, the lot of them.

And grifters..."Former Nationals MP Andrew Gee accuses opposition of using case against voice as fundraiser for the LNP" https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/aug/06/former-nationals…

Big deal she probably honestly thought he had, and if he had or not it doesnt really matter, its very unlikely to change anyones vote.

But the lies and misinformation that Albo and others spin, like this has nothing to do with Treaty or Australia day wont be a target by the voice, are huge lies that really could affect how someone votes.

'So what' and a whataboutism, another stellar response from Indo.
She didn't "probably believe" anything, she bullshitted to avoid answering the question as to why Dutton didn't take up the invitation to attend, like she bullshits on everything else. Whether it changes anyone's vote isn't the point, she is a shadow minister, and it is a pattern of behavior she has displayed since she decided to stop being a rapper and got into politics, something fanboys like you fail to recognise.
As for your next little dig at Albo, do you understand the concept of whataboutism? or Treaty (they already exist in WA and about to in Victoria and other states)? , and Australia Day's date has been questioned long before the Voice was proposed, and can you provide references for any lies told by
"Albo and others" or do you just make shit up too?

Jacinta Price on Twitter wasn’t happy about this . . https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/aug/07/indigenous-voice….

Of all the racist, offensive, inaccurate things that have been said about the No campaign, this is probably the worst. According to the ABC, the No campaign @fairAusADV has created AI fake indigenous Australians who are voting no. A complete and utter lie! pic.twitter.com/H1j5GQrPcx

— Jacinta Nampijinpa (@JNampijinpa) August 6, 2023

Would have been nice to see Jacinta and Wazza at garma to do Q & A , they get on well with their mob ……don’t they ? I can’t blame them for not fronting up though, more important issues for them at the moment . https://www.cpac.network/ only $7000 for the good tickets.

Supafreak wrote:

Jacinta Price on Twitter wasn’t happy about this . . https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/aug/07/indigenous-voice…. https://twitter.com/jnampijinpa/status/1688030868256985088?s=46&t=5Rczx…. Would have been nice to see Jacinta and Wazza at garma to do Q & A , they get on well with their mob ……don’t they ? I can’t blame them for not fronting up though, more important issues for them at the moment . https://www.cpac.network/ only $7000 for the good tickets.

Grifters gotta grift

indo is right on time & bang on the money once again.

PM : "If those opposite were paid as much as me they could've dreamed up a Garma Intervention!"

Albo paid $775,000 for a ticket to see himself kick another own Goal...

Daily Mail : Garma Festival Extraordinary Entry Prices for "Grass Roots" Indigenous Gathering!
Aborigines gotta fork out $1,000's to queue for their chance to say Yes on the Telly!
No disrespect intended...but tbb don't know one Aussie wealthy enough to attend Garma.
$460 / nite be the most expensive student tent rental in Oz...don't even get any walls with that!

Dutto : "[Yes] Love In for CEOs ~ I'm not gonna pretend I'm somebody' that i'm not!"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12375163/Garma-festival-extrao…

So sad that things should come to this ... when tbb starts agreeing with indo & often!
That's about when the Warning signs go up.
Wotz weirder is both tbb / indo are only arguing to help Albo...it's just plain humiliating!
Soon be negative Polls for The Voice...just tryin' to make an effort before Albo drags us all down!
None wanna see Scomo / Albo or any PM be so dopey...tbb don't even vote but feels sad & lost!

Sorry Albo...Oz has now reached that low point...tbb has gotta do it...{ Voice Intervention }

Supafreak wrote:

Would have been nice to see Jacinta and Wazza at garma to do Q & A , they get on well with their mob ……don’t they ? I can’t blame them for not fronting up though, more important issues for them at the moment . https://www.cpac.network/ only $7000 for the good tickets.

You really think so?

The Garma festival at least this year is like some pro voice promotion thing with the main attraction seeming to be Albo, i actually think it would be kind of disrespectful for any of the No camp be it Warren, Jacinta or Dutton to go up there and crash the event, there is far better places to debate the voice. or do a Q & A.

But this i think this is where ideologues of left and right differ, if it was a conservative event there would probably be those from the left crashing the event trying to disrupt things and making it about them and their views.

@ Adam
Honestly replies to you are rarely worth it, just the level of delusion is off the richter every single thing goes back to politics and Dutton or even Scomo still, even if the issue is about Albo.

All politicians lie or stretch the truth but many of the lies Albo has spun are huge ones that cant be denied, (like promised electricity price drop) last weeks denial of voice having anything to do with Treaty was another biggy and got him in very hot water because he and others have said many times the process is Voice-Treaty-Truth telling (so called) and its all on record, his victory speech even said he would try to implement the Ulluru statement in full. (Voice-Treaty-Truth telling)

Albo is in a very hard position, people are viewing him as being very short on detail and avoiding answering questions, this puts people off voting Yes, but then on the flip side if he mans up and says yes we want to implement the Uluru statement in full he then has to admit that the process is Voice-Treaty-Truth Telling(so called) and then also have to start talking about things like reparation payments etc obviously this also puts people off voting Yes

He really is in a dammed if do dammed if dont situation, and is basically relying on people voting on the idea of good will rather than being educated on the bigger picture.

The No camp dont even need to do much, they just need Albo and Linda to do their thing and say to others look here it is, their words.

As for Jacinta and her hip hop, that was when she was about 20 she is now 42 in regard to music she has been a folk singer song writer longer than anything (no i have no interest in listen to her music)

Indo, what’s wrong with a treaty? If it comes to that in the end.

seeds wrote:

Indo, what’s wrong with a treaty? If it comes to that in the end.

Look i cant be bothered getting into my personal view's on treaty,(obviously not a fan) but admitting the voice is about voice-treaty-truth telling(so called) and all the other aspects like finacial reparations clearly puts people off hence why Albo is now trying to tell us this is just about voice and not those other things.

The man cares deeply, clearly.
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/dutton-bypassed-indigenous-c…

Indo, Treaty has been mentioned since the Uluṟu statement. Nothing new. But seriously, what is wrong if treaty happens. It’s happened in most commonwealth countries and mostly a long time ago. True, it will be legally held to account these days, but why shouldn’t it. What are you going to lose?
After all, the majority are all losing, socially and financially, under the shit cunt neo liberal system you support, now that you’ve expanded your mind, that is.
Oṃ maṇi padme hūṃ
Labor aren’t much better but at least they still have some semblance of a social conscience in their policies.

The reality is these things are controversial and not popular with all, hence why Albo has gone very shy on this aspect.

blackers wrote:

The man cares deeply, clearly.

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/dutton-bypassed-indigenous-c…

I dont think all that matters this isnt about Labor vs LNP or Albo vs Dutton, or even No vs Yes it's more about Albo and Linda trying to convince Australians this is needed and a positive thing and that changing the constitution is really needed and worth any possible risk.

From what ive seen Dutton isnt much of a focus in this, unless in parliament time you dont hear or see much from him it's more the No campaign and Jacinta and Warren etc, and this is how it should be too.

I dont think its going to work in the Yes camps favour if they try to make it Labor Vs LNP or Albo V's Dutton, thats not going to swing undecided voters.

It matters because he would rather pork barrel LNP seats than do things that would make a material difference to indigenous welfare. You stated before that you were concerned about the cost of reparations if there is a treaty. I am surprised should that you are not as concerned about graft and misuse of public funds for political gain.

Indo said: "@ Adam
Honestly replies to you are rarely worth it, just the level of delusion is off the richter every single thing goes back to politics and Dutton or even Scomo still, even if the issue is about Albo.

All politicians lie or stretch the truth but many of the lies Albo has spun are huge ones that cant be denied, (like promised electricity price drop) last weeks denial of voice having anything to do with Treaty was another biggy and got him in very hot water because he and others have said many times the process is Voice-Treaty-Truth telling (so called) and its all on record, his victory speech even said he would try to implement the Ulluru statement in full. (Voice-Treaty-Truth telling)

Albo is in a very hard position, people are viewing him as being very short on detail and avoiding answering questions, this puts people off voting Yes, but then on the flip side if he mans up and says yes we want to implement the Uluru statement in full he then has to admit that the process is Voice-Treaty-Truth Telling(so called) and then also have to start talking about things like reparation payments etc obviously this also puts people off voting Yes

He really is in a dammed if do dammed if dont situation, and is basically relying on people voting on the idea of good will rather than being educated on the bigger picture.

The No camp dont even need to do much, they just need Albo and Linda to do their thing and say to others look here it is, their words.

As for Jacinta and her hip hop, that was when she was about 20 she is now 42 in regard to music she has been a folk singer song writer longer than anything (no i have no interest in listen to her music) "

So you can't provide a single reference of an Albanese lie as I expected, just your own "feels".
The electricity price reduction promise was "by 2025", something your LNP dipshits leave out every time they ask a question about it in Parliament and a fact you also conveniently overlook as it doesn't suit the shit you are trying to spin.
Albanese is the most scruitinised person in the country, every word he utters is recorded and poured over by the opposition and the army of "journalists" employed by the right wing dominated MSM. If he had lied about anything he would be front page news and hours of Sky News and the commercial networks would be covering it like the end of the world was coming. You would be able to quote me endless references, but all you've got is "all politicians lie" and the distortion of what he said about treaty, which is that the referendum question mentions only recognition and the Voice, not treaty or makarrata. He was referring to the referendum question itself, not the Voice. He can't say what the Voice recommendations will or won't be because it will not be up to him and that lies in the future. He did say that there are over 400 FNP nations in Australia, with very diverse needs and any treaty process will not be one all encompassing agreement and will take time, and as I pointed out to you it will be more localised such as the existing WA and Victorian agreement processes.
You also throw up reparations which is another furphy scare mongering lot of bullshit not mentioned in the referendum or the Uluru statement.
You call me deluded, so I ask you again what I asked in my post the other day, why are you being such a cunt to your fellow Australians? What difference does it make to you if FNP get a Voice? To quote a tweet from Mike Carlton I read today "The NO voters seem to fall into four camps:
1). The Duttonistas, who don’t give a fuck about the country, but just want to inflict a defeat on Albo.
2). Racists.
3). The jealous and bitter, kicking down.
4). Fuckwits"
Which one(s) are you?

I'd say a bit from column 2 and a bit from column 4 @Adam12

seeds wrote:

southernraw wrote:

Indo wrote 'Okay im just starting to see privileged successful indigenous now romantcing the past and being totally unrealistic, and just making excuses and talking shit'

Seriously, what is wrong with you?

I just watched the program. Indo, it’s concerning that this was your take on it (the comment SR highlighted). I only saw acknowledgment of past lives that must have been hard and plans to lift their mob up.

Columns 2, 4, is there a 5, 6, 7 and 8?

SR, I think Indo goes way beyond 8. Way way beyond

haha. Classic @seeds.
Definitely an 11. Definitely the loudest...but louder than that.

Albo's broken record :
"If not Now then When...repeat after me...100x over & again!"
Months then Years go by...
"They're will be no delaying or deferring this Referendum! Yawn!
We will not Delay the urgency of this Moment!" (Cue Clap Sticks & Violins...)

The Moment Passes & Days go by...mushrooms grow outta shit
"We will not kick the Can down the road..the earlier, the better!"

Exactly!
If Albo is least keen Aussie & don't know when...
Then why must he fuck up every Aussies Spring/Summer Holiday Plans.
People got Jobs & shit & need to know what day to lock in...coz Supermarket Xmas hams have expired!

The less warning time & notice ya give Aussies the more pissed off they'll be to Vote!
Now! tbb is least expert at voting...but not too daft to know they got a name for this...(Voter Backlash!)
Think the crew can spot some of that in the Polls...

23 July-8 Aug 2032 Meanjin Olympic Games ( This is not important to Qldurrz nor the Crew )
So how is it that slack arse Qldurrz locked in a date since last Millennia for this creepy shit...

Surely Albo can inform the record amount of non Voice voters on which weekend to avoid!
April : 10% + 9% Not gonna Vote...stuff it up yer Arse Albo...reckon ya could double that by now!
https://www.9news.com.au/videos/national/poll-shows-one-in-10-aussies-w…

Record Spring > Summer Rental Crisis is heating up...
Experts...Time is running out to secure Xmas Accom bookings...(Prepare for Record Crisis Crisis Crisis)

[factcheck] Albo is already way too late to book in 2023 Voice...Silly Season Crisis is Booked Solid.
Any date Albo now chooses for The Voice Reffo will blow record deposits & destroy Family plans!
Millions will hit up Albo for non refundable Airbnb deposits during The Voice Qantas Strike...

Just saying...Albo is so fuckin' rude to us Aussies...gotta wait for Toto to decide which weekend to Vote.
The bloke is that thick he can't see his rudeness & apathy is draggin' the Voice down the shitter!

The great pretender………https://www.themonthly.com.au/the-politics/rachel-withers/2023/08/07/gr…. “Aboriginal people deserve better than to be an ideological football.” It’s increasingly apparent, however, that Indigenous affairs are nothing but a political football to Dutton, who is incapable of pretending that he’s somebody he’s not.

southernraw wrote:

haha. Classic @seeds.

Definitely an 11. Definitely the loudest...but louder than that.

Quality, had a bloody good laugh

In the same vein as supafreak’s post.

sykpan in another thread is digging away at fighting ‘hysteria’. This sort of thing. Everyone is up in arms! And imagine if they get a voice!

No, as the record shows, the lines cameras, they won’t stop until the environment is completely destroyed.

And i-d won’t stop until he proves that Lane made the first Australian flag, and that colonization was a benign, beneficial thing for Indigenous Australians.

Indigenous Australians, who the lines cameras comprehensively prove were world leaders when it comes to nurturing the environment for future generations.

Join the dots. Who will feed us, that is, who will protect our environment, and bring all the food and resources back to Australia that the large and getting larger farming and mining power brokers are hurling overseas, as quickly as they can?

With everyone starving to death, (not to mention those Indigenous Australians taking all of our money), how will Australia maintain its spectacularly high, stellar obesity results?

What did you think of Dr Cane’s conclusions, and the conclusions of all the other highly credentialed experts in the videos I posted earlier i-d, and sykpan? Still no answers?

More name calling, typical of the Yes camp, we even see it at the highest level, chicken little's, the No camp are Trump like, claims No voters are somehow racist etc and then they wonder why Yes poll numbers are sliding

Realistically Yes voter's fall into a few categories.

1. Your over the top la la land types that maybe really do believe these things like a voice or treaty etc would make a difference, even if there is no logical or evidence basis reasons to believe so, its just more of a hunch or something, these are your Southern raw and the Uplift types who almost have a type of fetish for anything indigenous.

2. Those who just see it and almost everything else through a political lense and will vote Yes because Albo says too. (these would be your Supa, Andys,(both) Adam types)

They are generally poorly educated about the topic because unless Albo says it, its not true.

A great example of this the other month Supa who even tried to claim LNP & Abbott supported the voice in years gone by (even when it wasn't a thing) and posted an old article on LNP supporting constitutional recognition as proof thinking he had a gotcha moment.

Unfortunately for him LNP have supported constitutional recognition for decades and Dutton made it clear earlier this year he and LNP still do, he clearly showed at that point he didn't know that this is about two very different issues, constitutional recognition and the voice an advisory body being cemented in the constitution.

To be fair it should be noted here that LNP have failed in this area, they should have been much smarter and put a referendum to the people years ago and ideally made it a seperate three part question 1. constitutional recognition in the preamble, 2. Changing Aust day & 3. Treaty.

Which would mean we wouldn't be here doing all this, basic constitutional recognition in the preamble would have easily gotten up, and the other two issues would have been put to rest. (and highly likely not got up)

3. Those that are more worried about how others will perceive them, or even how Australia will be perceived by the world, somebody said this the other month here on why they are voting Yes even though they agreed with aspects of the No camp, this view is kind of sad, because its such a silly thing to base your vote on, and those that support racial division technically a form of racism shouldn't be viewed in a positive light.

4. Those that might not be overly political or just true swing voters and just havent investigated the pros and cons and voting based more on a feel good vibe or just on very vague or often misleading information they might have happened to hear in the media from the yes camp, generally from Albo or Lidia.

Id expect these make up the majority of Yes votes, especially younger, they often dont know the history of failed federal advisory bodies and think this is new, so say whats the harm in trying or often do believe indigenous people dont have a voice when that is completely untrue, with already established advisory bodies, and a long list of of groups, organisations, bodies that consult with governments at all levels from councils to state to federal, not to mention an over representation of indigenous people in parliament (a good thing) and a very diverse one too and of course a minister for indigenous Australians.

Sadly these are the people that Albo is hoping will get the Voice over the line, and why he is very vague on information or plays things down or tries to use peoples good will with constitutional recognition to drag the voice through (hence why its not a two part question)

Thank fully the longer this drags out the more people do come across more information on what this really means for Australia and they do become more informed and start questioning things, which only works in the No camps favour, especially when Albo and Lidia cant or wont answer questions. (which makes people very wary)

BTW. The idea anyone on the NO camp doesn't care about fellow Australians is very silly, we want all Australians to be treated equally and fairly and as one and not divided by ethnic backgrounds.

Most of us including myself also support constitutional recognition in the preamble, we are also not opposed to the voice or any advisory body being legislated in policy, personally if the yes vote fails ti get up, i think its important that the Voice is legislated in policy, so we can all see that it isn't some magical solution and the right choice was made.

Indo you really are such a fool clutching at straws. Sad and pathetic. Your example of my “ gotcha moment “ ( according to you and only you )shows the scope of your mentality. I actually feel sorry for you . Have you worked out the “ math “ yet indo ? Does it add up yet ? But Indo believe what you need too in order to feel better about yourself . Onya champ .

Page 46 must have been the first time, i didnt make any reply (no backflip from him or LNP, both back then supported constitutional recognition and still do today)

Supafreak wrote:

There’s a reason he’s known as backflip Tony …….Tony Abbott vows to 'sweat blood' for Indigenous referendum …….Tony Abbott wants a referendum to be held in May 2017 to recognise Indigenous Australians in the constitution, but won't commit to a date until he is confident it will succeed.

"I am prepared to sweat blood on this," the Prime Minister declared at a Recognise dinner at Redfern on Thursday night, saying the cause was "at least as important as all the other causes this government has been prepared to take on". "But I do not want it to fail because every Australian would be the loser. It is more important to get this right than to try to rush it through.

"We cannot finalise when the referendum should be held until we are comfortable that we have the proposal with the best chance of success." Mr Abbott told the fundraising dinner he was a supporter of constitutional recognition because he wants our country "to transcend the 'them and us' mindset to embrace 'all of us' in the spirit of generous inclusion that has always marked Australians at our best". "The country we created has an Aboriginal heritage, a British foundation and a multicultural character and it's high time that this reality was reflected in our Constitution.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/tony-abbott-vows-to-sweat-blood…

Then Page 47 clearly thinking LNP wanted a voice back then, and clearly didnt know that LNP have been clear all along on supporting constitutional recognition and still do.

Its very clear you didn't understand the difference between voice and constitutional recognition , even though it had already been a topic of discussion for some time.

Supafreak wrote:

@indo , if JP was pro yes for the voice would that change your opinion ? The LNP were originally wanting this when Abbot was PM , what changed besides Labor now being in power ?

indo-dreaming wrote:

Supafreak wrote:

@indo , I posted this on the previous page , I mentioned Tony A because he wanted it written into the constitution which I know is what you’re mainly against . ……. Tony Abbott wants a referendum to be held in May 2017 to recognise Indigenous Australians in the constitution, but won't commit to a date until he is confident it will succeed………..While he favoured putting the question on the 50th anniversary of the 1967 referendum, Mr Abbott said: "But I do not want it to fail because every Australian would be the loser. It is more important to get this right than to try to rush it through………https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/tony-abbott-vows-to-sweat-blood……….Mr Abbott told the fundraising dinner he was a supporter of constitutional recognition because he wants our country "to transcend the 'them and us' mindset to embrace 'all of us' in the spirit of generous inclusion that has always marked Australians at our best".

"Like John Howard before me – and like Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard and it seems at least 60 per cent of the population – I am a supporter of ," he said. BTW it’s worth reading the whole article.

Um i dont mean to be patronising but im honestly very surprised that you clearly dont know that constitutional recognition of indigenous people is different to the voice, they are two different things.

The LNP officially support constitutional recognition of indigenous people (and yes has a history of doing so) but doesn't support the implementation of the voice in the constitution.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/liberal-party-to-oppose-voice-t…

My understanding is constitutional recognition of indigenous people, just means an official recognition of indigenous people in the constitution as the first nation people my understanding possibly in the preamble which is basically the introduction of the constitution.

So you would expect it might say something like we recognise Indigenous Australians as the first people of Australia having lived here for 60,000 years before settlement by the British, and possible going on about how we are now all Australian's and equal under law and rights etc

Yeah its surprising this isn't already there especially after the 1967 referendum. you would have thought it would have been changed then.

IMHO the referendum should be at least a two part question, basically

1. Do you support constitutional recognition of indigenous people?

2. Do you support the implementation of the voice in the constitution ?

Id vote for one but not two.

And while we are wasting all this money, why not get our moneys worth and throw in a third question, the Australia day question and put that whole issue to bed.

Like i said poorly researched and educated on the topic and bigger picture.

Again indo , believe what you need too , have you worked out the math yet ?

As others continually notice, ‘So what' and a whataboutism, another stellar response from Indo.’

Yes along these lines.

‘Novak really won that game, his grandmother was sitting right at court side and she definitely saw it go in, in fact chalk dust landed on her. Plus, Novak’s coach saw Nadal acknowledge that it went in.’

‘Let’s have a look at the line camera.’

‘Clearly out, game set and match Nadal, who moves to number 1!’

‘So what, what does that prove, the camera is probably faulty, and Novak is clearly better. His grandmother saw it, and they say Nadal uses drugs any way.’

The same technique i-d employs now when he leaps at the chance to show that the lines cameras are wrong, it was Lane that made the Australian Indigenous flag, and that he proves that invasion and colonization was a benign, good thing for Indigenous Australians.

Still no answers i-d. What do you think of Dr Cane’s conclusions and the videos and evidence featuring all of the other experts?

Also you comment a lot on Professor Langton, and so as you said you view and judge that sort of thing, that means that you must have a ‘fetish’ for her? You still haven’t answered the questions about your ‘fetish’, as you describe it, so, once more:

I’ve actually seen and been involved in Professor Langton’s work load. I’ve had some great discussions with her, she’s very kind, but very tough, great story. From what I’ve seen and heard, I think she can cope with the likes of disgruntled Sutton. You i-d probably know that however, as are on a first name basis with ‘Marcia’, and know a lot about her personally. Do you know her professionally, in your work educating and documenting, or socially, or both?

At least your work doesn’t or won’t cost you a thing i-d, you just keep digging nice and shallow.

rooftop wrote:

Sounds like you guys are sick of the topic already, but for what it's worth I thought Dark Emu was a very poor piece of scholarship.

Pascoe had the opportunity to write the book that could start an important discussion about aboriginal Australian society and technology and potentially overturn many misconceptions, but it is too full of legerdemain and contradictions to be taken seriously.

Hey rooftop, let me help you out here. You seem to be sufficiently acquainted with academic writing.

Scholarship requires academic writing.

Dark Emu is a book. Not a work of scholarship. Why would you think it was a work of scholarship? That is a category error of the first order.

I had a banana for breakfast this morning, and I have to say it was a very poor piece of grapefruit.

None of the book’s excerpts from explorers have been successfully challenged. They exist, many of them in the State Library. It’s been fact checked, it holds up. Did he get a page wrong in his references? Not really material.

The rest of your points are well made but don’t hold up given your original category error. Cowlishaw’s comments cover it all well, as does Langton’s response to Sutton.

Having read the book, considered the issues extensively and having watched the doco I found Sutton’s argument facile, basically coming down to whether Pascoe was describing ‘sophisticated’ practices. Sutton claims not, on pretty thin arguments that don’t matter in the real world at all, only in the deepest recesses of academic abstract inquiry. A little like philosophers arguing about how many angels can stand on the head of a pin.

“Pascoe had an opportunity to write the book that could start an important discussion about aboriginal Australian society and technology and potentially overturn many misconceptions…”

If you think he hasn’t achieved exactly that you are living in another world than me. Why just the other day I was on a fucking surfing forum where they were talking about it.

A surfing forum!

Indo says "2. Those who just see it and almost everything else through a political lense and will vote Yes because Albo says too. (these would be your Supa, Andys,(both) Adam types)

They are generally poorly educated about the topic because unless Albo says it, its not true."

Ha , ha. Guy who can't fucken' spell, can't use spellcheck, calling others "poorly educated". Lens not "lense", Albo says to, not "too". That's just in a couple of sentences, every post you make is littered with spelling and grammatical errors so don't go calling others "poorly educated", you just make more of a fool of yourself. Many posting here have shown far greater understanding and knowledge on the Constitution and FNP issues than you ever have so don't put yourself on some pedestal you don't deserve.
As for me robotically following Albanese, you are joking. I've been just as critical of him and Labor as I have of the LNP in this thread, I didn't vote for him, so don't go assuming that.
I'm voting Yes because it makes no difference to me to give FNP what they have asked for, and I support reconciliation, closing the gap and listening rather than punching down, or whitefullas telling blackfullas what's good for them. I support enshrining the Voice because the LNP can't be trusted, on anything, and would dismantle any legislated Voice if they ever got the opportunity, although it's probably a moot point because those cunts have a snowflake's chance in hell of winning majority government ever again in this country after the mess they left and the corruption, things like Robodebt and Morrison's legacy of misery and multiple ministries.
I also don't believe you support any type of Voice, enshrined or legislated. I've read the nasty shit you post here trying to project yourself as some kind of arch conservative and fountain of knowledge and you come across as an ill-informed racist know it all to me.

From the well informed @ indo -dreaming “ Not to mention there is only 24 spots said to be on the voice while there is about 250 different mobs, so even the maths doesnt add up. “ …..After I gave him the information he was whining about he didn’t bother to read and just cried again about details……….sad little man