this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2023
14 points (93.8% liked)
Land Back
202 readers
1 users here now
Reclamation of everything stolen from the original Peoples
LANDBACK Organizing Principles
- Don’t burn bridges: even when there is conflict between groups or organizers remember that we are fighting for all of our peoples and we will continue to be in community even after this battle
- Don’t defend our ways
- Organize to win
- Move from abundance – We come from a space of scarcity. We must work from a place of abundance
- We bring our people with us
- Deep relationships by attraction, not promotion
- Divest/invest
- We value our warriors
- Room for grace—be able to be human
- We cannot let our oppressors inhumanity take away from ours
- Strategy includes guidance
- Realness: Sometimes the truth hurts
- Unapologetic but keep it classy
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Personally I think the "progressive no" vote was a myth.
The purported argument was that this proposal was unsatisfactory, so reject this one and get a better offer. A nonsensical argument really - accepting this proposal was the gateway to getting a better outcome on every issue to go through parliament in future. This proposal could have paved the way to the body/system with actual power.
The "progressive no" term was coined by this guy from Black People's Union: https://youtu.be/G0kFfqb-63s
He's not really promoting the type of futuristic utopia most people think of when they use the term progressive.
Their list of demands includes a few odd statements:
… and some interesting demands:
Old mate continuously refers to the voice as tokenistic, “there’s other advisory bodies” and “this one doesn’t even have any power” et cetera. I’m not aware of any other advisory bodies that were backed by the constitution with a clear mandate from the Australian people. Imagine a government ignoring the voice to parliament when the Australian populace has supported them.
This guy’s whole argument is “no compromise”. He wanted the referendum rejected, to galvanise first nations people to demand more. That’s not how modern democracy works in Australia.
It’s also very frustrating that he happily perpetuates the misunderstanding that he somehow speaks for First Nations people generally. That’s pretty fucked IMO. Honestly, I think this guy has a lot to answer for - I genuinely feel that he has done First Nations Peoples a disservice.