Enter - an Anglo- Australian theme - One nation, one people etc

The present situation in Australia provides the perfect context for considering these matters if we are to avoid a purely abstract discussion of little immediate relevance.

Where better to start than an editorial in The Sydney Morning Herald after an event in Canberra on Australia Day (26 January) 2012:

The long struggle to end inequality
Sydney Morning Hearld
January 28, 2012

Opinion

EDITORIAL

TONY ABBOTT was right: it is time to move Australia's view of indigenous affairs on from the Aboriginal tent embassy. Certainly the tent embassy was a master stroke in its day. The title ''embassy'' encapsulated brilliantly the difficulties and desires of indigenous Australians in their relationship with non-indigenous Australia. The word summed up a deep fissure in Australia's nationhood, which most non-indigenous Australians had barely thought about - that the settlement of Australia from 1788 had involved an unacknowledged confrontation between two nations which had never formally concluded.

It implied not only the existence of a separate indigenous nation but a variety of demands, in particular a treaty to settle outstanding issues and claims, including land rights. It implied, too, a demand for policies to redress indigenous disadvantage.

What the Australia Day fracas outside the restaurant in Canberra, and its aftermath, have shown is the extent to which Australia has moved on from the simplistic confrontation symbolised by the tent embassy. The embassy's supporters, stuck in the us-versus-them mentality of four decades ago, had to misrepresent Abbott's words quite extensively to fire the crowd up to action. Abbott did not call for the tent embassy to be pulled down, as was claimed. Other indigenous leaders - wiser heads whose attitudes have been formed in the more constructive atmosphere that has grown up since 1972 - rightly condemned the violence. They are confident enough of indigenous Australia's position to be able to treat national political leaders with respect.
Advertisement: Story continues below

They know that more is to be gained from working within, than from standing outside, as the tent embassy does. Indigenous issues, like indigenous culture, are mainstream in Australia in 2012.

We do not suggest, of course, that all problems have been solved, or that everything done since 1972 in Aboriginal affairs has worked. Attempts to advance the welfare of indigenous Australians have been marked in almost equal measure by their good intentions and their lack of success. Some progress has been made but the four decades since the tents went up have been littered with failure. Progress has tended to come less through government programs than other means. Native title has been recognised, and the insulting legal basis for the Crown's claim to Australian land, terra nullius - that it belonged to no one - has been annulled. The continent's Aboriginal past has entered more and more into the cultural consciousness of non-indigenous Australians through customs such as the acknowledgement of country. Kevin Rudd's apology to indigenous Australians for past ill treatment has been accepted as a significant gesture of reconciliation.

The latest step in this direction is the mooted amendment to the constitution to remove its racist provisions, to insert others that recognise Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders as Australia's original peoples, and to acknowledge the need to secure their advancement.

About the first of these measures there can be no argument. About the second there will be general agreement. About the third, though, there may well be significant opposition which the ugly scenes in Canberra on Australia Day will probably only reinforce. The problem with the proposed changes is that, though they may outlaw racial discrimination, they appear to retain race as the basis for some form of legal distinction. Many will ask, why should indigenous advancement be mentioned in the constitution specifically? How is it distinct from the advancement of the Australian population as a whole? It is a fair point - one around which opponents will rally.

The broader difficulty is that the changes appear to assume the constitution will always be a temporary document - one intended to address the transitory concerns of a particular age and, when these are no longer current, to be amended to suit the next set of concerns. Thus its racist provisions, now completely offensive to contemporary values, addressed the political concerns of the late 19th century. But the constitution is written in the language of absolutes and, as experience has taught, extremely difficult to amend. We believe it would be unwise to amend it in ways which - however justified they may seem now - would privilege indigenous Australians in ways that are not even clear. Indeed, the mere attempt to do so may be equally disastrous. What would it say about this country if a well-intentioned but half-baked attempt to right an injustice were to fail?

Progress is certainly slow - excruciatingly so, and with many setbacks. But its glacial pace should not deceive us into thinking that indigenous disadvantage is permanent, and that Australia's first people must always be outsiders, protesting outside the door of power. Least of all should Australians be diverted into enacting a constitution that assumes the various strands of Australia's population will never be one people.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/editorial/the-long-struggle-to-end-inequality-20120127-1qlre.html#ixzz1ktEIl8Gr