Here we are, once again, wading through the tides of emotional rhetoric, as we're fed another layer of incredulous allegations from the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress. They lost a referendum because of the incompetence of the Prime Minister and should focus their attention on him. But no.
The irony is palpable, with claims that the No campaigners have apparently "given permission for racism to run wild." But wait a minute – let's rewind. Isn't this the same Yes campaign that never once took responsibility for the downright offensive, racist slurs, and vitriolic hostility toward those who dared to dissent?
Taking a gander at their recent tropes, there’s an overwhelming sense of déjà vu. There seems to be a persistent, stubborn refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing on the part of the Yes campaign. In their eyes, it's everyone else's fault. Classic denialism.
The Congress claims that the proposal was initially well-received, with two-thirds of Australians on board. Yet, instead of perhaps pondering why support dwindled, they conveniently lay blame on the "deliberate strategy of deception and misinformation" of the No campaigners.
How charming. Could it possibly be that some individuals, upon closer examination of the proposal, found it lacking in substance or clarity? Nope, of course not. It's got to be some grand deception.
It’s curious how there’s no mention of the arguably violent attitude displayed by some Yes campaigners towards anyone who showed the slightest hesitation toward their "noble" proposal. A little introspection, anyone? But no, let's just point fingers and brandish everyone else as the villain. So much easier.
The article goes on to express doubts about reconciliation in Australia. But one can't help but wonder, how can there be genuine reconciliation when one side seems perpetually anchored in an us-versus-them mindset? Let alone the constant casting of Aboriginals as victims.
The claim that the Voice would have made Australia a fairer and more inclusive nation is presented as an undeniable fact. Yet, where's the analysis? Where's the introspective questioning of whether the proposal, as presented, was genuinely the best path forward for both Aboriginal people and the nation?
Resilience in adversity, as mentioned, is indeed commendable. However, clinging to a victim narrative and failing to engage in self-reflection and genuine dialogue will only serve to further polarise and alienate.
For a brighter future, there's a pressing need to move past blame games and instead foster genuine conversations, where all voices are heard without fear of reprisal. That means all voices are heard on equal footing, where no race is viewed as superior to any other. Only then can we move forward, together. But for now, one can only shake their head at the sheer audacity of some narratives. Oh, the irony.