Australians have resoundingly rejected a proposal to recognise Aboriginal people in its constitution and establish a body to advise parliament on Indigenous issues.
Saturday’s voice to parliament referendum failed, with the defeat clear shortly after polls closed.
Given this definition of racism, it creates an interesting problem: how can one solve systemic racism, without doing actions which take race into account? If someone needs help, is it unfair to treat them the same as someone else who doesn’t need help? Or would it be more unfair to treat them the same as someone who doesn’t need help, and therefore keeping things the same, leading to them still needing help? And, regardless of whether it’s fair or not (subjective morality), is it more beneficial to society (material outcome)?
I had decided to abstain from commenting on this subject further. Pretty much every reply I have received is a variation of ‘fake news’ or ‘racist cunt’.
As you’ve asked a good question in a civil manner (how novel!), it’s only fair to respond in kind.
To answer your question; I believe removing restrictions is more helpful than adding divisive policies that benefit one race over another. I would argue that abolishing slavery, universal suffrage, and anti-discrimination laws have done far more to solve systemic racism than racial affirmative action.
Also, off the top of my head, I can’t think of a situation where it wouldn’t be even better if affirmative action policies were focused on factors outside of race. Affirmative action based on geographical location or economic prosperity would help the most people in need and capture many more who would otherwise fall through the gaps.
Thank you for your constructive comment.