关于宪法承认澳大利亚土著居民的辩论:民族团结与对 1967 年全民公决的回忆

IF 0.6 4区 社会学 Q1 HISTORY Australian Journal of Politics and History Pub Date : 2023-05-18 DOI:10.1111/ajph.12889
Murray Goot, Tim Rowse
{"title":"关于宪法承认澳大利亚土著居民的辩论:民族团结与对 1967 年全民公决的回忆","authors":"Murray Goot,&nbsp;Tim Rowse","doi":"10.1111/ajph.12889","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In the debate over constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians since 2010, the high “Yes” vote in 1967 has been recalled as a benchmark of national unity and goodwill towards Indigenous Australians, something to which Australians must return. The 1967 referendum has been evoked as a “step” towards reconciliation, with constitutional recognition presented as the next step. The “recognition” that the 1967 referendum enabled has been (mis)represented as allowing Indigenous Australians to be counted in the Census, hence to “count” more generally. Explaining constitutional changes to voters in the referendum on an Indigenous Voice, “Yes” and “No” campaigns are likely to describe amendments in emotively powerful terms. False memories of “recognition” obscure a political fissure within the myth of 1967. Some who celebrate 1967 have wanted the Constitution to continue to distinguish Indigenous from non-Indigenous Australians, one understanding of the 1967 amendment to Section 51(xxvi); others have hoped that the next referendum would complete the deletion of distinguishing words that had begun in 1967 with the repeal of Section 127. The myths of 1967 combine to accommodate opposing ideals of national “unity”, allowing protagonists in the debate to read the “lessons” of 1967 in ways that reinforce their own political perspectives.</p>","PeriodicalId":45431,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Politics and History","volume":"70 1","pages":"97-119"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ajph.12889","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Debate Over the Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians: National Unity and Memories of the 1967 Referendum\",\"authors\":\"Murray Goot,&nbsp;Tim Rowse\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ajph.12889\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In the debate over constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians since 2010, the high “Yes” vote in 1967 has been recalled as a benchmark of national unity and goodwill towards Indigenous Australians, something to which Australians must return. The 1967 referendum has been evoked as a “step” towards reconciliation, with constitutional recognition presented as the next step. The “recognition” that the 1967 referendum enabled has been (mis)represented as allowing Indigenous Australians to be counted in the Census, hence to “count” more generally. Explaining constitutional changes to voters in the referendum on an Indigenous Voice, “Yes” and “No” campaigns are likely to describe amendments in emotively powerful terms. False memories of “recognition” obscure a political fissure within the myth of 1967. Some who celebrate 1967 have wanted the Constitution to continue to distinguish Indigenous from non-Indigenous Australians, one understanding of the 1967 amendment to Section 51(xxvi); others have hoped that the next referendum would complete the deletion of distinguishing words that had begun in 1967 with the repeal of Section 127. The myths of 1967 combine to accommodate opposing ideals of national “unity”, allowing protagonists in the debate to read the “lessons” of 1967 in ways that reinforce their own political perspectives.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45431,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Journal of Politics and History\",\"volume\":\"70 1\",\"pages\":\"97-119\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ajph.12889\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Journal of Politics and History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajph.12889\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Politics and History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajph.12889","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自 2010 年以来,在关于宪法承认澳大利亚土著居民的辩论中,1967 年的高票 "赞成 "被视为民族团结和善待澳大利亚土著居民的基准,澳大利亚人必须回到这一点。1967 年的公投被认为是走向和解的 "一步",而宪法承认则是下一步。1967 年全民公决促成的 "承认 "被(错误地)表述为允许将澳大利亚土著人计入人口普查,从而更普遍地 "计入"。在 "土著之声 "全民公决中,"赞成 "和 "反对 "运动在向选民解释宪法变化时,很可能会用情绪化的有力措辞来描述修正案。关于 "承认 "的虚假记忆掩盖了 1967 年神话中的政治裂痕。一些庆祝 1967 年的人希望《宪法》继续将土著澳大利亚人与非土著澳大利亚人区分开来,这是对 1967 年第 51(xxvi)条修正案的一种理解;另一些人则希望下一次全民公决能够完成从 1967 年废除第 127 条开始的区分性词语的删除工作。1967 年的神话结合在一起,容纳了对立的民族 "统一 "理想,使辩论中的主角能够以强化自身政治观点的方式解读 1967 年的 "教训"。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Debate Over the Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians: National Unity and Memories of the 1967 Referendum

In the debate over constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians since 2010, the high “Yes” vote in 1967 has been recalled as a benchmark of national unity and goodwill towards Indigenous Australians, something to which Australians must return. The 1967 referendum has been evoked as a “step” towards reconciliation, with constitutional recognition presented as the next step. The “recognition” that the 1967 referendum enabled has been (mis)represented as allowing Indigenous Australians to be counted in the Census, hence to “count” more generally. Explaining constitutional changes to voters in the referendum on an Indigenous Voice, “Yes” and “No” campaigns are likely to describe amendments in emotively powerful terms. False memories of “recognition” obscure a political fissure within the myth of 1967. Some who celebrate 1967 have wanted the Constitution to continue to distinguish Indigenous from non-Indigenous Australians, one understanding of the 1967 amendment to Section 51(xxvi); others have hoped that the next referendum would complete the deletion of distinguishing words that had begun in 1967 with the repeal of Section 127. The myths of 1967 combine to accommodate opposing ideals of national “unity”, allowing protagonists in the debate to read the “lessons” of 1967 in ways that reinforce their own political perspectives.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
59
期刊介绍: The Australian Journal of Politics and History presents papers addressing significant problems of general interest to those working in the fields of history, political studies and international affairs. Articles explore the politics and history of Australia and modern Europe, intellectual history, political history, and the history of political thought. The journal also publishes articles in the fields of international politics, Australian foreign policy, and Australia relations with the countries of the Asia-Pacific region.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Issue Information Western Australia July to December 2023 Commonwealth of Australia July to December 2023 Issues in Australian Foreign Policy July to December 2023
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1