Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

On Voice referendum day a confrontation between an older white Yes campaigner and an Aboriginal No voter turned ugly.

Many Australians balked at the suggestion that the Voice debate was about identity politics or cultural Marxism.

But the way the debate played out demonstrated that these ideologies indeed played a major role.

Identity Politics and the Voice Debate

Identity politics, an expression of cultural Marxism, segregates people into ‘oppressed’ and ‘oppressor’ categories. In the context of the Voice referendum, this narrative locates people of European descent in the oppressor category, and those of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent in the ‘oppressed’ one.

For non-Indigenous Australians, moral authority can be regained by identifying with the Yes camp as a way of revolting against British colonisation. Likewise, according to this narrative, those in the No camp merely maintain and reaffirm their status as oppressors.

This is why Noel Pearson, in his Press Club address, asked multicultural communities who had recently migrated to Australia,

“Where do you fit into Australia? It’s a bit unclear. Are you with the mob from the UK? Are you kind of honorary settlers? Because some of you are the wrong colour. Or you don’t come from northern Europe…

“I say to them, where do you fit into Australia?”

Pearson is thinking in terms of identity politics and wanting to place people into categories. By his logic, the amount of melanin in the skin of recent migrants places them in the ‘oppressed’ category. But if they vote no, they are siding “with the mob from UK” and become ‘oppressors’.

The exact same sentiment is behind Marcia Langton’s hope to destroy the fabric of the Constitution, which she views as a product of British rule, and therefore an inherently oppressive document. If justice is to be enacted, the fabric of the Constitution must be destroyed, according to her reasoning.

Identity Politics at the Polling Booth

A trip to my local polling booth on referendum day highlighted to me, once again, that identity politics is incredibly toxic.

Right before I entered the building to vote, a Yes campaigner asked whether I wanted his leaflet. Despite the fact everyone should have decided on their vote at least three meters before walking through the doorway, I declined before saying I was voting no.

The Yes campaigner, an older white male, seemed friendly enough. So, when he asked why, I gave one quick response that I didn’t want to embed the idea in the Constitution that Indigenous people were going to be permanently disadvantaged and therefore require a permanent Voice.

The discussion went back and forth a little before the man became exasperated. It was rudely made very clear that I was too stupid — and that I simply believed lies.

The Yes campaigner then asked what I was personally doing to address Aboriginal disadvantage, with the clear implication I was endorsing ongoing racism and colonialism. I may as well be voting to inflict violence on Aboriginal people all over again.

The question asking me to disclose my personal ‘righteousness’ in addressing Aboriginal disadvantage is rather revealing.

The Yes campaigner was clearly caught up in identity politics/cultural Marxism, which is all about righting the wrongs of “oppressive” past European generations. Consequently, people are lumped into two categories depending on how they vote. Group guilt or innocence is then applied to the two categories.

In reality, nothing would have been good enough for this Yes campaigner. I was already guilty, and the question was designed to shame me more, not give me a way of absolution.

If that was at all in doubt, the Yes campaigner finished with, “You’re the exact person I don’t like”.

An AEC staff member later mentioned that Yes campaigner had a confrontation with multiple other people, including an Aboriginal man who was voting no.

Incensed by this affront to his version of reality, an argument quickly erupted. The Yes campaigner would not accept the Aboriginal man’s reasons for voting no. “You’ve been brainwashed” was his clear message.

The Aboriginal man – infuriated that he wasn’t allowed to have his own opinion – offered to finish the argument outside the premises. It was an offer eagerly taken up by the Yes campaigner. Other people had to step in to ensure that clenched fists weren’t thrown, and thankfully, no violence ensued.

Later on, I had a good laugh about the situation. Here was a white man, supposedly advocating for a “voice for the voiceless” but wanting to silence an Aboriginal man’s voice – and willing to punch down on him for voicing it.

I could hardly believe the irony and sheer stupidity of the Yes campaigner claiming the Voice could rectify past violence and injustice against Aboriginal people whilst himself needing to be prevented from inflicting violence on an Aboriginal man. Do you laugh or do you cry? I think you do both.

Toxic Identity Politics

How could the older white man justify a fistfight with an Aboriginal man? Because he was in the ‘righteous Yes’ category – the category siding with the oppressed. In his view, the Aboriginal no voter – who was putting himself in the category of the oppressor – deserved to be opposed, using violence if necessary. This was the case even though the No voter was “the wrong colour”, to quote Noel Pearson.

Here is Marxism playing itself out with frightening exactness in modern Australia.

Identity politics is outright toxic. It blinds people from seeing that what it claims to be against, it aggressively promotes. As the man at my polling booth revealed, those who adopt this toxic ideology cannot see the irony and sheer stupidity of their own position.

Identity politics had built a fortress in that Yes campaigner’s mind, making him incapable of seeing the obvious from his self-built prison.

It is another sober reminder that those things we are blind to are those that most bind us.

___

Image by Engin Akyurt.