Social media amplifies Indigenous voices, even if they don't always agree

Updated May 29, 2017 14:00:42

The impacts of social media on national conversations about Indigenous affairs have been revolutionary in the past decade.

They have provided opportunities for Indigenous people to counter the deficit discourse that plagues our media and our institutions.

It has provided individuals, communities and organisations with the means to engage directly with other Australians on their own terms, for better or worse.

Social media was crucial to the rise of campaigns like #SOSBlakAustralia, which aspired to prevent the closing of remote communities, and #IndigenousDads, which erupted in response to the negative portrayal of Indigenous fathers presented in a cartoon published by The Australian.

It has given Indigenous people an increased sense of agency, and it has provided a means for other people nationally and internationally to engage more meaningfully with Indigenous people and issues in real time — rather than through the lens of media, government, or academia.

It has also been a crucial tool for breaking down the perception that Indigenous people belong to some imaginary homogenous group, where we all think the same and all do the same, and where solutions to complex issues can be presented in terms of "what Aboriginal people want" or "what Aboriginal people don't want".

Social media has helped us go from having a select few individuals in the public sphere, who are invited to speak on all of our behalves in the national media, to having thousands of social commentators, each able to reflect their own views and opinions on issues that affect us.

This has allowed more Indigenous people to establish themselves as valuable social commentators and thinkers, as well as allowing for collective actions and amplification of key issues.

Not all Indigenous people want constitutional recognition

Nowhere is this diversity of opinions more severe, or more needed, than on the topic of constitutional recognition.

Many people who have only followed the issue through the lens of national media may be forgiven for thinking that it is something that is universally supported by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and by forward thinking Australians, and is only opposed by fringe right wing commentators and politicians.

Those who have followed the issue closely through engaging with different Indigenous people and groups on Facebook and Twitter, on the other hand, will already know that nothing could be further from the truth.

There are so many different views and attitudes on this issue that it is impossible to sum them all up here.

They range from those who think that being recognised in the constitution could mean the end of sovereignty, negate any hopes of a future treaty, and wind back many of the victories won by Aboriginal people in the past, through to those who believe that recognition is a crucial step on the road towards reconciliation and enshrining Indigenous rights in law.

Could treaty and recognition coexist?

What has been sorely lacking from the social media space though, is critical and accessible information on the near infinite forms that recognition could possibly take.

At the moment the online debate centres more around "yes" or "no" to recognition — rather than "what" or "how".

Most people are unaware of the different forms that recognition could take or what could they mean in practical terms.

Symbolic or practical, positive or negative, a non-discrimination clause, or a parliamentary body that could speak directly to parliament on Indigenous affairs.

Could treaty and recognition coexist? These crucial questions are being addressed, but the public, for the most part, is not seeing these discussions and are not asking these questions.

After so many years of waiting for there to be different models to discuss, it seems as though the appetite for the conversation as been replaced by hardline opinions on both sides, and far too few people left in the middle.

Perhaps the hard and fast return of popular racism to Australian politics has created a feeling that a referendum is unlikely to go through no matter what is in it.

Or maybe people are just cynical about the sincerity of governments to empower Aboriginal people, while they continue to cut services and funding, refuse to adequately address issues of suicide and incarceration, and water down native title rights.

It's hard to imagine a government that supports such actions would also support bolstering the rights of Indigenous peoples in any form, and especially not in the constitution.

Luke Pearson is a Gamilaroi man and the founder of @IndigenousX — a platform for Indigenous people to share their knowledge, opinions and experiences. Luke is also the digital producer for ABC RN's Indigenous Unit.

Topics: constitution, government-and-politics, referendums, indigenous-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander, community-and-society, australia

First posted May 29, 2017 12:53:22