Maddison Argumentative Analysis
This argument analysis examines the article Recognise What? Problems with the campaign for constitutional recognition (Maddison, 2017). Published in the May/June issue of the Indigenous Law Bulletin, Maddison describes the process to recognise Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders as the first people of Australia in the constitution. The article explains this process through several accounts, resistance to the campaign and the role of the ‘Recognise’ campaign. Throughout the article, Maddison argues that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders should be recognised as the first people of Australia while acknowledging the problems with the campaign. The analysis will identify the main claims, evidence used to support these claims and the assumptions made by the author. Maddison uses several forms of evidence to support her 3 main claims and the underlying assumptions.
…show more content…
This claim is both substantiated and refuted in the evidence she uses in attempt to back up this claim. As evidence, Maddison uses two accounts from Aboriginal activists. Firstly, Megan Davis, an aboriginal activist and human rights backs up Maddison’s claim as she believes it is the fault of a poor process which has seen a campaign being run before the proposed reform is clear.
Secondly, Larissa Behrendt, is another Aboriginal activist who acknowledges that the ‘dissent’ amongst Indigenous people is largely because there is still uncertainty in the community regarding the referendum. This also makes Maddison’s assumption that the recognise campaign is a hindrance to constitutional change clear. Running the campaign before a reform to the constitution was proposed meant that Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander people could not communicate with the government properly and have no participation in debates. Similarly, the article
This claim is both substantiated and refuted in the evidence she uses in attempt to back up this claim. As evidence, Maddison uses two accounts from Aboriginal activists. Firstly, Megan Davis, an aboriginal activist and human rights backs up Maddison’s claim as she believes it is the fault of a poor process which has seen a campaign being run before the proposed reform is clear.
Secondly, Larissa Behrendt, is another Aboriginal activist who acknowledges that the ‘dissent’ amongst Indigenous people is largely because there is still uncertainty in the community regarding the referendum. This also makes Maddison’s assumption that the recognise campaign is a hindrance to constitutional change clear. Running the campaign before a reform to the constitution was proposed meant that Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander people could not communicate with the government properly and have no participation in debates. Similarly, the article