The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Stan Grant's racial villification > Comments

Stan Grant's racial villification : Comments

By Michael Keane, published 23/3/2017

Too often we see Aboriginal activists making broad accusations that non-Aboriginal Australians are racist.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All
"The Tipping Point" that turned me from an anti racist into a racist, was the self evident fact that those who claim to be anti racist, are in fact very racist towards white people. The Stan Grant rant is just another example of a very clear double standard where, if the words "white" and "non white" were reversed, it would clearly be a racist statement.

The world of the so called anti racist is full of double standards. Non whites may not be stereotyped, labelled and prejudged. But these things can be done to white people all of the time and nobody blinks an eyelid. Sweeping generalisations of non whites is absolutely wrong but perfectly acceptable to non whites. Having separate black and white water bubblers in Mississippi is racist. Having separate black and white study centres in Queensland university is not racist. (It's a wonder that QUT didn't have "Nyet Blancs" outside the "aboriginal only" study centre.) Discriminating against hiring people by race is illegal in business, but perfectly OK in government departments staffed by "'aboriginals" only.

But the most blatant and unacceptable aspect of "anti racism" is the constant blaming of whites for the dysfunctions of those races and ethnicities who are notoriously prone to endless dysfunction, no matter much taxpayer money and "positive discrimination" is involved in "closing the gap." Blaming one race for the problems of another is exactly what Hitler did to the Jews. We recognise Hitler's premise as a clear case of racism, then look the other way when Stan Grant does the same thing to white Australians.

Every impartial person with an open mind can only choose between two racist explanations for minority dysfunction. One is, "It's always the white guys fault". The other, that races and ethnicities are not equal. They are not equal in physical appearances (scientifically provable), physical abilities (scientifically provable), median intelligence levels (scientifically provable), or personalities (debatable.)

An intelligent person would choose the explanation which is the most probable, has the most evidence to support it, and which does not need constant contradictions to keep propagating it.
Posted by LEGO, Saturday, 25 March 2017 6:48:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you Banjo for participating in the discussion. It is most appreciated.

You wrote "Hurling that somebody is a racist - if it's true - is not an insult. It's a fact. It's an insult only if it's not true. You make a sweeping statement about “whomever they please” - which implies that it could be anybody and everybody, indiscriminately – both racists and non-racists. But it cannot possibly be, as you assert, an insult to both. It could only be an insult to non-racists. Also, hurling that somebody is a racist does not “highlight … the absurdity of 18C and the hypocrisy of its supporters …”. Again, the person hurled against is either a racist or not a racist. If he is a racist, then the hurler has every right to express his indignation with force"

We respectfully disagree. 18C says you can't label a whole group with an offensive stereotype, based on their race. That is divisive hate speech. It's no defence arguing that maybe some of the people in that group do exhibit that stereotype. We are meant to treat people on the basis of their individual character not on the basis of their race.

For example, instead of saying dream, lets say aspirations for a better life for themselves their children and their community. And instead of the offensive slur of calling someone a racist let's call them a child abuser; both very offensive terms. Let's consider what Stan Grant said: "The Australian dream is rooted in racism. It is the very foundation of the dream".

Now let's make a direct substitution. Imagine the absolutely justifiable outrage if someone made the claim that (equal to that made by Stan Grant) that: "The aspirations of aboriginal people are rooted in child abuse. It is the very foundation of the aspiration". That WOULD be incredibly offensive and there WOULD and SHOULD be outrage at such an offensive race-based stereotype.

We need to be just as outraged at the divisive rhetoric of Stan Grant.
Posted by Mike Keane, Sunday, 26 March 2017 9:42:55 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Mike,
Is there any distinction between stating it as a matter of opinion rather than stating it as a matter of fact?

Take your example above.
It's a statement of fact; you're stating something.

"The aspirations of aboriginal people are rooted in child abuse. It is the very foundation of the aspiration"

But what if you instead said 'I believe' or 'I think' at the beginning of each sentence?

"I believe the aspirations of aboriginal people are rooted in child abuse. I think it is the very foundation of the aspiration".

Now it's an 'opinion' rather than a 'statement'.
Are you not now covered by 18D for making that statement so long as it represents your true beliefs?
Posted by Armchair Critic, Sunday, 26 March 2017 1:25:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"We need to be just as outraged at the divisive rhetoric of Stan Grant"

Well said.
Posted by leoj, Sunday, 26 March 2017 8:23:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Mike,

.

You wrote :

« … Stan Grant said: "The Australian dream is rooted in racism. It is the very foundation of the dream" … We need to be … outraged at the divisive rhetoric of Stan Grant »
.

Before we condemn him, let’s try to understand what he’s talking about - what he means by “the Australian dream”, for example. He doesn’t use the term in the same sense as the “I have a dream” of Martin Luther King – which was about the future. Stan is talking about the past and the present :

« The Australian Dream is rooted in racism … It is there at the birth of the nation. It is there in terra nullius. An empty land. A land for the taking. Sixty thousand years of occupation … None of it mattered because … we were not here according to British law … Captain Arthur Phillip, a man of enlightenment … was sending out raiding parties with the instruction: "Bring back the severed heads of the black troublemakers" …By 1901 when we became a nation, when we federated the colonies, we were nowhere. We're not in the Constitution, save for 'race provisions' which allowed for laws … that would take our children, that would invade our privacy … tell us who we could marry and … where we could live … In 1963 when I was born, I was counted among the flora and fauna, not among the citizens of this country »
.

From my (limited) knowledge of Australian history, Mike, that seems to be correct. If so, the “divisive rhetoric” you refer to appears to correspond to historical fact.

Martin Hinton QC, Solicitor General of South Australia wrote an interesting article on the constitutional deficiencies and the need of a common national identity :

http://www.lawsocietysa.asn.au/LSSA/Lawyers/Publications/Articles/Is_Australias_Constitution_Racist.aspx

As for Stan’s critical remarks about our national (colonial) anthem, I see it was originally composed in 1878. I, personally, voted for "Waltzing Matilda" in the 1977 referendum.

In addition, Australia “fair” sounds too much like Australia “white” for my liking.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Monday, 27 March 2017 6:51:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Australia “fair” sounds too much like Australia “white” for my liking"

How can a brown, sun-burned land be white? If there was an enduring vision of Australia for settlers it was of a place where the fairness that had not applied previously in their lives could bloom and they had a fresh start. Your very odd, negative connotation says more about you than the anthem. Why would you not accept the first and preferred dictionary definition anyhow?

"fair
adjective
1.
treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination.
"the group has achieved fair and equal representation for all its members"
synonyms: just, equitable, fair-minded, open-minded, honest, upright, honourable, trustworthy"

If there is to be equality and the same standards 'Progressives' (regressives' expect of their despised 'whites' are to be applied to indigenous, indigenous would be accused of xenophobia and racism themselves, as well as the other 'Progressive' epithets applied to 'whites', for rejecting immigration and diversity, hogging and reserving a very largely unpopulated and poorly used country to themselves.
Posted by leoj, Monday, 27 March 2017 9:57:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy