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 > Corby highlights our lingering 'White Australia' sentiment > Comments

Corby highlights our lingering 'White Australia' sentiment : Comments

By Chek Ling, published 5/7/2005

Chek Ling argues the Corby case has shown Australians have double standards when it comes to dealing with Asians.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 24
  7. 25
  8. 26
  9. All
Whislt I agree that the overwhelming number of Australians remain racists. I dont agree that the reaction of Schapelle Corby's mother to the verdict is indicative of this. In fact the Corby family has more ties to Indonesia than most Australians and Schapelle herself has shown almost saint like restraint during her ordeal. It is extremely cold hearted to cast judegment on anything Schapelles family said or did in those dreadful minutes following the verdict regardless of their daughters and sisters innocence.

The mass show of support was a remarkable sociological phenomenon equal only to the reaction to the Lindy Chamberlain who was villified by the public. (she was neither asian nor foreign).
Nevertheless to use this case as evidence of racisms is lazy, it bears no academic scrutiny and appears to reflect the authors biase more clearly than the populations
Posted by marianne, Tuesday, 5 July 2005 11:18:57 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
"Deep down in our national psyche, we are still the superior white, and they, the Asiatics, are still inferior and to be exploited. Yes, they are also exotic, eager to please, and can be corrupted - the remains of our 19th century Orientalist outlook."

Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black - old English expression

I can think of another one - people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

I suggest Chek Ling is exercising a double standard in his criticism of "Australians" - more particular if he bothered to read back over posts made by myself and many other "Australians" he will find that, whilst some may exercise what he claims as a "double standard", many of us do not think their is anything wrong with the "Indonesian Justice" being handed out to this drug peddling individual and would sooner see the severity of sentencing as delivered by some Asian countries adopted here for similar offences.

Likewise, I remain unsure whether Chek Ling is speaking as an "Australian" or an "Asiatic" – not that it matters to me but being an "Australian" first (and "Anglo Saxon" second) I find his focus on "ethnic origin" less than attractive and more like plain old "racism", as it features in his article.

Further, the Australian Government response is always to sit silently outside the public debate which may surround any overseas prosecution – rather than be criticised for trying to interfer in what is a "foreign" process beyond the ambit of Australina sovereign authority – that means "interfering" for the benefit or to the detriment of either side. Thus Mr Howard’s silence over the prosecution of an Australian National by Indonesia and his silence regarding the lampoonish behaviour of the accused’s family was entirely appropriate.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 5 July 2005 11:35:57 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
I get this strange feeling, that Chek Ling is attempting to disguise his own racist attitudes towards whites by sneering at the supposed racism exhibited by whites. I guess hailing from the former British colony of Malaysia would make him sensitive about his standing among white people, just like that bitter (racist)old man Mohammed Mahatir.

Before we condemn 'racists', we should understand that it is just a label. Kind of like schizophrenic, sounds big and scary but in reality,just ordinary people.

As a Chinese-Malaysian now living in Australia, are you suffering an identity crisis?
Posted by davo, Tuesday, 5 July 2005 12:03:33 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
As a far from uneducated Australian, I’m happy to side myself with the Corby-is-(most-likely)-innocent mass. And as commenter Marianne notes, this does not make me a racist.

For the record, I don’t endorse the views of, or even listen to, radio shock jocks, period. (Hint to Chek Ling: you only have to listen a shock jock for a few minutes on *any* given day to hear a variant of the judges-are-“monkeys” slander repeated against some other grouping, like “dole bludgers”. In other words, what’s new?). I also specifically condemn the actions of the white-powder mailers.

I am puzzled, though, as to why Chek Ling seems happy to accept that Corby is unquestionably guilty in the circumstances. (For my views on why she probably is not, see: http://larvatusprodeo.redrag.net/2005/05/25/the-politics-of-schapelle-corby-ii/ (comments thread))

Chek Ling’s views here are even more surprising when he compares Indonesia’s conviction of Corby with that of 19 year-old Japanese tourist “Miko”. I assume that he means 36 year-old Japanese tourist Chika Honda. Yes, Honda and the other four were almost certainly set up in KL by the Malaysian-Chinese “Charlie”, and so their 1992 trial and conviction was and is a disgrace to Australia’s legal system. Furthermore, it was and is a disgrace to Malaysia’s legal system (a country supposedly ultra-tough on drugs, but one which seems eternally hapless at catching the Mr Bigs). Malaysian co-operation during the 1992 Australian trial seems to have been minimal at best. Given that Malaysia is Chek Ling’s country of birth, and that “Charlie” is his ethnic compatriot to boot, sheeting blame for this travesty of justice on Australia alone is rich indeed.

(Cont'd)
Posted by Paul W, Tuesday, 5 July 2005 1:02:11 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
In the Corby case, admittedly, the roles have been reversed from 1992 – this time it is Australia’s government playing the “We don’t want to get involved, even though the drugs came from our jurisdiction” card. I’m happy, then for Australia’s government to be condemned on this basis (which incidentally makes Chek Ling’s “Hanson – the Sequel” theory of John Howard’s actions a complete red herring). Accordingly, much of the grass-roots anger at Indonesia’s judicial/government system is misdirected, in my opinion.

This doesn’t mean, however, that the grass-roots anger over the Corby verdict is without foundation. At bottom, the Corby and Japanese Five cases both smell of government, cross-border complacency, or worse, to organised crime’s Mr Bigs. Chek Ling should at least acknowledge this reality, and the understandable bitter powerlessness (“Corby could so easily have been me!”) ordinary, honest citizens feel in the face of it.
Posted by Paul W, Tuesday, 5 July 2005 1:03:20 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
undoubtedly the race card has been played in this corby debarcle but its been disguised behind a gush of emotional bleeting that is disregarding of facts such as differing legal systems and processes.

one only has to read a newspaper headline or women's magazines speil to see the overplay on emotional bleeting. phrases like 'run down prison', 'hellhole', 'please dont forget me' all play into the pulling of emotional strings in order to garner support. and on top of that there are the barbed phrases which seem to infer that the indonesian side is lax and of course not as superior - 'flambouyant lawyer', 'bizare tactics' and bribery allegation by those perth qc's.

all the emotional bleeting in the world wont prove corby innocent, in fact it does little good at all, except to incite dislike and disdain for indonesia, bali and asians in general.

the calls of give me back my tsunami donation is again a part of the race card dressed as emotion and totally unnecessary unless you're looking for revenge of some sort. i gave you this and look what you did to our girl so now you can give back what i gave to you.

it is of no surprise to me to find other readers on this site in contention with chek's article. its called denial.

as a black skinned aboriginal australian i am only too aware of the fact that racism is alive and well in this country and that the white australia policy is still very much at the heart of our institutions and socialisation patterns.
Posted by kalalli, Tuesday, 5 July 2005 2:08:14 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
I contribute to a research fund for a cure for schizophrenia. Is there one for racism?
Posted by hutlen, Tuesday, 5 July 2005 2:14:39 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
Posted by hutlen "I contribute to a research fund for a cure for schizophrenia. Is there one for racism? "

The scourge of racism knows no boundaries, it respects no one and can (obviously) infect any and every ethnic group.

The problem is - we can set laws to regulate and modify behaviour - but unfortunately "racism" is an attitude - for which the only cure is education (applied liberally over successive generations).
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 5 July 2005 3:17:37 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
Col Rouge says: “The scourge of racism knows no boundaries, it respects no one and can (obviously) infect any and every ethnic group”.
I disagree. Racism comes from the side of privilege.
Posted by hutlen, Tuesday, 5 July 2005 3:33:34 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
There is a story (I don't know if it is true or not) that there is a museum of prejudice in Israel. It has two entrances, one is marked "For those with prejudice" and the other" For those without prejudice." If you go in by the second entrance you run into a brick wall which says "Go back, no-one is without prejudice."
I think Australians are no more and no less prejudiced than anyone else, and sometimes our prejudices are unscrupulously manipulated by people (like our PM) who should know better.
But I don't agree with you, hutlen. Racism may be more harmful when delivered from a position of power and privilege, but everyone has their own prejudices, including racism.
Posted by enaj, Tuesday, 5 July 2005 4:54:05 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
Is anyone else sick and tired of being called racist? It's getting pretty old hat these days Chek. People like yourself who love to tell us what uneducated, racist rabble we are are beginning to be viewed as a bit of a joke - which is good because that's exactly what you are. You've managed to put up with ignorant, racist Australians for more than 40 years now, so I don't suppose it's been all that bad for you here. Instead if telling us how awful we are, how about you tend to that great big chip on your shoulder?
Of course we have racist people in Australia - every country in the world has them. We are no worse - and generally much better - than most. We're slowly starting to realise that far from having something to be ashamed of - we should be proud of the degree of racial tolerance in this country.
If you want to see examples of ignorant Australians you need look no further than hutlens' comment: "Racism comes from the side of privilege." Sheesh!!
Posted by bozzie, Tuesday, 5 July 2005 6:31:20 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
enaj. A prejudice is based on lack of knowledge or reason, but racism can continue into a well informed, even reasoned belief – evidenced by some arguments in these threads.

I think that in Australia like everywhere else there is both - racial prejudice and racism.
Posted by hutlen, Tuesday, 5 July 2005 7:08:10 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
If concern about the Corby issue is really about race, then 'please explain' the lack of concern for the Bali nine. Most of them were white, but I suppose Kallali and Hutlen would argue no-ones cares because two of them were non-white. The rest associate with these non-whites, so they must be bad. Maybe the media coverage is excessive because Corby is female, therefore more vulnerable.

Finally, just to piss Kallali off, "I love being white..."
Posted by davo, Tuesday, 5 July 2005 8:32:05 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
• A well thought out and powerful piece of writing. I wish it was mine.
Posted by Rainier, Tuesday, 5 July 2005 9:35:22 PM
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
One interesting thing, about we 'white racists' :) is that we allow Chick to speak his mind. In his former homeland Malaysia they had what were termed "The 5 sensitive issues". Things which you were not allowed even to discuss privately let alone in public. Some of them were
Race. (45% malay 30% Chinese 10% Indians and the rest 'other' races)
Religion.
NEP (New Education Policy)

Why were they so sensitive ? Well, the Malays were in the process of establishing educational quota's based purely upon RACE. ie.. Their race. The Malays were to be deliberately fast tracked at the expense of the Chinese (around 40%) and Indians (around 5%)

Religion was a hot potato because the State Religion was/is Islam.

In 1969 I was in a C130 hercules going from Vietnam to Butterworth when news of sudden race riots between Chinese and Malays broke.

Now the superior attitude of White Westerners to the 'inferior' Asians. .... is the same as that of the Han Chinese toward the 'inferior' Tibetans and minority Ethnic groups in China. Its the same as the Malay attitude to the 'inferior infidel chinese' in Malaysia. And its the same as the Chinese attitude to the 'economically inferior' Malays in the same country.

Of course, none of it is factual, but it serves its purpose of fostering the 'us/them' needed to reinforce the 'group' mentality.

As for 'yellow perils' Well I guess with the gold rush and influx of numerous 'other's it was a reality only avoided by violence and attacks "those damn chinese make ROUND mine shafts, they MUST be wierd". But then, before the 'almost' Yellow peril of that period there was a WHITE peril which came and destroyed the indigenous people, so I guess, knowing what they had already done, they didn't want it done to them.

Every 'us' was previously a 'them'... and people wonder why I refer our attention to Jesus Christ. I'll say it again, only new 'people' make good societies, no amount of education by itself, even over generations will change the us/them world view
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 5 July 2005 10:40:27 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
I think people like Rainer and Chek Ling like feeling oppressed since it gives them leverage to achieve things beyond the horizons of their ordinary mundane abilities.

What about the Bali nine Chek Ling ,mostly Anglo Saxon,there will be no out pouring of sympathy for them.They were caught red handed.
With Shapple Corby it was about a fair trial.The evidence was tainted,no finger printing of the drug container or any consideration to the evidence presented by the Corby defence.

Of course Chek Ling you will find racism in Australia,but Anglo Saxions don't have the monopoly on it.

How many foreigners will you find in China or Japan who are allowed to set up their own communities,radio stations sponsored by the Govt.
and a multitude of benefits that Anglos haven't a hope of receiving.

I can't go to Japan for instance and buy land,I have to be a Japanese National.

If you want to feel accepted,mix with the dominant culture,enjoy our humour and if you still don't like us ,go back from whence you came!
Posted by Arjay, Tuesday, 5 July 2005 11:17:19 PM
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
Chek, you might consider the possibility that what you consider racism may be a reaction to "perceived" cultural differences. Maybe those cultural differences are a reflection of reporting in the media or maybe they are real.

A couple of impressions you might care to refute which I believe contribute to disquiet about the fairness of indonesian legal processes.
- The chief judge is reported to have aquitted nobody in over 500 trials.
- Routine reporting that bribary is rife in the indonesian legal system. It is certainly being reported that the prison system runs on bribes.

For the record I'm in the undecided camp regarding the Corby case.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 6 July 2005 8:00:23 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
Dear all

Wow, what an amazing response! Let me just clarify my position - been muddied by too many self-serving assumptions or selective interpretations. First I make no assumption about poor Schapelle's guilt or innocence. Secondly her family is clearly not "the average Aussie household". Thirdly Australia must rank quite highly in terms of our social stability and the democratic instiutions we have.Fourthy,there is plenty of room for us to be a better society. That is the aim of my article. The remains of our racist past is still with us, and appears to be amenable to political manipulations, and to fomentations by self appointed media cultural commissars like Alan Jones and his likes.

The fact that we all know about the corruptness and duplicitiousness of such people in our midst does not mean that we should not strive to leave our socety a better and more robust one for those who come after us.

The other point I was hoping to make in my article is that national leadership is important. Howard I believe has failed us. He has stooped to the lowest and basest instincts of our national psyche for his own political ends. (Think of "Hiltler's willing executioners.")

Has Howard perhaps even institutionalised lying in the public service? Peter Reith lied to us on the children overboard affair and got rewarded by Howard with a $250 000 a year job, tax free, in Europe. A public servant who helped craft a lid on the same affair got promoted to a different department and got a public service medal to boot!

If we are a clever nation, we must ask these questions. We are just a small nation, a small economy. Clear,fearless thinking and striving hopefully will ensure that we become a more civilised and mature society that is fair and just to all, especially to the indigenous people from whom the Brits stole this land.

Yes, it was a long time ago. Yet the remains of that attitude to "the other" is still very much with us.

Chek
Posted by Chek, Wednesday, 6 July 2005 10:02:14 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
yeah whateva davo!
Posted by kalalli, Wednesday, 6 July 2005 10:59:21 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
Poor Chek seems to be confusing Australia with Alabama.

Maybe he should read Keith Windschuttle's "The White Australia Policy" to help disabuse him of the chimerical perceptions of Australia and of the mindset of Australians that he displays in his article.
Posted by Brazuca, Wednesday, 6 July 2005 11:30:15 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
For Chek's benefit, here's my reading of the Pauline Hanson affair.

Australians, like Brazilians and other Latin people, have the natural capacity to assimilate all and sundry. This is unusual for a Germanic people, as such people base their ethnic identity on race and so tend to view any assimilation as constituting an intolerable compromise to their ethnic integrity. As an exception to the rule, however, Australians and New Zealanders represent the only Anglo-Saxon people in the world who are capable of doing this, demonstrated throughout their history by a strong preference for assimilation over segregation.

Windschuttle has mentioned before regarding multiculturalism that what Australians have a problem with is not so much multiculturalism per se but rather "hard" multiculturalism as opposed to "soft" multiculturalism. The former is the one propounded by the folk at SBS and the ABC and the chattering classes, while the latter is the one preferred by most Australians, as it fits more comfortably with their assimilationist tendencies while allowing for gradual and comfortable acculturation by those newly arrived.

Pauline Hanson served the purpose of giving the Asians a suggestive nudge as to what they should be doing. Ever since, Asians have been assimilating rapidly and the disquit and muffled concerns that prevailed beforehand have essentially and dramatically disappeared!

Goodonya, Pauline!
Posted by Brazuca, Wednesday, 6 July 2005 12:04:05 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
Chek,
An interesting article. I think I get the thrust of your point. Correct me if I am wrong.

Generally, Australians (white) aren’t overtly racist. However, through manipulation and misinformation, government and media use the public to achieve goals or distract people from other important issues. As a nation, we are comfortable with out ‘white’ heritage yet haven’t realised that the nation is more ethnic than we really know.

I know there is more but as a short summary, does this come near the mark?

If not, I apologise. If so…

Well, I would have to agree to a fair extent. I do not think that racism is overt in this country. It is there – there is not doubt. Racists do exist and they should be exposed and vilified for their ignorant, self-serving beliefs. However I think it also exists in an insidious form, fomented and prodded as the media and government see fit, depending on the money, distraction or fever needed by their respective organisations.

I also take point with your comment regarding the class/education of people most affected by these shenanigans. I would think that most people using this discussion site come from a higher standard of education and perhaps are a little sensitive to being called ‘racist’. I do not think that was your point. However, I do believe that a solid education can help the community see through the games and deceit used by the media and government to achieve political and economic goals. The less educated are much more easily convinced and abused by the media/government.

Cont…
Posted by JustDan, Wednesday, 6 July 2005 1:33:48 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
Chek, some interesting responses coming through on this. I think I have a fairly high level of agreement with JustDan's post as a summary of the situation in Australia.

Your article and subsequent post could be interpreted as someone playing the race card in support of party politics. For those of us who are not convinced that the current PM is a racist (I may be wrong) the regular use by his opponents of the term can play the same role as "The boy who cried wolf" did for the village "wolf safety alert".

If you want genuine racism to be taken seriously when it does rear its ugly head then please be very careful not to use the term as an aid to other political objectives. I'm not sure that is what you are doing but some of your comments give that impression.

It appears to be a common tactic of the left to call anybody who deals with issues which can be tied to race or culture in a different manner to what the left prefers a racist. Doing so shuts down reasonable debate about issues which might be a cause for genuine concern to some. One of the results of doing so is that those who share such concerns are likely to support anybody who takes a stand on those issues, sometimes regardless of how millitant or how inapproporiate the proposed solution.

Being concerned about percieved issues in the Indonesian judicial system need be no more racist than being concerned about the US holding prisoners outside conventional (to us) guidelines.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 6 July 2005 5:00:01 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
It’s funny how people who proclaim their distaste of racists are not above doing a little stereotyping and prejudging themselves. According to Chek, racists are all a bunch of uneducated, knuckle dragging whites who feel superior to everybody else.

Wrong Chek. The desire to live amongst people that you consider your own kith and kin is a cultural universal. So to, is the tendency to sneer at people that are not part of your in group. The racist joke is timeless and universal. Archeologists even found racist jokes about Roman soldiers chiseled into the stone of a temple in Libya, while the Romans themselves called British tribesmen “Britanculi” (wretched little Brits)

One only has to look at the Chinatowns in every city in the word to see that the Chinese in particular prefer to live exclusively within Chinese communities. Seems your mob is just as racist as the rest of us. If millions of Anglos were immigrating to Shanghai, do you pretend that your own people would be any different in their attitudes to whites?

I have lived through an era where class distinction and the profit motive were considered by some as the root of all evil. Now racism is considered by people like Chek as the Eighth Deadly Sin.

Multiculturalism is a bit like Communism, Chek. It is a wonderful idea. Too bad it has never worked anywhere.
Posted by redneck, Wednesday, 6 July 2005 7:30:49 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
Chek,

Don't be discouraged by what your brave article has stirred up. There are a lot of us out here in the readership who admire your courage.

The Corby case is a tough issue to confront. Like Pauline Hanson, Schiapelle Corby uncomfortably defines we older Australians. The question of her guilt or innocence of the drug smuggling charge no longer really matters any more - it is all about cultural symbolism. Why else is the Howard government proposing to fund travel for her new defence witnesses - they have read the opinion polls. You are taking on a big icon here.

Tony Kevin
Posted by tony kevin, Wednesday, 6 July 2005 10:04:05 PM
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
Again we are told by the cultural elites that we whites are the only racists of course! Nonsense.

Racism works both ways, especially here in Australia re the Aboriginal population. I've known Aboriginal kids to harass white kids and as far as I'm concerned that's just as bad as white kids harassing Aboriginal kids.

In Australia it seems that everyone who is racist is white. Whether concerning Asians or Aboriginals, the anglo race is to blame.

Well I'm sick of that being bandied around. Because I know, from personal experience (as a white person), just how offensive some Aboriginals can be. And of course, if I dared to say anything back to an Aborigine who was calling me everything under the sun, I would be considered THE racist. Now that's just plain wrong.

Yet of course the left and the social elites would state that the Aboriginal race has had it hard in Australia and that I should take the "punishment" for my ancestors misdeeds. However, this denies the fact that Aboriginals have had it too good for too long. They receive special handouts, school camps and benefits (I was particularly offended at the week-long camp held for Aboriginal students only, at my high school), unemployment benefits, massive media attention, and yet they hardly ever want to take the batton of responsibility up themselves - to get skills, jobs, start businesses or improve health, with the exception of a few fantastic WA regional communities which have taken up mutual responsibility agreements with the Federal Government.

My view of racism is simply that it isn't a one-way street. The left and the social elites of today don't want to acknowledge that, instead, blaming white people for every problem the Aboriginal people face and trying to solve the problem by throwing money at them. This hasn't worked in the past and won't work in the future, either.
Posted by Dinhaan, Wednesday, 6 July 2005 11:36:03 PM
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
Dear all

Thank you to those who have given me support. It is always hard to swim against the tide.

For the rest, many of you surprised me. I expect that people on this forum would read properly, and not attribute things to me which are not reasonably inferrable from my article.

I was careful to document what is observable about our society. You are completley right to question my interpretations or deductions, but stick to that. For instance, our racist past is well accepted, maybe not by some home-grown Irvings. I say nothing about Howard being a racist. Yes, he plays the race card unashamedly. My article, White Ghosts,Ethnic Dummies, on The Brisbane Institute website will give you more on what I think of multiculturalism.

Too many of you waste time telling me that we are all racists, from time immemnorial. So what? Try envisioning a better Australia. If we spend all our spare time raucously imbibing whatever our media or pollies throw out at us, we would just be like robots zombieing around in an unconscious civilisation.

As for the perceived special treatment for Aboriginal people, try lifing your eyes above the ground level. How many people individually or in a group would want to be in their position? Remember, they once were free spirited peoples with blithe physigues, and often very generous to foreigners looking for pastures and water. But that was before the guns, diseases, and starvation took their toll.

Remember how we got $1M/day oil royalty from what is now East Timor as quid pro quo for not opposing Suharto's annexation of East Timor? And Downer contiually saying that we will be generous in our current negatioations with East Timor?

Mate, we gotta get our act together yet, as a nation.

Chek
Posted by Chek, Thursday, 7 July 2005 9:07:03 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
Dear Chek,

If it’s any consolation - those who have attacked and misquoted you have never published or spoken publicly about racism, multiculturalism or on anything for that matter. Certainly not as many times as you have.

Apparently they don't feel compelled or have a need to do this because 'all Australians already agree with them, [just ask them]. They don’t have to rely on research or scholarship (the craft of elites they call it) Instead they are born with a genetic implanted understanding of what it means to be Australian (and importantly, what is or who is not Australian).

And besides, if they did write or speak publicly, they inherently know they would have to articulate their views much more succinctly than the BBQ and Bar room mumbles and grumbles they use here. Shock horror!

So in many ways this forum (and others) is the only place they can feel safe in espousing their Hansonite logic and xenophobic insecurities. These forums can and do become internet talk-back radio sites for the functionally literate, albeit, mostly intellectually challenged.

Just mentioning the words race or racism, I’ve discovered, allows them to exercise their patriotic right to become defensive about the Australian national character, something they fail to fully explain back to me - let alone understand.

Your article broke one the unwritten sacred rules set out for non white Australians like us. That rule is that we should never purport to understand, publicly analyze, theorize, unpack, or discuss how their privilege and power works. You’re not supposed to be intellectual about these matters, just be happy to be Australian!

They see this as an attack and not as engagement of perspective. Sad but true.

Keep up the good fight my brother! I look forward to your next article.
Posted by Rainier, Thursday, 7 July 2005 12:22:52 PM
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
But Chek, your idea of a better Australia is not my idea of a better Australia.

I think the Corby case is less about race, than a concern about whether or not she recieved a fair trial. The Bali nine for example are obviously guilty, so the attention them is minimal. There is a chance that Corby might just be telling the truth, and is not guilty.

The plight of Aboriginals is tricky. Yes they need a hand to improve their quality of life, but they also have to take their own initiative. They need not drown in their own bitterness...
Posted by davo, Thursday, 7 July 2005 12:23:23 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
I'm new at this forum and read Chek's article with interest. By and large I concurred with his position and felt that his arguments were well founded in the literature eg, amongst many, Jennifer Rutherford's "The Gauche Intruder: Freud, Lacan and the White Australian Fantasy (Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2000) and Ghassan Hage, "Against Paranoid Nationalism: Searching for hope in a shrinking society" (Sydney: Pluto Press, 1999). In fact, I thought Chek was being quite restrained and not going for the juggler. On the other hand, I've been amazed at the many reponses having a go at not only his arguments but but personal attacks. I didn't expect to find these kinds of responses here and that I'd have thought would be more at home at Tim Blairs' extreme right blog over at The Age site.

why is it that it's always the same kind of redneck attack something along the line of "we/Australia have/has given you a fair go and now you've got the nerve to bite the hand that feeds you" and/or "if you don't like it here, why don't you go back to where you came from?" and/or "and therefore you must be a double-standard racist" re the "people in glass houses" comment.

And as far as the diatribe on hard/soft multiculturalism and how the silent majority prefer assimilation etc, Please! Australia IS multicultural by Federal legislation decree (see AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT, Multicultural Australia: United In Diversity. Updating the 1999 New Agenda for Multicultural Australia: Strategic directions for 2003-2006 (pdf edn., Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2003).
--, A New Agenda For Multicultural Australia (pdf edn., Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 1999).) whether you like it or not. My advice: Get Over It!

gauging from the responses, I'd say xenophobia is alive and thriving in Australia!
Posted by Boccaccio, Thursday, 7 July 2005 12:40:51 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
Another rich example of this blind discourse.

"Yesterday upon the stair I saw a man that wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today.I wish, I wish, he'd go away"
Posted by Rainier, Thursday, 7 July 2005 12:41:29 PM
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
Xenophobia is a direct result of an unwanted multicultural policy (forced down our throat by the cultural elite). Many people cannot stand this contrived population policy, GET USED TO IT!
Posted by davo, Thursday, 7 July 2005 1:32:46 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
Chek, I'll concede that there is a difference between calling someone a racist and suggesting that they have used racism for their own ends.

Some of your comments still give the impression of playing the race card as a political tool. Maybe that is not what you intended, if not I apologise for misreading your comments.

Can I make it very clear that I am in strong disagreement with those who appear to be speaking out in support of racism. Again I suspect the issues of culture and race get far too mixed up in this kind of debate. Maybe if we find a way to differentiate the two we will find healthier ways of having these debates.

Having said that I would also like to make it clear that I embrace the healthy interaction of different cultures. Different groups have found different ways of seeing things, different solutions to problems etc. In that lies opportunity for finding better ways of doing things (and sometimes celebrating the solutions we have already found). In it lies different ways of seeing beauty - expressions of art, music and taste. We have and should have the ability as individuals and as a society to pick and choose from the best of cultural influences to make this society a better place to be.

Again I would point out that I see concern about the indonesian justice system as no more racist than concern about Camp XRAY. Either could be "racist" or they may be legitimate concerns about aspects of a culture which we don't like.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 7 July 2005 2:16:53 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
Haven't we come a long way since 1901 when we celebrated Our Constitution with words from PM Edmund Barton to the effect we maintain our racial purity e.g white Anglo-Saxon, and ensure we deny 'other' lesser Nationalities from entering Aust ( Hansard).We 'progressed thro' the ages with Arthur Cadwell and his damming 'white Australia Policy', the anti Kanaka policy, tough ' diction tests ' immigration laws, deportation of Malays and Phillipinos in 1945 - we couldn't suffer these Asian refugees after the WW 11,and even now, with JH inventing off-shore Nahru and numerous other detention centres to house women and children who are perceived as racially inferior to us.What a crying shame.
With a History like this one, do we wonder why we are reviled overseas as racist and prejudiced. It's merely History repeting it's self. We treat our Indeginous brothers and sisters,with utter contempt,desdain and worst.We 'genocided' them. We have a PM who refuses to apologise to the 'stolen' generation, yet apologises to S Corby, who in Indonesian Law is a convicted drug smuggler ?? We have accepted mediocrity of performance as a catch-cry, and for some graciously embraced it.
Who said we weren't hard-core RACIST.
Posted by dalma, Thursday, 7 July 2005 3:06:39 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
Rainier – you’re a classic! One of the best examples I’ve seen of the morally superior mind at work. Take a break from guzzling at the trough of compassion and work out a way to reign in the contempt you feel for the average person. You wouldn’t have a clue as to who leaves any of these comments. You must be a remarkable human being to be able to work out ones educational status and IQ from a few words on a website. But then you “head tilters” are all pretty remarkable, even if you must say so yourselves.

Chek says “try envisioning a better Australia”, good advice Chek, and I see that your way of doing this to concentrate on negatives. You wouldn’t try to improve your child, or your friend, by continually telling them how stupid and horrible they are, (well maybe you would), but I suppose it might work with a nation. Sure we need our shortcomings pointed out; but genuine ones only please.

Who knows if Corby is innocent or guilty? I myself think she is most likely as guilty as sin. But would she have been convicted in an Australian court beyond reasonable doubt? Hardly. The Indonesian justice system is unfair and dangerous and we have every right in the world to criticize it. That does not make us racist. Most people now think Lindy Chamberlain is innocent – is this because we as a nation believe in the inherent viciousness and cruelty of dingos? Perhaps it is you Chek who is the racist? It seems you don’t think that the people of Indonesia deserve better than a fourth rate legal system and corruption from top to bottom.

If we spent our time imbibing what Chek and the Pontificating Prince dish out to us we’d all be cutting our wrists!
Posted by bozzie, Thursday, 7 July 2005 3:34:47 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
No, no, no, Bozzie. Ya got it all wrong, mate. I want Chek Ling and Rainier to keep telling us Australians what a useless bunch of ill educated racist morons we all are, it helps John Howard heaps. The funny thing is the supposedly intelligent brahmin caste can never work out why this is so.

Quite frankly, I thing the Australian public are absoutely fed up of the evangelical finger waggers who never tire of displaying their presumed moral and intellectual superiority over the Great Unwashed. It is a sort of fashion statement for them, which clearly displays their socially snobbish aspirations as the super intelligent far seeing prophets of ethical enlightenment.

With friends like Chek and Rainier, why would the Federal Labor party need enemies?
Posted by redneck, Thursday, 7 July 2005 8:19:34 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
I'm sure that anybody who's read my posts elsewhere in these forums knows where I stand on this issue, so I won't add any 'oxygen' to this particular debate.

However, I would like to commend Robert on the considered and balanced consistency of his posts to these forums, across a range of subjects. We often disagree, but nonetheless he's the kind of chap with whom I'm sure I'd enjoying having a coffee, if not something a little stronger.

I'm sure that, between us, we could solve the problems of the world ;)
Posted by garra, Thursday, 7 July 2005 9:02:07 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
garra, thanks for the kind words. I suspect that in the end we both strive for many of the same ends, we just read the map and terrain differently when working out how to get there.

The threads on these forums are a great way for those of us who are interested in doing so to better understand the other options.

I've never done too well at solving the worlds problems, sometimes it's fun to try though.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 8 July 2005 7:48:19 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
Dear RObert
Thank you for your civilised and conscientious attempt to have a dialogue. And JustDan too.

Just to put your mind at ease, I resigned from the Labor Party quite some years ago in absolute disgust, after about 6 years trying to be an active member. Not only with its intrinsic internal corruption, but that a Chinaman is only good if he knows his place. And that is the smiling Buddha type, obsequious, compliant and ever ready to do the bidding of the powers-that-be: money, new ethnic members, the jackie’s lot. So I am not being party political when I single out Howard.

The national leader's role is paramount in the cultivation of our culture, our national character, our soul. Elsewhere I have written no more flattering views of Kim Beasley.

No doubt the Indonesian judicial system is behind ours. We have perhaps a 100-year headstart? And with a "seamless" transfer from colonies to nationhood. But to use the former duplicitously to ginger up the conditioned masses waiting for the proverbial dog to kick (so that they get some relief from their own economically or emotionally disenfranchised state) is morally indefensible, quite repugnant to me. Hence my article.

Cheers

chek
Posted by Chek, Friday, 8 July 2005 11:30:35 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
Dear RObert

Incidentally, our judicial system is far from perfect. Hanson went to gaol for fibbing about the status of her party members, in a legal sense. Peter Reith gets a $250 000 a year job, tax free, after lying to us on a matter that might have tipped the 2001 elections. The consequence of that lying might well turn out to be a growing class of “liberated” free-to-choose workers soon, perhaps functionally bringing back the days when a foreman would stand at the factory door each morning and pick the ones he needed from the long queue in front of him that morning. Social justice is what I am on about here.

And if I recall correctly the americans were much better behaved when one of their teenagers was sentenced to a few cuts of the cane, a few years ago in Singapore. By contrast we were just so crass in the beat up before the Corby sentence. Self-cultivation is a mark of the civilised - we tend to thump our chest and declare "the other" as substandard. Sceptics may care to read ex-diplomat Alison Broinowski's Yellow Lady, a chronicle of Australians' attitdie to Asia and Asians in the past.

No use my being negative or critical some would say. But I take solace from the fact that tobacco is now accepted as a human folly and a social liability, and some of the tobacco companies have been brought before our courts for deliberately hiding what they knew and anaesthetising our consciousness with images of the Malborough Country and so on. Will history be harsh on Howard? Hope so. Even Blainey, our once national icon, has been said to be wrong by Howard a few years ago. We should never condone unethical or immoral behaviour or leadership, if we aspire to be a great nation.

So I will continue to point out the less salubrious aspects of our culture whenever I can. One day things will get better, and my decendants will inherit a better land. Otherwise where is the room for optimism?

Cheers

Chek
Posted by Chek, Friday, 8 July 2005 11:58:07 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
Chek, what do you think of Windschuttle's recent books like "The White Australia Policy" and "The Fabrication of Aboriginal History"?

If you haven't read them, I reckon you'd find them very interesting and illuminating.
Posted by Brazuca, Friday, 8 July 2005 12:52:16 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
tlen " disagree. Racism comes from the side of privilege. "

Disagree - racism is as common among the underprivileged as it is among the privileged - what happened in Rwanda was racist motivated (based on tribal distinctions) - and nothing to do with privilege.

The support and promotion of racism is uniquely expressed by the small minded and ignorant - regardless of what level of education they may claim to have achieved.
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 8 July 2005 12:57:19 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
I finally realised what this is all about:

Schiapelle is our beautiful white Christian princess being held hostage by the infidel (Barbary pirates, Turkish emir, Saladin – whatever). And John Howard is our noble king Richard the Lionheart trying to negotiate her ransom and safe return home.

Forget about drug charges or evidence – this is the Crusades again, as interpreted by W E Johns or Boys’ Own Adventures circa 1950. As to all those sentimental older white blokes like me getting stuck into poor Chek – forget reason or logic, Chek, this story is way beyond rationality – it’s about getting our beautiful princess home safe from her barbarian captivity.

Cheers, mate !

Tony Kevin
Posted by tony kevin, Friday, 8 July 2005 2:25:33 PM
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
Col Rouge. I agree on your assertion regarding education levels and racism. I know racists who have a phd.

Resentment and privilege was a big factor in Rwanda. I see what you’re saying but those “tribal distinctions” were an invention of colonialists who introduced racism and privilege, initially gave it to the Tutsi over the Hutu (later reversed) for their own gain; divided a culture in two that had previously lived happily ever before, as one – about 1884.
Posted by hutlen, Friday, 8 July 2005 4:55:46 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
col, completely in agreement. Racism is wrong whoever does it.

Chek, thanks for your comments. In regard to your comments about the Chinaman keeping his place in the ALP, that's not to far off what I would have expected.

I think that a lot of the lefts help to "disadvantaged" groups has an overlay of patronisation.

Clearly the right side of politics also has enough racists to be embarassing as well. My own perception is that many of us don't like a lot of the lefts programs because
- to help one group they hurt individuals in other groups.
- they tend to have underlying assumptions which are racist, sexist etc.
- they appear to be damaging to those they try to help.

Most on the right are not racist, we believe each individual should be judged on their merits not on their gender or race. The challenge then becomes how to break through genuine disadvantage without introducing new problems.

I am of the view that tossing the term racist into a debate can have the impact of stopping discussion about what is really bothering people. Of suggestion that their concerns have no legitimacy. That tends to breed anger.

How much better if instead of carrying on about racism during the Hanson period the issues which were being raised were addressed openly and politely. The silly issues would soon show up as such and genuine fears could have been addressed. Instead we left anybody who shared Pauline's concerns feeling shouted down. We painted the impression amongst any neighbours who were listening that we as a country are more racist than I believe us to be. I think a lot of that was the "left" playing the race card for it's own political advantage, just as bad as anything Johnny might have done.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 8 July 2005 6:59:19 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
Our neighbour think we might be racist, Robert?

Reality check time Robert.

Papuans don't like people from southern New Guinea and highlanders who are very black don't like lowlanders who are have a noticeably lighter skin colour. Naturally, their enmity is returned by the lowlanders who think the highlanders are just barbarians.

The Indonesians don't like the Chinese, and when the Chinese minority tried to take over Indonesia when Sukarno died, the Indo's marched a couple of million of them into the jungle and machine gunned them. Are they going to call us racists?

The Chinese minority in Malaya tried to do the same thing and turn Malaya into a vassal state of the people's Republic of China. Even today, there are very racist laws in effect in Malaysia to enshine the perpetual political dominance of Muslim Malays. The Malays do not like then Chinese and wish they would all migrate to Australia so that they can get rid of them. Looks like they succeeded with Chek Lee.

The Vietnamese absolutely despise the Chinese and after the Vietnam War was over they made life so miserable for them in Vietnam that a million or two Chinese fled into China to escape the persecution. That was the reason for the Vietnam/China war. Are the Viets going to call us racists?

The Phillipines has the distinction of being the most troubled Asian with several separitist and sectarian movements vying for control of local provinces. Another triumph of multiculturalism. The bloke handing out how to vote cards for Pauline Hanson at my polling booth was a Phillipino who had a jaundiced view of Muslim immigration into Australia. He saw too many people die.

So who is going to call us racist, Robert? Fair dinkum, you lot just love mouthing off touchy feely platitudes so much, I can almost hear the angels singing as you write.
Posted by redneck, Friday, 8 July 2005 7:56:12 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
Racism is caused by fear of change and the unknown.

I define racism as making some one feel inferior in order to secure our own status within society.This happens in every family on a daily basis.The very existence of a pecking order mentality reinforces the notion of racism.Job status,intellectual ability and wealth are equally divisive as racism.We are just disciminating against others in terms of intellectual ability,looks and wealth.So we have geneticism,intellectualism and racism.

To some degree according to the particular situation,they are equally devisive.It is always wrong to put down anyone to emulate our own status,yet it happens on daily basis in all societies.We are all potential racists due to our own inherent insecurities.

A study a I read years ago in the US found that the Puertoricans hated the Negros more than the middle class whites because the Negros were more a threat to their job security.It all amounts to perceived threats ,real or not.

Who can blame many for feeling this way,since it has been happening since Homo Sapiens competed with the Neanderthals.

In reality I think language is more a problem than than colour, since it is ignorance that breeds distrust and hatred.We need intensive language programs for all migrants,even for cockney poms.

In Australia we need to slow down the pace of ethnic change since we are losing our national and cultural identity too rapidly.We need to bring all levels of our society with us and not pander to the whims of the latte left.

We need evolution,not revolution.
Posted by Arjay, Friday, 8 July 2005 10:52:23 PM
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
I will agree with most of what you said, Arjay. Even the oft repeated claims that "racists" are all a bunch of low educated morons is a form of racism itself. Because it is an attempt by one group with it's own social values to claim that it is intrinsically superior to another group with differing social values.

Since we climbed down from the trees, human beings have formed interdependent groups and established territories. They do not like it when a rival group invades their territory. This is a deep emotional response which is programmmed into every persons DNA and is unlikely to be deprogrammed by anyone listening to "Imagine" or sitting around singing "Kumbaya."

Racism is simply a product of group loyalty. It exists because it is part of the human condition and it can not be wished away. Claims that we in Australia can make a race blind society is as unrealistic as the Communists desire to build a class blind society. Blood is thicker than Ideology.

Here in Australia, the classic symptoms of a divided society are already manifesting themselves. Ethnic ghettoes with high rates of welfare dependency and criminal behaviour, valid fears of terrorism, and a political elite who openly talk about courting the "Greek vote", the "Jewish vote" and the "Muslim vote."
Posted by redneck, Saturday, 9 July 2005 4:52:43 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
redneck, are you really a redneck? You come across like parody of what the left thinks those of us on the right are all about.

Do you really think most aussies give a hoot about the colour of someones skin? Plenty might not like the public face of some cultural groups but I don't know many who care about skin colour. How many of us boo when one of the dark skinned fellows in the footy team we support scores a try? How many of us were upset when Kathy Freeman beat white girls in races?

Not many angels around here but there is a real desire to get past some of the terminology which seems to stop us making progress on some of these issues. When the left slings the term racist around to describe those who are not they shut down debate which might help us solve the underlying problem. When you say that asian's are racist so that makes it OK we get nowhere. I'm one of those who does not like racism regardless of who is doing it. I don't have a role in debate on the issue in Malaysia but I do here.

Why would I care if our neighbours think we are racist? Maybe I'm culturalist enough to think that we have something good going in this country (I know we've got some problems too). We have a justice system which has made some big stuff ups but one where being charged does not mean being convicted. We try hard to put aside our tribal preferences and give people a chance (not always successfully). We have national heroes both men and women and pretty much any skin tone you can think about. Maybe if we let our neighbours see that working the kids growing up over there might adopt some of the good bits from us. Never know we might leave a friendlier neighbourhood for the kids.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 9 July 2005 4:23:44 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
Chek, what do you think of Windschuttle's recent books like "The White Australia Policy" and "The Fabrication of Aboriginal History"?

If you haven't read them, I reckon you'd find them very interesting and illuminating.
Posted by Brazuca, Saturday, 9 July 2005 5:27:15 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
Yes Robert, I am a fair dinkum, gun owning, four wheel drive with dirty great bulbar driving, dog owning, low intellect, white European redneck.

On the subject of whether Aussies worry about the colour of someone’s skin, I would have to say “yes”. The most significant factors for intergroup hostility within any country is the degree of difference between the two cultures, and the population proportions of the two (or more) groups. Like it or not, skin colour just happens to be the most reliable indictor of cultural difference.

I agree that the finger waggers try to stifle debate by claiming that their opponents are dim witted racists whenever the subject of race is mentioned. I do not agree that I am guilty of these sorts of tactics myself. I am simply pointing out to those on the high moral ground, who appear to think (or claim) that only white people are racist, that racism is universal, timeless and part of the human condition.

You may not like “racism”, but then you probably do not like “Lust”, “Envy”, “Pride”, “Greed”, “Sloth”, “Anger” or “Covetousness” either. But I think that you would admit that you may have been guilty of all of these sins, at one time or another, to one degree or another. Elevating “racism” to a moral absolute will make you an easy target. Think about it. Being morally self righteous is a persona that is not attractive to anybody, and adopting such a pose means that you can never sin yourself without being accused of hypocrisy.

You may think that we have “something good” going in this country, but I do not. This country was once protected by the White Australia Policy, which was a policy I wholeheartedly agreed with, with a few reservations. This country was much better place because of it, and for the last thirty odd years I have watched my country go down the toilet because it was repealed.
Posted by redneck, Sunday, 10 July 2005 7:24:58 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
I'm as blond haired & blued eyed as a caucasian can be - my heroes? Kathy Freeman, Nelson Mandela, Nicky Winmar (Saints supporter) - I'd better not get started this list could be an infinite one of all hues. I agree with R0bert - colour really doesn't matter.

Perceived threat does.

Redneck I feel sorry for you - divisive policies such as the white Australia policy increases racism.

The more mixed our culture the more we are likely to become familiar with a diverse range of people - and familiarity does not breed contempt - apartheid does.

Do only white roses smell so sweet? (most humble apologies to W.S.)
Posted by Trinity, Sunday, 10 July 2005 8:17:30 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
Redneck, you really Aussie? You sound like you'd be much better suited to Alabama or somewhere like that. Your thinking is certainly not native to these here parts.

And by the way, if you read Keith Windschuttle's "The White Australia Policy" you may be rather disabused of your notions regarding it. Very few of the politicians and population when that policy was enacted thought like you. Barely any Australians have ever thought like you. Like I said, you might be better suited to somewhere like Alabama, where your heart really seems to be.
Posted by Brazuca, Sunday, 10 July 2005 12:16:03 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
Hi Trinity, welcome to the discussion.

Let’s look at your premise, “Colour does not matter, perceived threat does.”

Racism is not only a product of normal group loyalty, it is also product of normal inter group hostility. No matter what Aquarian world that any Idealist wishes was reality, no Idealist has ever found a way to stop birds of a feather flocking together, and the flock getting hostile towards any other bird of a feather invading their territory.

The capacity for any homogenous society to be tolerant towards out groups can be a product of their own social conditioning. Some groups openly preach tolerance as a part of their cultural conditioning while other group preach the exact opposite. But even the most tolerant group will very quickly become intolerant when confronted by an out group which they perceive is hostile. This condition is greatly exacerbated when the difference in the cultural values of the two groups is profound and their values are mutually exclusive. It is further exacerbated if the numbers of the out group is growing much faster than that of the primary group, either through immigration or birth rate differentials. Sooner or later critical mass is reached and the two groups become openly hostile to one another. The peaceful land that they both inhabit is torn apart as the two groups begin to polarise into separate territories. The result is always an upsurge in crime, civil strife, calls for separatism and even civil war.

I hold these truths to be self evident. They are as immutable as the law of gravity. No amount of self righteous posturing will make a fig of difference to the eventual outcome.

As for “Familiarity does not bred contempt, apartheid does.” Every country on this planet has a border and an armed force to protect it’s citizens territory from being over run by other people of different cultures. The desire to live amongst people who you consider are your own kith and kin, and with whom you feel safe, is a cultural universal.
Posted by redneck, Sunday, 10 July 2005 1:02:18 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
If we are going to talk about apartheid, it still exists. If you are white, and you enter a black area for example, then you can expect to get your head crushed into a pulp. Race relations in South Africa are as bad as they have ever been.

The white /black dichotomy in South Africa is the only visible racial divide visible to the naive western observer. In reality, black/white ethnic tensions is only representative of the much broader and complex societies across the African continent. The black/black ethnic tensions are invisible to the western observer, and therefore sanctioned accordingly. Slavery still exists in parts of Africa (black/black), and there are activists working to stop it. Are these activists on your list of heroes Trinity?
Posted by davo, Sunday, 10 July 2005 2:49:21 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
Redneck !
a bit rough around the edges, but basically your observations of the human condition are spot on. EXACT.
For those who feel sorry for Redneck, and are glad they don't think like him, I don't think many of you actually read his post.

He was making true observations of how real humans behave. I don't think I noticed anything in his post which suggested we should all LIVE like that, but he does point out how things 'are' in the real world.

Most of you who are kicking him in the guts, it would surprise me if you have ever lived in a community where various ethnic populations are of a similar size and resources are limited. He mentioned Malaysia, and its not a bad place to begin. See how the indigenous people there are being trampled on (in Sabah and Sarawak) deprived of their land etc. The reason it is happening is because they are not of the 'preferred race' (Malay) the politically powerful Malays (Muslims) grant themselves huge timber concessions, and sell them to the rich Chinese who then go and drag out all the timber.

If anyone wants to get a feel for how communities feel about others, ask Irfan or Ash how they would feel if a Christian wished to marry their daughter !! In malaysia it is unthinkable for a Muslim girl to convert for the sake of the husband, it ALWAYS goes the other way, why ? wellll just read Rednecks post and you will know.

If Irfans daughter (should he have one) convert, she would be considered "MURTAD" apostate, and that is the lowest of lowest of the low to Muslims
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 10 July 2005 6:48:38 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
Boaz-David and redneck, what do y'all think of the situation historically of New Zealand vis-a-vis Maori and Pakeha? How do you explain the fact that no Maori today is full-blooded, and that this situation has come about through amicable intercourse between Maori and Pakeha ever since the two peoples came into contact with each other? Why didn't we have a Malaysia or South Africa in New Zealand?
Posted by Brazuca, Monday, 11 July 2005 10:12:32 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
Racism/xenophobia is natural and partly inescapable, and this is significant how? Is it stated in order to suggest that racism is good or legitimate, that we shouldn't denounce it or those who are racist? Or is it meant to justify racist policies, in order to protect us from the "inevitable" conflict?

Racism/xenophobia is born of ignorance, which is distinct from honest disagreement with aspects of a culture while possessing a proper understanding of them. The main targets of the claims of racism surrounding the Corby case weren't those who knew the facts of the case and the Indonesian legal system, or those that waited for the evidence -- but those that quickly formed an unwavering belief that the she was innocent and that the Indonesians were rigging things against her. We should not support ignorance of any form, wherever it may occur.
Posted by Deuc, Monday, 11 July 2005 12:32:27 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
What was this thread about? Oh yeah, the underlying racism evidenced during the Corby trial.

Somehow BD manages a swipe at Islam - give it a rest BD.

How does separatism reduce racism? Could someone please explain - oops attack of the paulines.

In my last workplace - in a staff of 20 we had a total of 15 people with oh, slightly darker skin than the average causasian. Did we have race riots, no. Did we have disagreements? Yeah I disagreed with my big fat white skinned, blue-eyed boss regularly.

Oh, BTW we had the best lunches once a month when everyone would bring a plate which represented our 16 + nationalities. Did this bond us together - you bet. Did we work well together - absolutely.

I have no doubt my workplace experience is reflected throughout Australia.

I think it is called (shock, horror) multiculturalism - bad word like feminism has become a bad word - according to the same old suspects.
Posted by Trinity, Monday, 11 July 2005 2:58:31 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
You are really living the multicultural dream 'eh Trinity! How beautiful, a brady bunch of cultures all living happily ever after. Like a fairytale in a children's book!

But what I ask, makes you so dissatisfied with your own culture that you must have people from every corner of the world around you? Are you one of those people who are nasty to other white people but super polite to non-white people? Those people are really annoying, I'm telling you now.

My theory is that multiculturalism is the dregs of a post-colonial era. No longer can we colonise and conquer, so those ambitions manifest themselves through multiculturalism.

I also suspect that when there is a feast, people are kind and generous. But when there is a famine, people are fighting for scraps. There are numerous examples around the world where different peoples who once got along when times were good, are now fighting each other since times have gotten bad. But that won't happen here 'eh
Posted by davo, Monday, 11 July 2005 3:34:59 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
davo

before you go off on a rant I suggest you READ the post. Trinity clearly stated "in my LAST workplace". He/She said nothing about needing to surround him/herself with people from other cultures.

You must be very desperate to criticise such a well intentioned post.

I work with a variety of nationalities too, not through choice but through circumstance - while we don't have the time or the facilities for feasts (lucky Trinity) we do manage to work together without our skin colour/culture getting in the way.

I guess, davo, you have never socialised or worked with people other than Aryans. You poor deprived little individual.
Posted by Ambo, Monday, 11 July 2005 3:46:56 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
Hi Brazuka, welcome to the discussion. Yes I am dinki di. No wuckers.

No, I have never read Keith Windshuttle’s book on the White Australia Policy, because I did not know it existed. But now I know of its existence, I will buy it and I will read it.

Your claim that “barely any Australians thought like me” is a meaningless generality, could you be more specific?

As for claiming that I should go to Alabama where people apparently think like me. Well, thank you for displaying to all of us your typical intellectual doublethink, because you just shot yourself in the foot.

You are suggesting that white people who live in Alabama are a despicable mob. By doing that, you are prejudging a racially distinct group of Alabaman people with a negative stereotype, which is an act of racial bigotry. In other words, my dear Brazuca, you are just as big a racist as I am.
Posted by redneck, Monday, 11 July 2005 5:33:37 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
redneck, i think you are right in suggesting that we can all be racist at times, but celebrating it as virtue - as you do - is quite another thing. I can't help but feel the anonymity these forums provide also provides you with a dutch courage you would not openly display if we met face to face. I predict your response to this will be cogniscant of this never happening. C'mon prove me wrong.
Posted by Rainier, Monday, 11 July 2005 6:11:55 PM
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
Hiya Deuc, thank you for your input.

You can denounce racism all you want, Deuc, but you had better be careful. Racism is simply a product of group loyalty and intergroup hostility. So unless you have no allegiance at all to any family, tribe, clan, organisation, race, or nationality, then you can never display a preference for any of them, or you are in effect, committing a sin which you appear to think is a moral absolute. Nor can you exhibit any hostility to any other rival group, without leaving yourself open to a charge of “hypocrisy.” Brazuka has already learned that, the hard way. But if you want to walk around pretending that you are some kind of Mother Theresa, who holds no ill will towards anybody, then go right ahead. But it seems like a hard act to follow.

Whether racism is good or bad is entirely dependent upon social circumstance. If you have a multiracial group that you are desperate to maintain peace within, then racism is bad. But in wartime, racism is good. It is very common for countries at war to portray their enemies as sub human untermenschen, because it helps absolve the guilt they feel at murdering their enemies by the tens of thousands.

Is greed good? Self interest is the driving force of capitalism and self interest is not considered bad in free market economies. But at what point is self interest, greed? Is all self interest, greed?

Racism can be simply be a person looking after the self interest of the group with which he identifies with, and which gives him protection and support. Most people would consider loyalty as good, but at what point is it bad?

Any person who wishes to be considered a part of any group, must sublimate his own self interest to some extent, and give priority to his own group to some extent, or he is worthless to the group. If you consider such behaviour is an absolute evil, Deuc, I do not think any group at all would welcome you into it’s ranks.
Posted by redneck, Monday, 11 July 2005 6:33:31 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
redneck, how far are we heading off topic here but there does seem to be relevance as well. Thanks for the response. I get the impression that what you really care about is culture. Would you be willing to be friends with someone of a different race if they fitted in with your view of "Aussie" and somehow you got to see that or will their race forever be a show stopper?

"You may not like “racism”, but then you probably do not like “Lust”, “Envy”, “Pride”, “Greed”, “Sloth”, “Anger” or “Covetousness” either. But I think that you would admit that you may have been guilty of all of these sins, at one time or another, to one degree or another"

I've probably tried them all at times. I understand the reason they are in the list but suspect that context has a bit to do with it. Anger has it's place and I'm not real convinced that lust is not important in keeping the species going. If I do a good job at something then I don't mind being proud of my work.

I've had my moments of racism, the issue being that those moments are not things I celebrate but rather moments I prefer to look back at with disapointment. A place to stop and say "I can be better than that".

You are correct in saying that racism has been with us for a long time. A lot of things have been with us for a long time that we are fighting like crazy to put behind us. Crime has been with us for a long time too but that does not mean I have to welcome the burgler into my house.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 11 July 2005 6:35:33 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
And so the logic goes like this. Racism has been around for thousands of years and so it is inevitable and therefore justifiable.

What redneck is suggesting is "I can justify being a racist because it is simply a product of group loyalty and intergroup hostility". (ie, i don't need to think for myself because society tells me how to believe, or my fear of how racially diverse society is tells me how to fear, and thus rationalize these fears). It’s a call to embrace an irrational fear.

In more elaborate words, this clearly shows a a kind of strict adherence to received views & prevailing social trends. Its also shows an inability to deal with ambiguity and this is where the use of prejudices & stereotypes to create certainty are used as rhetorical devices to seemingly appear 'rational' and informed.

"We are all different, thus we will not get on with each other."

But not one iota of an explanation about why we do get on, why we do peacefully cohabit and why we should better understand why this happens and what impedes it.

I’m still waiting for your reply redneck my friend.
Posted by Rainier, Monday, 11 July 2005 7:27:35 PM
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
This is my first post to this forum and as a second generation Asian Australian, I have to state how disappointed I am by the direction of this so-called 'discussion'. Chek Ling, as is apparent from his biography, migrated from Malaysia over thirty years ago. He would tell you his home is here in Australia, as would his passport. Many of the respondents in talking about Malaysia clearly don't understand this, and I think this does represent a very clear form of racism, a racism that maintains the citizenship and thus the civic and political participation of ethnic Australians as partial.

On the matter of Australia's engagement with multiculturalism, many respondents have ignored international historical trajectories such as the expanding global village and the end of European colonialisms. We are presently at an international historical juncture that threatens all of us with violence based along ethnic and religious lines. Intelligent and well-meaning Australians would be better directed towards figuring out how we can live together better. If racism is 'natural', so is cultural difference.

I might remind some of you that Chek's ethnic 'category' - the Chinese - have been present in Australia since the 1840s, my own at least since the 1880s as pearlers along the Northern coastline. Australia's 'multiculturalism' if we look at it as the existence of cultural diversity, is a social reality that has existed before the beginning of this nation. If we are going to attack multiculturalism or justify racism, we must understand that we need to replace it with another policy to ensure social cohesion and manage cultural diversity. Getting rid of and/or judging 'diversity' really is a privilege maintained by people who self-identify as 'white'.
Posted by Katsuhiro, Monday, 11 July 2005 7:44:22 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
My final comments (I’m getting dizzy on this round-a-bout!)

Call it what you will – multiculturalism, plural-culturist, diversity, etc. It exists.

As to the ‘hate’ or ‘racism’ or ‘human nature’ – again, yes they exist.

Now as to whether it is ‘natural’ or ‘necessary for group survival’, well, that’s another matter. The only thing natural or necessary is the ability to think.

And some just prove they don’t do too much of it.

How is it that there are as many examples of people of diversity living together peacefully for very long periods of time and no issue taken with the differences? Perhaps they took the time to discover each other and show a little tolerance (geez, there’s that annoying word again!) and patience to communicate.

Sure, tensions can mount when resources become scarce – or when power hungry groups choose to steal rather than share. Does that behaviour have to move along racial or cultural lines? Sometimes perhaps. So how does one account for the alliances during two world wars, when Muslim joined with Aryan? Or Asian with Slavic during their various incarnations? Or maybe these were ‘of convenience’? In which case the culture/race survival issue is mute as it shows the capacity to co-operate to achieve goals, doesn’t it?

As to human nature – then compassion, understanding and tolerance must also be natural, since they exist in near as much quantities as racism and xenophobia. And not with the assistance of some divinity or external guidance. Plenty of examples there so no need to expand.

Fear, plain and simple, is the root cause. Fear of the unknown. Fear of the misunderstood and fear of not being right perhaps. If others can do it, surely we all can? If we want to.

Finally, if those wish to call it a fantasy land or dreaming, then what’s your point? Many of the worlds greatest achievements and achievers were dreamers, without which, nothing would change. Isn’t the ability to dream the first step to making reality?

Keep dreaming people…
Posted by JustDan, Tuesday, 12 July 2005 12:39:19 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
>>Your claim that “barely any Australians thought like me” is a meaningless generality, could you be more specific?<<

There has never been a history of segregation, etc., in Australia a la Alabama, South Africa, etc. Australians have always preferred assimilation over segregation, as evidence through their interaction with the Aboriginals (until the Sixties, ever since it became politically incorrect to advocate for assimilation) and migrants.

>>As for claiming that I should go to Alabama where people apparently think like me. Well, thank you for displaying to all of us your typical intellectual doublethink ... You are suggesting that white people who live in Alabama are a despicable mob. By doing that, you are prejudging a racially distinct group of Alabaman people with a negative stereotype, which is an act of racial bigotry. In other words, my dear Brazuca, you are just as big a racist as I am.<<

Whoa, whoa! When did I suggest that "white" people in Alabama are a "despicable mob"? When did I suggest that my stereotype of Alabamans is "negative" -- I neither expressed judgement of the reputation of Alabamans one way or the other. I merely suggested that your type of thinking would be better suited to an Alabaman context, since it wouldn't be as alien as it now appears in an Australian context. After all, Alabamans have historically walked the talk you're talking. Australians never have (see Keith Windschuttle's "The White Australia Policy"). Besides, I couldn't consider any Alabamans a "racially distinct group of...people" because I am a creationist and so do not believe in the Darwinian concept of races.

So ... what do you think of the historical situation in New Zealand vis-a-vis Maori and Pakeha? Why is no single Maori today full-blooded? Why/how did this happen? Why not a Malaysia or South Africa in New Zealand?
Posted by Brazuca, Tuesday, 12 July 2005 8:19:14 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
Er Brazuca, do you think Australia displays a double standard towards Asians or not?

This effectively wastes a post, but if it gets the thread back on topic it'll be worth it.
Posted by Xena, Tuesday, 12 July 2005 8:40:35 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
My last hijack post Xena.

Loyalty? Fascinating rationalisation redneck, I'll play along for a bit.

"Racism is simply a product of group loyalty and intergroup hostility. So unless you have no allegiance at all to any family, tribe, clan, organisation, race, or nationality, then you can never display a preference for any of them,"
Holy non-sequitur Batman! I think buying Mount Franklin water is immoral but it is simply a product of Coca-Cola-Amatil, so I can't have a Sprite or else I'm a hypocrite!?

No, equivalence must be established. But racism has different effects and a greater potential for harm than familial loyalty etc. Group loyalty does not necessitate intergroup hostility and while extreme support for anything can be harmful, racism is normally harmful. People in the ICRC do not hate Amnesty international and not many people support the kind of animosity present in Romeo+Juliet. There is significant connection between a person and their family, or country, and there exist differences of substance. I know no feature of increased closeness of descent that justifies seeking a privileged position over others, or requires treating others as inherently inferior & incompatible. I don't know what being loyal to my group of strangers with slightly closer descent would entail, or why I should be.

But people don't believe others are inferior and particpate in lynchings or discriminate unreasonably out of loyalty, it comes from ignorance, fear and prejudice. Both are natural and controllable.

"But if you want to walk around pretending that you are some kind of Mother Theresa,"
I'll try to be better.

"it helps absolve the guilt they feel at murdering their enemies"
Only for racists, others will feel worse and it suggests the war was unnecessary.

"Any person who wishes to be considered a part of any group, must sublimate his own self interest to some extent, and give priority to his own group to some extent, or he is worthless to the group"
My group contains all good people, those that honestly try to be moral, and they come in all forms; they are my kin. Consequently, racists aren't.
Posted by Deuc, Tuesday, 12 July 2005 1:09:32 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
I have been unable reply to your two posts, Rainier,because I am limited to 2 posts per 24 hours, and I am already fencing with Robert and Brazuca.

I gather that you are vehemently opposed to prejudice, stereotyping and racism. If that is so, then could I thank you for helping my case by shooting yourself in the foot three times in your last two posts.

You seem to imply that racism is some sort of new idea which has recently sprung into the minds of ignorant people, and that this condition can be cured by education. You are therefore prejudging the typical racist, by conceptualising a stereotype of an ignorant person in dire need of education. Lesson? Everybody, even the most politically exquisite, prejudges and stereotypes.

And, if I were to say “duck”, what image springs to mind? A bird with a bill and webbed feet? You have just stereotyped, again. Twice, actually, what is a stereotypical “bird”? Conjure up a few more objects, ideas and concepts. Think balls, cars, racists, boats, cowards, and stereotypical images, concepts and ideas will form. These concepts, ideas and images may not be entirely correct, but they do not need to. They are accurate enough to link an object, idea or concept to another object, idea or concept. Lesson? Human beings stereotype in order to think. To say that “people must not stereotype”, is to essentially say, “people must not think”.

You have also prejudged me by claiming that I am not the sort of person who has the courage to confront you face to face, unless I fortified myself with Dutch courage.

Firstly, you have just dropped a racist expression yourself, which implies that Dutch people are cowards who need alcohol to gain courage. Naughty, naughty. That is definitely PC verboten.

Secondly, in your particuar bigoted prejudice, I conform to your concept of the stereotypical, cowardly racist.

To summarise, everybody prejudges, everybody has to stereotype in order to think, and hostility towards out groups is so normal, that even moral perfectionists like your self unconsciously drop the odd racist expression.
Posted by redneck, Tuesday, 12 July 2005 6:02:57 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
Sorry, Deuc, shall return in 24 hours.

There was never a history of segregation, Brazuka, because before the advent of large scale immigration of unassimilatable immigrant groups, Australia was essentially monocultural, and was an Island of peace in a world of violence. Monocultural societies usually have strong social cohesion and low crime rates. Multicultural societies are usually the exact opposite. If you have something good going, why stuff it up in order to become like every other strife plagued, priest and mullah infested country in the world?

The inference in your post, was that I should go to Alabama where people ”think like me.” Since you had already prejudged “racists” as uneducated cretins, the implication was clear to me.

As for New Zealand, I do not know of the situation there, but I will have a stab at it.

The first thing I will say, is that with the attacks upon six mosques in New Zealand this week, if you are trying to claim that New Zealand is a shining example of non racism, you just shot yourself in the foot again. Similarly, there have been news reports lately of a resurgence of Maori “nationalism” (if they were white people it would be called “racism”) where Maori leaders claim that Maori’s should be a bit more equal than everybody else.

In addition, the antipathy of Maori’s towards Tongans and Samoans is legendary.

Finally, there is the phenomenon of inter racial marriage. I can only assume that Maori girls are very much like Aboriginal girls. Like Cathy Freeman’s mother and Cathy Freeman herself, they prefer to marry white men. This is because white men generally do not get drunk every night and bash their wives half to death. White men in general support their wives and children by going to work. And most importantly, white never engage in that uniquely aboriginal custom of punishing women by plucking out an eye with a sharp stick. There are probably plenty of Jake the Muss’s in the Maori population as well, who do not treat their Maori women much better.
Posted by redneck, Tuesday, 12 July 2005 7:12:01 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
Much as it galls me to say it, redneck, you make some fair points. And believe it galls me. But you do seem to be falling for the naturalistic fallacy – that because something is, that's how it should be. The western culture to which you (and I) are the grateful heirs would not exist if instinct and "well that's how it is" had held sway. Education, rational and, indeed, moral thought combined to allow us to repudiate our baser instincts. Yes, of course we tend to prefer our own kind – we understand them better – a reason monocultural societies tend to be cohesive, albeit often stifling. Yes, of course we stereotype as a form of mental shorthand. But we realise (I think, I hope), while doing it, that it's just that. Shorthand. Not a moral imperative. No more than a phobia is a moral imperative, and there are plenty of phobias that have sound evolutionary, instinctive bases. But a few minutes' thought allows us to realise that they're irrational, and to be over-ridden. The group and band selection model for which you're arguing is perhaps no more elevated than a fear of spiders. You'd feel a bit of a berk asserting that being afraid of a daddy-long-legs was something to be proud of, wouldn't you? We can think past that. So why assert that racial prejudice and stereotyping are something to be proud of? We can think past that, too. We might not be totally comfortable, but we can be unashamed of what we are. Which is better?
Posted by anomie, Tuesday, 12 July 2005 8:38:41 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
Hang on a sec, Redneck, I know of white men who treat their Aboriginal wives poorly. Come to think of it, Aboriginals (from my personal observation) tend to marry the worst kind of white people around (dare I say, the 'rednecks').

I've been prejudged on this forum. Apparently I've never socialised or worked with non-white people. My anti-multicultural opinions are the direct result of regularly finding myself the only white guy in the room. It hasn't made me more tolerant, I still have prejudices towards ethnic groups. So to think a multicultural society will cure people of any prejudice is wishful thinking. Everyone has some tribal, clannish desire to belong and be accepted. Multiculturalism alienates.

Personal experiences have taught me we are all as bigoted as each other.
Posted by davo, Tuesday, 12 July 2005 8:47:41 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
"Firstly, you have just dropped a racist expression yourself,"
I think it was a joke.

"To summarise, everybody prejudges, everybody has to stereotype in order to think,"
*Valid* stereotypes and prejudices have their uses, but people have to check them against the reality of the situation. Presumptions are OK, stubborn assumptions are stupid. Invalid stereotypes, of which almost all racial stereotypes are, commonly don't relate to reality, either in proportion to actual occurence or as caricatures or utter falsehoods.

"even moral perfectionists like your self unconsciously drop the odd racist expression."
But only because they are part of the language, not because we are racists and not for hostile reasons. I can't help but say "Geez", "God damn it" or "F**king hell" and I am definitely an atheist.

"because before the advent of large scale immigration of unassimilatable immigrant groups, Australia was essentially monocultural, and was an Island of peace in a world of violence."
I dunno, there were wars between the Aboriginal tribes.

"If you have something good going, why stuff it up in order to become like every other strife plagued, priest and mullah infested country in the world?"
Well isn't 217 years a bit too late? Even assuming we can't cohabit peacefully (a huge assumption; a few extremists aside), how does this matter now? If differing population rates means that serious racial conflict will happen, what are we supposed to do? Reducing immigration will only put off the inevitable, what is your solution?
Posted by Deuc, Tuesday, 12 July 2005 10:17:14 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
“[B]ut even the most tolerant group will very quickly become intolerant when confronted by an out group which they perceive is hostile.”, Redneck?

I perceive you as hostile – that’s not a prejudgment – I’ve read all your posts - it’s a judgment
Posted by hutlen, Wednesday, 13 July 2005 1:44:47 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
>>There was never a history of segregation, Brazuka, because before the advent of large scale immigration of unassimilatable immigrant groups, Australia was essentially monocultural, and was an Island of peace in a world of violence.<<

Monocultural? Yep, you definitely need to read Windschuttle's "White Australia Policy", which should (hopefully) serve to educate you about the reality of Australia's history. (You'll certainly be surprised about Darwin!)

>>Monocultural societies usually have strong social cohesion and low crime rates.Multicultural societies are usually the exact opposite.<<

So you mustn't think much of crime-ridden Singapore then.

<<The inference in your post, was that I should go to Alabama where people ”think like me.” Since you had already prejudged “racists” as uneducated cretins, the implication was clear to me.>>

You're confusing me with someone else. I never "prejudiced" so-called "racists" as uneducated cretins. I haven't got a problem with so-called "racists" (or uneducated cretins). It's just that I assumed you'd be happier surrounded by more like-minded people, where your views wouldn't appear so aberrant and foreign ("redneck" is a term used to describe people from a certain part of the US and is not native to Australia, no?).

>>...if you are trying to claim that New Zealand is a shining example of non racism, you just shot yourself in the foot again.<<

I wasn't trying to claim that New Zealand was a "shining example of non racism". I was merely trying to get your explanation for why we had the direct opposite of apartheid throughout New Zealand's history, with both Maori and Pakeha openly advocating for assimilation until the 1960s? Shouldn't this have been impossible given your assumptions?

>>Finally...inter racial marriage. I can only assume that Maori girls are very much like Aboriginal girls. Like Cathy Freeman’s mother and Cathy Freeman herself, they prefer to marry white men.<<

Marriage has always gone both ways in New Zealand, not just between Pakeha men and Maori women.
Posted by Brazuca, Wednesday, 13 July 2005 10:08:06 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
Multiculturalism alienates and racism is natural. Do you hear yourselves? These moral universes alone should tell you why the social cohesion you doubt is perpetually under threat. It is under threat because YOU threaten it.

These views lie in distinct contrast with Australia's civic instutitions and the social policies that have brought recent migrants here. If we can even use the term 'white' (what is white culture??), there is a very fundamental disjuncture here between what is official, and the value systems of what is held by numerous people, including the 'intelligent' people on this forum.

To address this ongoing moronic argument about racism (redneck), of course generalisations are natural, it is perhaps the most necessary aspect of making sense of this world - we learn to understand how to behave by imposing patterns upon it. Of course familial commitment, prejudice against 'out groups', etc, naturally occur. It is to some extent part of ongoing power struggles that human societies engage with, although this is a very Focauldian argument. Too many 'white' people here have conflated racism and prejudice. 'I don't understand you, therefore I hate you' or 'I want you to go away' - if this is an insight into what many 'white' people in Australia believe, then ethnic and migrant Australians have real reasons to be afraid.

For me, it is fairly self-evident that this is a little planet with a lot of people, and human intelligence provides us constant opportunities to intervene against various expressions of ethnic hatred. I think many people here have some self-analysis to do. If you want to hold yourself out as the inheritors of a great people/nation, then you should recommit to the democratic principles it fundamntally enshrines.
Posted by Katsuhiro, Wednesday, 13 July 2005 10:24:26 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
Well said Katsuhiro!

One of the biggest impediments in this forum appears to be those who think racism is not a complex theoretical issue. Instead it’s been put across as 'common sense' 'inevitable' and 'natural' phenomena. Hitler rationalized the genocide of Jews with similar claims.
The Americans dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the same sentiments.

If I did not know that its a much more complex and often puzzling social and cultural phenomena I would not leave my house everyday because I too would believe that all white people hate black people. From my many years of experiencing racism I've found this not to be the case. And yet what I read here from white Australians are justifications for holding on to racist ideals by white people.

One of Chek’s closing statements was “Deep down in our national psyche, we are still the superior white, and they, the Asiatics, are still inferior and to be exploited.”
• Many have given ample proof here that this assertion is correct.
• Many are willing to explore in depth why this statement is correct but not problematic.
• Many have identified that this statement is correct and that it is problematic for us all.

I happily belong to the last group, not because I like problems, but because I’ve spent my whole life looking for solutions and because my daily survival depends on me knowing these issues really well.

It’s apparent to me that those who have attacked Chek’s supporters here have never looked for solutions or thought that this was in fact problematic. Australia is in the Asian pacific like it or not.

If there is inevitability facing us all it is this-

We must begin to throw away those Eurocentric and ethnocentric beliefs about cultural and racial difference being impediments to social cohesion
Posted by Rainier, Wednesday, 13 July 2005 11:16:12 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
Rainier, I find it sadly amusing that hostiles like davo and red neck would never have known what shade of skin or racial background you have had you not 'outed' yourself. I guess if you had remained 'racially anonymous' they would have cursed you for being a bleeding heart, latte sipper - which is what I usually collect for desiring an inclusive cooperative society.

I enjoy your posts to this forum which are frequently witty and accurate.

Chek - don't let the vitriol get you down - you have as much right to a POV as anyone else here - and it is good to hear from a variety of people expressing a diverse range of opinions.

While I vehemently disagree with the likes of Davo et al, I am more disturbed by their outright hostility than their POV's. Their POV's indicate their ignorance and narrow mindedness, but I don't understand the hostility and taunts eg 'I love being white' what are comments like that proving? That the poster is at a higher risk of skin cancer?

I have known good and bad amongst a huge range of people - skin colour has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of a human being.
Posted by Trinity, Wednesday, 13 July 2005 11:39:31 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
Er, can I remind everyone that this is Australia we're living in and not Alabama. Redneck represents and outstanding aberration. As Windschuttle has observed himself, the problem Australians have is not so much with multiculturalism per se but "hard" multiculturalism (the balkanising type the ABC and SBS types propound) as opposed to "soft" multiculturalism (the slowly-but-surely-assimilating type everyone's comfortable with). Problems arise when those against "hard" multiculturalism are automatically put into the "racist" box, when such a designation is silly in an Australian context, where egalitarianism and a fair-go mentality are celebrated as national charachteristics and so make it impossible for the nation to be racially discriminatory. And, of course, as said before, Redneck is an outstanding aberration. He, after all, names himself after a far-off people who have historically demonstrated their antipathy towards cherished Australian beliefs like egalitarianism and a fair go.
Posted by Brazuca, Wednesday, 13 July 2005 12:14:54 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
Katsuhiro and Rainer, point taken.

If racism is a complex and theoretical issue, perhaps we should all take the time, here, to go back to the beginning by establishing consensus as to a proper and clear definition of racism since this is now the dominant theme of discussion – and not Asians or Corby. I have seen several definitions in here and elsewhere - I expect you and other posters have too. If we start from this reference perhaps we will move off the roundabout.

My apologies to all if I too have fallen victim to divisiveness.
Posted by hutlen, Wednesday, 13 July 2005 5:28:10 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
Welcome Anomie, could I congratulate you on your exemplary and well reasoned reply?

I am not advocating that instinctive behaviour is so natural that it should always be our guide. But to understand human behaviour, it must be appreciated that human behaviour is largely directed by powerful emotional needs and drives. These emotional needs can be greatly moderated by cultural conditioning and legal sanction, but they can not be eradicated because they are what make us all human.

Could I suggest that my most vehement opponents take the opposite view? They seem to think that “educated” human beings (as opposed to uneducated, ignorant rednecks) are entirely rational beings who can simply dispense with 3 million years of evolutionary programming by thinking entirely “rationally’. If that was possible, then no “educated” human being would smoke, get fat, fall victim to unwanted pregnancies, vote for the Democrats, engage in risky sports like skydiving for their kicks, be infected with AIDS, pray to any God, listen to music, or appreciate female beauty. But even “educated” people are human; they are not Star Trek Vulcans.

Human beings not only need a personal identity; they also crave a group identity. So human beings form mutually supporting groups, and they tend to be a bit nasty towards any rival group, especially one that they regard as menacing their group. Racism can be seen as normal hostility towards a perceived threat from a menacing rival group. Not only can such feelings never be eradicated by any means, they are perfectly common, understandable and justifiable, if the perceived threat is very real
Posted by redneck, Wednesday, 13 July 2005 6:47:58 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
I am not too impressed with you last effort, Deuc. May I offer you advice upon your writing style?

With only 350 words allowed per post, it is unprofitable to respond directly to quotes from your opponent’s submission. Firstly, you must briefly repeat what your opponent has said that you take exception to, and then just as briefly give a reasoned response. But there is always just too much to respond to. So you are left with simply writing sneery one liners to some of your opponents quotes. That is not really debating, and if I was not aware of what you are trying to do, I could reasonably accuse you of stifling debate.

The rest of your post was not well written. Half of it simply repeated that racism is just awful. I already know that you think that racism is just awful. The rest was composed of a series of statements which were so disconnected in their train of thought, that I could not discern a logical argument that I could attack. Sure, I could attack the single statements themselves, but my own response to your post would come out just as incomprehensible to our audience as yours was. What I, and others, require from you, is a logical argument which others can follow and which can display cause and effect, or cause to consequence.

My advice is to either attack your opponent’s argument as a whole, or if that is too difficult, give a brief response to each of your opponent’s paragraphs without directly quoting from them.

OK, I have now wasted one of my posts for this 24 hour period by giving you this friendly advice, and I hope you understand that I am advising you in good faith. But I am sorry, I can not respond to any more of your posts unless you do a much better job of communicating your thoughts. This subject is just too important to me to waste my time going through your posts, sentence by sentence, trying to figure out what point you are trying to express.
Posted by redneck, Wednesday, 13 July 2005 6:51:32 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
"So human beings form mutually supporting groups, and they tend to be a bit nasty towards any rival group, especially one that they regard as menacing their group."

Yes racism is a complex idea, and redneck makes it as simplistic as this most recent quote. What he ignores are the systems of power vested in the concept of 'race'.

Terms such as 'gook', 'abo' and 'nigger' are not the side products of some natural competition over resources. They are cultural tools for the dehumanisation of people from given ethnic groups. They symbolically turn people and cultures into dead bodies and faceless threats. Is it ironic that there is no such term which allows someone from a minority group to similarly take away the dignity of those who self-identify as 'white'? I've heard 'white c*nt', 'skip' and 'cracker' on a handful of occasions but this does not even chart in the same range of symbolic violence. The closest would be sexist terms such as 'c*nt' or 'bitch'.

The idea of a discreet set of 'races' has an etymology that can be found in European colonialism. And I say this historically. Look at when 'race' first came into use and you will find European science, e.g. the fields of phrenology and social Darwinism, as applied to 'lesser races'. For an Australian cultural history perspective, I'd invite you to read Richard White's Inventing Australia - one of those 'unobjective' academic historians that Windshcuttle liberally misquotes.

As I see it, the concept of 'race' is basically the means by which naturally occuring difference has been scientifically corrupted. All 'racism' is thus prejudice stemming from embedded cultural presumptions created by colonial domination. So, by constructing 'racism' as a wider category of 'prejudice', redneck allows this more insidious form of hate to sneak in through the back door.
Posted by Katsuhiro, Wednesday, 13 July 2005 8:05:29 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
Good idea, Hutlen. It seems to me that some of the more extreme correspondents here confuse the more or less universal tendency among humans towards ethnocentrism, with the antagonistic ideologies that constitute racism.

Ethnocentrism is the tendency for people to view the world (including other people) through the lens of their culture, to the extent that their cultural perspective is, to them, the commonsense and natural way to look at the world. Our eponymous redneck is quite correct to assert that this tendency of human groups to categorise people as being 'Us' or 'Other' has been with us throughout the totality of human evolution.

Where s/he errs is in equating ethnocentrism with racism. Racism occurs when cultural ideologies about 'Other' peoples and their cultures arrange them in hierarchical categories, invariably with the subject's group at the top. Racist ideologies attribute innate and usually negative attributes to people from other 'races' - however these are defined. Most anthropologists now agree that there is far more genetic variation within than between so-called 'races', but that doesn't prevent racists from acting as if 'races' in humans have some kind of biological/scientific validity. 'Races' are cultural categories.

So - it is perhaps ethnocentric to mistrust the justice system in Indonesia, while it is racist to do so because Asians are innately corrupt and their system is primitive compared to ours.
Posted by garra, Wednesday, 13 July 2005 8:12:02 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
Just for you redneck, I haven't included a single quote in this post, but I will restate some things so that you know what I'm talking about. Because that's the point of quoting you see? To provide a point of reference so that others understand the context. It is especially useful when not covering all issues or when targeting specific parts of arguments, as I tend to do. Rest assured, my posts contain as much detail as I deem necessary, and you might notice that the number of sentences used depends on the significance of the issue. Some issues require multiple paragraphs, examples & analogies, some can be dispatched with a single sentence and sometimes I may make an obscure or tangential point.

My last post was admittedly full of disconnected statements, as I had no desire to take over other's arguments and wanted only to rebut your more general statements and to raise new issues while waiting for your response to my previous post. But now it seems you can't respond, apparently because you can't see the structure in my post. If anyone else is having problems I would like to know. Let's see if we can sort out your comprehension difficulties:

You made three points:
-Racism is a product of group loyalty, and if I think racism is wrong I cannot then prefer any group ever.
-Racism has positive uses.
-Groups need loyalty.

My post started with demonstrating the fallacy of the first point and then considering whether an alternative argument could be made that shows the consequent. What you somehow misunderstood as me repeatedly denouncing racism was actually me giving reasons why racism is different from normal group loyalty, thereby making any alternative argument impossible.

Afterwards I gave reasons why I disagreed with your major premise, ie. racism==loyalty, and then I made a crack about Mother Teresa. Next I disputed your example used to support Point #2. And finally, having no problem with the substance of #3, I demonstrated why I find it inapplicable even if you are correct. Hope this helps.
Posted by Deuc, Wednesday, 13 July 2005 10:04:39 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
Anybody have any idea how we can explain New Zealand's history given the controversy raging over this subject?
Posted by Brazuca, Thursday, 14 July 2005 12:29:45 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
garra, another great post.

Reading through most of the recent posts I'm somewhat astounded at how polite most are from all sides of the discussion, especially considering how divisive and sensitive an issue this is. I've certainly seen a lot of other threads which get and stay much nastier. Makes for much more educational reading all round for me.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 14 July 2005 6:48:57 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
George Orwell coined the word “doublethink” to describe the inability of young Idealists like Katsuhiro from comprehending the contradictions in their own ideology.

Now Katsuhiro does not like racism. But he has just made a serious racist accusation himself. Unable to claim that white people burned down the Reichstag, because Adolph Hitler has already claimed that honour for the Jews, Katsuhiro has gone one better. He claims that racism was invented by white people during the period of European colonial expansion.

I would advise you Katsuhiro, to re think and change your tactics. Because even some of your quicker minded supporters are probably looking askance at you for that one. Some of them must have the wit to comprehend that an unsubstantiated allegation, based upon either wishful thinking or sheer fabrication, that inferred negative attributes upon a clearly identifiable racial group, is clearly an act of outright racism.

Katsuhiro compounded his mistake by claiming that only white people think up hurtful racist names, while the rest of humanity are just too polite to stoop to the low level of white people. Well, if you think that, Katsuhiro, you are not thinking very hard.

Try “redneck”, “gringo”,” honkey”, plus the Chinese “guizi”, and of course, Katsuhiro-san, you would be very familiar with the Japanese, “gaijin.” Of course, Muslims are more polite, they do not invent differing racist names, they simply refer to lesser breeds as all “Infidels”. If Muslims need to differentiate, they call others, “The cow worshippers” (Hindu’s), “The dog eaters” (Asians), and “the pig eaters”. (Anyone not a Hindu or an Asian.)

But in the intellectually challenged minds of moral posturing, white hating racists like Katsuhiro, the only racists in this world are, of course, those utterly detestable white people.
Posted by redneck, Thursday, 14 July 2005 7:22:40 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
It is very interesting Katsuhiro that you of Japanese origin are lecturing Anglos on racism when the Japanese culture see their racial integrety as paramount and frown upon inter-racial marriage.

How many different cultures has Japan invited into their country?We a nation of Anglos have invited hundreds of nationalities to join us and you have the audacity to lecture us on racism?

What is your agenda Katsuhiro and Rainer?No your won't beat us into submission with your racist stick.People will come to our country on our terms and we will not buckle to self interest groups with their pet agendas.Japan still refuses to offically acknowledge or apologise for it's wartime atrocities offically or in it's history books.Your country still lives in denial.

The Anglos have been very tolerant and accepting of other cultures,yet you single out Anglos as the sole perpetrators?
Posted by Arjay, Thursday, 14 July 2005 7:25:29 PM
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
Katsuhiro and Garra, two great posts.

Yes Robert this page is looking a bit more tidy - am wondering just how far it is to the bottom.
Posted by hutlen, Thursday, 14 July 2005 9:17:09 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
Great points made by redneck and arjay. I am starting to get suspicious about Katsuhiro's motivations, and I suspect that he is much like Chek. He points out other people's faults in an attempt to make himself look good (I assume your a man). Dig a little deeper, as Redneck and Arjay have done, and you will find an inadvertant, racist soul. Redneck is a racist term.

Rainier is much the same. Imagine if we asked him(her) to brush off his aboriginality?
Posted by davo, Thursday, 14 July 2005 10:11:28 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
Davo, I've been asked to brush off my Aboriginality - to assimilate - all my life. Government policy tried to force it on me through removal from my family, schools and teachers tried, they got no-where [I’m proud to say]. So your question is a bit redundant to this discussion.

Arjay, in other posts you've been quite supportive and knowledgeable of Aboriginal people and history (from my perspective) so I'm surprised that you should take on this Anglos have nothing to answer approach. Perhaps you're just shadowing redneck, who knows. I don’t think you really mean everything you say here.

To you both, I don't think all white people are racist (how ridiculous that would be) I do however believe that whiteness is a dominant discourse and pervasive ideology in how Australia and Australians define themselves and Others. (As Chek has identified)

I have to think about my ethnicity and how other people receive me. I spend my life second guessing what they might think about me. I walk into a shop, catch a cab, pay my bills with this in mind. In my professional life its no different, only more formal. Most white Australians do not know Aboriginal people at all - but they do know the stereotypes, myths, that they learn from friends, family or the media. This fear of the Other is something I witness all the time.

So if you’re following my train of thought here, consider this question.

What does it mean to be white?

I’ve read your reference to this many times - but no real explanation about what it really means? You’ve defended it heaps of time, but not really got down to explaining what white means? (besides never having to explain it)

That you may find this difficult to answer should be profound to you but apparently not. Is this because you've lived a life where this question was never at the forefront of your mind every day and regulated and controlled your every thought and social interaction?

If so, this means something!

*
Hi :) Trinity! (love your posts too)
Posted by Rainier, Thursday, 14 July 2005 11:29:41 PM
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
Yes, good post Garra.

You correctly maintain that ethnocentrism is a cultural universal but you have not actually admitted that racism is to,

Ethnocentrism is most commonly exhibited by insular cultures who arrogantly maintain that their culture is superior to all others, but who rarely engage in the tiresome task of actually making an objective comparison between the merits of their particular social values, and others. The prime example being the Muslim culture which stagnated, because it took the view that no Infidel culture could match the excellence of it's own. It was so insular, it refused to even allow Muslim ambassadors to reside in Infidel countries until well into the 19th century. It was with great surprise that Muslims discovered that their civilisation had been well and truly eclipsed.

The tradition of European tolerance almost certainly had it's beginnings in European colonialisation. Europeans were the first people to really come into close contact with multiple cultures and these make vital comparisons. They were no less ethnocentric than the Muslims, but they began to understand that there was much to be admired in other people's cultural values. The discovery that other people did things much better than they, caused a renaisance in European thinking which prompted thought on beneficial social change in their own societies.

The fact that white Europeans are probably the most tolerant people on this planet can be sen by the direction of current immigration. It is almost entirely from unsuccessful cultures towards the countries of the White Protestant Europeans. That the successful European societies have absorbed so many people from so many other cultures so quickly, without (until now) bloodshed, is a credit to their now traditional values of tolerance.

But tolerance, like charity, has it's limits. No people on this planet has ever rejoiced in becoming a minority in their own country. Immigration levels have now reached the limits of tolerance and this will result in increased levels of racism.
Posted by redneck, Friday, 15 July 2005 5:15:27 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
Fortunately for those that have criticised me, I am not in the habit of inferring new positions from the things they have actually said. I refute the accusation of racism. Positioning me as a racist is just a convenient means of not engaging with my argument. And I would invite Arjay in particular to present a counter perspective on the statements I have made.

If you read my last thread you will understand that my definition of racism is different from the one redneck espouses. In particular, I am relying on the etymology of the word 'race' which is a product of European science, and again I would invite the people on this list to investigate where this term begins. I think garra has made the distinction between 'racism' and 'ethnocentricism' very clear, and I agree entirely with this.

However, my definition does not suddenly infer that only 'white' people can be racist. Neither does this mean that I equate Australian society with colonial power or see those who identify as 'white' Australians as responsible for it. What I am trying to describe are systems of power that have brought us to where we are. 'Racism' has a material history and should be considered if we are to attempt to define it. Taking it out of this context is a discursive strategy in itself
Posted by Katsuhiro, Friday, 15 July 2005 10:01:10 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
I would also again like to draw your attention to the symbolic violence embedded in words such as 'nigger', 'abo' or 'gook'. These are significantly different from terms such as 'gaijin' or 'guilo' in that there are different systems of power attached to their use. Words such as 'nigger' (which I have heard used against Indigenous people interestingly) hold certain groups from non-white backgrounds as 'abject' - a term coined by Julia Kristeva - e.g. like human waste. I think photographs of white Southerners pointing at lynched teenage boys, or junkies living in squats in downtown Detroit. These terms are tools for taking away the very integrity of a person, and it is so effective because it communicates a historical context. This is not to say that other cultures cannot or do not perform this sort of symbolic violence but when they do so it is less effective, as the production of these terms are related to overt systems of economic, political and cultural exploitation.

The problem with red neck's history of European colonialism is that you have to ignore 99% of the credible scholarship on the subject to arrive at it. Reading Samuel Huntington, Keith Windschuttle or Andrew Bolt religiously does not mean that their perspectives suddenly becomes encircled by the light of God. I, of course generalise about colonialism here, but there are enough dialogic circumstances for me to not embark upon a historical tirade. One point which may add fuel to the fire is to consider that Britain's great social theorists such as Locke, Stuart Mill and Hobsbawm wrote at the height of British imperialism. Is it not ironic that the principles of universal franchise were devised when scientific racism and ideas such as 'the great chain of being' were so popularly accepted?
Posted by Katsuhiro, Friday, 15 July 2005 10:01:39 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
Rainier's question does bring up some interesting points.What does it mean to be white? I'd say to be white is defined by genetics firstly, and cultural factors secondly. I'd say cultural factors secondly because some people are asian through genetics but western through culture. To be white, asian or african is defined by genetics. A white person is someone whose ancestors hail from Europe.

The South Africans have that question sorted out. Whites, coloureds (mixed race) and blacks. I would'nt call white South Africans 'africans', the same as I would'nt call a black londoner 'anglo'. I'd just call white South Africans, whites or Boers.

What does it mean to be Aboriginal? I've come across two significant 'aboriginals' in my life. I didn't even know they were Aboriginals! One could'nt care less about his aboriginality, the other was very sensitive about his aboriginality (because with blonde hair and blue eyes, no-one believed him). These two would be 'coloureds'. Or anglo-aboriginal (aboriginal-caucasian, whatever).

I think I have simplistically defined what it means to be white here. Rainier you sound well educated, so obviously you are enjoying the benefits provided from the same society you hold with contempt.
Posted by davo, Friday, 15 July 2005 10:59:27 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
New Zealand, anybody ...?
Posted by Brazuca, Friday, 15 July 2005 2:02:46 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
Davo, I'm no more educated than most and as for reaping the benefits, well I wish!

While I appreciate your response, can you go a little further than genetics? My grandfather was a white man, Irish at that, but I cannot lay claim to being an Irishman although I have every right to this heritage. But to many I don't. I have dark skin, hair and eyes. So it’s more than just genetics.

You say its culture, then what is different about your culture and they way you understand being white that is different from me understanding what it means to be black?. When I was born I did not know that I was black and nor did you know you were white.

What are those priviliges in our society and thus in your own culture that tell you that you are white? I believe that that whites are racialised in such a way that they are the 'invisible' (to yourselves). You don't see whiteness as an ethnicity the same way that you see blackness or Asianess.

John Howard said as much today in repudiating Cornellia Rau's call for the Minister of Immigration to come from a multicultural background.

He said" "The idea of appointing somebody with a particular ethnic background is absurd."

Apparently Amanda Vanstone has absolutely no ethnicity at all?

Whites are accustomed to thinking about the problem of racism as a problem effecting Others and not as something which is tied to their own definitions of 'invisible' whiteness. (ie, you consider yourselves to be just normal).

How is it that those who only represent 20 % of the world’s population think they do not have an ethnicity that is culturally and racially explainable at a deeper level than just calling yourselves Australians, Anglos, or Europeans? Go figure...
Posted by Rainier, Friday, 15 July 2005 3:27:30 PM
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
davo

At no point in any of her/his posts has Rainier indicate any contempt whatsoever towards our predominately anglo/celtic culture. If I am wrong please show me where.

As for explaining what it is like being white, well apart from suffering severe suburn, the only time I was aware of being white was during my travels when I was the only pale skinned person. In places like Tonga (where i attended an all black disco - really took me out of my cosy little mind set), in New Zealand and more recently at a dinner party I attended in New Orleans - only whitey present.

On those occasions I felt very conspicuous indeed - no doubt thats how most people of darker hue than me feel ALL the time in our very white world.

Fortunately, not all whites are as extreme and racist as you. You are in the minority - bleat all you like.
Posted by Trinity, Friday, 15 July 2005 3:34:44 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
Thanks for the positive feedback, especially from R0bert, hutlen and Katsuhiro. Some of the other latest posts in this thread, however, sadly demonstrate another aspect of racism - that it is grounded in ignorance.

For example, our eponymous redneck gets it badly wrong when s/he confuses the Muslim religion with culture. Islam manifests itself quite differently when it is practised in different cultures - for example, in the Indo-Malaysian archipelago where it has existed since being introduced by Arab traders from the 16th century on, it is quite a different version than that practised in, say, Egypt, Bosnia, Leeds or Melbourne. Islam is no more of a distinct culture than is Christianity.

Katsuhiro is quite correct to point to the etymological and philosophical roots of what we refer to as racism in Western science, which set out to categorise cultural groups hierarchically according to superficial phenotypical differences. This was taken up enthusiastically by the Social Darwinists and eugenicists of the 19th and 20th centuries, and most extremely exemplified by the Nazis.

Despite the fact that any biological basis for human 'races' has been well and truly ditched by the science that invented them (anthropology), racist ideologies live on, and find expression in ignorant statements such as those posted to these forums by davo, the eponymous redneck and of course our rampant Crusaders.
Posted by garra, Friday, 15 July 2005 4:14:06 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
You might “refute the accusation of racism” all you want, Katsuhiro-san, but all you are doing is destroying what remains of your own credibility. Because, it is obvious to any impartial observer, that you harbour racist sentiments yourself.

You are now conceding that white people are not the only racists in the world. Well, whadya know? We are making progress. But then you go and contradict yourself again by claiming that the Japanese racist term “gaijin” does not have the “power” of English racist terms. I can’t speak for everybody else, Katsuhiro-san, but that sounds like complete and utter bursheedo to me. As for the pictures of white Southerners pointing at lynched teenaged boys, I have plenty of pictures of the Japanese Imperial Army in WW2 doing a lot worse to Chinese people in Nanking, and that sure looks like racism to me. Hey, who’s calling the kettle black here?

After Saudi Arabia, Japan would arguably be the most racist country on Earth, and I doubt whether this attitude needed to be taught to the Japs by the Europeans. If you are claiming that Japan was never racist before the advent of European colonialism, I think that the average Chinese or Korean would laugh uproariously at that. It is presumptuous and insulting for a person who comes from such a racist country like Japan, to lecture Australians on our presumed unacceptable racism. Even though our misplaced tolerance has meant that one half of the people living in Australia are foreign born or first generation, to people like you and Chek, unless we immediately accept every person who plants his big toe on Australian soil as our blood brothers, we are still too racist for you.

You should be grateful that you did not delve further into the supposed evils of Colonialism Katsuhiro-san, because if you had, I would have done you like a dinner. Hey, Katsahiro-san, “What have the Romans ever done for us?”
Posted by redneck, Friday, 15 July 2005 7:32:29 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
Fancy that -- you're well versed on the Saudis and the Japs but know nothing about the Kiwis next door!

Bummer, I'm a first-generation Australian, reddy, so I suppose I don't rate well in your books. But I reckon I'm already more Aussie than you! I reckon you're far more Alabaman than you are Aussie -- you've abdicated your Australianess. If you were merely expressing dissatisfaction with "hard" multiculturalism, you'd still be well within the confines of Australian attitudes, charachter and values. But you sound positively foreign -- far more Alabaman than Aussie. You're a foreigner who just happens to have born and raised here.

You seem to have a warped view of Australian people and Australian history. Have you yet read Windschuttle's "The White Australia Policy" yet? That book would certainly serve to educate you on Australian history and thus the true character, personality and values of the Australian people. You seem to have been infected with the same foreign and misplaced view of Australians as poor Chek and Katsuhiro-san.
Posted by Brazuca, Saturday, 16 July 2005 12:11:18 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
Aw shucks, Garra, there you go calling all us rednecks “ignorant” again. Well, don’t forget, mate, you can prejudge, stereotype and engage in bigotry towards rednecks all you like, but you can’t then claim that redneck’s can not do exactly the same thing to the people that we don’t like. Rednecks can spot hypocrisy a mile off. We love the way that people like you to peer down your nose at us and say, “Listen up, you uneducated, ignorant, trailer trash swill. You must not look down upon other people, got that!”

Now, let’s see. Your next preposterous assumption is, you claim that Western science created racism because it was the first to objectively examine the possibility of different races having different and hierarchical characteristics. Are you for real?

Throughout the ages, fundamentalists have accused men of science of heresy, for daring to suggest explanations for natural phenomena outside of the dogma of prevailing orthodoxies. Your denunciation of “Western” scientists as “racists” for conducting research into the significance of race upon personality, speaks more about the limits of your own blinkered mindset than it does about the scientists.
Posted by redneck, Saturday, 16 July 2005 3:08:47 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
Redneck, I'm still waiting for your reply....I'm starting to think you don't like me?..for what reason I can't imagine?.

C'mon, drop me a line; I'll refer to you some wider reading about the advent of science and western thought. Edward Said, (Orientalism) would be a good start as well as David Theo Goldberg (he's a Jewish scholar) are two world recognized thinkers in this area of discussion. You must be getting bored with reading that stuff Storm Front and Eric Butler send out to you.

Hey don't get me wrong, I not saying you’re not educated or trailer park trash, but if you want to engage more lucidly in this discussion and with people who read and study in race and race relations you've got do some homework old son. I left school when I was 13, what’s your excuse?

Have you read Mien Kapf, I have!

C'mon broaden your horizons and live a bit!
Posted by Rainier, Saturday, 16 July 2005 3:53:05 PM
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
Brazuca, I've read Windshuttle’s book, which chapter or verse would you like to discuss. (i suspect you've never ever read it)

Here is one little passage of Windshuttles' speech from his book launch.

"the anti-racists of one hundred years ago came from the despised middle classes. In fact the strongest opponents of the White Australia Policy, and the people that my book names as the heroes of the resistance movement against it, were the politicians of the Free Trade party."

Which proves you're just talking out of your arse.
Posted by Rainier, Saturday, 16 July 2005 6:04:13 PM
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
Redneck, bit of a problem with your claim ( I assume it was hyperbole, or oversight in all the excitement) that Europeans are the most tolerant people on earth. I seem to recall a little local difficulty in Germany 60 or 70 years ago. And yes, I've checked to be sure I wasn't misrepresrenting what you wrote. You'd defend your agrument far better if you didn't resport to wild, demonstrably false allegations.
Posted by anomie, Saturday, 16 July 2005 9:24:36 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
I reckon if I were an evolutionist like reddy, I may very well believe in there being inherent differences between the "races". After all, if men have evolved over aeons of time while inhabiting different environments, then they've obviously been developing by responding to differing environmental stimuli, thereby resulting in the differences between "races" that we have today. Someone as consistent in his evolutionistic presuppositions as reddy would quite naturally infer from this that the so-called "races" of man cannot be equal, cannot have developed equally and at the same pace. For how can it be any other way? How can development according to differing environmental stimili produce the same results?

But one problem I have with evolution is this:

WHAT PURPOSE OR FUNCTION DID PARTIALLY DEVELOPED SEXUAL ORGANS SERVE?

Clearly this concept cannot be true. Clearly men are not the result of some thing called evolution. Clearly reddy is wrong. Clearly there are no such thing as "races". Men are created in the image of God and are commanded to "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." They are not commanded to become Alabamans and make artificial destinctions, for there is "neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond [nor] free: but Christ [is] all, and in all."

Go to Alabama. Alabama for the Alabamans. I'm fine with that.
Posted by Brazuca, Saturday, 16 July 2005 11:21:11 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
Hi Brazuka, thank you for your patience.

I have not responded to you since my opening posts, because of the accursed 2 posts in 24 hours rule. I am here to thump some logic into some very closed minds and I carefully select from the contributors, those posts that I can get the most mileage out of. Your position so far, is that New Zealand is a shining example of multiculturalism. I submitted information that this was not so, and would have submitted more except for the accursed 350 words per post rule.

But you apparently did not accept my submission and consider that this proves your own theory right. Well, once again, I do not accept that Kiwiland is racially blind. Apartheid exists, in that there is exclusively “Maori” tribal land which the “Moari” people are seeking to extend. One workmate of mine who immigrated to Oz from Kiwiland, and who became an Australian citizen, told me that she did so because she was the “wrong colour” to be New Zealander anymore. And then, of course, there is the little matter of the total genocide of the Mori Ori people by the Maori people in the 19th century. Where these unfortunate, defenceless and inoffensive people were all hunted down, men, women and children, then killed and eaten.

Finally, I would submit that you do not even believe in Evolution. Look mate, I know that talking to religious people is like talking to a brick wall. You have your “beliefs” and no amount of reasoned argument will ever make a dent in your peculiar mindset. Now, if you want to rave on about racial equality being divinely ordained by some god, or by a son of a god, or by a brother of a god, or by a mother-in-law of a god, then please go right ahead. It will help me immensely, even though I can not be bothered responding to such nonsense.
Posted by redneck, Sunday, 17 July 2005 5:59:23 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
New Zealand a shining example of racial harmony? I can only go by heresy on this, but a maori guy I was working with briefly had a mouthful of racial abuse. It went something along the lines of "Tongans and Samoans are troublemakers: I can't stand it when they come to Australia and say they are from New Zealand". Don't get me started on the comments he made about Aboriginals, Rainier will go into denial.

Rainier talks about a professional career (in other threads), then goes onto say he left school at 13. Something does'nt add up. I reckon he is a university dux with his hair neatly parted on the side.

Anyway, Rainier should be criticising Cornelia Rau for her calls for someone to be appointed from a multicultural background, not John Howard. She made the assumption that a white woman from an english speaking background is not an 'ethnicity'. And as for Trinity, if on your travels you come across a monocultural setting in Tonga, New Orleans or even Tokyo, according to your logic, these people are racist. Too 'cosily' black or oriental. But hang on, only white people in a monocultural setting are racist, is that right?
Posted by davo, Sunday, 17 July 2005 10:10:16 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
Trinity, you said something before about how hostile some of the people on this thread were. I would prefer to think it is 'combative', in that it is clear some people have divulged information and perspectives with good will, only to be ripped down by others.

There has been of course some great posts, and I greatly appreciate the sensitivity, humour and intelligence of many of the respondents here, especially Rainer's most recent posts which made me laugh. However I feel like we may become trapped in a merry go-round of personal attacks, and this is ultimately neither productive nor meaningful.

As an example, I originally started with the statement: "[Chek] would tell you his home is here in Australia, as would his passport. Many of the respondents in talking about Malaysia clearly don't understand this, and I think this does represent a very clear form of racism, a racism that maintains the citizenship and thus the civic and political participation of ethnic Australians as partial."

In the last few days my ethnicity, even as a second generation Japanese Australian, has been attacked to discredit my perspective, much like Rainer's Aboriginality/Indigeneity, and Trinity's gender. This itself is a discursive strategy enabled by racism. I have as much to do with the Massaacre of Nanking (which I agree was terrible and genocidal) as Davo has to bad teeth and poor sporting ability (if we generalise 'Aussie' as 'white', 'white' as British and Davo as in fact of British heritage). To borrow a colloquial, it is a 'num nut' of an argument.
Posted by Katsuhiro, Sunday, 17 July 2005 1:44:38 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
I'm not playing the same sort of 'game'. Redneck, I have never attacked you according to your cultural background, only your perspectives and the way you have articulated them. I have no idea what your background is and I refuse to look down my nose at you whatever and whomever you may be, because I refuse to trivialise you as a person or even as part of a group. This is perhaps our most fundamental difference, not anything as arbitrary as 'race' or 'ethnicity'. If you state that this prejudice is a marker of ‘western’ or ‘Australian’ civilisation then we are in trouble, because it means there is no way through to a compromise.

The thing is that this openness is something I have learned as an Australian (being born here) and from the contact between different cultures and people in this place. It is something for all of us to share, if we are open to its possibilities.

Rather than the term 'multiculturalism' which refers to a particular policy, I will use 'multicultural' which describes the self-evident diversity in the locations that we live. Australia has always been a 'multicultural' society, even before the flag was planted in 1770. It is also clear that this has always been Indigenous country, and it would remain Indigenous country even if Cook or Phillip had followed British colonial law and made the goddamn treaties.

It is a marker of privilege that certain perspectives can continue to deny this. It allows for the integrity of positions such as mine to be constantly under question. I think, however, many will see that a meaningful future here belongs to those who are willing to open themselves to want to learn from one another – and not to those who simply want to discipline others into sharing their own prejudices.

That’s it from me folks, thanks for all the fish.
Posted by Katsuhiro, Sunday, 17 July 2005 1:48:07 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
No, reddy, I asked you how you explain the fact that New Zealand has had the exact opposite of apartheid regarding Maori and Pakeha throughout its history. Given your assumptions, how do you explain this fact? Kinda stuffs you up, eh?

As to evolution, I asked you another simple question, one not requiring anything more than a one or a few sentences, which I shall repeat again:

WHAT PURPOSE OR FUNCTION DID PARTIALLY DEVELOPED SEXUAL ORGANS SERVE?

As to dealing with religious people, well, everybody's religious -- yep, even you. It's never a question of whether one's religious or not but rather of how self-consciously religious one is. Evolution is a religion -- albeit a whacky one -- just like any other. Everyone has a basic framework of assumptions concerning metaphysics, epistemology and ethics that he holds on faith. Everyone. Everybody's religious.

So, I don't know what it is with you Alabamans and answering questions ... but here's to hopin'.
Posted by Brazuca, Sunday, 17 July 2005 2:56:25 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
I was aware of Germany, Anomie. But I think you can appreciate that with only 350 words, we all have to make some generalisations which are essentially correct, but may have exceptions.

In the past fifty years, European countries have been swamped by a tidal wave of immigrants, some of whom actively hate the people of the country to whom they aspire to be citizens. That this has been achieved with so little bloodshed so far, is a credit to the ideals of tolerance which has been conditioned into the minds of European people. And, as I said to Katsuhiro, this outcome was almost certainly a product of European colonialism, where colonial powers in particular eventually came to the realisation that native people’s were not to be despised, and that some of their cultural values had much to recommend them.

But Germany came very late to the colonial era because it was not even a recognisable single entity before 1866. As a state which was composed of dozens of tiny Teutonic principalities, it went a bit overboard in defining what it was to be “German”, and it had little tolerance for any other culture except it’s own.

It is a bit difficult trying to explain the very extreme anti Semitism of the Germans towards the Jews in 350 words. But very briefly, when things are good, everybody might get on OK. But when things are bad, people do not think of other people outside of their own group as anything but rivals for scarce resources. And things in Germany got very bad.

The Jews made the mistake of maintaining a separate cultural identity, with it’s own dietary requirements, language, alphabet, and in some cases even dress. Because the Jews greatly value education, they are usually very successful people with their own financial networks. They were therefore seen to be not suffering anywhere near as much as the German people and as such were resented as non Germans. They were therefore regarded as a hostile state within a state, who’s only concern was with the welfare of their own people.
Posted by redneck, Sunday, 17 July 2005 3:46:21 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
Don't you think that is just a tad bit off topic Brazuca? And since you clearly don't understand how evolution works, is there much sense in trying to use it as an argument against the existence of races as biologically significant & distinct groups, especially when science already shows this?

"WHAT PURPOSE OR FUNCTION DID PARTIALLY DEVELOPED SEXUAL ORGANS SERVE?"
As with everything else, to facilitate reproduction; but unlike other features it would have done so in a direct manner.
Posted by Deuc, Sunday, 17 July 2005 5:16:19 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
Davo wrote about me,"I reckon he is a university dux with his hair neatly parted on the side"
LOL! You crack me up. You’d be surprised how similar we would be if we met.
Hello Redneck! I love your posts. You'd make an interesting case study.
Posted by Rainier, Sunday, 17 July 2005 5:48:47 PM
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
Davo, it's called mature entry. I left school at 15, and ended up realising I'd made a mistake. Higher education doesn't hurt (much). Give it a go. You'd be exposed to a wider range of ideas than autodidacts get - and don't take this as slagging off autodidacts - I learned more facts on my own than I ever did getting the three degrees. It's just that studying undirected, you go for the things you find sympathetic. Balance is actually quite good.
Posted by anomie, Sunday, 17 July 2005 11:47:02 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
Hullo, Rainier. Just like Brazuka, you think I have the capacity to respond to everyone. I would remind you that I am fielding a number of balls here and I can not catch them all. I prefer to respond to those people who appear to have a degree of objectivity on this subject, because I think I can reach them. Those who express passionate views, to the extent of even suggesting that I am a “coward” if I do not agree to meet them face to face, I am very unlikely to respond to.

I do not know what question you are demanding that I answer. If you are asking whether I will meet you face to face, the answer is “no.” I have no wish to meet people who are very passionate in their opinions and who may not have much emotional control over themselves. I can answer whether I have read “Mein Kamph”, the answer is “No.”

It appears as if Katsuhiro-san has left the arena, and I can not be bothered responding to Brazuka anymore because I wish to discuss this topic, not theology. The argument for Evolution was won convincingly by the scientific community more than one hundred years ago, and fencing with the Flat Earth Society is a pointless exercise. So, I have a couple of balls less to field, and this gives you an opening.

But could you direct your arguments and questions to me, not the audience? And please, do not put forward the opinion that your view on this subject is obviously right, and unless I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that your view wrong, then I am obviously wrong. I may only be a humble redneck but I am smart enough not to fall for that little todge
Posted by redneck, Monday, 18 July 2005 6:34:16 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
Roger that. So you won't talk to me no more? Gee, the only audience you ever got to spout your Alabaman ideas is dwindling. You're in your fourteenth minute of your fifteen minutes. Hope you enjoyed them.
Posted by Brazuca, Monday, 18 July 2005 7:41:02 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
REDNECK......

for the record, I am a conservative Christian, who believes in Creation. I realize now from your posts, that you are kind of on the other end of the spectrum, (just an observation).

But in your defense, TO ALL... I have to stand up for Redneck who by and large has been making simple verifiable observations about human behavior. I don't see any 'celebration' in his posts, more of a "thats how it is, lets make the best of it and move on".

Katsuhiro-san.
Quite the philosopher :)
People:==>
1274 Kublai Khan attempts to invade Japan
1854 Commodore Perry of the USA 'morally invades' Japan forcing them to open up. (trade/resources issue)
1905 Japanese oppress Koreans, take ALL their trees denuding the hills.
1937 Japanese Invade China, extends empire in Pacific.
etc etc etc

It is indefensible to suggest that different racial/ethnic groups will suddenly forget their origins, allegiances, access to resources simply because some PC yobbo in 'pretty safe and peaceful Aussie' tells them they 'should'.

All our wars to now, have been fundamentally about RESOURCES, not race. Race, is usually tied up intimately with resources, so its easy to confuse the two.

All you people crying out "Crucify Redneck, release for us Barabbas" should stop trying to complicate a pretty basic issue, understand it, and seek simply to be the best people we can be, and relate well to others of all races.

Another Axiom of human relations, is that the 'racism' (as Redneck rightly points out) will usually NOT surface until there is a SHORTAGE of resources. Then, surivival mode kicks on, and blood IS thicker than political correctness.

Still, for me, the various political/socio economic background of Jesus disciples. (Simon the INSURGENT and Matthew the TAX COLLECTOR) should say something about where we should be looking for solutions to human conflict
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 18 July 2005 10:16:01 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
Valian Years of Trees:
- 1362: Galadriel is born in Valinor
- 1500: Galadriel leaves Valinor for Middle Earth

First Age:
- 528: Elrond is born
- 590: End of the First Age

Second Age:
- @1590: The three Elven Rings are forged.
- @1600: Sauron forges the One Ring in secret.
- @3150: Elendil is born.
- 3209: Isildur is born.
- 3430: Last Alliance of Elves and Men is formed
- 3441: Sauron is defeated, but Gil-galad and Elendil perish; End of the Second Age

Third Age:
- 2: Isildur is betrayed by the One Ring and killed at Gladden Fields.
- 241: Arwen is born.
- @1000: The Istari (Gandalf and Saruman) appear in Middle Earth.
- 1981: The Dwarves abandon Moria.
- 2463: Sméagol kills Déagol and claims the One Ring, which Déagol had found.
- 2470: Sméagol hides under the Misty Mountains.
- 2879: Gimli is born.
- 2890: Bilbo is born.
- 2930: Denethor is born.
- 2931: Aragorn is born.
- 2941: Bilbo sets out with Gandalf and the Dwarves on his adventure. He finds the Ring.
- 2948: Théoden is born.
- 2968: Frodo is born.
- 2978: Boromir is born.
- 2982: Merry is born.
- 2983: Faramir is born.
- 2984: Denethor becomes Steward of Gondor.
- 2989: Balin renews the Dwarven colony in Moria.
- 2990: Pippin is born.
- 2991: Éomer is born.
- 2994: Balin is killed and the Dwarven colony in Moria is wiped out.
- 2995: Eowyn is born.
- 3019: Frodo's quest and the War of the Ring
- 3021: Bilbo, Frodo, Elrond, Galadriel and Gandalf sail into the West; End of the Third Age

Fourth Age:
- 63: Éomer dies.
- 80: Faramir dies.
- 120: Aragorn dies. Gimli and Legolas sail into the West.
Posted by garra, Monday, 18 July 2005 10:43:56 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
It is indefensible to suggest that different racial/ethnic groups will suddenly forget their origins, allegiances, access to resources simply because some PC yobbo in 'pretty safe and peaceful Aussie' tells them they 'should'.
• Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, July 18, 2005 10:16:01 AM

There's an irony in this statement by BD that is remarkable. And that is this.

This could well be a statement that could be made by a non western person about Australians, Americans etcetera in their country. (I use Australians and Americans as a synonym for 'white people' as it appears to be the accepted and recurring use in context here).

But as BD argues, this is about resources, not race. This begs the question, when is it about race and racism?

This is a question I’ve asked Christians when they speak of this “multicultural nirvana” in heaven that awaits us all [if we repent] but are complacently blind to racism right here, right now in the ‘real world’.

The other Boazian claim is this pearl.

• Another Axiom of human relations, is that the 'racism' (as Redneck rightly points out) will usually NOT surface until there is a SHORTAGE of resources. Then, surivival mode kicks on, and blood IS thicker than political correctness.

This does not explain that wanton slaughter of many natives people in colonial history in circumstances where their population did not present a danger to the invaders AND where resources had been secured. Read some Tasmanian history. So what made them kill, slaughter, murder, genocide?

The irony is that many of you, while attempting to transcend racialised explanations of difference and domination, actually descend into an economic, geographical and biological determinism that comprises the very bedrock of racism and racial thought. (through the back door) But guess what, I see you all.

And because I am not one of you, I could not possibly be right, now could I?
Posted by Rainier, Monday, 18 July 2005 1:36:02 PM
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
Wow, it looks like Rainier does not want to talk to me now, and Garra is off with the fairies.
Posted by redneck, Monday, 18 July 2005 6:43:49 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 Rainier

I always find your posts really interesting. You always provide me with other ways of thinking about issues.

Back in 1996 I was privileged to write for and teach people of Aboriginal and Islander heritage. In the end, I am certain that they taught me far more than I taught them.

And to Davo - I have taught heaps and heaps of students at universities who did not complete high school studies. That means nothing. Mature age entry learning is wonderful - you should try it! I have taught in four universities across the Eastern Coast. I enjoyed with a passion, teaching mature age learners. Mature age learners bring to tertiary education their knowledge and skills from the "university of life".

Cheers
Kay
Posted by kalweb, Monday, 18 July 2005 6:52:48 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
Redneck, I thought you were too busy juggling your balls? Watch this space. I promise I won't be too passionate. I wouldn’t dare try to scare you away from a rigorous intellectual discussion.

Here's a taste just for now.

I can't promise you that I won't question your assertion that human choices appear outside of human control and thus, your convenient avoidance of any moral and political responsibility for racialised injustices. (against all humans of whatever so called race)
Posted by Rainier, Monday, 18 July 2005 7:04:26 PM
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
redneck, if the others don't want to talk to you I'll drop back in.

Firstly Boaz made a point about "celebrating" racism. I've had a re-read of your posts and agree that you don't say you like racism. Sorry if I have misunderstood your approach.

I agree that racism/culturalism/ethnocentric etc have been with us for a long time. What I'm not so convinced about is that they have to stay with us. We will always have small groups and individuals who exhibit racist behaviour. The second or third generation are likely to be pretty well assimilated (given the chance).

I prefer to treat racism as something which should be overcome rather than as just a part of life.

I agree that racism is not a whites only thing, I think I've made that point elsewhere in forum topics. I also suspect that some of those who complain about racism by white Australian's might find that it was not such an issue if they spent less time focussing on racial differences.

Somehow there must be a way to value a cultural background without turning it into a division. Does it make me less of who I am if I like pasta and grow bonsai?

I'm struggling a bit with the phrasing on this so please excuse me if I wander a bit. As a whiteish Australian in the year 2005 I don't feel a lot of cultural affinity with the ancestors who came out here from the UK so many years ago. For that matter I don't have a lot of affinity for the culture of the 1950's in Australia. I value much of what has become of those cultural artifacts in this country.

My cultural dreams are more about what can be rather than what was. I regard my cultural background as the foundation I build on rather than as the target to strive towards.

Maybe that is one of the answers to the question which has been asked about what it means to be white but then it is unlikely to be something unique to whites.

Cheers
R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 18 July 2005 7:39:57 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
Katsuhiro, I appreciate your point - may be I'm just a touch too sensitive - having been victimised in the past not because of my race but just simply because I didn't fit in with the usual yobbos, I developed a justice meter that is highly sensitised to the kind of ignorance expressed by some of the posters here.

I hope you return to this forum, the fish and... as for me I won't panic;-)

Rainier - your posts leave others panting in the red dust of this not so dry forum with your incisive elucidation and ready wit. In other words I am inspired to try harder.

Redneck - you write quite well for someone with a tendency towards exclusion - most people with your POV's write like Davo, who has to win the award for completely missing the point of my post.

With this in mind I award Davo the prize of Mind Numbing Ignorance as displayed by a Vacuum of Intellect , for his complete lack of understanding about the insight to be gained from socialising with a variety of people from different cultures. Congratulations Davo your award of a lump of lead cast in the exact dimensions of your brain will be delivered to you by carrier-sparrow shortly.
Posted by Trinity, Monday, 18 July 2005 7:56:50 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
Trinity, are you on the rags?
Posted by davo, Monday, 18 July 2005 9:12:51 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
And it seems that all your insecurities manifest themselves in your love affair with multiculturalism.
Posted by davo, Monday, 18 July 2005 11:56:42 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
Davo, I can only imagine the hours it took you to think up a response to Trinity's post.

Now you better have a good lie down, don't want to waste that brain cell now do you?

I do have a question for you - but I don't expect a reply immediately ('immediately' means 'now' BTW). The only insecurities being manifested here are those by you regarding people of different cultures.

What are you so afraid of? I think I know the answer and feel sorry for you.
Posted by Xena, Tuesday, 19 July 2005 8:14:40 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
>>Another Axiom of human relations, is that the 'racism' (as Redneck rightly points out) will usually NOT surface until there is a SHORTAGE of resources. Then, surivival mode kicks on, and blood IS thicker than political correctness.<<

So you reckon that were New Zealand to fall on hard times the Maori (non of whom is full-blooded today) would bear the brunt of such difficult times at the hands of the majority Pakeha?

Had England in her history fallen on very hard times would the Angles and the Saxons have turned on each other? What about today? Most of the Aristocracy in England descends from the Normans, which is why they are generally taller and with longer faces than the hoi polloi, who descend from the slightly squatter Angles and Saxons and Celts. Would we have trouble between these three different racial groups were Pommyland to fall on particularly hard times?

I have a French friend who proudly distinguishes herself from her Gallic countrymen. She's of Celtic descent, as are the people of her home region in Brittany, and she wears a Celtic ring. Next to them in Normandy the people are of Scandinavian descent and are thus taller and with longer faces than the rest of the French. Would France therefore descend into a bloodbath were the country to fall on hard times?

From how many different groups does the German nation of today derive? European nations were all previously multi-cultural nations that over time coalasced into a unified whole (even though Spain is old, it still has trouble with the Basque people). The only truly mono-cultural society that ever existed was the one that existed before the Tower of Babel. If people wanna return to a close approximation of time, then they ought to greet with relish the oncoming prospect of a global culture, which seems to be sweeping all these multi-differences aside. Just look at the number of langauges that keep disappearing every decade.

I'm for "soft" multiculturalism because it aims for ultimate mono-culturalism as opposed to the balkanisation of "hard" multiculturalism.
Posted by Brazuca, Tuesday, 19 July 2005 1:02:17 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
Brazuca and others....

Yes, on reflection, I should have thought more about that statement that racism only manifests during shortages. Its always there, but the 'violent' or 'aggressive/competitive' aspect is more noticable during shortages. Sorry for that slip.

There is a constant competition going on, where race is a factor.
Take the Italian concreter for example. The one I hired to lay a slab had only one non Italian worker who had the most horrible laboring work, all the other subbies were Italians. The bobcat driver, the concrete truck driver, all the other workers.

Personally, I prefer to have a good mix of across the board business relationships. Hence I have chinese (singapore), Indigenous (Borneo), and locals of all types. One reason I have the chinese as opposed to him sourcing the products I make from China is simple. Quality and f'ship.
and flexibility. It sure ain't price :)

Trinity

that inspiration did kick in very well, "carrier sparrow" :) pity it was not a 'positive up-building comment' rather than a personal tear down.

DAVO.. yeah, that was a bit crude mate.. consider yourself 'rebuked' :)

XENA... 'one brain cell'...good 1 at least I do try to stick to facts and issues :) but I admit, I ripped into the way your mind seems to work in another thread, and I stand by it in a clinical kinda way :)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 19 July 2005 1:37:26 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
BD

Instead of pontificating upon the faults (real or imagined) of other posters eg "Trinity .......... pity it was not a 'positive up-building comment' rather than a personal tear down.

Has it ever occurred to you to set an example? Clearly not since you spend copious amounts of time tearing shreds off many posters you disagree with. Granted at least you exhibit more thought and effort than Davo.

I have no doubt that Xena will set you straight in her next post - I read your other thread and you have completely missed the point - yet again.

As for this thread, all human beings have bias. We're not perfect. However, some of us are intelligent enough to know that we only have this little planet to sustain us and it will be better for us all if we try to get along. Unfortunately a number of 'aussie' (read W.A.S.P.s) posters have demonstrated the double standards posited by Chek. Give 'em enough rope....
Posted by Trinity, Tuesday, 19 July 2005 3:44:28 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
Why bother thinking about this complex issue with intellectual honesty and integrity when you can just call people names, like... racist. That one in particular is a great bit of guilt tripping shame based therapy, a very useful way of telling someone to shut up without actually using those words.

l am not above such lazy intellectual dishonesty when the mood strikes me, so in that spirit Chek, you are rasict.
Posted by trade215, Wednesday, 20 July 2005 12:24:04 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
trade215, Read through the posts and you'll see this discussion has been rigorous, intellectual and far from lazy. What you propose is that we all discuss racism without giving it agency, ie, keep you comfortable, and don't dare rock the boat. Intellectual dishonesty is when you havn't investigated the evidence and just enter into it swinging punches. Puleeze! You'll have to do better than that chum.

To Trinity,Xena and others: We are all just too deadly! :)
Posted by Rainier, Wednesday, 20 July 2005 1:34:49 PM
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
rainer,

Thanks for telling me what l realy mean. Thanks for alerting me to what l am proposing. l can scarcely get thru the day without the interpretative wisdom of the brainiacs who can translate me.

Maybe you can interpret the following too... l regard intellectual dishonesty as the deliberate use of knowingly spurious logical fallacies, like using red herrings and name calling. The tag of 'rasict' is plainly name calling and it is a thinly veiled attack on one's credibility, therefore a logical fallacy, ergo intellectual dishonesty. A reference, take it or leave it, http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.php

It hardly matters how rigourously an attack on credibilty is framed, its still lazy. Of course u prolly already know that.

The tag of 'racist' serves no purpose in illucidating, expanding, nor advancing a discussion. As many of the posts in this thread illustrate, its a very useful way of getting stuck in the mud.

Frankly, l dont care for keeping people in their comfort zones, its weak. Maybe you could take your own advice and get out of that comfort zone that is arguementative obfuscation and be careful not to confuse a rocking boat for a boat that is actually making foward progress.

Anyway, from one chum to another, thats my bit of lazy, arguementative intellectual dishonesty.

ps. interpretative answer to this post is that it is egocentric, disrespectful, self indulgent,sarcastic sanctimoney. (when in rome...)
Posted by trade215, Thursday, 21 July 2005 11:19:22 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
Oh dear,

If you check carefully through my posts I have yet to call anyone racist, but I do attempt to analyze and pull apart the discursive and elementary components of racism (in the posts of others), using my own interpretations and by reference to the 'sentiment' that Chek Ling discusses.

I too would prefer people (like yourself) to fully understand racism as a mostly ideologically blind cultural condition rather than a tag that can be loosely thrown around without explanation. You can, as I have many times, discuss racism openly and honestly with a view to move forward.

This is completely different from what you propose - which is not to call anyone racist (no matter what) and to never fully explore racism as a sociological and intellectual phenomenon. (The blindfolded approach)

In other words lets all adopt that good old ostrich position when discussing racism by conveniently mystifying and calling it something else, something less abrasive and ameliorative to good old liberal sensibilities and those tired egalitarian mythologies about Australian society. Yawn,Ho Hum, been there, done that, moved on.

Now, read through the above again –did I call you a racist throughout this post?
I admit that I am cheeky, even arrogant but when and if I ever call someone racist you can bet I’ve done my homework. I suggest you do the same before you ask people like to me adopt your Ostrich, head in a hole worldviews. Be careful, the only thing people see when you're in this position is your bum and after a while many may begin to think its your head (ie, where you speak from)
Posted by Rainier, Thursday, 21 July 2005 1:42:23 PM
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
It was me!

Yep I called Davo racist. Guilty as charged. And this is where things get interesting. I am white, so I feel that I have been able to say things to some of our less enlightened posters to this forum, that someone of a darker skin colour than I would’ve been able to get away with.

Eg, Rainier, Chek, Kutsohiro have all been very polite – much more polite and restrained than I have been. If any of these posters had written what I have we’d hear the screams from the Cape York Peninsula to the a.se-end of Tassie.

The fact that I can get away with saying something simply because I’m white underscores a covert form of racism. This is the double standard to which Chek’s article refers.

If you are black, brown or especially of middle eastern origin right now, better watch how you phrase things – better be REALLY polite. Otherwise white folks will accuse you of behaving exactly like them.
Posted by Trinity, Friday, 22 July 2005 8:52:42 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
Rainer

you have a wounderful capacity for misrepresenting wot l said, l suspect as a way of making your points. That my friend is a very long yaaaaaaaaaaaawn indeed. If you have a point to make, then make it and own it rather than attributing it to someone else. l made no sweeping statements about world views in my initial post, just a very sarcastic dig at the modus of the article.

l dont care if people use the r word. l just think that it is very lazy characterisation of very complex issues regarding sociology. For example, l doubt folks wake up one day and decide to indulge in a pathalogical hate for a particular race. It may more likely be a function of many factors, the main one being deep levels of discontent which they feel unable to overcome and thus SCAPEGOAT some group because they are DIFFERENT. The nature of the differnce (race, gender, religion, economic) hardly matters in validating that discontent. The prejudice is the cough not the cold. That opens up a vast array of contemplatng WHY people project their discontent onto others. That discussion would be quite complex, invlove way too much unpleasant honest self appraisal, but like l say... thinking hurts, so why bother when we have glib reductionist rhetoric to bandy about. It is the easy way out, it actually stops a real discourse because its a smoke screen and it cheapens the issue.

l know, first hand, what it is like to be a target of racism, went around for years shutting up people by calling them racists and learned to put that nonsense in its box many moons ago. Took my head out of the sand and got rid of the ostrich suit too.

As for ostrich bums and heads in the sand... can l borrow your ostrich outfit and can you make some room down there for me please? Will be joining you soon.

ps. nothing to see here, l give up, you win.
Posted by trade215, Friday, 22 July 2005 10:39:57 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
The score so far:

• Anti-racists - 100

• Benign racists and racism rationalists - nil

• Ostriches - still have head in hole in the sand and have become very grumpy.

• Fence sitters – still sitting on fence being fastidiously objective (read uncommitted)
Posted by Rainier, Friday, 22 July 2005 11:34:06 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
Get over it Rainer.
Posted by trade215, Friday, 22 July 2005 11:55:11 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
There are two types of racism.Petty and defensive.The former is the stomping ground of idiots who like to call people names,the second is one of the most important parts of our core make-up.

When societies choose to become multi-ethnic(which just about every 'first world' country is besides Japan),they can either follow the path of mass assimilation or multiculturalism.Assimilation can only work on a macro level when there are no significant physical or religious differences between said ethnic groups(eg Britain when the Angles,Saxons,Danes and Normans merged to become English).This is something that so called 'conservatives' like Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones can never seem to fathom.They simply can't get their head around the fact that an indigenous-Australian or an Asian-Australian may not want to throw away their ethnic identity because they now have access to British common law and Coca-Cola.

So we are left with multiculturalism,whether the government promotes it or not.The only problem with multiculturalism as it currently stands,is that if a 'white' person in Australia(or anywhere else) asserts his/her ethnic identity,he/she risks being called a 'racist'.A community of -insert any non-white ethnicity here-,who wish to ghettoise to keep alive their culture,language,customs etc and form support networks is accepted as part of the multicultural mosaic of a 'diverse' society.However,a community of whites who wish to do the same,are labelled insular,racist,backward and not cosmopolitan enough.The fact is,BOTH cases are racist,not in a petty way,but in a defensive way.In-group ethnic identification is a fact of life for the majority of people.Genetic interests exist.Until we accept this,we won't get over petty back and forth name calling.

Chek Ling should not be surprised that most white Australians seem to subconsciously empathise with Schapelle Corby against what they perceive as some(stereotyped) 'other'.Just as white Australians should not be surprised that Chek Ling,from the perspective of his own racial interests, sees(stereotyped) racist 'white Australia',even after being here 43 years,as something that needs to be overcome.
Posted by Johann, Saturday, 23 July 2005 6:18:51 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
In her book 'The New White Nationalism In America',African-American writer Carol Swain laments the passing of the melting pot 'assimilationist' ideal.She argues that decades of identity politics by minorities has finally compelled whites to assert themselves into an insular 'bloc' aswell.She fears this will spell the end of America as we know it and insists that urgent action is required to undo the years of division.Unfortunately the horse has bolted in the US,as it has in most western nations.

Ms. Swain needs to accept that the logical conclusion of a multi-ethnic state is that all races and cultures,including whites,will ultimately act and broadly habitate as a bloc.There is no 'holy grail' of happy rainbow holding hands and being 'colour blind'.It has never happened anywhere for any sustainable period of time.The meddlings and social engineering of humanists around the world havent been able to stop our tribalist instincts.

I'm not giving up Beethoven and Shakespeare for a monocultural world with Coca Cola and Laksa.Just as Chek Ling shouldnt give up his heritage for the same.All we need,is to learn to live on the same continent without stepping on each others toes.Maybe we an do coffee sometime and talk geopolitics.

Am i a racist?Although it'd been reduced to nothing but a meaningless slur,yes i believe i am one in the classical sense because i believe in the existence of ethnicities and genetic interests.Would i ever assault,insult or look down on a person not of my kin?Certainly not.I believe i am more respectful and honest and with other ethnicities than the so called 'anti-racist' whites are.They smell of patronising conceit and remnants of the 'white man's burden'.
Posted by Johann, Saturday, 23 July 2005 6:45:07 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
Johann, interesting post. You have made some very good points.
You've phrased some aspects of this well. I would prefer not to tie the term racist to what you appear to be talking about, others may disagree. I am very strongly in agreement with the idea that "decades of identity politics by minorities" are having a significant negative impact.

I am hoping that there is a way to hang on to Beethoven and Shakespeare at the same time as we share them with others and pick up on the greatness of other cultures.

I can have Beethovan and Bonsai at the same time. I have not given up hope on the melting pot idea.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 23 July 2005 9:09:25 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
Very good post Johann. A bit of concise, clear and logical thinking, not often seen in this place.

It never ceases to amaze me how the human animal denies its place in the natural world, where things like survival of the species drives population dynamics. Species tend to break down into populations that are inbred ('racist' mating selection to maintain genetic heritability) and populations that are hybridised ('melting pot/multicultural' outcrossing to create new progeny that is often superior, on some level or other, to its parentage).

Inbreeding creates homogenous (same) populations and outbreeding/hybridising promotes heterogenous (different) populations. They both have their place and are crucial to survival of the species.

Humans came along and deny everything because we have got the sort of brain that has evolved with a capacity for that sort of thing.
Posted by trade215, Saturday, 23 July 2005 12:41:38 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
I'm done here. I'll let you guys masturbate and fondle each others idea's about how wonderfully non-racist, philosophically enriched, theoretically acute and egalitarian you all are. White moral panic about white privilege has never been so fun for me to explore with people who know so much about its vitues, but simultaneously, so little. Thanks and have fun, knock yourselves out!
Posted by Rainier, Sunday, 24 July 2005 3:36:08 PM
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
The funny funny thing about this whole diatribe of racism is that Rainer who seemly hates Anglo Saxons ,is probably 90% Anglo Saxon himself.
I see so many so called Aborigines claiming abuse at the hands of their colonial masters yet only have a hint of Aboriginality themselves.

The world is moving on and so must all our races or suffer the irrelevance of their own inertia.
Posted by Arjay, Sunday, 24 July 2005 8:22:19 PM
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
What an outrage! Chek Ling is the racist, and it's so obvious! Corby's sister yelled "How dare you!" about how dare they take the word of the baggage handler over her sister, as Indonesia is a notorious corrupt society, like all Asian nations are. Racist? No a simple fact, check the UN website. Worse still, Ling ignores that Corby was married to an Asian, and her sister still is! If Ling can't handle the fact that white Europeans have a superior legal system, based on fairness instead of race, or a caste system, or some other Asian cultural theme, then too bad. How dare he call us racist! If one looks at Asia, one sees incredibly ethnocentric cultures that all hate one another, ever heard a Korean who has lived in Japan for three generations tell you about how the Japanese treat them? Or how the Chinese look at the Vietnamese? I grew up in Cabramatta in the 1980's, I saw their extreme racism to Australians first hand. No one is more accepting than the white Aussie, we take people from the whole planet, and Asians come here & turn Cabramatta into a crime capital, and the drug capital of the whole country! How ungrateful! Just a few? Perhaps. But what of the mass Medicare fraud in 1992/3 involving all Asian doctors, chemists, the largest fraud in our history! Or the first Asian politician, Phuong Ngo, he murdered his rival, as is the Asian way. My thinking? No, respected anthropolgists like Richard Basham. Asian politics is dominated by assassinations, fraud, racism, drugs. No, Australians have demonstrated that we aren't tribalistic. Show me a nation in Asia that even has a Racial Discrimination Act protecting it's ethnics! Chek Ling, you're the racist....another feature of the Asian antrhopologists tell us. Read up on Richard Basham Mr Ling...who's married to an Asian by the way!
Posted by M.S.Burns, Sunday, 31 July 2005 6:59:14 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 All,
I read through various comments abouts races - I do not think this is applicable in this case. This is NOT Australian case, but Indonesian. The crime happened there, and it is Indonesian turn to rule it the way it should be done in that country. You don't like - you don't travel.
The thing that makes me concern is total unwillingness (or inability, but in this case why do we vote and why do we pay our taxes for) of Australian government to assist its own citizen.
I agree with Corby's lawyer, who is "sick" of Australian government - it is a pure bureaucracy, nobody wants to take a responsibility, and tranfer this issue from one department to another. At possible cost of someone's life.
Government should take responsibility, should take steps (even if they are not always right), instead of hiding behind media and being "personally interested" in Corby case, as per PM. His personal interest does not make her any good. Just a bunch of words without any meaning, just to fill newspapers space.
And I suppose that it why USA is and will be the stronger country in the world - they turn everything upside down for 1 citizen, and Australian goverment says a lot of words like " we are deeply concerned, and monitor the case closely", and so on. I am ashamed (and worried) to be a citizen of Australia.
Posted by Diablo, Tuesday, 2 August 2005 4:32:52 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
There is no doubt that racism exists in cultural melting pots like Australia, along with similar countries that have a diverse cultural make-up.

However the level of hypocrisy from east asian observers is becoming hard to accept without some form of comment, given how deeply racist and largely exclusively monoracial their own countries are <see China and Japan>.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1461261,00.html

Can you imagine how much self-righteous indignation there would be if the similarly racist and derogatory comments were to be made about a visiting Chinese dignitary?

This commentary goes some way to demonstrate how racism is a undeniable human condition and exists everywhere. No one group should have automatic claims on the moral high ground, but folks like Chek seem to think they do.

While I don't deny Chek Ling has a case, I think more focus should be afforded to racism in Asia itself. Just to even the 'playing field' so to speak. Chek may find he lives in a rather large glass house.
Posted by Tanuki, Saturday, 3 September 2005 1:24:33 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
Dear all

It seems that Tanuki, Burns and others are not able to accept that I am Australian, even though I haved lived here continuously for 43 years.

Is it because I have a Chinese name, and have been critical of some aspects of our national character that I have therefore become the "other" in their eyes?

Of course we have Nelson and others who broadcast for whatever reason that those who do not like our Australian values should clear off. (Paulin Hanson never had that malice, nor the calculatedness.) So you can see why I am critical of our national leadership in the matter of race relations. What is the point of spouting about tolerance, etc, when their deeds are all about using race as a politcal trump card when the occasion beacons?

And what are our values? Or do our political leaders just leave it to the mob to tailor them to their needs so that they can have a go at the "other" amongst us, whenever it is profitable for them to do so?

If we are blind to our imperfections, how do we begin to improve our society, given that so many of us on this thread are agreed that no human society is perfect?

Cheers

che
Posted by Chek, Tuesday, 6 September 2005 10:50:29 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
Shapple is not often discussed now. No more media show? Probably better for everyone.
Apparently, Ellise Turnball saw Shapple in Who restaurant eating Satay Chicken with a guard last week.

Wow!
Posted by Balilocal, Monday, 19 June 2006 2:05:09 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. ...
  6. 24
  7. 25
  8. 26
  9. All

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