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 > Silent tears > Comments

Silent tears : Comments

By Stephen Hagan, published 22/10/2007

Auntie Rhonda tells her story and that of four generations in her family - all of them from the 'stolen generation'.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All
"its conclusion was an inevitability that only Aboriginal people understand. It is Aboriginal knowledge (intuition of knowing of a far-a-way illness and individual movements) that I didn’t really expect students to understand and is something I will discuss with them in a later class."

I had to stop reading after this.

A sob story based upon "oral history" (i.e., what someone makes up), then pure racism about the difference between the thought patterns of Aboriginals and non--Aboriginals.

This guy teaches at a university? It's worse than I thought.

When is Australia going to stand up and say, "enough of this nonsense!"?
Posted by lizz-the-yank, Monday, 22 October 2007 8:56:23 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
lizz-the-yank

I will apologise for your arrogance and insensitivity to Stephen Hagan and Auntie Rhonda on behalf of those white Australians whose hearts and minds are touched by this amazing story.

Your red-neck comments - after not even having the courtesy of finishing the article or having the intellectual capacity to listen to another point-of-view - are crude, and sadly typical of the inability of some Australians to reach out to understand the Stolen Generation.

When even John Howard has very belatedly started to rethink his old position, it's tragic that people like you can't get your blood running from your brain to your heart.

Thank you Stephen for sharing Auntie Rhonda's story with us. And to your student for having the wit to think of inviting her to the presentation. Please pass on my thoughts to both of them.
Posted by FrankGol, Monday, 22 October 2007 12:25:15 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
Nice article, Stephen.

I wouldn't pay too much attention to lizz-the-yank, who appears to be an American racist with a strange fixation on Australian Aboriginal people - about whom her entire paltry knowledge seems to be derived from the Internet.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 22 October 2007 12:52:20 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
I am 52 years old and grew up in an era when history was sanitised and whitened (I expect it always will be to a point). At school we were indoctrinated and programmed with a very white history and a principal who pressed loudly that all indigenous people were dirty, lazy, no-gooders, incapable of adjusting to civilization while at home it was re-inforced by parents who were ill-informed as products in turn of their parents and education. Shamefully, I was 40 years old before I read some factual histories and began to understand the lifestyle, traditions, ingenuity, bravery and beauty of our indigenous people. As a mother I try to put myself in the place of indigenous mothers and feel the pain they must have felt at having their children torn away or of a child deprived of family and suffering the deprivations, dispossession and indignities forced upon them. Worse still I cannot fathom nor comprehend European women allowing the unjust practices and mistreatment of other women and children nor justifying it because of the pigment of one’s skin. I can’t help but wonder would I have had the courage to speak out had I lived 200 years ago – I hope I would have. Thank you for sharing this incredible story.
Posted by Stanners, Monday, 22 October 2007 12:52:38 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 think one of the things that White Australia (meaning, "everyone else not indigenous") has struggled with is that most of the programs to establish missions and to place children into white homes and institutions, were actually well intentioned. But we didnt understand the potential consequences at the time. One of the things that grates a little is the accusation of racism because "we" put these kids into institutions, but "we did the same with white kids as well. We still struggle today with how to provide adequate services to the indigenous, whilst at the same time respecting their cultures, but requiring enough input from them to maintain their own sense of dignity. How to you bring a 40,000 yo culture into the now 21st century so that they have equality of opportunity, but not impinge on cultural grounds at the same time? I dont think you can. Perhaps the best we can hope for is to westernise all of the indigenous population, whilst preserving as much of their culture as we can??
Posted by Country Gal, Monday, 22 October 2007 12:56:46 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
Country Gal's comments on placing children in institutions are interesting. While these days, we know that orphanages are not where we want children to be placed because of the horrific abuse and injustices done in them and none of us would want to see our own children in them, we still fork out money by the millions to place Ugandan and other children (usually orphaned by HIV/Aids) into them. Culturally they are far better off in their own villages being cared by relatives as they don't lose their rights to family land and financially it is far more astute to support a child in this context by providing money for education, health, vocational training etc. Yet we are content to repeat our same old mistakes and impose our culture on others.
Posted by Stanners, Monday, 22 October 2007 1:22:00 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
Having known people who spent 50 years of their lives serving aboriginal people in remote areas I find this article totally without balance. Some of these missionaries have literally given of their lives to do what the vast majority of people would not consider.Unfortunately their were and still are cruel whites who have abused and used black people. Their are also blacks who have no respect for themselves or anyone else in society. You can be sure of one thing however that as long as people have a 'victim mentality' they will never arise above their circumstances. There is a lot of pain in many aboriginals lives. Unfortunately nothing will change while we continue to promote a one sided view of history and not look at the current day problems that can only be addressed in house. Its about time we started to listen to the Noel Pearsons.
Posted by runner, Monday, 22 October 2007 2:23:48 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
I would like to make a couple of points.

Unfortunately, while Aunty Rhonda's story is certainly true of many black children, it is also true of many white children of the same and later era who were incarcerated in some church institutions. That does not excuse what happened, but it does point to the fact that it wasn't just racial discrimination. Any child who was thought to be illegitimate was treated the same way, black or white.

It might be culturally desirable for the children in Uganda and similar places to be cared for by their relatives, but it seems that the relatives are generally wanting in this regard, as were the relatives of many illegitimate aboriginal children, so that the only alternatives are either an institution or adoption. Neither might be utopia, but pray tell, what are the alternatives?

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Monday, 22 October 2007 2:44:35 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 would just like to say i am a forgotten australian i was placed in the states run institutions for doing wrong by the law yes punish me the legal way not by being raped and soddimissed by the two pedophiles that worked for the australian goverment in these institutions also i am not aboriginal and i was not the only white person raped in this institution,the goverment of australia is covering up this abuse and still continue to do so as for the goverment in their debate last night by saying they want to know about the australian history are they going to teach our childeren what we suffered as as children under the hands of these goverment run institutions i guess they won't have the guts as they are still covering up ther truth today this is real the forgotten australians are victims of the the goverments neglect to protect the children while they were in institutions there are many of us victims still living ,and there are many who have passed away and for all those victims as i am, i shall not stop the fight for justice , if i have to go to high court so be it ,when a judge says your complaint is plainly real and a tragic part of our history then throws the case out due to legal loop holes the goverment has ,what hope do any of us victims have , ive appealed associate justice macready's desission of 20 september 2006, and i will keep fighting as if i don't, that is what the goverment wants, well not this person ,im going all the way unless they silence me as someone tried to in 2004, im real im not giving up and can only hope all other victims stand up for there justice as well , we are no longer the politcal pawns that we were when we were in these institutions ,we are out in the real world trying to get justice kind regards micheal michealjbrown@hotmail.com look at the web site kockypric.com and type in daruk boys home
Posted by huffnpuff, Monday, 22 October 2007 6:03:54 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
Stanners says:

I try to put myself in the place of indigenous mothers and feel the pain they must have felt at having their children torn away or of a child deprived of family and suffering the deprivations, dispossession and indignities forced upon them.

COMMENT:
Welcome to the world of the Celts.. (Welsh) the Scotts, ... (Highland clearances)Irish and umpteen zillion other disposessions, invasions.. that have made up world history.

Its tragic...but not 'the end'.

I tried to find in Stephens article "What does he want"?...but failed.
All I found was, as Liz the yank said.."A sob story"

Stephens opening comment quoting Publius "The pain of the mind is worse than the pain of the body" SHOULD tell us something.. i.e. that such things have been with us from DAY ONE of human history.

Stephen says about Auntie Rhanda

"Even today, living in Ipswich, where she lives close to her adult children, Auntie Rhonda said she is still uncomfortable around white people."

Then....I was looking for the bit which says "and we can fix this by.....".....but nothing.

I don't mind heartfelt expressions like this, but they should at least reach for a solution. The same solution perhaps that has been available since the time of Publius, down to the Celts.. to now?
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 23 October 2007 7:11:45 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
Boazy: "All I found was, as Liz the yank said..'A sob story' ".

A fine example of Christian compassion, in equally fine company. The former missionary belittling the experience of the 'stolen generations' at the hands of missions - how unsurprising and typical.

"Auntie Rhonda said she is still uncomfortable around white people"

Particularly people like Boazy, runner and lizz-the-yank/Pocahontas (in the unlikely event that she ever actually met an Aboriginal person), no doubt.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 23 October 2007 8:38:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BOAZ_David,

Your usual cold 'Christian' response to a tragic story. In your eyes, that's just the way the world is - Rhonda's story is for you just another 'sob story' - and it's up to the victims to find their own solution.

So the Stolen Generation should 'at least reach for a solution'? Mr BOAZ there's none so blind...Indigenous Australians have been reaching out to governments (and sadly to people like you) for decades - to little avail (exception, when there's a losable election in view).

Rhonda's story is another way of reaching out, but you just don't get it. Jesus would have got it in a flash. He tried to teach compassion, but many who take his name don't yet understand his philosophy of compassion.
Posted by FrankGol, Tuesday, 23 October 2007 10:57:01 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
I doubt whether the likes of CJ Morgan or Frankgol have ever spent any time with aboriginals in communities. They certainly display a great ignorance of the issues which they accuse others of having. They seem to have this blind philosophy that it is only those on the left that have any compassion and yet many serving the aboriginals in remote areas are either cashing in on jobs because they can't get them elsewhere or because they are genuine about their concern for the plight of the people. They accuse the right of a political agenda and ignore their own philosophical failures with the aboriginals over the last 60 years.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 23 October 2007 11:08:11 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
One might well ask why it is that more "Aboriginals" can't follow the example of Stephen's family. His grandfather and his father seem to have overcome the odds and done all right for themselves in the white community. Stephen himself is showing the benefit of what an education can do.

Stephen, it is all very well, telling the story of those who have had trouble fitting in with the white community, but a few more stories of those like your grandfather, who have succeeded might do something to encourage those who are finding it difficult to do something useful with their lives. As it is, all we seem to be getting is these "sob stories" and it is no wonder that our American lady thinks that Aboriginals are a bunch of "no hopers". You and I know differently, but you need to keep telling the world.

Perhaps a few success stories of those who were "Stolen" might also be included. I'm sure there are plenty of those out there too, if one cares to look.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Tuesday, 23 October 2007 11:26:52 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
As an Australian working O/S who was/is a fence sitter on the subject matter that is raised in "Silent Tears" it is difficult to explain simply the realtionship between the indigenous people and "Australians" per se.
I've read the book, seen the movie, worked in remote & rural healthcare, lived next door and still managed to ignore what is being expressed by our indigenous population.
The cultural step of 40,000 years to now is massive; so is the apathy shown by both groupings!
But experience shows that the initial small steps being undertaken by Aboriginal Elders and the like is changing the mindset of the indigenous and 'white' populations. The significant changes in the realtionship between Indigenous & White as well as improved living standards in the Nor West is documented and evident to locals.
In the post on 'Silent Tears' there is a sense of growth and achievement presented by Ruth Collard by her ability to talk, her offspring being able to walk tall and proud but more importantly Ruth's sense of pride in her family.
Only by positive exposure of past events can integration be achieved without rancor nor a need of apology - acceptance of self and others is the greater love.
However I am still tongue tied and embarassed by my inability to rationalise the great disparity between Aborignals and whites in Australia when asked a 'Black Bermudans' or 'Afro-Americans' who accept me as I am.
Posted by 4orty2, Wednesday, 24 October 2007 4:21:57 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
Runner

Why not comment on the content of what I say - and just what I say - rather than cast doubts on whether I (or CJ Morgan) "have ever spent any time with aboriginals in communities". As it happens I have, but what's your point: that the only people who can discuss death are those already dead?

You accuse us of having "this blind philosophy that it is only those on the left that have any compassion". Which part of my post (or CJM's) made that claim? Who mentioned this left-right tosh?

You seem to want to have it both ways: we can't know anything because we have no direct experience; but "many serving the aboriginals in remote areas are either cashing in on jobs because they can't get them elsewhere or because they are genuine about their concern for the plight of the people". What are you trying to say?

David VK3AUU,

You seem to have have a pretty patronising and ethnocentric view of what counts as success. Stephen's OK is he because he fits in well and has "done all right for [himself] in the white community"?

We accept Stephen, do we, bacause he "is showing the benefit of what an education can do"?

We don't like "sob stories" because some American will think that Aboriginals are a bunch of "no hopers". Superior intellects like you "know differently" but Stephen needs to keep telling the world. Maybe you too, David, could tell the world. Let's keep the world "nice", eh?
Posted by FrankGol, Wednesday, 24 October 2007 9:25:36 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
Frankgol

You ask '. Which part of my post (or CJM's) made that claim? Who mentioned this left-right tosh?

CJM quotes Auntie Rhonda in being uncomfortable around white people. He then adds 'Particularly people like Boazy, runner and lizz-the-yank/Pocahontas (in the unlikely event that she ever actually met an Aboriginal person), no doubt. The inference here is obvious.

Having spent considerable time with aboriginal people it is obvious how your and CJ's hate for anything Christian leads you to wrong conclusions. I have a good relationship with a wide range of aboriginal people who know the difference between someone who wants to help them as opposed to pushing some symbolic political gesture.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 24 October 2007 11:50:12 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
Runner

I asked you: Which part of my post (or CJM's) made a claim about left and right? You fail to answer in respect of me, obviously because you couldn't find anything about left or right in my post. Your reference to CJM also fails to disclose reference to left-right, which is now shown to be a figment of your own over-heated brain. Your inability to follow an argument is transparent.

Now you try a new tack: "it is obvious how your and CJ's hate for anything Christian leads you to wrong conclusions". I can't speak for CJM on this, but I can categorically state that I do not hate Christians; and so I ask you again: where in my post do I demonstrate hatred of Christians?

I referred to David BOAZ's lack of compassion as a self-nominated Christian. I said that Jesus would have understood Rhonda's story. I would have thought that my sentiment was a compliment to Christians who, I believe, are compassionate. At least that's what I've found among my truly Christian friends. BOAZ often quotes the Bible but I find him singularly lacking in empathy and understanding. So I don't regard him as a typical representative of Christianity.

I'm pleased to know that you think you "have a good relationship with a wide range of aboriginal people who know the difference between someone who wants to help them as opposed to pushing some symbolic political gesture". But what's your point?
Posted by FrankGol, Wednesday, 24 October 2007 12:17:10 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
It would appear that some of those on the left are having difficulty grasping the horrible truth that Australia is basically a white society and if you want to rise out of your pit, then you must attempt to conform to the norms of this society. You may even get help from a whitey, but at the end of the day, it is your own endeavors which are the ones that matter. People like Stephen and Noel Pearson seem to have grasped that fact, but their efforts are decried by those who are too slothful to get off the welfare teat and throw away the tinnie.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Wednesday, 24 October 2007 5:08:04 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
Perhaps Aboriginals should try and learn a few lessons from Crazy John. He didn't exactly come from your stereotypical Aussie background, (A muslim already), but he made a fortune and didn't hesitate to give some of it back along the way.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Wednesday, 24 October 2007 5:22:00 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
Alwas was and always will be Aboriginal land.
Posted by Aka, Wednesday, 24 October 2007 10:36:33 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
"The pain of the mind is worse than the pain of the body."

And apparently that's all we're ever going to hear about from Aboriginals.

Pain, pain, pain.

Thank your lucky stars you met polite bumbling Englishmen in 1788 and not Germans looking for Lebensraum in 1939.
It could have been a *lot* worse!

As for Jesus being compassionate.
He was a subversive revolutionary who wanted to tear the world apart.

He told people he didn't like to "go to Hell". (Pharisees? Those scumbags!)
He was such a threat to civil order that the authorities executed him.
Today, he'd be labelled a terrorist.

He also heretically told people the "Kingdom of God" was *within* them.
In other words, they had the ability within themselves to overcome any obstacle, heal any pain, achieve any goal.

The power was theirs, but only if they took *personal responsibility*.

When you stop blaming the "Devil" (in this case, white society) for your ills, you just might be able to heal yourself.

I think the main underlying problem is "black guilt".

Other people colonised by Europeans fought back.
The Native Americans, Africans and Maoris were true warriors.
They fought bravely for their land.
They lost the fight, but not their *self respect*.

Aboriginals, for the most part, passively moved on when white settlers appeared.
Their "guilt" at their past passivity is the true cause of all their problems.

How they are going to get over this is something only they can figure out.
But blaming everyone but yourself for your troubles is not going to help.

Nor is wishing that somehow it had all never happened.
("If only" those ships had just kept sailing on.)
Posted by Shockadelic, Thursday, 25 October 2007 2:59:46 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
Shockadelic

I can't decide which topic you know less about - Christ's philosophy or Australian contact history.

Why is it that those with the least to say say it most often?

Go read something on both topics (after you've finished reading about the White Australia Policy).
Posted by FrankGol, Thursday, 25 October 2007 3:35:57 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
FrankGol,

I apologise for inferring your hate for anything 'Christian'. The frustration I feel is that anytime anyone opposes the symbolic gestures in relationship to reconciliation that they are usually said to have no compassion especially in relation to the aboriginals plight. NO doubt on such a hot issue opinion even among Christians is divided. I doubt whether any humane person on any level of politics could not be moved by what they see in aboriginal communities. Different world views certainly determine how people view how the lives of indigeneous people can improve. What is obvious is that whatever has happened or been tried in the last 100 years has had little success. Maybe it is not just Mr Howard who needs to rethink their position but everyone else as well.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 25 October 2007 5:01:38 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
FrankGol: "Why is it that those with the least to say say it most often?"

Yes, indeed.
And your last post was such a tremendous contribution to the discussion.

"I can't decide which topic you know less about - Christ's philosophy or Australian contact history.
Go read something on both topics (after you've finished reading about the White Australia Policy)."

I know plenty about all three topics, thanks.
Not the whitewashed, cherry-picked versions you prefer to believe in because they support your pre-existing mental complexes.

No, the real stuff.
The real Jesus. Not the "sunshine and lollipops" propaganda.

The real contact history.
Not the guilt trip overexaggerations.

Yes, others came before Cook, but they didn't settle here did they?

And, for the most part, both British and Aboriginals *ignored* each other.

If it had been the Germans in 1939 (and let's face it, *somebody* would have turned up eventually), we wouldn't be discussing this, as there wouldn't be a single black left alive.

The real White Australia Policy.
Which was never called such by anybody but pinko posers.
"White Australia" was about preserving our culture, which just happens to be "white" (for want of a better word).

You think race can be disconnected from culture.
Nowadays, maybe. If you are born into a culture unrelated to your biological ancestry.
But even today, that applies to very few of the billions of people on Earth.

In 1901, race *was* culture.

Race is body. Mind requires body. Culture requires Mind.
They all go together.

So if you want "culturally" restrictive immigration, you will, by default, have "racially" restrictive immigration, because if you want to keep out an unrelated "culture", you'll have to keep out the minds and bodies (race) of the people with that culture.
DUH!

Reading books is all you do apparently.
Do you actually *reflect* on anything you read, or is the accumulation of more and more "knowledge" an end in itself.

Knowledge isn't wisdom.

True wisdom may be admitting you know nothing for certain.
So I guess you'll never be wise, as you think you already know everything.
Posted by Shockadelic, Friday, 26 October 2007 7:53:47 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
Shockaholic: "Race is body. Mind requires body. Culture requires Mind."

Cripes.

"WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH"
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 26 October 2007 10:36:43 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
CJ Morgan, you've just proven (as if we didn't already know) just how ridiculous you are.

Comparing my quite sensible statement with George Orwell's illogical Ministry of Truth is baloney of the highest order, and you know it.

So, Race *isn't* body?
It's not biology?
Prey tell, what is it then?

Mind *doesn't* require body?
So if I remove your brain you'd still be able to think (presuming you can *with* a brain).

Culture doesn't require Mind?
Culture is the learned and practiced living codes of interacting people.
Doesn't this interaction require a Mind?
Amnesiacs can't create or perpetuate culture.

Our supposedly "boring and dumb" culture has invented many world firsts.
It is one of few stable democracies, never experiencing dictatorship or civil war.
It has never experienced severe economic trouble, except when the entire world did in the 1930s.

Considering our political and economic stability, I say three cheers for being Boring and Dumb!
Posted by Shockadelic, Saturday, 27 October 2007 7:56:23 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
Shockadelic

Your misunderstanding of the White Australia Policy confirms the ignorance of your earlier posting. You make two claims.

1. The White Australia Policy, you claim, “was never called such by anybody but pinko posers”. That is Australia’s restrictive immigration policy was not the ‘White Australia Policy’. Evidence?

Alfred Deakin PM 1903: “The White Australia Policy goes down to the roots of our national existence, the roots from which the British social system has sprung.”

The Bulletin was renowned in the 1890s for its slogan, “Australia for the White Man”

Conservative Senator Drake-Brockman: "The whole existence of this democracy depends upon our maintenance of the great principle of a White Australia." (Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, 1920. p 4863)

Jack Lang, Premier of NSW: “White Australia must not be regarded as a mere political shibboleth. It was Australia's Magna Carta.” (I Remember)

The first plank of the ALP’s national manifesto of 1908 was the "Maintenance of White Australia”.

How would you explain books like Myra Willard’s 'History of the White Australia Policy to 1920', MUP, 1923 or EW Cole’s 'Better Side of the Chinese Character: Its Relation to a White Australia and the Development of our Tropical Territory', Coles Book Arcade, Melbourne, 1905.

The Labor, Country and Liberal parties all removed "White Australia" from their platforms in 1965. Why remove something if it doesn’t exist?

2. Your second claim, "’White Australia’ was about preserving our culture, which just happens to be ‘white’.” That is, White Australia was really about culture. Your historical relativism is a weak argument.

The evidence again doesn’t support what you want to believe.

In 1897 George Reid’s Bill for the Exclusion of Inferior Races (sic) passed through both Houses in NSW. No mention of culture – all about race.

The 1908 ALP manifesto aspired to “cultivation of an Australian sentiment, based on the maintenance of racial purity”. Not cultural purity.

Secretary Hunt to PM Barton: "We continue to eject the monstrous Jap and the wily Chow with persistence…” (May 28 1902) Sounds like racism to me.

Read, Shocker. Information is pre-requisite to wisdom.
Posted by FrankGol, Saturday, 27 October 2007 12:38:19 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
SHOCHADELIC, IS THAT YOU ARE NOT AWARE AS TO WHAT WE FORGOTTEN AUSTRALIANS OR IT THAT YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT WE SUFFERED AT THE HAND OF THE GOVERMENT EMPLOYEES THAT RUN THESE INSTITUTIONS IN THE STATES OF AUSTRALIA, ORPHANAGES,GILS HOMES ,BOYS HOMES, REMAND CENTRES,FOSTER HOMES ,OUT OF HOME CARE, CHURCH HOMES, WE ARE THE VICTIMS THAT WERE RAPED AND ABUSED BY THE PEOPLE THAT WORKED FOR THIS AUSTRALIAN GOVERMENT WETHER IT WAS UNDER LABOUR OR LIBERAL MINISTRY, AS THEY ARE BOTH TO BLAME AS WHEN EITHER GOVERMENT THAT WAS IN CONTROL OF AUSTRALIA EITHER LABOUR PRIME MINISTER OR LIBERAL PRIME MINISTER THESE ACTS OF CRIMES HAPPEND , LOOK AT THE STORIES WITH YOUR EYES AND READ THE SENATE INQUIRES THEN COME BACK WITH YOUR REAL COMMENTS REGARDS MICHEAL
Posted by huffnpuff, Saturday, 27 October 2007 5:58:39 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
Further dispatches from the Ministry Of Truth:

"huffnpuff's psychic pain will heal as soon as the government pays him lots and lots of money"

"Abortion Is Human Rights"

"Collectivism Is Personal Liberty"

"Positive Discrimination Is Equality"

"Globalization is Bad, Internationalism Is Good"

"Capital Punishment Is Wrong, even if Requested by the Prisoner"

"The World is Multicultural, so every Culture within it must also be Multicultural"

"Fur is Good on Eskimos, Evil on Joan Collins"

"Eating Meat is Evil, even though half the Creatures on the Planet do so (even some Plants!), including all the pet Cats and Dogs of Pinko Posers"

"Aboriginals Owned Territory, despite being Nomads with no Warrior Class"

"White Children taken from Negligent Parents are Protected,
Black Children taken from Negligent Parents are Stolen"

"Right Wingers are Nazi Fascists, despite their opposition to Collectivism"

"Australians are Xenophobic, despite eating Pizza and drinking Cappuccino"

"FrankGol is an Expert on Everything Thanks to Reading Thousands of Old Dusty Books,
is Not an Arrogant Tedious Bore at all, and was renowned in the 1890s for his slogan: I Am God."

"The chocolate ration has been increased to 20g a week."
Posted by Shockadelic, Saturday, 27 October 2007 8:17:16 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
Nice rant, Shocker, but I'll just address a point you tried to make before your medication apparently wore off.

Shocker: "So, Race *isn't* body? It's not biology? Prey (sic) tell, what is it then?"

When applied to humans, 'race' is a cultural category that is used to categorise people on the basis of superficial or phenotypical criteria, such as skin colour. While human 'races' have lost any scientific salience they might once have had since the development of modern genetics, the concept continues to have force among those who wish to attribute complex sociocultural phenomena to simple causes that are apparently more easily understood by them.

The reason that anthropologists and other scientists no longer refer to human 'races' is quite simply that there is far greater genetic diversity within the so-called races than there is between them, thus rendering biological explanations for apparent differences meaningless.

However, this doesn't stop many people from thinking and acting as if 'race' was actually something beyond a cultural category. In fact, it is precisely this contemporary reification of the artificial category of 'race' that denotes current forms of racism.

I hope this helps, and that you're feeling better today.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 28 October 2007 8:35:00 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
Shockadelic

It seems that, when faced with actual evidence that demonstrates your ignorance, you panic and get a dose of verbal diarrheoa.

Books can contain dangerous and uncomfortable facts and ideas, but I don't think your illness is due to reading.
Posted by FrankGol, Sunday, 28 October 2007 3:23:52 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
Books can contain dangerous and uncomfortable facts and ideas, but I don't think your illness is due to reading.
Posted by FrankGol, Sunday, 28 October 2007 3:23:52 PM

What is your illness due to then?
Posted by VK3AUU, Monday, 29 October 2007 10:56:56 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
VK3AUU

What's my ilness due to? Shockerholic's total lack of logic has given me the sh**s.
Posted by FrankGol, Monday, 29 October 2007 11:19:46 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
CJ Morgan: "I'll just address a point you tried to make" (and ignore all the others).

"Race is a cultural category that is used to categorise people on the basis of superficial or phenotypical criteria, such as skin colour."

Didn't I just say that?
That "race" is a *body-defined* concept.
I'm being "corrected" by somebody saying the same thing!

"The concept continues to have force among those who wish to attribute complex sociocultural phenomena to simple causes"

I didn't say race *causes* culture.
I said they *coincide*.

It's quite obvious that:
1. The "race" of Vietnam and the "race" of Italy are *biologically* different.
2. The traditional culture of Vietnam is different from the traditional culture of Italy.
3. That both these differences *developed simultaneously* and are therefore *linked together* (whether you like it or not!).

Tell the Vietnamese and Italians that their races and/or cultures could be *imperceptibly* swapped, and they'll laugh at and/or punch you!

Modern genetics has discredited "race"?
So-called "White Australia" existed *before* this, over a century ago!
When "race" and "culture" were inseparable.

FrankGol: "Books can contain dangerous and uncomfortable facts and ideas".

But does merely reading them make you wise?

How many (and which) books must you read before FrankGol bestows his blessing?
500? 6000? 5 trillion?

"Mein Kampf"
"The Female Eunuch"
"The Communist Manifesto"
"The Road To Serfdom"
"The Golden Bough"
"The Satanic Bible"
"The Origin Of Species"
"The Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs and Other Principal Saints"

All of these books contain "information" and "ideas".

Does this make them true?
Does reading them make you wise?

You can agree or *disagree* with the authors.

But how do you make this judgement?
Your own personal life experience (which cannot be found at your local library).

If I haven't read the books you have, that doesn't mean I haven't read *any*.

Nor, having read the same books, do I have to draw the same conclusions as you.

Facts? Even historians disagree on what the "facts" actually are!

Information isn't "truth".
Knowledge isn't "wisdom".

FrankGol isn't God.
(But don't tell his Ego, it's too fragile.)
Posted by Shockadelic, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 9:46:40 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
Shockadelic

When you say: 'The "race" of Vietnam and the "race" of Italy are *biologically* different', which people of Vietnam are you referring to? Would it be the Kinh, the Muong, the Thai, the Meo, the Kmer, the Man, the Cham or those of Chinese ancestry?

Likewise, which of the above represent what you call “the traditional culture of Vietnam”?

You ask: ‘How many (and which) books must you read before FrankGol bestows his blessing?’ I answer: just a few on the topic before you pontificate on it would do for starters.

You ask: ‘But does merely reading them make you wise?” I answer: No (see below).

You gave a list of books all of which contain information and ideas and ask: ‘Does this make them true?’ My answer: Not just because they were published (see below).

You ask: ‘Does reading them make you wise?’ My answer: No, not that alone.

You state: ‘You can agree or *disagree* with the authors. But how do you make this judgement? Your own personal life experience (which cannot be found at your local library).’ My response: Personal life experience is an important source for judging a book. Others include assessing: the quality and quantity of the evidence used by the author, the quality of the author’s logic, the book’s internal consistency, its coherence, the proportion devoted to solid argument as against personal preference or ideology, etc.

That’s why I’m confident that “The Origin of the Species” is a better book than “Mein Kampf”.

You state: ‘If I haven't read the books you have, that doesn't mean I haven't read *any*.’ I agree.

You ask: ‘Nor, having read the same books, do I have to draw the same conclusions as you? I answer: No (see above).

You state: ‘Even historians disagree on what the "facts" actually are!’ Yes, I’ve noticed that too.

You assert: ‘Information isn't "truth". Knowledge isn't "wisdom".’ That’s obvious, but knowledge is a pre-requisite to wisdom.

You conclude: ‘FrankGol isn't God. (But don't tell his Ego, it's too fragile.)’ I’m shocked you noticed. Damn!
Posted by FrankGol, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 10:45:00 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
FrankGol: "You ask", "I answer"

Um, Frank. You don't have to answer *rhetorical* questions.

"Which people of Vietnam, blah blah blah"

Does it matter?
The point is they're *not* Italians (Which Italians? YAWN!), racially or culturally.

Once again, you nitpick an irrelevant detail, and miss the forest for the tree.
You aren't impressing anybody.

"How many books...just a few on the topic for starters."

And which few, the ones that FrankGol agrees with, or the ones he disagrees with?

"Assessing the quality and quantity of the evidence used by the author, the quality of the author's logic, the book's internal consistency, its coherence, the proportion devoted to solid argument as against personal preference or ideology, etc."

So if the author's convinced of his own argument, so should I!

"I'm confident that "The Origin of the Species" is a better book than "Mein Kampf"."

Well, surprise, surprise. Who would have guessed?

I bet Hitler thought his book, a best seller, made perfect sense.
And Darwin's work was attacked in his own time and ours.

Again, judgement is *subjective*, so it doesn't really matter to anyone else what FrankGol thinks of any book.

"Knowledge is a pre-requisite to wisdom."

I'll leave this in the hands of my true intellectual superiors:

Albert Einstein: "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."

Andre Gide: "Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."

Carl Jung: "Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside, awakens."

Heraklietos of Ephesos: "Knowledge is not intelligence. In searching for the truth be ready for the unexpected."

Robert Green Ingersoll: "It is a thousand times better to have common sense without education than to have education without common sense."

George Santayana: "Almost every wise saying has an opposite one, no less wise, to balance it."

Leonardo da Vinci: "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory."

Groucho Marx: "A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five."
Posted by Shockadelic, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 12:44:26 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
Shockadelic

As a seeker after knowledge and wisdom, I mistook your 'rhetroical' questions for real ones. Silly me.

It may not matter to you which people of Vietnam you bestow the title Vietnamese race and Vietnamese culture on; but it may be important to the diverse people in Vietnam. Do they all look alike to you?

I don't know how you can convert my short list of criteria for objectively assessing the quality of books to the proposition that "So if the author's convinced of his own argument, so should I!" I think your mind is firmly locked into your fixed position and nothing's getting in (or out).

Feel free to choose your own books, Shocker. I'm sure you'd prefer the ideological truth of "Mein Kampf" to the scientific filth of "The Origin of the Species". That's your right.

Hitler may have thought his best seller "made perfect sense". But was he right?

And Darwin's work "was attacked in his own time and ours". But did it make an important contribution to our understanding of evolution?

Sure, if you believe that judgement of a book is "subjective", it follows that it doesn't really matter to anyone else what FrankGol - or anyone else - thinks of any book. Even if you think there are objective means of assessing the worthiness of an author, it may still not matter what I think. I encourage people to make up their own minds. And I'm delighted to discuss their opinions when they have an enquiring mind and want to engage intellectually.

I just don't think any reasonable person can claim that any book is as good as any other wihout using some objective criteria for discriminating between them.

The rest of your post - quotations from a range of authors, demonstrates that you, too, have a Book of Quotations - and it probably took you ten minutes to select their digested wisdom. Maybe one day you could take the time to read one or more of the actual books. Groucho Marx might suit you.

As I said: "Knowledge is a pre-requisite to wisdom."
Posted by FrankGol, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 1:16:12 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
FrankGol: "I think your mind is firmly locked into your fixed position and nothing's getting in (or out)."

"Mr Kettle, there's a call for you on line 2. A Mr Pot. Something about being black."

"It may not matter to you which people of Vietnam you bestow the title Vietnamese race and Vietnamese culture on; but it may be important to the diverse people in Vietnam."

There's that tree again!
Keep hitting your head against it, Frank.
The brain damage will be imperceptible.

"Which" Vietnamese makes no difference to my *argument*.

That "Vietnamese" (however you define that) is *not* "Italian" (however you define *that*).

Do Vietnamese and Italians look alike to *you*?
*They* know they don't.

"I'm sure you'd prefer the ideological truth of "Mein Kampf" to the scientific filth of "The Origin of the Species"."

Well, surprise, surprise. Didn't see that coming!
Could you be more predictable?

For someone who adores "objectivity" your ironic statement seems full of bias and prejudice.

"Hitler may have thought his best seller "made perfect sense". But was he right?"

Right? Wrong?
Are there no shades of grey in your world?
Just black, white, good, evil.
Nothing in-between.
No wonder you're deluded.

Ironically, Hitler would have approved of your absolutist classification of things as "Right" "Wrong" "Good" "Evil".
He liked things simple too.

"But did it (Darwin's book) make an important contribution to our understanding of evolution?"

But does evolution really exist?

It is a "theory" that *seems* to correlate to reality.
But all scientific theories are superceded.

When evolution is superceded, will you start saying Darwin was "stupid" or "evil"?
("But was he RIGHT?")

"I encourage people to make up their own minds."

Well, that's not "objective".
That's "subjective".

If 500 people read a book, you may get 500 different interpretations.
Where's the "objectively" verifiable opinion?

Even if they all formed the *same* opinion, this is just a sample of 500 specific people.
Choose *another* group of 500, and the results could be the *opposite*!

"Groucho Marx might suit you."
He does.
He's a genius.
(And a Jew. Shouldn't I "hate" him, Frank?)
Posted by Shockadelic, Thursday, 1 November 2007 12:34:33 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
Shockadelic

I'll spell it out: There is no such thing as 'the Vietnamese race' as a single entity. Therefore it will be problematic comparing them with the Italians. (I won't quibble about the Italians living in Vietnam.)

If my preferring "The Origin of the Species" over "Mein Kampf" is a sin, I'm guilty your Honour. If claimimg the first is a better book than the second proves me 'full of bias and prejudice', I'm also guilty of that.

However, my case is argued on objective merit.

Hitler's 'best seller' is incoherent, illogical and crudely ideological. He was simply wrong in many of his claims about racial superiority and Jewish conspiracies. His political schemes were ill-conceived. It's also badly written, in turgid prose and full of bile. You may find merit in it, but I can't.

Darwin made a systematic attempt to pull together contemporary knowledge available at the time to develop a scientifc explanation of the way species evolved. Of course, later scientists improved on Darwin's errors, but his book was a major contribution to knowledge in a field that is still controversial but developing rapidly.

Your question as to whether Hitler's book was right or wrong seems bizarre in the context of historical consequences. If that makes me 'deluded' in your eyes, I can wear that - proudly.

I'm not sure where you found that I engage in absolutist classification of things as "Right" "Wrong" "Good" "Evil". I thought I was arguing that we best judge things on their merits on transparent criteria. The fact that you berate me for encouraging people to make up their own minds seems to disqualify me from being an absolutist.

I won't bother with your specious argument about 500 different opinions or interpretations of one book among 500 people. I'll deal with realities.

But it's nice to know that Groucho Marx suits you. You tell me that he's a Jew. 'Shouldn't I "hate" him, Frank?', you ask. No, that's not a relevant criterion. But I know one man who wouldn't have allowed his books to be read. Now that's absolutism.
Posted by FrankGol, Thursday, 1 November 2007 1:56:32 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
FrankGol: "I'll spell it out."

Are *you* talking to *me*?

No Frank, *I'll* spell it out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_people

"The Vietnamese people are an *ethnic* group, the *majority* ethnic group of Vietnam, comprising *86%* of the population, and are officially known as *Kinh* to distinguish them from other ethnic groups."

So the Kinh are the group who would generally be labelled "the Vietnamese race" or "the Vietnamese culture".

You are confusing nationality with ethnicity.

All the other peoples you mention aren't Vietnamese *ethnically*.
They just share the same nationality on their passports.

"I won't quibble about the Italians *living in* Vietnam."

I wasn't talking about location.
I was talking about identity.

Ethnicity is multi-layered.
But each group within any category has their own identity.

The Latin "race" includes the Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian, Romanian.

And the Latin people are part of the European "race".
And the Europeans are part of the Caucasian "race".

There are *multiple layers* to race just as there is to culture.
And not surprisingly they are *coincidental* layers.

Italian culture is related to the other Latin cultures.
These Latin cultures are part of the same "family" as the other European cultural groups: Germanic, Slavic, Greek, Baltic, Celtic, Armenian, etc.

But that's where it stops.
The European cultures are not related to *all* other Caucasian cultures, such as the Semitic, and ironically the "Caucasian" cultures of the Caucasus (Georgian, Chechen, Dagestanian).

They are distantly related to Indic and Iranian, but the separation was so long ago, little similarity remains.

So while "Italian" may mean many things (Latin, European, Caucasian), it certainly doesn't mean "Vietnamese" (and vice versa).

Why would Italians "need" Vietnamese culture?
Why would the Vietnamese "need" Italian culture?
(They already kicked out the French!)

You cannot separate the historical relationship between biology and culture.
They developed *simultaneously*.
To say it "doesn't matter" is insulting, not respectful.

Anthropologists may not use the term "race" anymore, but unfortunately for you 99.9999999999999% of the 6 billion people on Earth aren't anthropologists.

Just "lay" people with identities they create themselves.
That doesn't make them stupid or evil.
Posted by Shockadelic, Sunday, 4 November 2007 1:01:49 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
Shocka: "The Latin "race" includes the Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian, Romanian.

And the Latin people are part of the European "race".
And the Europeans are part of the Caucasian "race"."

You still don't get it, do you Shocka? You're talking through arse - there's no such thing as the Latin, European or even Caucasian "races", except in the tiny minds of racists.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 4 November 2007 2:04:38 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
Shockadelic

Thank you. Your wikipedia source was quite helpful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_people

You select this sentence:
"The Vietnamese people are an *ethnic* group, the *majority* ethnic group of Vietnam, comprising *86%* of the population, and are officially known as *Kinh* to distinguish them from other ethnic groups."

From this, you conclude:
“So the Kinh are the group who would generally be labelled "the Vietnamese race" or "the Vietnamese culture".

This, you assert, warrants your conclusion that “All the other peoples you mention aren't Vietnamese *ethnically*. They just share the same nationality on their passports.”

So they live and work in Vietnam – and have for many centuries – they speak Vietnamese, eat Vietnamese food, enjoy Vietnamese music, helped kick out the French, the Japanese, the Americans from Vietnam – and yet are not Vietnamese because you have decreed it.

Since you wrote about the 'Vietnamese race', I searched throughout your wikipedia article for the word ‘race’. It wasn’t there. The phrase "the Vietnamese culture" wasn’t in the article either (although there was a link to that phrase in another place).

Since wikipedia is your authority, I thought I’d look at what wikipedia says about ‘race’.

“Many scientists have argued that race definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, derived from custom, have many exceptions, have many gradations, and that the numbers of races delineated vary according to the culture making the racial distinctions; thus they reject the notion that any definition of race pertaining to humans can have taxonomic rigour and validity.”

You acknowledge that anthropologists may not use the term ‘race’ anymore. Haven’t you forgotten geneticists, human biologists and cultural historians?

But you know better than all of them, and appoint yourself spokesman on behalf of the “99.9999999999999% of the 6 billion people on Earth [who] aren't anthropologists”. You and they are” just ‘lay’ people with identities they create themselves” – except apparently for those 'non-Vietnamese' Vietnamese, who have to be somone else.

Your lecturette on the ‘Latin race’, the ‘European race’, the ‘Caucasian race’ and their ‘multiple layers’ was a hoot. What ‘race’ do the 21,000,000 Australians fit into? Please explain.
Posted by FrankGol, Sunday, 4 November 2007 2:18:19 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
CJ Morgan: "There's no such thing except in the tiny minds of racists."

Well, most of the world's population are racist then.
Ask a Kinh if a white Italian could "be" a Kinh.
Answer: Big fat No.

FrankGol, the Kinh are 86% of the Vietnamese nationals.
The *next largest* group, the Tay, comprise only 1.9%!

"They live and work in Vietnam – and have for many centuries"

Gypsies have lived and worked in Romania for centuries.
Does that make them or their culture "ethnic Romanian"?

"they speak Vietnamese"

And their *own* languages too.

"eat Vietnamese food"

So, if I eat pho every day, I'm suddenly "ethnically Vietnamese".

"helped kick out the Japanese"

Australians helped "Smack the Japs" too, does that make Australian diggers "ethnically Vietnamese"?

"You have decreed it."

No, the Kinh have.
They also call themselves *Viet*.

Despite many cultural groups existing in Vietnam, the Kinh are the majority, the country is *named* after them, and their language is the *only* official one!

Could it be any clearer?

"What wikipedia says about 'race'"?

You missed this:
"A survey, taken in 1985, asked 1200 American anthropologists how many *disagree* with the following proposition:
"There are biological races in the species Homo sapiens."

The responses were:
physical anthropologists 41%
cultural anthropologists 53%

The same survey, taken in 1999:
physical anthropologists 69%
cultural anthropologists 80%"

*Not* 100%.

Oh, and this:
"Other geneticists, in contrast, argue that categories of self-identified race/ethnicity or biogeographic ancestry are both *valid and useful*".

And this:
"The FBI employs the term "race" to summarize the general appearance of individuals whom they are attempting to apprehend."

And this:
"Forensic anthropologists draw on highly heritable morphological features of human remains in order to aid in the identification of the body, including in terms of race."

Doesn't sound too unanimous to me.

"Your lecturette was a hoot. What 'race' do the 21,000,000 Australians fit into?"

*Which* Australians?
This is a colony, unlike Vietnam and Italy.

"Australian" is a *cultural* identity, but one created by a Germanic-Celtic/European/Caucasian majority.

Without them, I doubt the *culture* (not nationality) could continue to exist.
Do you?
Posted by Shockadelic, Sunday, 4 November 2007 5:26:00 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 TO ALL THE FORGOTTEN AUSTRALIANS . YES WE ARE STILL HERE AND NOT GOING AWAY . THIS IS LOUD NOW ,AS I BRING THE COMMENT IS THAT WE ARE AUSTRALIANS THAT WERE DERGADED MORALLY BY THE SERVENTS OF INSTITUTIONS HERE IN AUSTARLIA WE ARE THE VICTIMS AND IF IT WAS ANYONE OF ANY RACE THAT WAS A VICTIM WHILE THEY WERE IN A AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTION THEY ARE A FORGOTTEN AUSTRALIAN IT HAPPEND HERE AND THIS AUSTRALIA GOVERMENT IS RESPONSABLE ,OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE ADMITTED TRUTH HOWARD OR RUDD YOU KNOW THIS IS THE TRUTH SO TELL THE WORLD SORRY FOR OTHER PRIME MINISTERS MISTAKES AS YOU ARE THE ONE IN POWER HERE MR HOWARD AS IT WON'T HURT YOUR ELECTION ,AND THAT IS THE SAME FOR MR RUDD
Posted by huffnpuff, Sunday, 4 November 2007 5:52:34 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
Shockadelic

What are we to do with the 54 ethnic groups recognized as Vietnamese by the Vietnamese Government but which you won’t accept as Vietnamese? Perhaps you’d sponsor them as immigrants to Australia, seeing they’re not Vietnamese?

Interesting that the parallel to Gypsies came to your mind; we know what Hitler wanted to do with them.

Last time I had a Vietnamese meal (in Footscray) I didn’t become a Vietnamese, as expected, and I don’t think you will either. Shocktrooper logic. Australians fought against the Japanese without becoming Vietnamese. Really? You’re kidding? Keep the laughs coming.

At 1.0 p.m. today, you hit me with this argument: “Anthropologists may not use the term "race" anymore, but unfortunately for you 99.9999999999999% of the 6 billion people on Earth aren't anthropologists.”

Then at 5.26 p.m. you tell me that anthropologists are not 100% agreed on 'race'. Now settle down and think it through. How can I argue with you when you can't decide what you believe. Go away somewhere quiet and sort yourself out. Are the anthropologists who weren't in your 1 o'clock group part of the 99.9999999999999% of the 6 billion people who don't agree with anthropologists or do they fit in with the anthropologist who don't use the term 'race' anymore??

Your latest gem of racial wisdom is nearly as comic as your lecturette on European 'races': "‘Australian’ is a *cultural* identity, but one created by a Germanic-Celtic/European/Caucasian majority.”

Given that this thread started out as the story of Auntie Rhonda and her family, I wonder where you will place her people in your racial catalogue? They clearly aren’t Gypsies. It doesn’t look as if they’ll get a game in your ‘Germanic-Celtic/European/Caucasian majority’ team. Wrong colour guernsey, perhaps? But they're Australians aren't they?
Posted by FrankGol, Sunday, 4 November 2007 7:19:07 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
Mum, Dad. I asked to see you today because I have something I need to tell you.
I've been wondering how to say it, but I guess the only way...
Mum...Dad...

I'm Vietnamese.

(shocked look on parents' faces)

I know, it's not what you expected.
I was just as shocked as you at first.

You're Caucasian.
Most Caucasian parents presume their children will grow up to be Caucasian just like them.
And our society encourages that expectation.

But it doesn't always turn out that way.

At first, I thought it was just a phase I'd grow out of.

Lots of young people try multicultural food, or listen to world music.
I myself listened to the Mysterious Voices of Bulgaria, and ate tabbouleh.

But one day, I ate pho.
And that's when I knew in my heart I was Vietnamese.

I was soon eating pho every day.
Whenever I passed a Vietnamese restaurant, I had to go inside.
Even if I didn't order anything, just the aromas were enough.

But then I heard quan ho music.
This only confirmed my suspicions.

I learnt to speak my native tongue.
I read books on my people's history.
I couldn't deny it anymore.
I knew this was who I am.

I know I look white, and most people presume I am.
I'm not alone either.

There's lots of people out there who have ethnic identities that don't correlate with their genetic ancestry.

I know an anthropologist did a survey in the 1950s, and found about 10% of white people aren't actually white at all!

I have one friend who's Aboriginal.
She looks white, but she said that because her grandmother's second cousin's nephew was Aboriginal, that makes her Aboriginal too.

She experiences prejudice a lot, even from other Aboriginals, who really should be more understanding.

Don't worry. I won't live a sad and lonely life.
I've already met lots of other whites-who-aren't-white.

I know you're Caucasian, and I respect that.
But I hope you can respect me and still accept me as your son, even now that you know I'm really Vietnamese.
Posted by Shockadelic, Tuesday, 6 November 2007 7:33:05 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
Shockadelic

Did you know the Melbourne Cup is on today? And I hear there's a grey that might beat the blacks. That should make your lot very pleased, although I expect you'd want the bloodhorse breeders to keep trying for a pure white winner in the future.
Posted by FrankGol, Tuesday, 6 November 2007 8:43:00 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
FrankGol, you're confusing citizenship with ethnicity.

I'm referring to the latter.

Ethnicity, or nationhood, is not one factor.
It's a combination of many factors *shared* by a community:

1. ancestry.
2. culture (artistic, political, economic)
3. language
4. religion
5. social behaviour
6. geographical territory

These factors *may*, and most must, exist within an ethnicity/nation.

Ethnicity is fluid, but not infinite.

One doesn't necessarily need to share *all* of the common factors to be part of an ethnicity/nation.
But you must share *some* factors.

The fact Aboriginals or migrants may differ in *some* factors doesn't preclude them from being "Australians".

"The 54 ethnic groups?"

Recognised as "Citizens of the *state* Vietnam".
Not the *ethnicity* "Vietnamese".

Likewise, Aboriginals and migrants can be "Citizens of the state Australia", but are only "Australian" to the extent that they *share* common ethnic factors.

The more they share, the more "Australian" they are.
It's not "in" or "out", it's a *matter of degree*.

"How can I argue with you when you can't decide what you believe."

Please don't try to be clever, Frank.
It's *painful*!

Actually I was correcting *CJ Morgan's* statement: "Anthropologists no longer refer to races".
Chastise CJ.

"I wonder where you will place her people in your racial catalogue?
It doesn't look as if they'll get a game in your 'Germanic-Celtic/European/Caucasian majority' team."

Again, painful.

As stated before, Australia is a *colony*.
So there's both a native and colonial "Australia".

Aboriginals (and migrants) can be part of the majority ethnicity/nation (many already are, and live ordinary "boring and dumb" suburban lives like their white neighbours).

An Aboriginal who simply lives within the territory of the state Australia, but shares *no other* common ethnic factors with the majority, would be defined "Australian" by citizenship only.

His "ethnicity" would be that of his tribe.
Posted by Shockadelic, Tuesday, 6 November 2007 10:58:16 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
Somebody forgot to tell these people that ethnic nationalism is "so last century"
(See if you can spot the recurring theme):

Turkey: Majority ethnic Turks, Turkish language, 94% Muslim.

Lesotho: 99% Sotho, Sotho/English languages, 90% Christian.

Japan: 99% Japanese, Japanese language.

Somalia: 99% Somali, Somali language, majority Sunni Islam.

Greece: 99% Greek, Greek language, 98% Greek Orthodox.

South Korea: 99% Korean, Korean language.

Jordan: 98% Arab, Arabic language, 92% Muslim

Taiwan: 98% Han (82% Taiwanese Han), Mandarin language.

Bangladesh: 98% Bengalis, Bangla language, 89% Muslim.

Sweden: 98% Swedish, Swedish language, 78% Lutheran.

Armenia: 97% Armenians, Armenian language, 94% Armenian Apostolic.

Finland: 97% Finns (92% Finnish language speakers), 82% Lutheran.

Egypt: 97% Egyptians, Egyptian Arabic Language, 90% Muslim.

Poland: 96% Poles, Polish language, 95% Roman Catholic.

Tuvalu: 96% Polynesian, Tuvaluan/English languages, 97% Church of Tuvalu.

Portugal: 96% Portuguese. Portuguese language, majority Roman Catholic.

Albania: 95% Albanians, Albanian language, 70% Muslim.

Italy: 95% Italians, Italian language, 87% Roman Catholic.

Czech Republic: 95% Czechs, Czech language.

Hungary: 94% Hungarians, Hungarian language, 51% Roman Catholic.

Samoa: 92% Samoan, Samoan/English languages, 99% Christian.

China: 91% Han, Mandarin language.

Azerbaijan: 91% Azeris, 96% Azerbaijani language, 89% Shia Islam.

Germany: 91% Germans, German language.

Denmark: 91% Danes, Danish language, 83% Lutheran.

Mongolia: 90% Mongols, Khalkha Mongol language, 98% Buddhist.

Norway: 90% Norwegians, Norwegian language, 86% Lutheran.

Cambodia: 90% Khmer, Khmer language, 96% Theravada Buddhist.

Iceland: 90% Icelanders, Icelandic language, 87% Lutheran.

Saudi Arabia: 90% Arabs, Arabic language, 99% Muslim.

Bhutan: 90% Northern Bhutanese, Dzongkha language (native to Bhutan), 98% Lamaistic Buddhist.

Croatia: 89% Croats, 96% Croatian language, 87% Roman Catholic.

Romania: 89% Romanians, Romanian language, 86% Romanian Orthodox.

Uruguay: 88% White European, Spanish language, 62% Roman Catholic.

Liechtenstein: 86% Alemannic, German/Alemannic languages, 76% Roman Catholic.

Vietnam: 86% Vietnamese (a.k.a. Viet, a.k.a. Kinh), Vietnamese language, 83% Mahayana Buddhist.

Ireland: 86% Irish, Irish/English languages, 86% Roman Catholic.

Slovakia: 85% Slovaks, Slovak language, 60% Roman Catholic.

Turkmenistan: 85% Turkmen, Turkmen language, 89% Muslim.

Bulgaria: 83% Bulgarians, Bulgarian language, 82% Bulgarian Orthodox.

Georgia: 83% Georgians, Georgian language, 65% Georgian Orthodox.

I could go on and on and on....
Posted by Shockadelic, Thursday, 8 November 2007 12:43:08 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
Oh, okay I will.

Lithuania: 83% Lithuanians, Lithuanian language, majority Roman Catholic.

Slovenia: 83% Slovenes, Slovenian language, 57% Roman Catholic.

Belarus: 81% Belarusians, Belarusian/Russian languages.

Netherlands: 80% Dutch, Dutch language.

Tajikistan: 79% Tajiks, Persian language (Tajiki dialect), 85% Sunni Islam.

Russia: 79% Russians, Russian language, 60% Orthodox.

Botswana: 79% Tswana, Tswana language, 71% Christian.

Ukraine: 77% Ukrainians, Ukrainian language, 83% Orthodox.

Moldova: 76% Moldovans, Moldovan language, 98% Eastern Orthodox.

Israel: 76% Jewish, Hebrew/Arabic languages.

Uzbekistan: 71% Uzbeks, 74% Uzbek language, 88% Muslim.

Estonia: 68% Estonians, Estonian language.

Burma: 68% Bamar, Burmese language, 89% Theravada Buddhist.

Brunei: 67% Malay, Malay language, 58% Muslim.

Cuba: 65% White Cuban (primarily Spanish ancestry), Spanish language, 85% Roman Catholic pre-Castro.

Kyrgyzstan: 64% Kyrgyz, Kyrgyz/Russian languages, 75% Muslim.

Macedonia: 64% Macedonians, Macedonian language, 70% Macedonian Orthodox.

Laos: 60% Lao, Lao language, majority Buddhist.

Latvia: 58% Latvians, Latvian language, majority Christian.

Kazakhstan: 53% Kazakhs, Kazakh/Russian languages, 47% Muslim.

Iran: 51% Persians, 58% Persian language, 90% Shia Islam.

Countries that are multi-ethnic are usually colonies, borderlands or federations.

Colonies had their boundaries determined by the *colonists*, not the natives, forcing all the native ethnicities and the colonists to all live under one *artificial* roof.

Borderlands, like Switzerland, lie at the edges of several ethnicities (German, Italian, French).

Federations, like India, taken as a whole *appear* diverse, but each ethnicity has a *regional dominance* in one part of the country.
A nation of nations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:South_asia_local_lang.PNG

In most countries, historically and today, you see this pattern:
1. A dominant ethnic group.
2. A dominant language (of this group).
3. A dominant religion (again, of this group).

Minorities exist everywhere, but tolerance of them doesn't require the *redefinition* of the principal common ethnicity.

Shared factors in a community is the *norm*, not the exception.
The exceptions are usually the result of misguided colonialism and misguided immigration.

Most people, except a few ivory tower buffoons, can see the detrimental results of *both* these misguided policies.

What's done is done, but should we *keep* making the same mistakes?
Posted by Shockadelic, Thursday, 8 November 2007 12:48:21 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
Hey Shocker

Your pretty good on transcription. You'll set hearts racing with that wondrous list.

And it's so benevolent of you to allow Aboriginals to become Australians. But I've got some questions for you.

I notice that Aboriginals can only "become 'Australian' to the extent that they *share* common ethnic factors". Perhaps you could tell us what the common ethnic factors are that they must share? You say, "The more they share, the more 'Australian' they are." It's a matter of degree, you say. What is the turning point at which Aboriginals would become Australians?

I wonder what they are while waiting to qualify?

If I understand your policy position correctly, Jews could have become Germans in Germany in the 1930s. Why did Hitler try to get rid of them all?

You claim: "Countries that are multi-ethnic are usually colonies, borderlands or federations." Can you tell me some countries which are not 'multi-ethnic'?
Posted by FrankGol, Thursday, 8 November 2007 1:08:03 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
"It's so benevolent of you to allow Aboriginals to become Australians."

You will discover that when the mood takes me, I can be quite generous.

"Transcription"?

Research, Frank.
Something you *encouraged* me to do before.

Ignorant? Unacceptable!
Informed? Unacceptable!

No more references to "Vietnamese" ethnicity?
Can't ever admit you're wrong, can you?

You ignore my statement about the detrimental effects of colonisation and immigration.
No doubt you agree on colonisation.

But cultural destruction through immigration is acceptable to you.
Two wrongs make a right?

If "white" culture's threatened, whatever!
If "black" culture's threatened, OMIGOD, call an ambulance!

"If I understand your policy position correctly, Jews could have become Germans in Germany in the 1930s.
Why did Hitler try to get rid of them all?"

Jews *were* Germans in the 1930s.
And the 1870s.
And the 1760s.
And the 1680s.
And the 1520s...

Hitler defined "ethnicity" more strictly than me (or anthropologists).

He said you must have *all* factors in common within a strict boundary.
I (and the anthropologists) say you need *some* common factors within a fluid boundary.

His ideology wasn't really based on ethnicity.
That's a red herring or smokescreen.

The real agenda was *perfectionism*.
Which is why even some ethnic Germans were killed (they weren't perfect enough).

Perfectionism is FrankGol's agenda too.

Hence the "inferior" ethnicity of Australia must be destroyed, and anyone who disagrees with him is instantly ridiculed.
Remind you of anybody?

"Tell us what the common ethnic factors are that they must share?"
"I wonder what they are while waiting to qualify?"

These questions were answered in the post itself.
Are you a baby, Frank?

"You claim: "Countries that are multi-ethnic are usually colonies, borderlands or federations."
Can you tell me some countries which are not 'multi-ethnic'?"

More baby talk.

After listing many countries that feature a dominant ethnic majority, could I be referring to countries *unlike* the ones I just listed.
Countries where no ethnicity is the majority.
Put 2 and 2 together, Frank.

Okay, Frankie Wankie.
Here comes the munchy train!
Choo choo choo.
That's a good boy!

Uh-oh, someone smells stinky!
Posted by Shockadelic, Saturday, 10 November 2007 2:46:42 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
HI TO ALL THE FORGOTTEN AUSTRALIANS I SEND ALL MY BEST TO YOU ALL , AS WE ARE ALL STILL SUFFERING FROM THE RAPES AND ABUSE THAT WE OCCURRED AT THE HANDS OF THE GOVERMENT EMPLOYERS THAT WORKED FOR THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERMENT IN THEIR STATES RUN INSTITUTIONS NO MATTER WHAT HOME IT WAS ,AND YES D.O.C.S. WERE THE ONES WHO HAD CONTROL OF ALL INSTITUTIONS AND THAT OF THE WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY ,SO THE GOVERMENT HAS TO TELL THE TRUTH AS TO WHAT HAPPEND TO US VICTIMS ,SWEPPING THIS UNDER THE CARPET IS ONLY MAKING THE GOVERMENT EVEN WORSE , ,isnt it true that the white man landed on australian soil and they came across the aboriginals so its ovious they were here before any other nationality person, ,ALSO ,I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY TO THOSE OUT THERE THAT SEEM TO NOT UNDER STAND WHAT WE SUFFERED AND STILL ARE COVERING UP FOR THE GOVERMENTS OF AUSTRALIA, AS I SAID IN ALL THE POST IVE WRITTEN IN THE EARLIER POST THAT BOTH LABOUR AND LIBERAL ARE RESPONSABLE FOR WHAT WE SUFFERED BY THE PEDOPHILES THAT WORK FOR THEIR GOVERMENT RUN INSTITUTIONS, AS THIS ABUSES WERE OCCURRING AS EACH GOVERMENT HANDED OVER POWER FROM EITHER LIBERAL OR LABOUR AS THESE ABUSES OCCURRED WHEN LABOUR WAS PRIME MINISTER AND WHEN LIBERAL IS IN POWER , ALSO IF I WANT TO WRITE IN CAPITAL LETTERS I WILL AS BELLY HAD A GO AT ME IN A POST ABOUT IT WELL BELLY IM YELLING THIS OUT BECAUSE WE WANT THE TRUTH TO BE KNOWN SO SEENS IM NOT A COMPUTOR EXPERT I WILL USE THESE CAPILTALS SO THAT EVERYONE CAN SEE BETWEEN THE LINES THAT I WRITE , THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERMENT IS STILL PROTECTING THE PEDOPHILES THAT WORKED FOR THOSE INSTITUTIONS AND MANY OTHER INSTITUTIONS , AS I ALSO NOTICE THIS IS THE ONLY CONTRY THAT HAS A GOVERMENT THAT DOES NOT CARE ABOUT THE FORGOTTEN AUSTRALIAN VICTIMS ,ALSO HAVE NOT GOT THE GUTS TO TELL THE TRUTH OF WHAT WE SUFFERED,
Posted by huffnpuff, Saturday, 10 November 2007 9:37:22 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
Shockadelic

Your poetry is better than your prose.

And your baby talk is superior to your grown-up stuff.
Posted by FrankGol, Saturday, 10 November 2007 1:41:00 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 may be wrong here, but it seems to me that most of today's leading "Aboriginals" are are either descended from Europeans or perhaps Chinese or are married to same, so that ethnically they are well on the way to becoming "Australians".

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Saturday, 10 November 2007 8:39:58 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
FrankGol, I don't recall writing any poetry.

I also don't recall you addressing the issue of cultural destruction through colonisation and immigration.

Because you make a pastime of deliberately ignoring or misinterpreting questions, I'll be *very* clear:

1. Do you support cultural destruction through colonisation or not?
2. Do you support cultural destruction through immigration or not?
3. In either case, does it matter *who's* culture is being destroyed? (i.e. are some cultures less or more deserving of destruction)

Now, please don't pretend you're a baby and don't understand the questions.
Posted by Shockadelic, Sunday, 11 November 2007 5:54:18 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All

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