Truly fascinating stuff. As I said earlier in the thread, OLO performs a very useful function in reminding us that strongly racist elements still persist in our society.

Mind you, Jay's posts are so bizarre that I'm not entirely convinced that they're not an elaborate wind-up.

Either way, it's quite entertaining :)

Since the beginning of colonisation and the following history of Australia there has been backlashes to migrations to this country, even though there has always been a felt need for immigrants to this country to develop it and without which this country would have remained as the backwaters of history.
When the Irish came, feelings ran high against them. Italians and other east Europeans fared no better.. The early governments and industrialists and employers felt the need of increased immigration from other countrties for the simple reason that there were not enough migrants from the UK and there was a dire need for the population to be increased. The new migrants suffered a backlash also. There was a fear hat the newly arrived would get all their jobs. The usual insults and pejorative epithets were wildly thrown about. There were race riots. Nothing new. The story of backlash is renewed with each pattern of immigration from other countries and other races. Today there seems to be a backlash against the Indians before which there was a backlash against the Chinese and the Pacific Islanders.
The important thing to remember out of this sordid characteristic of migration histories that not everyone felt embittered, the vast moral majorities didnt,and each time eventually the backlash subsided. The country breathed easy again and saw the benefits accruing to make Australia a richer and better and stronger country. The insecure and socially retarded were those who were ill-equipped to compete with the newly arrived and there was fear and jealousy as they tried to make the newcomers as uncomfortable and fearful as possible to stop the flow.
Today its the turn of Afghan and Sri Lankan migrants. And so it goes. it is inherent as the birth pains of the nation.

socratease

CJ. In your opinion I'm a Racist.
This discussion shows that a strong attachment to Race exists within the community despite it being a forbidden zone.
STILL, despite all the attempts to eradicate such sentiments!
We're not supposed to talk about RACE unless we make it absolutely clear that "I'm not being Racist but..."
It's kind of a tell,that Race is the only thing we're not really supposed to talk about,but racism is in the headlines every day.
Race is real and it matters.
Socratease.
Nation of Immigrants?
You make it all sound so benign.
White people took this country by military force and damn near wiped out the people who were already here, technically hostilities are still ongoing
That's the only reason the Chinese, the Indians and the Polynesians got to see it!
Nation of Immigrants! That's funny.
If you believe that then you must believe that we emigrated to Iraq in 2003.
Nation of Immigrants! How sweet!
If there was a possibility of things turning out any other way we'd be welcomed with flowers and a band everywhere we settled, as it is nobody else wants us anywhere near their living spaces, they're dying in droves to keep us out in Afghanistan.
The majority world understand us even if were taught not to ask about our own true nature.
Race is real to them, and it matters.

David, I'm happy to discuss IQ And The Wealth Of Nations with you but bear in mind that IQ only works within a certain range.
People who use IQ to argue their point on Race usually end up with Egg on their face.

In response to CJ Morgan's post of Sunday, 28 March 2010 at 1:35:14 PM, and with apologies for delay due to an interruption of the Telstra landline service through which I access OLO, I would have to say that ozzie's post of Sunday, 28 March 2010 at 9:51:21 PM ( See also: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10024&page=0 ) explains the sourcing of my claims most appropriately. Obviously my focus was on the murders as the most extreme outworking of violence that in its doubtless more extensive, but also less fully reported, aspects, may not be anywhere nearly authoritatively verifiable as to the perpetrators so far as the Australian public is concerned.

What can be expected is that the full extent of official reports as to both the murders and other, and perhaps less well-defined, expressions of violence to Indian students would have been available to Indian diplomatic officials. That the Indian government recognised this violence as ultimately resulting from an ill-advised Australian migration policy, not from latent racism within the Australian community, is borne witness to by the recent change to that policy doubtless as the result of Indian diplomatic representations.

India made the Australian government face up to its responsibility for a racket in which the grant of permanent residency was an automatic outcome of Indian citizens undertaking vocational courses in Australia, as a consequence of which many Indian citizens both in Australia and back in India were able to be ripped off by shonky elements of a likely Indo-Australian immigration industry promoting shonky training courses. Only the Australian government could put a stop to this racket. Indian diplomacy made sure that it did.



Relations between India and Australia were not roiled at all.



Various interests within Australia pushing high and easy immigration may, however, have been partially foiled by an Australian community anti-immigration backlash of which the Indian government may well tacitly, if not openly, approve.

I suggest the attempt to make this a debate about racism may be an attempt to disguise the immigration policy direction in which India has wisely helped point Australia.

Forrest Gumpp: << ...news that was initially kept from the Australian public [that a very significant proportion of the violence was actually perpetrated by other Indians, rather than by persons from the 'white' Australian community]... >>

Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Sunday, 28 March 2010 10:37:22 AM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10150#166604

Forrest Gumpp: << Obviously my focus was on the murders as the most extreme outworking of violence that in its doubtless more extensive, but also less fully reported, aspects, may not be anywhere nearly authoritatively verifiable as to the perpetrators so far as the Australian public is concerned. >>

Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Wednesday, 31 March 2010 11:05:30 AM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10150#166965

Nice waffle, Forrest, but it still doesn't wash. What you said was that information that "a very significant proportion of the violence was actually perpetrated by other Indians" had been "kept from" the Australian public. Now, when challenged to provide some basis for this claim, you amend it to say that you actually meant "murders", rather than lesser crimes of "violence" against Indians, because the perpetrators of the very few murders are "authoritatively verifiable", while you really don't have a clue who is responsible for the vast majority of violent crimes against Indians in Australia.

I put it to you that your initial comment was a deliberate dog-whistle which was intended to convey the impression that a "very significant" proportion of violence against Indians in Australia is perpetrated by other Indians.