Many Australians believe that now is the moment for a
decisive change of direction, that now is the time to
transcend the surviving legacy of colonialism.

At the heart of this movement is the desire to face up
to our history, to embrace the past in all its aspects,
to cease to hide the violence, the dispossession, the
deprivation.

People now want to know the truth about the
past and to come to terms with it. They see this not as
finger-pointing but as an essential step along the way
towards national maturity.

Perhaps the discussion that has developed as a result of
the actions of a 13 year old - in some small way will
assist that process.

It's a discussion that goes beyond what happened - and
one we had to have.

As stated earlier, Australian racism is rarely vicious
or spiteful or dangerous. Adam Goodes did not blame the
young girl. He behaved graciously.

I understand the ignorance of those who tell us that
if you can't cop
it, or take a joke, you're humourless and politically correct.
And if you complain about it and ask that it stop,
you're guilty of perpetuating the "new racism," whatever
that is. I understand the accusations of supposedly
being apologists
for "child abusers," (sic),
and I understand being told - how others are much worse in their "racism,"
(usually Muslims are given as an example), as if that should
excuse our behaviour.

Invariably the way we colour the world will be from our own
agendas, our own unique view. But if contemporary Australians
are to live at ease with ourselves, we need more education,
and at least greater honesty about the
culture of racism that is so damaging to us all.

"Prejudices, it is well known, are most difficult to
eradicate from the heart whose soil has never been loosened
or fertilised by education; they grow there, firm as weeds
among stones."
(Charlotte Bronte, Jane Eyre).

Dear Lego,

After the Civil War the US Constitution was amended. Part of the amendment follows:

AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The above amendment forbids making laws that abridge the rights of any group of citizens. Segregating citizens on the basis of their race is in violation of section 1 of Amendment XIV. I think it was a great step forward to enforce the Constitution and negate the laws mandating segregation that existed in the southern states. Laws that violate the US Constitution have no validity in the US.

Black people who are citizens of the United States should be treated with all the respect due to any citizen. They should not be denied service or segregated at any place of public accommodation.

I do not agree that black run societies are universally dysfunctional. South Africa is a black run society. Though it has problems it is functional.

I also do not believe that it is legitimate to discriminate against a group of people because their average intelligence is lower according to IQ tests. IQ tests are all to some degree culture dependent. In the United States as a group Jews and Chinese score higher than the average. I do not think it valid to discriminate against gentiles or other non-Chinese.

We have different and incompatible worldviews.

Lexi - Let's set a scene:

You're at a large charity dinner - five hundred guests and media galore.

Conversation at your table turns to topic of overseas conflict. You, innocently, express a strong opinion. In your eyes any Australian troop involved in the war in Afghanistan has blood on his hands.

Woman opposite stands, starts yelling - at you. Her partner was killed there only a month ago. She is wailing and pointing. By now every one present is facing your direction as have the TV cameras. Security bustles in, speaks briefly with the angry distressed woman then demands you accompany them off the premises.

Hours later on National TV you're watching your eviction and hearing how you'd denigrated a war hero. People are making statements about 'disgraceful behaviour'. Woman who made the fuss appears, says "She should've known better. She's not a CHILD! Needs education about what our troops are fighting for." Story and TV coverage goes international.

You've done nothing ILLEGAL. It was INSENSITIVE. No malice was intended.

Do you feel fairly treated?

Rather, maybe a more reasonable reaction to this faux pas would've been if the victim had hissed across the table, "Shut your filthy mouth! I've just buried my husband who died protecting the people of that country. How dare you!"?

Others at your table would most likely have looked away. You probably would've cringed, apologised, felt uncomfortable the rest of the evening and hoped never to meet again but the incident would've been finished in a manner appropriate.

Instead - you're famous! Millions know your face, have witnessed your humiliation. All because of something that was construed in a manner not intended. AND YOU'RE AN ADULT!

Get the picture?

In the time spent pointing and shouting Goodes could've confronted his child tormentor with a few terse words.

Gracious? Mmmmm ... Sure!

david f "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

Being served in a restaurant is not an automatic "priviledge" or right of citizenship.
It is, or should be, the prerogative of the business owner (it's their "property") to decide who they serve.

Anyway, Blacks were not denied a bus seat, a meal, a hotel room or anything else.
There were simply *separate* services.

Greetings DavidF

The Northern US attitudes to segregation (with few negroes)) were so different to the South (where negroes were plentiful) that the US violated its own constitution to prevent the South from leaving the Union. President Lincoln violated the US Constitution by suspending habeas corpus, and when his own Attorney-General objected, he threaten to jail him.

The US Constitution was enforced through force of arms on the South, so it might be understandable if the South still resents that. The segregationist South violated the US Constitution because it was imposed upon it by the North, who violated it themselves in order to make war on them.

Could I point out that many of the negroes in the South then went North to give the benefits of multiculturalism to the finger wagging North? The result of this migration is that in the US Capitol, Washington, the police admitted that they had lost control of the streets, Chicago became "the murder capitol of the US", and Detroit has the distinction of being the only First World city rumoured to have become part of the African Third World?

The question remains, is it not Racism reasonable? Is it not reasonable for a group of people to look down upon another group of people who are renowned for their exceptionally violent and criminal behaviour, their creation of intractable social problems, and their endemic welfare dependency? Is it not reasonable for a productive majority to discriminate against a dysfunctional minority?

South Africa is a case in point. AIDS is wiping out the blacks because black men simply refuse to wear condoms. How smart is that? Soweto is still one of the most violent and dysfunctional societies on the planet, and white people live in gated communities, and drive around in bullet proof cars while trying to figure out how to immigrate to Australia.

Thank you for confirming that it is a fact that different races have different IQ's. The socialist egalitarians here would never admit to that, even if you tortured them on the rack to get it out of them.

Dear divine_msn,

Thank you for your hypothetical scenario.
But you miss the point. What you describe is
something totally different to what is under
discussion here. Ethnic slurs are in a category
all by themselves - and education is the key to
this problem.

See you on another thread.