Poirot - you write:

"So highlighting culturally ingrained and regularly delivered vilification aimed a people playing on a sports field turns out to be an over-reaction or bullying act....according to some."

People at sports events heckle the opposition? Well *bleep* my old blue dog! That must end! Terrible thing .... Don't know how countless athletes haven't flung themselves off tall buildings in despair ... Except those with intellect who accept the package deal and laugh all the way to the bank. What to do? Maybe soundproof barriers in every venue to protect players from those nasty fans!. Really Poirot ... you're pulling our leg aren't you?

What really inspired Goodes disproportional hissy fit over a kid calling him 'Ape"? No particular racial overtone to it. I'll wager 'Dipper' DiPierdomenico, true sport and big hairy ape of a man has been called that more times than I've had hot dinners.

When Goodes realised the offender was a mere child, and no way he could have mistaken, why didn't he drop the big carry-on and make a statement after the game about hurt or offence he took from his interpretation of the insult? All he had to do was drop the finger. He stood on the sideline pointing and mouthing until Security turned up. Wasn't like he "couldn't pull out of the tackle" ...

Then again perhaps it's cultural? I observed an heightened propensity for casual violence - physical and verbal, particularly in the male, among my Aboriginal clientele back in the public health days .... I'll wager you'll take offence at this and accuse me of - wait for it - racism!

As for "Adults mentoring children & adolescents to broadcast abuse at sports events" There'd be plenty of youngsters aping (can I say that?) the behaviour of elders but few adults actively coaching the loudmouths of tomorrow. Sport is entertainment! Is the audience expected to sit and politely applaud occasionally?

I'd prescribe a teaspoon of cement but you might start building a highrise ...

No chance of me taking anything you'd prescribe, divine_msn...

I told you once before that I'm glad you're not my doctor.

(Seen nothing on this thread to alter that opinion)

david f "Separate usually meant inferior or non-existent."

You get what you pay for. Most Blacks were poor.
Poor white people probably got 1-star budget offers too.

If certain businesses refused Blacks altogether, it was probably the result of lessons learned (unpaid bills, troublemakers, property damage, etc.)

"Black schools received less funds per pupil than white schools."

And? Does that violate anyone's "privileges" as a citizen?
Maybe funding is based on more than bums on seats, eh?
Test scores? Attendance? Hmmm.

Oddly, we still see Black-only colleges in America today.
The usual hypocrisy of progressives and minorities (Minority Motto #1: What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine too).

"In declaring school segregation illegal the Supreme Court wrote that segregation is ‘inherently unequal’."

The only mention of "equal" in that amendment relates to "protection of laws".
What does separate schools have to do with legal protections?

What about the same amendment's defence of "liberty" and "property"?

Progressives at all levels of government violate those ALL THE TIME!
A million and one rules and regulations that stick their nose into citizens' private lives.
But it's for our own good, so &%#$ the constitution!
You will *not* be drinking a Large Coke in New York City, buddy!

The concept that intelligence can not be accurately measured is one rejected by the mental metrician's themselves, and by the government departments, universities (SAT scores) and corporations who routinely use their results. Intelligence is obviously related to civilisation. The longer that humans are put in the position where they need to use abstract thought and reasoning to make their complex society function, the more the less intelligent will be weeded out through natural selection, and the more that intelligent people will become the successful breeders.

'The Bell Curve" claimed that African-Americans have a measured mean IQ of 85, Hispanics 95, Whites a mean IQ of 103, and "Asian-Americans" a mean IQ of 106.

That does not mean that there are no whites with low IQ's, or that there are no smart blacks. But the clear difference of mean IQ levels conforms quite well with the comparative economic success of the four races. We know that even within racially homogenous populations, societal layering occurs according to class, and class is generally linked to intelligence. Generally speaking, high status people are considered to be very intelligent, while intergenerational disadvantaged class people most definitely are not.

Despite the declarations of the socialist egalitarians, no advanced society has ever succeeded in creating a class blind society. People higher on the status scale prefer to keep their distance from people who are not as intelligent as they are. It is quite routine, even for working class people, to look down on intergenerational disadvantaged class people, and regard them as unworthy. This is a fact of life, and it is hardly illegal for anyone of high status to make a negative assumption about people who inhabit lower classes.

But it is obvious that social stratification is generally related to race, because social status is generally related to intelligence, and racial intelligences are not equal. So you can prejudge, label and negatively stereotype people by their class, but not legally by their race, even though the there is a strong connection between the two. I find such a concept to be intellectually unsupportable.

Poirot - have you ever ANSWERED A QUESTION put to you seeking to challenge or validate your views or statements?

Please provide a link as I don't believe I've come across it ...

"Poirot - have you ever ANSWERED A QUESTION put to you seeking to challenge or validate your views or statements?"

(Ho hum...another poster who feels the need to "shout")

What do you reckon, divine_msn?....Obviously my copious store of posts on this forum was me just dropping by to swap recipes.

Frankly, my dear, if I'm going to offer up my views for "validation" I'd be more inclined to present them to a poster with whom ,though we may disagree, I at least respect.

I hope that explains things....

Here's the post to which I alluded:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13871&page=0#239832

Sorry, divine_msn, I may be naive, but I prefer the Fred Hollows of this world in preference to those who would refer to a proportion of their "clientele" as "Dropkicks" in need of "...treatment for paranoia or to remove a chip off their shoulder."

(A purely personal preference, you understand)

I appear to have a apologised a little further down that thread (because I'm a reasonable person)...but upon further consideration, I'm happy - as you've noted in my previous post on this thread - to revert to my original stance.