This entire racism business should be ignored. McGuire is a public figure capable of defending himself, although he has no reason to do so. The real racism and hatred comes from whining non-whites who have been crying wolf for too long. The media encouraging and reporting the garbage is a disgrace. Small wonder they have to beg the government to protect them financially from Google etc.

ttbn,
Ditto !

individual,

Nobody seems to realise that the tolerance we are accused of not having is the very thing that has us as a society not calling out non-whites for constantly calling us racist because we are white, which is itself racist hatred towards us. The whole thing is ridiculous', and we should turn our backs on these people as black activists did to Rudd and his silly sorry nonsense.

I don't think anyone should turn their backs on issues such as race.

To do so would merely compound tensions within society

ttbn,
My experiences are that, those who bleat racism are the actual racists. I have come to the conclusion that it takes a great degree of vindictiveness & educated/indoctrinated stupidity to be racist.

Everyone acts in what they perceive to be in their own self interest. There is no way to create stable representative institutions in an environment of unstable population. Maybe that is the point- certain people in society see instability as a ladder to power.

In my view the vision of "a government of the people by the people for the people" cannot be achieved in an environment where the concept of the people is subverted, manipulated, distorted, and replaced for Industrial Relations benefit and strike breaking by divide and conquer machiavellian industrialist short-termism. People relate better with people that are like themselves. Many successful cultures developed as a mono-ethnic monoculture- there are those that disagree with this paradigm- sadly they have the power and use it in their own interest.

No matter the policy of racism or anti-racism someone gets hurt.

Australia was founded by British peoples and the Australian nation was an item of British Law. The end result of massive immigration will be the destruction of the rights of the British Australian people and culture.

There will always be inequality. My hope is that we can create a place for everyone on the Earth- but this requires some walls. Western countries left their colonies but our colonies have returned to haunt us.

We should give Aboriginals their own nation. Then they can't complain about us favouring our own interest in ours.

CM, are you saying that interaction cannot lead to a harmonious national society of different ethnicities?

While history does show problems within national societies, it is also the case that many thousands of political entities have evolved into far fewer nations today where many still agree on some norms and institutions between them.

Some nations are indeed relatively harmonious, held together by a commitment to common rules and norm.

I am not saying you are right or wrong. Just saying that there are two sides to the story.

Well argued defence, Chris. However, the problem is not an Eddie Mcguire so much, but a small cohort of brainwashed from birth, white supremists, the alt-right and a vociferous neo-Nazi cohort?

We need to call these folks out and have them removed from our sports stadiums and deny them access to our social media before this swill can affect young minds that haven't honed their critical thinking and fact-checking skills! Freedom of speech is one thing and I support it! But not a freedom to lie, lie, lie, lie and bully!

We are all earthlings sharing a single planet! And need to cooperate as never before! Being true to the truth will assist that! But not helped in any way by a culture of ingrained racism/bastardy!
Alan B.

"Interaction". It rarely occurs, despite TV ads depicting one of every colour in "family" scenes. All people prefer their own kind. Get used to it. Multiculturalism and mass immigration have given some people false notions.

There is always Cultural Relativism.

If you are able to admit that there are two sides to the story- or even that there might be two sides to the story- you could be accused of being a fascist or a neo-nazi these days- kudos for your bravery. As we've assertained you have a good pedigree in political science- so at least it shows that there are a few rare people academically inclined that are still able to discuss both sides.

As I understand Trotsky similar to Alan B made liberal use of synonyms of the term "racist" for his propaganda in the 1920's all in the name of equality. Looks like we can expect big things from Alan B.

Most people just want to be left alone to live their life without getting in the way of their neighbours- but those that seek power get in the way of their lunch. To then call these people out as nazi's is adding insult to injury.

I don't have much of a background in The Arts or History- but I hope my understanding is better than the background level.

My understanding...

Even the Nazi's were reacting to events of 1800's colonialism- WWII has been said to be an extension of WWI- Germany was pulled into WWI because of the assassination of the Austrian Prince just as the UK was. Germany lost much of it's Prussian territory due to WWI. The UK fought the so called fascists in WWII and suffered much for their commitment- against people that are ethnically related to the British and US for that matter. However today they are probably the most labelled as racist fascists. The western world is one of the fairest regimes- it isn't perfect..

Britain seemed to understand that the cause of the world wars the pogrom's in Russia and Germany was based on certain causes such as Slavic/ Germanic/ Hebrew territorialism and sought to find a more humane solution.

Sadly territorialism continues- politics of immigration and Trotsky permanent revolution making a peaceful solution impossible. Communists actively seek divisive conflict to bring down the so called Ideological State Apparatus for Communism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology_and_Ideological_State_Apparatuses

"Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses... French Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser 1970... it advances Althusser's theory of ideology. Where Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels posited a thinly-sketched theory of ideology as false consciousness, Althusser draws upon the works of later theorists such as Antonio Gramsci, Sigmund Freud and Jacques Lacan to proffer a more elaborate redefinition of the theory. Althusser's theory of ideology has remained influential since it was written. "

Everyone wants more power- using the label of racism is one way to get it for certain people- propaganda is a powerful tool.

Everyone acts in their own interest- if you give up what is in your own interest you die.

The politicians toolbox ranges from diplomacy to murder, from politeness to black propaganda, from soft power to terrorism- everyone uses these tools to a lesser or greater extent and based on their position in the global hierarchy superset. The communists probably used the black arts of politics more than most- probably justifying it as a necessary evil.

I think stability is important- because it is often those most vulnerable that are harmed by instability- perhaps I am talking my own self interest.

We should try to find a way to balance the solution of intrenched misery with the need for stability and security of our communities. I see some benefits in the aristocratic systems of Britain for the last one thousand years. The Lords shouldn't upset the peasants too much for fear of uprising- they can't run away with their wealth (as it was based on land which wasn't transferable) so they are forced to manage their land and people properly.

There seems to be a trend that all that is old is bad- I remember this being a common propaganda technique among communists- but without traditional systems there can never be stability- and we will always be at war with each other

CM, ethnicity/race is a most interesting topic, assuming none of us are being adversely affected by it.

I watched a show about plight of pigmies in Africa.

Some wanted to go back to forests and embrace their own culture, others said no as they thought they lived in an evil way but wanted govt to give them land and equality before law so they could prosper.

NTIV has some great shows. Thanks SBS, a much better tv channel than the ABC.

You only have to look at Kosovo to see that after decades, even centuries, when the stuff hits the fan differences emerge radically. Even when ethnicity is the same or similar, perceived differences lead to war. Multiculturalism leads to catastrophe. Your reference Chris, to "first nation" a totally garbage concept, trying to force a lie degrades your whole piece. It is as false as the "welcome to country" garbage developed by a TV personality, with no bearing in fact or history.

I lived & worked in the Pacific Islands, often the only white within hundreds of miles. I had close friends in many of the islands, but that did not stop me suddenly developing a strong need to come home. I needed to walk down a street where I looked like every one else. Is that racist, or simply a thing we all have in us.

I had a fair bit of contact with French Islanders. From that I don't like French. Does that make me racist. Is it my fault the French are basically awful people. Perhaps culture causes as much or in fact more dislike as race.

Should I respect a dark skinned footballer, merely because he is a dark skinned thug, or am I entitled to disrespect any thug footballer regardless of their skin colour. I will respect anyone if they earn that respect. I refuse to respect anyone, regardless of ethnicity if their behavior is not worthy of my respect.
Continued.

Continued.
I once anchored my yacht in the Shortland Islands, northern Solomons. A little while later I was hailed by a short fat melonesian, in a dug out canoe that looked far too small for his bulk. He invited me to diner with he & his wife, in a very cultured English accent. It transpired that he & a few other islanders with adequate scholastic ability had been educated at Oxford, courtesy of the British Government when they ran the islands. He had served for 20 years in their public service ending as chief of police.

The Brits had a great policy. After 20 years all public servants were superannuated, provided they returned to their place of birth. This way rather than all such people remaining in the capital they returned to their islands with their education, wealth, [compared to most islanders] & knowledge of, & contacts in government. They were a greater asset spread through out the islands than previously gathered in the capital. It was these people who facilitated the spread of health, education, transport & other government services.

I became great friends with him & a few others. I would drop in when ever I was passing, but I still had that urge to come "home".

Chris thanks for your Pygmie example- very apt. Yes I've often thought of the tragic circumstances of the Kalahari Bushmen- though my knowledge is limited. Often the value of a culture can only be understood from within. We may not always agree- but I consider you one of the good ones. Kudos.

The current state of the debate is fearful to me as it is bordering on "thought crime" legislation. The totalitarians perhaps have been taking lessons from Orwell more than the population has been heeding the warning. It's always been true perhaps that those with education have used it to enslave rather than teach.

Hasbeen, I am not advocating multiculturalism where all groups are equal.

But, as a supporter of liberalism, I do believe that unnecessary differences can break down through smart policies to promote a multi-ethnic society that gets along.

Attack that argument, as CM is doing, but please don't confuse what I am saying.

There'll never be an end to this. It's Australia's Palestine.

Who is Eddy McGuire?
Probably an over-inflated ego who has too much power, who is famous for being famous.
As someone who does not listen to the radio of watch TV I have never seen or heard him speak. Or Read anything about him or anything that he is written.

There's been a little ray of hope in the knocking back of a nutbag claim that a TV ad for BCF contained 'implied racism' because some appeared to be eating a bat, and the China virus was keeping tourists at home.

There sure are some time/money wasting bloody lunatics in this country.

Chris, nobody is born hating or dispising difference! One only has to see children that haven't been brainwashed by mindless hate to Know that with certainty!

It as to be learned from racist parents and the community. Given some communities seem much more racist than others, the racism seems stronger in those communities and critical thinking much less so?

We were once far more tolerant of difference than now? But with the advent of post-war migration seem to have imported a significant measure of it along with increased xenophobia?

I don't care for racism! If folk who are different from me want to exist in peace cohabitation, I have no issues with them. I agree with hasbeen and have no time for thugs, be they black white or brindle.

Simply put, there is not a black way a white way, just a right way!

And common courtesy and civility doesn't cost anyone anything!

Albeit, I must say I do so enjoy robust debate and the good fight for things and issues I believe in! Cheap carbon-free, reliable, 24/7 power for everyone being front and centre among them! Given the huge economic boost that would give the nation!

I enjoy the, close run thing, sporting contests but not the usually drunken yobbos who turn up and allow the real man to get out and come on with the usual tirade of mindless abuse! If it were down to me, these venues would be alcohol-free! And given that were so, also yobbo free?

If hurling abuse at folk who have never ever wronged you, is your go, while in your cups? Stay at home and piss it up against your wall and save the brain-free abuse for the tele!
Alan B.

Very true Alan. My daughter is all over me if I say anything referring to the Chinese. I leave my rants for OLO, albeit I have never attacked Chinese people.

My sentiment is that most people are good as long as they get a fair chance.

With regard to AFL and racism, I know first hand how attitudes have improved, and I believe this improvement has come from interaction from people of different backgrounds since 1970s.

At Windy Hill in 1970s, I witnessed a Carlton supporter, my view of Italian descent, get smashed up quite badly by an Essendon supporter for merely saying bad luck after the match.

I don't think such behaviour would happen today, and I know very few people would tolerate it and merely stand back and watch the slugfest.

IMO, times have changed for the better.

"My daughter is all over me if I say anything referring to the Chinese".

That's what happens when children are brainwashed at school and on social media. It's the responsibility of their parents to guide them and help them to reason. The Marxists are not trying to crush the traditional family just for kicks.

If you are interested in real racism look no further than the proposal to introduce the aboriginal 'Voice' to parliament.

Advocates for an Indigenous Voice to Parliament see the proposal for a legislated option merely as a stepping stone to radical constitutional change rather than the compromise some conservatives think it could be. (Morgan Begg, IPA, 3/2/21).

An interim report from the National Indigenous Australian Agency does nothing to suggest that this is not the case. The Voice would be a parallel representation conferring special rights on about 4% of the population not available to 96% of the population.

Lefty, Professor George Williams, has pointed out that “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples” have endorsed the Voice ONLY if it is enshrined in the Constitution. There is no mandate from the ‘community’ for any other proposal. Most urgers seem to want constitutional change no matter what.

If we had a strong government, concerned with the rights of ALL Australians, this rubbish would have been knocked in the head long ago. Instead, the mob we have in Canberra has actually encouraged it by being too cowardly - frightened of a miserable minority - to say, enough!

Fiddling around with this special Voice nonsense and special rights for just some people could be very dangerous in a much vaunted ‘multicultural society’.

doubt such a proposal would ever get up, nor should it.

Parties are free to have any group as election candidates, but all MPs should be elected by the people.

Chris,

No. It should not get up, but our make-believe conservative government is pushing for it.

"Led by Prime Minister Scott Morrison .... the political establishment has a vested interest in fomenting a divisive agenda that .... undermines the rule of law .... ". (Augusto Zimmermann, Quadrant, 20/2/21).

One of the driving forces behind the Voice, lawyer Mark Leibler, says that “unlike his predecessor Malcolm Turnbull”, Morrison is “genuinely open to the idea”. I’m amazed that so many people are still fooled by this man Morrison, with his thrusting, Mussolini jaw.

Both parties are in on it. We might get a referendum but, given Morrison's ‘president-like’ hold on government, I would not bet on it.

I have to say Graham Young and On Line Opinion is a blessing in terms of its existence.

I have a gut feeling that this article "In defence of Eddie McGuire" will not be published on another site I write for, a sports site.

I may yet be wrong, albeit the site does not respond to my messages, but my summary is at odds with what one of the editors wrote.

There is no doubt that news sources are conscious of its readership, and perhaps more so for smaller players which rely on advertising.

But OLO is an exception. It publishes all points of view and is not characterised by the bias that exists on most other sites, ranging from the left to right.

Even though I may strongly disagree with some of his views, Graham should be applauded for what he strived to do with OLO, one of the first Internet sites.

I certainly hope it sticks around for a long time yet.

Having people critique your views is the best way to improve your writing and view of the world.

OK. Here's the thing. All future governor Generals to be highly educated standout aborigines? With etonian accents?

This gives them a place at the table and recognises their status as the first people! And the reserve powers of the GG!

And a bill of universal rights would protect their rights as well as every other native-born or new Australian! Many of the latter better citizens with more love and devotion for this wide brown land that many of the native-born!

Just heard one of authors of Do Better report on ABC with Tracy Holmes.

Now I must be living in a different world.

The author cannot be serious when stating the need to highlight the clubs racist past as if somehow legitimising all recommendations.

To imply that nothing has changed from 50 years ago is indeed the stuff of amusement, imo.

I find that view insulting.

I have been observing AFL and issues of race for over 40 years, and I am disgusted that such academics are so out of touch with reality.

If you are going to imply that the constitution is racist, and somehow Collingwood is somehow reflective of such a reality, as I heard on the radio today, all I see is how such garbage merely serves to alienate many people.

You don't get anywhere by telling AFL supporters or a club they are racist, when clearly most are not and have moved dramatically away from views of the past.

Forget making appeal to the highbrow, many of which don't even watch football, and try to make sense to the many that count.

Individual,

Yes. The members of any race calling people of another race, ‘racists’ are obviously themselves racists by definition. What we call white people who call other white people racists has yet to be coined. ‘Lunatics’ will have to do until someone comes up with a word. They don’t understand the concept of self-loathing.

CM,

You say that Aboriginals should be given their own nation; but that wouldn’t be enough - nothing will ever be enough. And, guess who will continue continue paying for all this apartheid?

One Australia. One people.

you can never win highbrow debates about race. If you defend the past you are a racist.

On the other site, a poster stated this of me

"They accurately reported what the problem is and then the report was validated by the club reacting exactly as stipulated in the report. Perhaps the club needed people with backbone to stand up and say STOP! But as the report correctly pointed out there were too many like you".

So, I am a racist, even though posters on OLO tell me I am too soft when I support Chinese people when criticising the CCP.

I actually fear Australia will divide over issues on race as long as importance if given to simplistic reports like Do Better. Probably, few will read it though, like most academic publications.

I would love to see a poll of Australians on the Do Better report, to confirm whether or not it is me who is really out of touch with the Do Better report.

Here I was thinking last week that some the centre-right journos were over the top, when maybe they merely provide an appropriate balance.

It is not surprising I did well at university, PhD funded by a scholarship.

I was competing against the brainwashed that could only think in accordance to the rubbish presented to them.

Only difference was I actually knew how to appeal to their bs.

Racism.
It is simple really.
It is instinctive for us to dicriminate against difference.
Children especially will note and comment on difference.
They have not yet had to don their social cloak.

Differences in size, height, colour, mannerisms, speech, will all be observed.
We are programmed to reject or be wary of (major) difference.
This is a natural response.
I imagine people need this reaction.
Difference gives them something to rally against.
It is a challenge, and adds purpose to life.

On this world, there is a major mixing of races.
So, instinctive discrimination is much to the fore.
To ensure a peaceful society, we must use reason to overcome our instinctive reaction against difference.
Using reason in this way, exercising control over one's own instinctive behaviour, is called 'growing up'.

We need to remember that as human beings we are not infallible.
We can make mistakes.
So we need to allow the mistakes of others, and not over-react in a harmful way.
We should bear in mind that:
'sticks and stones may break my bones, but hard words never hurt me'.

And we must not over-react to nick names either.
Tall persons will be called shorty, 'fat' persons skinny, and so on and so on.
These are not derogatory terms.
They are a rather perverse way of paying a compliment.
We are saying 'I notice and admire you', but at the same time saying 'I am not inviting personal closeness'.

So being more thoughtful and understanding is key to a smooth social climate.
I think the 'attack' on Mr McGuire was ill-conceived, and more to be expected from an out of control 'mob'.
I am sorry he felt so pressured.

Earlier today, I watched a charming young black man with an enormous Afro haircut opining that these people calling themselves anti-racists are actually the 'new racists'.

Pretty hard to call him a white supremacist, so one 'nice' ant-racist type referred to him as a 'house n ---- r'

Racism :

*... racial or ethnic prejudice or intolerance...*

Yep, that’s me!

Dan

Thanks for your post Chris Lewis-

Yes I agree with you that the best thing is to say that "even though some may believe that a policy may be quote/ unquote racist it is still the right thing to do".

Everyone is racist in a sense- everyone looks after their own self interest- this is sort of the principle of the invisible hand of the father of Economics- Adam Smith. I don't see anything wrong with this in moderation- we need lines.

If you try to avoid being racist then this is a fallacious strategy that will lead to inhumanity. It's better to transcend the racist label by appealing to true humanity. The Philosophy of Humanity is broad and subtle.

After all the Communist's were inhumane all in the name of equality and anti-racism.

It's interesting that it's on the record that founding communists Leon Trotsky used the concept of racism to attack the industrialists and traditionalists in the 1920's and is still being used today by socialists. Despite Stalin's many faults the famines in Russia would have been much worse if Trotsky had ruled after Lenin.

Maybe we will see Communist famines again.

Transcend Communist Inhumanity...

I'm concerned at the absolutism and contradiction embodied in the contemporary concept of racism

Chris Lewis said "CM, are you saying that interaction cannot lead to a harmonious national society of different ethnicities?"

Answer- There is always politics and politics is always about some group taking advantage over another. Equality is naive. Enlightened self interest acknowledges that everyone exists in ponds and to get what we want means compromise- but that is not the same as giving away your rights. A minority will always try and breed so that their influence and security and stability increases until they are dominant- sometimes the instability in the wider society can be managed temporarily- but not in the long term. The whole history is basically a string of examples of cultural and ethnic conflict. If you are going to give your country away- do it or don't do it- don't half do it- though you can give a piece of it away.

If everyone respects and polices the borders between cultural groups then they can all live in peace. Cultural groups can't live under another cultures rule and will attempt to subvert it.

Cultural groups conciliatory in disadvantage- aggressive otherwise.

Universal heat death or not from chaos theory- also ethnic conflict- but I wouldn't want to put the future of my family or my culture in the hands of chaos.

There are special interests at play in the sponsoring of multicultural society- including industrialists, communists. Some locations on the Earth are centres of commerce and have been prone to the development of multiculturalism- medieval Florence and Venice- "Britain not". It deserves analysis.

Reducing Earth's population- requires review of the premise of human activity. Acquisitional cultures lead to disaster- the west have given up it's colonies- some still colonise. African and Asian people could be said to be colonising the West. Though perhaps the west never colonised the East or Africa in quite this way- they acquired their wealth but didn't perhaps replace their people.

Some cultures are more different than others.

Rand "Charity needs the givers choice".

So the answer to your question is "no". Thanks Chris for asking the question. Sorry for taking so long

I'm a big fan of Eddie McGuire.

I absolutely loved him in 'The Nutty Professor'.

well the other site finally responded today after I asked this morning for a courtesy response.

They had two drafts, with the second identical to what was published here, but I was rejected for first time ever.

"Hi Chris Lewis,

Thanks for your effort submitting the article, In defence of Eddie McGuire and the Collingwood Football Club.

Our team of editors have reviewed your work and feel that it isn’t quite ready to publish.

This doesn’t mean you’re not heading in the right direction, and we’d encourage you to review your work and resubmit".

ok, have now received detailed feedback that suggests some major faults with article.

I am interested in CM and others think with regard to this comment by one of the authors implying inherent racism at Collingwood FC. Please be objective rather than merely attack the man.

This on ABC

"Structural racism is usually something that sits within an organisation that has sat there since it was constructed with the original philosophy … A really good example is the Australian constitution, which has a structural racism, because when it was set up it was with the view that it should allow racial discrimination to facilitate a White Australia policy”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_racism

Societal racism has also been called structural racism, because, according to Carl E. James, society is structured in a way that excludes substantial numbers of people from minority backgrounds from taking part in social institutions.[2] Societal racism is sometimes referred to as systemic racism as well.

http://www.goodreads.com/author/list/982223.Carl_E_James

...

According to James Joseph Scheurich and Michelle D. Young, racism can be categorized into five types

We need to research these Racism Researchers to find out their underlying reasons for their beliefs.

CM, I am writing a new piece on that very topic, Collingwood FC and structural racism?

I will argue that the term does not apply to that Club when you examine evidence.

Chris Lewis said- CM, I am writing a new piece on that very topic, Collingwood FC and structural racism? I will argue that the term does not apply to that Club when you examine evidence.

To Chris Lewis- This is a very noble cause.

If you can create some doubt as to the root of their so called "anti-racist" arrogance you have made great progress. As they say Rome wasn't built in a day.

Be prepared for a lot of extreme intimidation at any attempt to change the dialogue on this issue. Be prepared.

Small moves... but this can be very frustrating...

My suggestion is to stick with arguments that are hard to disprove- often this is just about how you phrase your comments.

For example- Rather than trying to prove your own comments get them to prove their assertions. Generally- no one can criticize you for the way you see things- you can say that you believe that others see things the same way as yourself- but if someone wants you to believe their ideas they need to convince you that their way is right- the thing is most people don't want to argue and will back down even in the face of the ridiculous. Integrity is an inch as they say- but that inch is contentious even in our own minds.

I usually insist that silent implicit group agreement is not enough and needs to be explicit.

CM, thanks for that.

I have finished draft.

what I have argued is that they have not proven the scenario of structural racism, and that the recent events could have been avoided if the context had been used right. I focus on the example of name calling.

write to my email address and will you send my draft for comment, if you do it tonite.

c11lewis@yahoocom.au

I am ready to submit tomorrow or Friday.

CM, submitted now, but did include your ideas into last paragraph.

"I have argued that the allegation of structural racism is not proven, and invite the authors of the DoBetter report to provide explicit proof rather than rest on fashionable and implicit group agreement with regard to an issue that is far more complex than either the left or right would have us believe".

Thanks for your advice.

In a way I think it's utterly pointless to debate racism. People who don't like people of other complexion than themselves will always do so just as those who have never been discriminated against on the grounds of race will always bleat discrimination. It's instinctive ! No legislation will ever change that !
What we could do is to put those in their place who exploit racism by bleating victim when they're clearly not !
Opportunism of this kind is what's bringing on this problem, not the mere intolerance of another race.
I know many who at every opportunity claim discrimination yet I have witnessed those very people speaking of others in very derogatory terms.
Then there are the fence-sitting hypocrites who fan the flames of simple dislike into sheer hatred for their own gain.
Racism will be as long as there there's more than one race.
I have had some very good times with people who, since early childhood have been indoctrinated with racism yet they showed no animosity towards me. I have had racial dislike aimed at me but I also have had more discrimination dished out by people of my own race. In fact, quite a number of years ago an indigenous chap who openly had no time for Whites actually put the wind up some white bureaucrats who tried to short-change me.
Racism will be as long as there's more than one race !

Yes, and discrimination will probably remain within each race.

Look at Italy where many in the north has attitudes to the south.

Look at India with its caste system, still evident.

Chris Lewis,
I have the feeling that the caste system in India is more to do with labour exploitation than racism. There's actually a tiny bit of that here also, those who can flash a Uni degree are automatically deemed more qualified no matter how silly the Degree holder is !

I agree, academic qualifications can be an overrated aspect of one's competency.

Just look at the report stating that structural racism applies to the Collingwood FC, and many simply agreeing because it was written by academics.

Everyone has a brain for planning, and a body for working.
To survive, we must have suitable a combination of these things.
Some survive because physical strength is their main attibute.
Some because they can think and plan and take advantage of resources around them.

As a whole, society has a collective brain for planning, and a collective body for working.
Mental ability stretches all the way from the Einsteins and Hawkins' to those who have a minimum of mental acuity.
So at one end of the 'scale' are the thinkers, and at the other end the workers, because people are better able to function in roles which match ability.
This is broadly the origin of the 'class' system which exists in all societies?

But we need all kinds of people for our race of very human beings to succeed.
We are all important to the end result.
So no person should treat another with disdain or think he is ultimately superior to someone else.
That is a fallacy. Hitler learned it the hard way.
But instinct being aimed primarily at personal survival, it is mostly the case that there WILL be rivalry and 'scuffles', rather than a smoothly working team.
Hence the need for laws to regulate behaviour.
For reproduction, discrimination is very necessary, with other physical attributes becoming important too.

Discrimination can take many forms, both harmful and otherwise.
Discrimination in one's personal life is not the same as the collective discrimination of a group?
The group lays down guidelines (laws) to regulate its own discrimination.
In public life we need to abide by those laws.
In private life there are laws too, but no one is going to convince us that we should live in a way foreign to human beings.
For example, we should not, at societies' bidding, be obliged to marry someone we don't like.
In private life we discriminate along these personal lines?
We have more freedom to make these decisions, as opposed to the significant boundaries we find in public life?
We need to understand and accept both facets of living?

Anyone who thinks natural instinct can be controlled by legislation had better review their views !
Let's not forget that attitude & mentality are primarily the result of influence from others !
So, those who want people to change for the better need to become better people themselves first !

To say that one nation can't be for one people- is perhaps the same as saying that countries aren't for any people- is the same as saying that all nations are racist- as of course they all are. But this superficial conclusion still perhaps implies that structural change is required- the real conclusion to be drawn is to dispose of the concept of racism- and the conclude thPosted by Chris Lewis, Thursday, 25 February 2021 3:33:31 AM

CM, submitted now, but did include your ideas into last paragraph.
"I have argued that the allegation of structural racism is not proven, and invite the authors of the DoBetter report to provide explicit proof rather than rest on fashionable and implicit group agreement with regard to an issue that is far more complex than either the left or right would have us believe".
Thanks for your advice.

Answer-

My pleasure. Glad to be of help.

I don't agree with anyone on everything.

As you're probably aware I have a different perspective on racism than yourself- as Individual indicated- paraphrasing Einstein a problem cannot be understood on the level of the problem itself. It's the same with the concept of so called "racism"- I've written a fair bit on this concept on OLO if you want to understand my position.

Racism is perhaps a form of favoritism- certain groups have defined racism in a certain way according to their self interest- but hide the fact of their self interest.

To me to deny racism is problematic- it's better to deny that one intends harm or that harm can be prevented in all circumstances. The problem- someone able to prove something racist or favouritist- it is automatically bad.

Sometimes we just substitute one form of favouritism for another.

The concept of "badness" needs decoupling from "favouritism or racism".

Those driving change have initiative and control agenda at the expense of society.

Many nations originated in small genetically and culturally similar communities- some call these traditional communities RACIST- improvements in technology/ migration over thousands of years communities have been subjected to pressures, mass culture, etc.

Many philosophies have developed in line with community changes and often powerful groups have dominated this process.

I would argue that the word racist is a pejorative synonym used to provoke a conclusion- and conflict- and invalid justification and the use of authoritarian force- I would use a different more diplomatic synonym.

To say that one nation can't be for one people- is perhaps the same as saying that countries aren't for any people- is the same as saying that all nations are racist- as of course they all are. But this superficial conclusion still perhaps implies that structural change is required- the real conclusion to be drawn is to dispose of the concept of racism- and the conclude that all cultures have the right to self determination through representative institutions/ government- as the UN principles outline- despite their faults. Of course most principles have limitations and contradictions and require compromises.

There are certain historical groups that have invested in migration programs and policies within Australia- if cultures within Australia believe this is no longer in their interest- if it was ever in their interest- shouldn't they have the right to act in their cultures interest. There are some who appeal to the concept of anti-Divisiveness/ anti-Racism to maintain dictatorial policies- often when they themselves are the cause of the conflict and division.

We need to loosen the death hold the concept of racism has over those people that just want to live their own lives with their own culture on their own land without molestation.

One way the contradiction with truth in the context of your submission can be represented is in the comparison of traditional Australia with anti-racist equality policy and it's embodiment through the Equal Opportunity Commission.

Hope you get a positive response to your submission. There needs to be wider more representative participation here perhaps- but some believe that we are an occupied nation and the system is geared for our destruction

CM, will come back to topic on OLO after Graham's feedback, but still hoping submission gets on other sports site.

one person on that site agreed that report was poor.

"OK. We all deplore racism and I have a few opinions about Ed, Collingwood and its fans.

But I have to say that the report itself is pretty poor. It looks hastily cobbled together; six incidents over 50 years and interviews with 30 people of unknown provenance does not constitute “extensive evidence”. There is no evidence that Collingwood is an outlier among AFL clubs – it might be, but some evidence of that would be good. None is offered.

I was also surprised at the reports’ lack of academic rigour. It defines “structural racism” and “interpersonal racism”. The six examples over 50 years, according to the reports’ own definitions, are “interpersonal” yet they are parlayed into “systemic racism”, which is not defined".

Chris Lewis said- "The six examples over 50 years"

Answer- Six examples over 50 years doesn't sound like much- maybe they are just trying to be tactful- I guess it depends on the examples- I checked Google and issues regarding Long, Winmar, Lumumba, Goodes were mentioned. The Goodes issue related apparently to a child attendee at an event. Lumumba related to his nickname- nicknames are sort of supposed to be offensive for everyone to toughen men up- I didn't like my nickname either- but I sucked it up. Not too sure what the claims were in regards to the Winmar issue. Perhaps the Long incident wasn't racist in a sense- "black c*&t" was apparently the term used- I'm sure the word "c*&t" is commonly used in football- the addition of "black" is used in relation to BLM so I can't see it as being inapproapriate- and is more descriptive- maybe I'm not seeing things "correctly"- and need to be re-educated in a communist camp.

Eddie McGuire is a bit of a joker- pretty much all jokes are offensive to someone- do we want a society without humour? I don't think I want academics from the UTS or the government telling me how to talk with people. To me it keeps me keen- when someone challenges me- I generally play a straight bat.

You can try to legislate multiculturalism in society but people identify with their own kind despite the sociel engineering and demonisation by certain groups with their own selfish agenda.

Most people understand that the government will try to do things once in a while that doesn't have the support of the people- they will allow the can to be reluctantly kicked down the road.

This also happened in China under Mao. When Mao demanded that his policies were obeyed despite the reluctance of the community then massive bloodshed occurred.

The objections to government tyranny by the community show up in interesting forms.

I may see things slightly differently - but I admire your efforts in your submission. Kudos