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