Stephen Hagan makes the following comment in his article

>> Obviously this academic is not Indigenous or of dark complexion, >> because if she was she’d know what it was like to be humiliated, >> insulted and demeaned at the hands of cowardly non-Indigenous
>> people in gangs or an intimidating bully, as he or she dishes out
>> their vitriol in the playground, on the bus, at a nightclub or at
>> the weekend footy.

Does he really believe that racist attacks are a one way street? Is he not aware of racist attacks by Indigenous people on non-Indigenous people?

I accept that racial attacks are not a significant part of my day, I make choices to try and avoid situations where they are more likely to occur - CBD or Fortitude valley late at night etc. I have been subject to intimidation and threats including references to my color by people of Indiginous appearance. Late at night at a bus stop I frequented regularly while doing part time Uni studies, going to town on a saturday night on the train etc.

Some of that stuff is racial, some cultural. Personally my bias's tend to be about peoples behaviour, not their genetic make up or skin color. I suspect that a lot of what gets called racism is about behaviour not race but an unfortunate combination of inappropriate labels such as the "N" word (or the "W H" words) and a desire by some to label anything they are uncomfortable with as racism makes the issue bigger than it should be.

How much has Stephen Hagan contributed to reducing racism in our society? I suspect that two kids calling each other names (as friends) are doing a lot more to break down racism than making one eyed claims about racism.

Lighten up and try to be more sane about what is racism and what is other stuff.

That's so patronising. Robert. It makes me laugh when white people say, but I've experienced rascism, too.
Rascism isn't just about words. That's what Hagan is on about. it comes from attitudes and an internal belief system where the rascist sees her/his self as superior.
How badly did those white rascist words hurt your own sense of self, and the way you saw yourself?
I suggest it must be quite different for a black person that has been made to feel less than superior for an entire life-time, who rarely see aboriginal people portrayed in the media unless it's negative, and who cannot sidestep possible rascist incidents as well as you have managed to do.
Can't step out of your own skin, can you?

Australian culture is intrinsically racist at every level, and has been at least since the 'First Fleet' landed here. The Aboriginal objects of this racism have been joined over the years by other subcultures that were perceived as threatening by the dominant culture at various periods: notably the Chinese, the 'Kanakas', "reffos", "nips", "gooks", "slopeheads" etc., and more recently by Middle Eastern Muslims of various kinds.

And of course, each of these groups internalises that objectification, sometimes to the extent that they respond to their oppressors in similarly structured ways. Mind you, I'm not sure that there is any equivalent available to Indigenous people when referred to as "nigger"... "whitey" just doesn't seem to cut it in terms of historically grounded inferiorisation - especially when Caucasian racists have a plethora of alternatives from which to choose: "coon", "boong", "abo", "darky", "spook" etc etc.

I'm not sure what the solution is: I don't see much evidence that legislation, regulation or education do very much beyond chipping away at the edges. Perhaps that's why "disrespect" has become such a feature of street parlance these days amongst the objects of racism both here and in the United States. Perhaps people could start showing each other respect in their daily lives, regardless of creed or colour. I don't suppose there'd be much use for words like "nigger" then.

Morgan

I haven't experienced racial vilification, but I - and many other Christians - frequently experience religious vilification (virtually every time I pick up a newspaper or magazine), where we are described as NAZIs, homophobes, and intolerant haters - none of which is true.

I also reject racial vilification - mainly because I believe there is only one race - the human race. The genetic difference between aborigines and whites is no more than the genetic difference between different aboriginal individuals.

Hagan needs to look at what has caused this inappropriate language. I put it to him that aborigines' own cultural difficiencies, welfare dependency and drug and alcohol addictions, and general self-destructive tendencies have contributed mostly to why many people think very little of them as a group. If Hagan wants to get rid of racially discriminatory language against aboriginals then he needs to get behind Noel Pearson and start helping aborigines respect themselves and make something of their lives. Respect is earned. Only when people respect themselves will they command respect from others. This principle applies equally to white people as it does to aborigines.

AK

oceangrrl

I acknowledge that racial attacks are not a routine part of my day. I will never know what it is like to grow up as anybody else. I will even have difficulty telling which particular influences on my own life impacted most on attitudes I have developed. I can make estimated guesses.

Abuse from a racist does not have a big impact on my sense of self. It does have a pretty big impact on my sense of safety if it happens somewhere I need to frequent regularly and by someone who appears to think I am to blame for his problems because my skin happens to be a different color than his(or some other reason such as dressing differently etc).

Personally I think a lot of racists feel threatened and insecure and need to put others down to help their sense of self. Maybe some feel superior.

How about trying to write a posting that convinces me that the approach taken by Stephen Hagen (and others) is helping to reduce racism in the community and how that approach is helping to improve the sense of self in Indiginous people. I don't see it but am willing to listen to reasoned discussion on the topic.

>> I suggest it must be quite different for a black person that has
>> been made to feel less than superior for an entire life-time, who
>> rarely see aboriginal people portrayed in the media unless it's
>> negative, and who cannot sidestep possible rascist incidents as
>> well as you have managed to do.

I agree with you on this. My point is that I think that those who continue to tell Indiginous people that all their problems are because of racist non-Indiginous people are having a really negative impact as well.

Try spending some time watching Ernie Dingo and think about the impact he has had on racism in this country. Then think about the impact of the "blame the white guy" approach. Which helps build Indiginous peoples sense of self, reduce distrust etc and which does damage?

How patronisingly smug for Aslan to assert that his hypersensitivity to critiques of his religion is somehow equivalent to the experience of an Indigenous person who is called a "nigger". While Aslan is technically correct that the biological basis for racism has been well and truly refuted, that doesn't mean that racists don't BELIEVE in their genetic superiority, and behave towards the objects of their delusions accordingly.

That would be like me saying that religious vilification doesn't exist because god/s can't be shown scientifically to exist. Aslan and others BELIEVE in their god/s and so they feel personally affronted when the rest of us don't share their superstitions (whether or not that actually counts as 'vilification' is highly debatable, but that's another point).

The big difference is that religious beliefs are acquired socially, as opposed to Aboriginality. You can choose to be whatever religion you like, but you can't choose whether or not you are Indigenous.

Morgan

Oceangirl - your comment that white people don't suffer racism is wrong. Heard of Zimbabwe! Plus may parents experienced racism when they arrived in Australia, even though they were 'whites' (Italian).

But nonetheless, I don't think Australia is any more racist than any other country I've been too.

Roberto

The problem with these kinds of debates is that the word 'racism' is typically injected by those who subtly seek to defend unconscionable behaviours and attitudes by the so-called 'victims' of so-called 'racism.

Behaviours and axemplified by such events as Redfern and Palm Island--not to mention the South Africa of today and much of Africa itself. And let's not forget a certain large group in the USA itself (http://www.oz-aware.com/black1.htm)

So disingenuous is the control over debates such as these that it effectively forces into silence people who would otherwise point out that "disrespect" for some ethnic groups is largely motivated not by a belief of racial superiority, but by rational and honest observation of unfortunately-common and too-regularly occurring attitudes and behaviours within a particular social group.

One virtually never hears the word 'racist' screamed when (for example) a Japanese person is criticised. That's simply because they have EARNED great respect across the world over the many decades since WWII.

Yet state even one small but 'uncomfortable' truth about those of a black skin and the epithets start ricocheting off the walls (is that a pun or is that a pun? - see http://www.oz-aware.com/black1.htm). Strange to note, almost everywhere one goes in the world, one finds manifestation of so-called 'racism' directed specifically at black-skinned people, but rarely at (for example, the Chinese).

I guess it's just 'coincidence'.

Continued in next post....

(I say again, Graham, if you want this forum to be a venue for intelligent and non-frivolous debate, then the word limit of 350 is too short. Anyone want to reduce these two posts to less than 350 words and simultaneously maintain their integrity?)

If racial slurs are a consequence of Freespeech then we should all get used to suffering slurs -

What next, the public burning Enid Blyton Books because Noddy referred to his golliwog buddy? - Germans in the early part of the 20th century were fond of Book BBQs...

Give some a law to use against Freespeech and it will become a stick to beat down other valid expressions of belief, which ultimately becomes the rule and justification for the despotic state.

Now lets get rid of the Bracks / Hull anti-vilification rubbish and preserve what we presently, too easily, take for granted.

There is racism and there is RACISM. Some people slander people as racists just to make themselves look clever. The word 'racist' can be interpreted to mean anything.

For instance it could refer to racial segregation in the 50's or in the year 2005, a white man not having a black girlfriend! I feel at times we are being cynically manipulated by the racist tag.

continuing my previous post....

It is time responsible people accept---and aggressively respond to---the fact that such concepts as 'racism', 'homophobia' and 'politically correctness' were hi-jacked, invented or reframed by leftist apologists and aggressively disingenuous self-interest groups whose activities and attitudes are, generally speaking, contrary to our historical moral values.

Values that gave to humankind the best living conditions it has ever experienced. Period!

I perceive Hagan's entire essay as a classic example of the clever disingenuity of such 'counter-cultural' people. Few would understand the horrific implications of his statement that "it is OK to wear clothes of their popular American Hip Hop artists and imitate their mannerism," but (take note Graham), due to a word limit of 350, I am not at liberty to explain further.

The specific (even if unconscious or unintended) purpose of such people is to silence truth and decency, promote barbarism and thereby destroy our civilisation. Or does any civilised person think that "rap" and "hip-hop" are civilised? (See http://www.oz-aware.com/censor1.htm)

Such individuals and groups will seek to viciously destroy anyone who does not play the game according to the 'rules' they have *arbitrarily* set. They actually are closet facists, wearing an ill-fitting coat of 'caring' and 'compassion'.

Ask, for example Larry Elder and Armstrong Williams, intelligent and honest black Americans who have always said it like it is (for example: http://www.oz-aware.com/black1.htm)and have experienced the viciousness of many 'caring' and 'compassionate' liberal thinkers.

And now a message for those who would falsely and disingenuously accuse me of being 'racist' or 'homophobic' (or whatever) as a consequence of what I have written here and anywhere else. They might consider two realities:

a) I absolutely WILL sue for defamation, not so much for money as to bring into the public awareness the evil disingenuity that invariably in recent years suffocates these discussions. (those who do not know what 'evil' actually means, can read http://www.oz-aware.com/evil.htm)

b) Such people should also read http://www.oz-aware.com/racist1.htm --- and stop lying to themselves because they may be fooling themselves, but they sure don't fool the rational and the decent....

What happened to those who agree with the Authors viewpoint? Where are the explanations of how the authors approach is helping the self image of Indiginous people or reducing racism in the community?

I for one am keen to read a thoughtful explanation that does not focus on calling those who have a different view racist or patronising. There are certainly issues facing race relations in this country. Clearly in the view of many contributers to this thread the call racist is used way to quickly as a means of avoiding real debate about a way forward.

For anyone who agrees with Stephen Hagan, the challenge is to write a response which explains how his approach is really helping rather than making things worse and to do so without resorting to calling any other contributers racist/patronising etc.

Maybe some contributers are racist but please try giving the benefit of the doubt and write as though all of us really care about truth.

Robert “What happened to those who agree with the Authors viewpoint?”

I do not know – maybe there are none other than yourself –

Maybe no one else thinks his views help anyone else – indigenous or not

As for “For anyone who agrees with Stephen Hagan, the challenge is to write a response which explains how his approach is really helping rather than making things worse and to do so without resorting to calling any other contributers racist/patronising etc” –

I will leave that for those who do agree with him – if you can find any – I wait with baited breath!

As for me – I think the article and the opinions expressed in it are total bunkum –

Not because I am a racist but because I am free to express my opinion.

I would suggest that I could define the author as a “bunkumist“

and I think many other people may agree with me –

but it has absolutely nothing to do with race.

Well said Col Rouge,

Yet I think you're being a bit hard on RObert. Perhaps we misunderstand RObert in that he genuinely would like to hear a rational defense of Hagan's views.

Problem is, RObert, no rational defense exists---which is why the only---and typical---response from defenders of Hagan-style ideology is vilification of their intellectual opponents.

Either they do that or they have nothing to say, because anything else they might say would be immediately recognised by any halfwit as being the irrational, unrealistic, intellectual/ideological garbage that it actually is. As was Hagan's piece...

Which is the problem with almost all of leftist ideology. Based primarily on 'feelings', it is always skating on the thin ideological ice of unproven theory.

Ice that always immediately cracks and disintegrates under the slightest weight of uncommon-sense, fact or reason.

Read an excellent explanation of the leftist (liberal) conundrum at http://www.oz-aware.com/feelings-libstyle.htm

And if you want a truly classic example of the ultimate in idiotic leftist thinking, consider this verbatim comment made via e-mail to me recently by someone who shall remain unnamed but not unknown to many of us (my genuine reason for not mentioning his name is that I don't want to publicly embarass him):

(quote) "Don't think I could agree with you, not the least because barbarians are the ones who tend to have the puritanical moral standards while thosein the civilised society tend to have the relaxed ones." (end quote)

Is that scary, or what!

BTW Col, no point holding your breath waiting for a rational reply from leftists---all you'll achieve is that we'll soon be calling you Bluey!

ozaware, Col

>> Yet I think you're being a bit hard on RObert. Perhaps we misunderstand RObert in that he genuinely would like to hear a rational defence of Hagan's views.

Correct, as in a lot of issues which we loosely categorise as "leftist ideology" (hopefully we all know what is meant by that even if we are not sure that the definition is perfect) supporters tend to go very quiet when asked to answer specific questions (or answer with a stream of abuse which still does not address the question).

As I said earlier I am genuinely keen to try and understand opposing viewpoints. I really can't see a rational basis for believing that Hagan's approach helps rather than harms but just maybe one exists. If it does I am not going to learn it via being called patronising but rather by thoughtful explaination.

Also the faint hope exists that someone will try to answer the question and the process of trying to do so might be an eye opener for him or her. If nothing else observers might note the reluctance of some to engage in reasoned discussion and the deafening silence which decends when asked to answer specific questions.

Ummm R0bert - perhaps because it was a pretty dumb question. Tell us - how do YOU think that calling anybody a "nigger" helps anything?

Stephen Hagan has campaigned for many years against racism against Aborigines in Queensland, and has certainly been instrumental in exposing the racist underbelly that still persists. In so doing, he has also acted as an excellent role model for all fair-minded people, regardless of 'race', ethnicity or religion.

What have you done personally to reduce racism, R0bert?

Morgan

Morgan,
I gotta hand it to you. The disingenuity of your last post reaches stellar heights. But it don't fool us.

>>>>>>>>>>>> "perhaps because it was a pretty dumb question"

How exactly can a genuine request for a rational argument in support of Hagan's views be "a pretty dumb question"?

No, Morg, it's your observation that was "pretty dumb".

>>>>>>> "Tell us - how do YOU think that calling anybody a "nigger" helps anything?"

First of all, it was Hagen's article that we are discussing and dissecting. I don't recall RObert writing an essay on the subject. Second, your question assumes that RObert thinks that calling somebody a "nigger" is helpful.

It is an assumption that rests on no valid foundation. You are cunningly putting words into RObert's mouth, you devil you.

Cease and desist!

And please, please PLEASE give us some rational reasons for your support of Hagan's piece.

Or is mine also a "pretty dumb" request?

morgan,
as previously noted I have not suggested that calling someone "nigger" helps anything. It is not a word I choose to use.

My efforts to reduce racism are fairly feeble, own backyard stuff. Trying to get people to look past what is in their face when negative comments are made about racial/cultural groups etc. Trying to stop the abuse of the term racism by those with an ax to grind and look at what people are actually concerned about.

My point is that I think the approach taken by Hagan is harmful in that it appears to tell indiginous people that conflict with the non-indiginous community is about non-indiginous racism. It perpetuates a victim mentality. If you are a victim then your problems are understandable and beyond your control to fix.

There is nothing in your original post that tells me how Hagan's approach is helping (maybe I'm to "dumb" to spot the reasoned comments in your post).

>> And of course, each of these groups internalises that
>> objectification, sometimes to the extent that they respond to
>> their oppressors in similarly structured ways.

Perhaps this could be modified to the following
"And of course, each of these groups internalises that objectification, sometimes to the extent that they respond to their percieved oppressors in similarly structured ways."

>> Perhaps people could start showing each other respect in their
>> daily lives, regardless of creed or colour. I don't suppose
>> there'd be much use for words like "nigger" then.

Perhaps you could consider your most recent post in the context of "showing each other with respect regardless of creed" and see if you stand by your comments. Maybe there would be a lot less need for terms like "racist", "nutter" and "dumb" then.

ozaware, First I am assuming that Morgan is a he (sorry if I've got that wrong but the semantics of he/she get to messy).

- I personally think it harms the value of forums such as this if the law (or the threat of the law) is used to stifle free speech (even if that free speech is a slur). Whilst morgan is making a specific attempt to incite you there are other threads where open discussion has great opportunity to offend some (almost any discussion on religion).
- I think that morgans willingness to name call other contributers gives a fairly good indication of how seriously he takes concepts such as "showing respect regardless of creed" which he talks about. Fairminded readers will see that for themselves, others will not be convinced by anything you have to say anyway.
- It is your choice to make yourself identifable to readers. Should you be treated differently from other users because you have made that choice?

It is already clear from morgan's approach to debate that he thinks his right to free speech is more important than other considerations (doing a great job of showing he does not agree with the non racial aspects of Hagan's article). I would prefer to let him name call, the harm is more to his reputation than mine.

I agree with morgans comments in an earlier post
>> Perhaps people could start showing each other respect in their
>> daily lives, regardless of creed or colour. I don't suppose
>> there'd be much use for words like "nigger" then.
I do find it difficult to reconcile being called a "racist" and "dumb" with the above, I guess that is one for morgan to work out and others to consider when they decide how much weight to give morgans posts.

as an aboriginal person i agree in essence with what hagan is saying but in application to the real world the approach doesn't really fit and only feeds the arguments of non-aboriginal people about playing a victim role.

in observing australian society i see that many ethnic people simply ignore racist drivel and get on with their lives - better to hurt with economic sway than to show your feelings are hurt.

the other alternative is to play tit for tat, you call me blacky, i call you whitey etc, etc.

with regard to the word nigger, seems to me that many negro people refer to each other as nigger in the sense that they've taken back ownership of the word. once they own it, the white people can't hurt em with it. i think the same of the word gin, many aboriginal people use the word as a term of endearment, but if used by a white person then its a different matter. same as the word wog for ethnic people, its ok for them call each other it but when others do its a different matter.

at the end of the day there is really no need for racial vilification and depending on the circumstances there are legal avenues that can be pursued to make that point. failing that there's always the option of aggression to put people in their place or of course the choice of spending your bucks somewhere where the colour of your money is the only thing that counts.

I too agree with Hagan's article.
The problem is - taunts of 'nigger' or 'black' are both racial slurs and freedom of speech. It all depends on whether you are the caller or the receiver of the taunt !!

As an Aboriginal person, I have had my share of taunts, as have others from other nationalities - it is not the domain of one group of people to be called names. Greeks, italians, japanese, chinese, and vietnamese have also suffered from name calling.

But Hagan's article was really about the values society holds (or doesn't), and the reflection of that society when name calling as a slur, based on a persons colour, religion or whatever, becomes so commonplace that it becomes an acceptable form.

Being acceptable does not make it right