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.