This is my first post to this forum and as a second generation Asian Australian, I have to state how disappointed I am by the direction of this so-called 'discussion'. Chek Ling, as is apparent from his biography, migrated from Malaysia over thirty years ago. He would tell you his home is here in Australia, as would his passport. Many of the respondents in talking about Malaysia clearly don't understand this, and I think this does represent a very clear form of racism, a racism that maintains the citizenship and thus the civic and political participation of ethnic Australians as partial.

On the matter of Australia's engagement with multiculturalism, many respondents have ignored international historical trajectories such as the expanding global village and the end of European colonialisms. We are presently at an international historical juncture that threatens all of us with violence based along ethnic and religious lines. Intelligent and well-meaning Australians would be better directed towards figuring out how we can live together better. If racism is 'natural', so is cultural difference.

I might remind some of you that Chek's ethnic 'category' - the Chinese - have been present in Australia since the 1840s, my own at least since the 1880s as pearlers along the Northern coastline. Australia's 'multiculturalism' if we look at it as the existence of cultural diversity, is a social reality that has existed before the beginning of this nation. If we are going to attack multiculturalism or justify racism, we must understand that we need to replace it with another policy to ensure social cohesion and manage cultural diversity. Getting rid of and/or judging 'diversity' really is a privilege maintained by people who self-identify as 'white'.

My final comments (I’m getting dizzy on this round-a-bout!)

Call it what you will – multiculturalism, plural-culturist, diversity, etc. It exists.

As to the ‘hate’ or ‘racism’ or ‘human nature’ – again, yes they exist.

Now as to whether it is ‘natural’ or ‘necessary for group survival’, well, that’s another matter. The only thing natural or necessary is the ability to think.

And some just prove they don’t do too much of it.

How is it that there are as many examples of people of diversity living together peacefully for very long periods of time and no issue taken with the differences? Perhaps they took the time to discover each other and show a little tolerance (geez, there’s that annoying word again!) and patience to communicate.

Sure, tensions can mount when resources become scarce – or when power hungry groups choose to steal rather than share. Does that behaviour have to move along racial or cultural lines? Sometimes perhaps. So how does one account for the alliances during two world wars, when Muslim joined with Aryan? Or Asian with Slavic during their various incarnations? Or maybe these were ‘of convenience’? In which case the culture/race survival issue is mute as it shows the capacity to co-operate to achieve goals, doesn’t it?

As to human nature – then compassion, understanding and tolerance must also be natural, since they exist in near as much quantities as racism and xenophobia. And not with the assistance of some divinity or external guidance. Plenty of examples there so no need to expand.

Fear, plain and simple, is the root cause. Fear of the unknown. Fear of the misunderstood and fear of not being right perhaps. If others can do it, surely we all can? If we want to.

Finally, if those wish to call it a fantasy land or dreaming, then what’s your point? Many of the worlds greatest achievements and achievers were dreamers, without which, nothing would change. Isn’t the ability to dream the first step to making reality?

Keep dreaming people…

>>Your claim that “barely any Australians thought like me” is a meaningless generality, could you be more specific?<<

There has never been a history of segregation, etc., in Australia a la Alabama, South Africa, etc. Australians have always preferred assimilation over segregation, as evidence through their interaction with the Aboriginals (until the Sixties, ever since it became politically incorrect to advocate for assimilation) and migrants.

>>As for claiming that I should go to Alabama where people apparently think like me. Well, thank you for displaying to all of us your typical intellectual doublethink ... You are suggesting that white people who live in Alabama are a despicable mob. By doing that, you are prejudging a racially distinct group of Alabaman people with a negative stereotype, which is an act of racial bigotry. In other words, my dear Brazuca, you are just as big a racist as I am.<<

Whoa, whoa! When did I suggest that "white" people in Alabama are a "despicable mob"? When did I suggest that my stereotype of Alabamans is "negative" -- I neither expressed judgement of the reputation of Alabamans one way or the other. I merely suggested that your type of thinking would be better suited to an Alabaman context, since it wouldn't be as alien as it now appears in an Australian context. After all, Alabamans have historically walked the talk you're talking. Australians never have (see Keith Windschuttle's "The White Australia Policy"). Besides, I couldn't consider any Alabamans a "racially distinct group of...people" because I am a creationist and so do not believe in the Darwinian concept of races.

So ... what do you think of the historical situation in New Zealand vis-a-vis Maori and Pakeha? Why is no single Maori today full-blooded? Why/how did this happen? Why not a Malaysia or South Africa in New Zealand?

Er Brazuca, do you think Australia displays a double standard towards Asians or not?

This effectively wastes a post, but if it gets the thread back on topic it'll be worth it.

My last hijack post Xena.

Loyalty? Fascinating rationalisation redneck, I'll play along for a bit.

"Racism is simply a product of group loyalty and intergroup hostility. So unless you have no allegiance at all to any family, tribe, clan, organisation, race, or nationality, then you can never display a preference for any of them,"
Holy non-sequitur Batman! I think buying Mount Franklin water is immoral but it is simply a product of Coca-Cola-Amatil, so I can't have a Sprite or else I'm a hypocrite!?

No, equivalence must be established. But racism has different effects and a greater potential for harm than familial loyalty etc. Group loyalty does not necessitate intergroup hostility and while extreme support for anything can be harmful, racism is normally harmful. People in the ICRC do not hate Amnesty international and not many people support the kind of animosity present in Romeo+Juliet. There is significant connection between a person and their family, or country, and there exist differences of substance. I know no feature of increased closeness of descent that justifies seeking a privileged position over others, or requires treating others as inherently inferior & incompatible. I don't know what being loyal to my group of strangers with slightly closer descent would entail, or why I should be.

But people don't believe others are inferior and particpate in lynchings or discriminate unreasonably out of loyalty, it comes from ignorance, fear and prejudice. Both are natural and controllable.

"But if you want to walk around pretending that you are some kind of Mother Theresa,"
I'll try to be better.

"it helps absolve the guilt they feel at murdering their enemies"
Only for racists, others will feel worse and it suggests the war was unnecessary.

"Any person who wishes to be considered a part of any group, must sublimate his own self interest to some extent, and give priority to his own group to some extent, or he is worthless to the group"
My group contains all good people, those that honestly try to be moral, and they come in all forms; they are my kin. Consequently, racists aren't.

I have been unable reply to your two posts, Rainier,because I am limited to 2 posts per 24 hours, and I am already fencing with Robert and Brazuca.

I gather that you are vehemently opposed to prejudice, stereotyping and racism. If that is so, then could I thank you for helping my case by shooting yourself in the foot three times in your last two posts.

You seem to imply that racism is some sort of new idea which has recently sprung into the minds of ignorant people, and that this condition can be cured by education. You are therefore prejudging the typical racist, by conceptualising a stereotype of an ignorant person in dire need of education. Lesson? Everybody, even the most politically exquisite, prejudges and stereotypes.

And, if I were to say “duck”, what image springs to mind? A bird with a bill and webbed feet? You have just stereotyped, again. Twice, actually, what is a stereotypical “bird”? Conjure up a few more objects, ideas and concepts. Think balls, cars, racists, boats, cowards, and stereotypical images, concepts and ideas will form. These concepts, ideas and images may not be entirely correct, but they do not need to. They are accurate enough to link an object, idea or concept to another object, idea or concept. Lesson? Human beings stereotype in order to think. To say that “people must not stereotype”, is to essentially say, “people must not think”.

You have also prejudged me by claiming that I am not the sort of person who has the courage to confront you face to face, unless I fortified myself with Dutch courage.

Firstly, you have just dropped a racist expression yourself, which implies that Dutch people are cowards who need alcohol to gain courage. Naughty, naughty. That is definitely PC verboten.

Secondly, in your particuar bigoted prejudice, I conform to your concept of the stereotypical, cowardly racist.

To summarise, everybody prejudges, everybody has to stereotype in order to think, and hostility towards out groups is so normal, that even moral perfectionists like your self unconsciously drop the odd racist expression.