Fortunately for those that have criticised me, I am not in the habit of inferring new positions from the things they have actually said. I refute the accusation of racism. Positioning me as a racist is just a convenient means of not engaging with my argument. And I would invite Arjay in particular to present a counter perspective on the statements I have made.

If you read my last thread you will understand that my definition of racism is different from the one redneck espouses. In particular, I am relying on the etymology of the word 'race' which is a product of European science, and again I would invite the people on this list to investigate where this term begins. I think garra has made the distinction between 'racism' and 'ethnocentricism' very clear, and I agree entirely with this.

However, my definition does not suddenly infer that only 'white' people can be racist. Neither does this mean that I equate Australian society with colonial power or see those who identify as 'white' Australians as responsible for it. What I am trying to describe are systems of power that have brought us to where we are. 'Racism' has a material history and should be considered if we are to attempt to define it. Taking it out of this context is a discursive strategy in itself

I would also again like to draw your attention to the symbolic violence embedded in words such as 'nigger', 'abo' or 'gook'. These are significantly different from terms such as 'gaijin' or 'guilo' in that there are different systems of power attached to their use. Words such as 'nigger' (which I have heard used against Indigenous people interestingly) hold certain groups from non-white backgrounds as 'abject' - a term coined by Julia Kristeva - e.g. like human waste. I think photographs of white Southerners pointing at lynched teenage boys, or junkies living in squats in downtown Detroit. These terms are tools for taking away the very integrity of a person, and it is so effective because it communicates a historical context. This is not to say that other cultures cannot or do not perform this sort of symbolic violence but when they do so it is less effective, as the production of these terms are related to overt systems of economic, political and cultural exploitation.

The problem with red neck's history of European colonialism is that you have to ignore 99% of the credible scholarship on the subject to arrive at it. Reading Samuel Huntington, Keith Windschuttle or Andrew Bolt religiously does not mean that their perspectives suddenly becomes encircled by the light of God. I, of course generalise about colonialism here, but there are enough dialogic circumstances for me to not embark upon a historical tirade. One point which may add fuel to the fire is to consider that Britain's great social theorists such as Locke, Stuart Mill and Hobsbawm wrote at the height of British imperialism. Is it not ironic that the principles of universal franchise were devised when scientific racism and ideas such as 'the great chain of being' were so popularly accepted?

Rainier's question does bring up some interesting points.What does it mean to be white? I'd say to be white is defined by genetics firstly, and cultural factors secondly. I'd say cultural factors secondly because some people are asian through genetics but western through culture. To be white, asian or african is defined by genetics. A white person is someone whose ancestors hail from Europe.

The South Africans have that question sorted out. Whites, coloureds (mixed race) and blacks. I would'nt call white South Africans 'africans', the same as I would'nt call a black londoner 'anglo'. I'd just call white South Africans, whites or Boers.

What does it mean to be Aboriginal? I've come across two significant 'aboriginals' in my life. I didn't even know they were Aboriginals! One could'nt care less about his aboriginality, the other was very sensitive about his aboriginality (because with blonde hair and blue eyes, no-one believed him). These two would be 'coloureds'. Or anglo-aboriginal (aboriginal-caucasian, whatever).

I think I have simplistically defined what it means to be white here. Rainier you sound well educated, so obviously you are enjoying the benefits provided from the same society you hold with contempt.

New Zealand, anybody ...?

Davo, I'm no more educated than most and as for reaping the benefits, well I wish!

While I appreciate your response, can you go a little further than genetics? My grandfather was a white man, Irish at that, but I cannot lay claim to being an Irishman although I have every right to this heritage. But to many I don't. I have dark skin, hair and eyes. So it’s more than just genetics.

You say its culture, then what is different about your culture and they way you understand being white that is different from me understanding what it means to be black?. When I was born I did not know that I was black and nor did you know you were white.

What are those priviliges in our society and thus in your own culture that tell you that you are white? I believe that that whites are racialised in such a way that they are the 'invisible' (to yourselves). You don't see whiteness as an ethnicity the same way that you see blackness or Asianess.

John Howard said as much today in repudiating Cornellia Rau's call for the Minister of Immigration to come from a multicultural background.

He said" "The idea of appointing somebody with a particular ethnic background is absurd."

Apparently Amanda Vanstone has absolutely no ethnicity at all?

Whites are accustomed to thinking about the problem of racism as a problem effecting Others and not as something which is tied to their own definitions of 'invisible' whiteness. (ie, you consider yourselves to be just normal).

How is it that those who only represent 20 % of the world’s population think they do not have an ethnicity that is culturally and racially explainable at a deeper level than just calling yourselves Australians, Anglos, or Europeans? Go figure...

davo

At no point in any of her/his posts has Rainier indicate any contempt whatsoever towards our predominately anglo/celtic culture. If I am wrong please show me where.

As for explaining what it is like being white, well apart from suffering severe suburn, the only time I was aware of being white was during my travels when I was the only pale skinned person. In places like Tonga (where i attended an all black disco - really took me out of my cosy little mind set), in New Zealand and more recently at a dinner party I attended in New Orleans - only whitey present.

On those occasions I felt very conspicuous indeed - no doubt thats how most people of darker hue than me feel ALL the time in our very white world.

Fortunately, not all whites are as extreme and racist as you. You are in the minority - bleat all you like.