Hey, M.S. Burns,

Did you really mean it when you capitalised at the end of your Post - WHITES ARE THE ONLY NON-RACISTS or aren't you an Aussie - or don't you know much about Aussie history?

During our gold rush days in the late 1800s, we asked for cheap labour from China mainly for cooking jobs and general rouseabouting. Thousands of Chinese arrived in Australia but as well as too many asking for better wages, many of the smarter ones began panning gold on new open-leasing country and doing very well out of it.

But the dinkum Aussie miners, as they called themselves, kicked up such a row that the whole 80,000 Chinese were shipped back home again.

If that wasn't racism, M.S, I'm buggered if I know what is? -
especially as white migrants were also coming in by the hundreds and getting good wages and also taking gold leases in new areas

George C, WA - (Bushbred)

Brushy....
shippping the Chinese back- that was not 'racism' it was rather clumsy cultural survival.

There might have been racism in their thinking, 'The chinks are inferior' but I guess that their main worry was the possibility of being culturally and socially over-run by a group not familiar to them. (besides..they dug ROUND mine shafts.. that will NEVER DO" :)

Funny.. the Chinese did EXACTLY that to the 'foriegn (white) devils' during the Boxer Rebellion :) and for the SAME reasons and it is totally understandable.

Our aboriginals TRIED it (and rightly so).... but we were more powerful. Hence.. we are here, the chinese are not.. such is history.

Brushy.. wake up moit and smell 'reality':)

BOAZ puts brushy on suspension from Disney for 3 weeks :)

Boaz,

You shame yourself, your philosophy is so much like the rotten superior colonial mentality that caused those Chinese to be sent back home, one could feel sorry for you. Calling the Chinese Chinks is not very becoming either. Looking back, we realise now it was not very becoming calling the Arabs wogs during WW2 neither. Now, we try to refrain from it, because it is one of the reasons they hate our guts so much, and so a major cause of terrorism. I don't know how old you are, my friend, but it could be said you have still got a lot to learn.

Bushbred

Brushy.. point of order... my 'Chinks are inferrior' if you looked closely was describing the attitude of some among the colonialists, not MY opinion.. (I'm married to one ) That is HOW racists (true racists) regard other people...

You don't need to feel sorry for me :) I'm quite happy with my very well read understanding of human nature.

You seem to have gone around my reference to the Boxer rebellion and the chinese treatment of 'white foreign devils' as they described us.

The point.....if you can actually read what I'm saying is that its about human nature... the real one, not the disney version.
Sometimes I get the impression that some people 'project' an idealized idea of how they would LIKE people to be onto people, regardless of whether they are actually like that or not.

We need to understand how people function as a product of their culture and ethnicty and religion, and in this context make every effort as far as it depends on us to 'live peacefully with all' and to follow the golden rule of putting God first and loving our neighbour as ourselves.

Only the naive and socially romantic would suggest that to 'love' your neighbour means letting him trample on you, your culture and your race. No, it does not mean that. It means that in the context of 'looking after your own' you also treat others as humanely and justly as circumstances allow.

In a war, where the issue is your survival, that might mean killing those who would otherwise kill you and your kids in front of you.

I don't think the Japanese had 'your best interests' at heart when they were slaughtering their way down the Sth East Asian islands and bombing Darwin.

Burnsy might be a bit 'one eyed' in his approach, but his basic understanding of human nature is spot on. Whites are as racist as anyone when surivival is concerned. But please don't suggest that Asian folk are less so :) cos they aint.

It is generally held that ideology, religion and race determine culture. Race is often the main focus in criticism of other cultures.

I think these days the idea of a racist is absurd. The science is there. Only a bigot would agree that race is, or should be, a factor in determining a person's status as a worthy human or suitability for Australian citizenship. The perception that a person’s culture, beliefs and even character can be defined by their skin colour still prevails - even though the logic is wrong.
In short, today's "racists" are really cultural supremacists. We all think our chosen religion, political beliefs, ideology, way of life is the best, but, unlike colour, they can be kept private. If we are living authentically, we must think that our community has found the best way of living (Just as we once thought that our given skin colour made us the best humans).
This is where discrimination can really stem from - it can stem from the tension we feel from the idea that someone else may have found a better way of life. I am talking of culture that is based on our chosen way of life – not necessarily race or religion. The choices we make in relation to how we conduct ourselves – our behaviour signals what way of life we see as the best way. Some people live their life as a positive example to others – as Christ did –others spend their time stirring up hatred, suspicion and division. It, discrimination, or, in its worst form, bigotry, stems from a lack of confidence in our own beliefs and, of course, a fear of the other. But most importantly it comes from the possibility that we are responsible through our alignment with the dominant community and its way of life for the suffering of the other; for the causes of the other’s dissent which may offend unconsciously, or consciously, our sense of justice. One coping strategy for those whose sub-conscious determines their behaviour is to launch violent and unrelenting attacks on other cultures.

I also think that the media, and those of you interested in the race debate, shy away from confronting the idea of non-race/ethnic cultural suprematism because it may mean that we have to confront our own culture which sees itself as the best. Don't get me wrong, I think all cultures need to open up to change – circumcision; treatment of women by most cultures; some indigenous law; some Christian beliefs and behaviours, such as vigilante thuggery; and other western behaviours, such as pornography; and Muslim ideas, such as a bunch of virgins are waiting at the gates of heaven for martyrs is, in my mind, just plain manipulative nonsense; and lastly the terrorist approach of countries like USA and Israel (USA has 10,000 nuclear warheads and Israel has 400 aimed at innocent mothers, fathers and children) are harmful and need re-thinking. (RE: the porn – read Peter Sellick’s latest. Peter, sensitive gentleman that his works suggest, didn’t dig deep enough into the kind of porn that is on the net – there are rape sites - one that depicts US soldiers raping Arabs – this is harming women [and thus discrediting patriarchy] and inter-cultural relations [thus degrading Christian credibility]), and is a fair indication that we need to tidy our own house up before attacking others. We need to take a long hard look at Western culture before we start judging other cultures – and remember I am an infidel.