Dear Ranier
you are asking the wrong question: “What does it mean to be white”? You also connected this with ‘power and privilege’.

For goodness sake mate..its a biological accident.. now..to the more serious issues of power and privilege.

I am not sure, but I’d guess you are seeing those terms ‘in relation to’ Indigenous Australians ? your mob.

Well, looking at the people who come out of my sons work, there are all kinds. White, Islander, Asian, Middle Eastern... I seriously doubt that in terms of job opportunity, you can speak of ‘racism’ based job opportunity denial. Perhaps you are thinking of a certain ‘segment’ or level of society, ? which might be quite valid.. say “Education” or something. I guess such a question of power and privilege would not be something which could be answered in an “across the board way.”

I’m not aware of Banks lending only to Whites or Centrelink only interviewing ‘whites’. or Insurance companies only covering ‘Whites’ or doctors looking at skin color before diagnosing.

Perhaps it would be better for you to list “What subtle racism/power/privilege you OBSERVE as an Indigenous Australian” and then perhaps we can analyze it more effectively.

I suppose the Irish Catholics could not claim direct discrimination under the Anglican British absentee landlords until the tried to buy a block of land.. and found it was all owned by the Brits.
But in terms of access to employment as share farmers or whatever, they only had themselves to compete with.

I am sure you could (and I hope you do) identify structural racism, based on White/Anglo power. I guess the first place I’d go would be in relation to land. But given that Aboriginal concepts of ‘Land’ ownership were entirely different from the British idea, they are probably more compatible than you think. (access and free travel and sacred sites should not be a problem for our concept of Land ownership)

Anyway... give it a shot and TELL us about what’s in your mind.

P.S... I still hear that knocking but the door appears closed :)

BD, That you don't know how to answer the question means something.
Please put your bible away for a minute or two and try again.

Bos

Your rebuke was deserved. I'll not blaspheme again. At times I am insensitive and a sinner. I'm sure your God would forgive my irreverence.

Part 1 of 4

Dirk

I understood from day one your stature and renown although the unkind few would rather say notoriety.

I enjoy constructive, intelligent debate. I retract and apologise for the taunts and insults I have hurled. Sadly it is my experience in life to have found before meaningful discussion is undertaken between men (excuse the sexism) there has always been a certain amount of hubris (rooted in the Greek sense) and that occasionally physical. Once enmity has been buried, by the mutual respect arrived at, tolerable discussion and agreement is often found.

Addressing your central argument; your contention the behaviour at Cronulla was a pogrom. A cursory glance at the origins of the modern pogrom in the late 19th and early 20th centuries shows those pogroms to have two distinct characters. The pogroms prior to Kishinev in 1903 appear to be spontaneous outbursts of violence by peasants objecting to the position and influence of Jews. They appear to have tacit support of the ruling class and are characterised by a lack of intervention by authorities such as police. They appear to have had the approval of the majority. There were several such outbreaks in Tzarist Russia throughout the 19th Century. I don’t think what happened in Cronulla could be characterised in this vein and could not reasonably be equated with this type of pogrom. The latter pogrom is of the Kishinev type. I dare you to equate the excesses of those pogroms with your alleged excesses at Cronulla. I strongly doubt the pogroms of Eastern Europe drew palpable community outrage. Your assertion of a pogrom fails on the basis that it doesn’t fit the predominant characteristics of the original pogroms.
You can of course dispute the features of these types of pogroms and attempt to redefine the term pogrom by saying such things as
‘pogroms are conducted by MEMBERS OF the majority IN ITS NAME against a subordinate minority.’.
Such a partial re-defining is done without any great intellectual rigour. Should you wish to dispute the features of the Eastern European pogroms and redefine the term …fine.

Part 2 of 4

I think as an Historian you would need to supply a reference to the original historian who analysed the behaviour, initially coined the word and defined pogrom then show why his definition is not sufficiently comprehensive.
In one of my responses to you I also defined pogrom simply by using a dictionary, which of course dictates the common usage of the term. You’ve never disputed that definition.

No. I think we can safely conclude in terms of any of the historical or common definition Cronulla was no pogrom.

A debate on a redefined meaning to the term pogrom… now that would be entirely different and much more stimulating. Entering upon that course would really be challenging not only your assertion but also your credentials.

Moving onto your defence of your racist inference. Your expression was clumsy. Now you assert the Cronulla ‘pogrom’ was conducted by a few in my name. I have roundly condemned the events and rejected the racist and violent actions. How does having the ‘pogrom’ undertaken in my name make me racist? It simply doesn’t. Similarly the same applies to the bulk of Australians. I’d maintain the outrage at and condemnation of the behaviour extensive. You’re also correct, it was tangible.
Of course we all have ambivalence towards members of our communities. You express a similar view. But, as we have all shown with our condemnation, few of us have ambivalence towards the racism and lawlessness. I think you have confused the two notions. Few of us excuse violence or racism on any basis.

Your inference is debunked. I think it fair to say ‘Australia is not a racist country’.

Your assertion regarding the excesses of violence could be disputed. I merely say alcohol, drugs and testosterone inspired arrant stupidity contributed to produce your asserted excesses. An element of mob mentality and behaviour was involved. I don’t think it correct to equate reasons for the riot with reasons for the violent and lawless behaviour of a few at that riot.

In all your assertions and inferences you’ve drawn bows so long they’ve snapped.

Dirk, thanks for your email and you're right, its pointless. Time energy is best spent elsewhere.