An excellent article Stephen (I wish you had added 'left' and 'right' to your list of misleading terms).

One problem would arise, however, if we did what you suggest: a large number of bloggers and political commentators would be bereft. If you took away those words, they would have to think - or stop writing. No, too hard!

Great ideas. A few other suggestions.

Remove the word "elite", currently used to denigrate, without addressing their argument, anyone who thinks alternatively to the actual ruling group (themselves an elite).

Remove the word "academic", also used to dismiss the views of people who may have done significant research and thinking on a subject, rather than just relying on gut reaction and prejudice.

“Let “racist” and “racism” join “race” in our rubbish bin.”

Excellent idea. Leaving aside the idea of some that there is no such thing as “race” (a bit confusing after all these years), the word “racist” and “racism” – especially when they are used incorrectly in most cases – should have been binned decades ago.

Ignoring the obvious – that people are different colours – is going a bit far, though. Flesh colours suit the climates where people originally lived. That’s why we white fellas burn and suffer from skin cancer. We were meant to stay in the northern hemisphere, just as people with darker skins were intended to stay in the places they were “designed” for. I use the words ‘meant’ and ‘intended’ in an evolutionary, natural sense, but mass immigration has put a stop to all that stuff.

On the matter of national identity, Stephen Crabbe really loses the plot. On a scale of 1 to 10 for sociability, friendliness and fondness for humanity, I am struggling to reach 1, but even I like to think that I’m part of a unique national identity, and when push comes to shove, I’ll be there defending that identity along with others of my kind.

““National identity” is tyranny. If you argue that all Australia’s citizens must accept a “national identity” you are espousing the primacy of one culture over others within our borders”, according to Mr. Crabbe. This is way out. Even the staunchest multiculturalists say there is room for an Australian identity for all, regardless of varying cultures.

I think Mr. Crabbe needs to do less “musing” about himself, and interact more, or at least read opposing views. He is divorced from reality. He begins with some sensible suggestions, then the advocates the erasure of everything distinctly Australian – a lifestyle, set of values and sense of history that can be enjoyed by anyone who adopts the country as their own, irrespective of personal culture.

Nice sentiments Mr Crabbe, but you appear to be placing the cart of semantics before the horse of human nature.

>>Race is a social construct<<

Well, duh! as my ten-year-old niece would say. The construct of "race" does not depend upon the existence of a word to describe it. Nor does our use of the word depend upon scientific evidence of a lack of genetic variation.

Rather, we have latched onto it as a symbol that encapsulates the innate fear and suspicion of one human being for a "different" other. Losing the word itself will have no impact; addressing the fear might.

>>Humanity across the earth is in a state of increasing flux. An evolving species, we are steadily loosening the bonds between identity and locality as our global awareness grows<<

I see little evidence of this.

The United States, despite its size and impact on world affairs, gives every impression of tightening, rather than loosening, its attachment to its national identity. It is even becoming "un-American" to disagree with the government of the day.

On a different scale, an examination of the history of the peoples of the Balkans provides little evidence that its inhabitants are becoming less attached to an individual identity, however much they try. The word "balkanization" has actually found its way into our vocabulary, to describe the process whereby communities split into ever smaller groupings, because they disagree with their neighbours' politics, religion or ethics.

Words belong to the people. Like cliches, which are only cliches because they encapsulate an accepted wisdom, stereotypes are maintained by people as a means of simplifying an otherwise complex world.

The proposition is that reduced usage of the terms described here will help avoid conflict. What isn't clear from the article is what will replace them. Some form of sanitized, PC-approved list perhaps, that is mandated first for all public servants, then the media, and finally the rest of us?

As Orwell pointed out so admirably in 1984, Newspeak only papers over the cracks, it doesn't address the problem.

Startling naivety!
Darwins theories apply to societies too.
Any society which followed your dictum would quickly disappear under the boots of other societies which continued to believe in their own identity.
It is amazing that our society produces such self-hatred when there are so many better targets for hatred around.

I don't think I read the same article as Leigh, Pericles and Bull.
I didn't read any advocacy of dispensing with a way of life or values, just with scientifically empty words.
The only real problem is that, as demonstrated by the reactions of Leigh, Pericles and Bull, the words are not semantically empty.

By the way "... we have latched onto it as a symbol that encapsulates the innate fear and suspicion of one human being for a "different" other ..." fits xenophobia better than race, racist or racism. And when has the colour of a person's skin been a reliable indicator of anything? I have a brother-in-law in Brisbane with dark skin and curly black hair, but he is from a long line of Yorkshire stock (North enough for you Leigh?). Despite this heritage and due only to his skin colour, he has been mistakenly identified as someone of Aboriginal, middle-eastern and mediterranean descent. And all this proves is that there are exceptions, i.e. skin colour is not a reliable indicator of descent, culture, loyalty, or, more importantly, anything relevant to living peacefully in this country.

The notion of US citizens thinking that disagreement with their government is un-American, is itself un-American - see for example Henry David Thoreau, Thomas Paine, and any number of others since. And, in any case, that is not an argument for Australia to go the same way. Further, there is no demonstration that Darwin's ideas apply to societies - Iceland and a large number of other continuous, though in many ways less "fit" societies, provide adequate counter examples.

These later posts seem more motivated by fear and hatred than Crabbe's article, which identifies some semantics as impediments to this nation's peaceful growth and development. But then, if you want to hold onto grudges, fears, hatreds and other negative and destructive emotions, feel free - that too is Australian.

Odsoc

osdoc,

I think you need to do some revision on the birds and the bees. People who come from a long line of Yorkshire stock, or any other fair group, don't suddenly pop up looking like indigenous Australians for no reason.

And, if you don't mind, I don't fear or hate anyone.

Dear Leigh
Reality is reality. My brother-in-law is a naturalized immigrant born and bred in Yorkshire on both sides for many, many generations - I think my wife and her family know their family tree pretty well. And Shirley Bassey, Tom Jones and a whole swag of other Northern Europeans could also be adduced. Just because you don't know any darker skinned (no not black, just darker skinned) Welsh, Fins, Danes, and the like - none of them remotely descended from Africans, Aboriginal Australians, or any other non-European origin - doesn't mean they don't exist. Your prejudices and ignorance don't constitute an argument against fact.
Odsoc

A bit off topic, I'm afraid, but odsoc should be told.... Shirley Bassey's father, Henry Bassey, was a Nigerian sailor.

As for "The notion of US citizens thinking that disagreement with their government is un-American, is itself un-American - see for example Henry David Thoreau, Thomas Paine, and any number of others since", I had more recent history, specifically post 9/11, Patriot Act, phone-tapping etc George W Bush in mind.

I still can't get the article to pass the "if so, what then?" test.

Do dolphins have cultural subgroups?

Do dogs have nations?

Do apes have races?

Seems we humans are looking a bit silly on all this.

Humans are tribal, mostly (sport club tribes, business tribes, fashion tribes, hip hop tribes, etc). The whole notion of anything besides a tribe seems like we are just flattering ourselves.

Last time I checked, we are all brothers and sisters. Isn't it about time we all grew up, put aside our narcissistic need to believe we are better than our neighbour, and realised that we're all the same and should speak so?

One day, the aliens are going to come, and they're going to think that it's pretty silly that we draw these arbitrary barriers between ourselves. “Explain to me again why your tribe is just so different to the other tribes all over the place? I can’t see it…..you’re all as dumb and self-centred as each other. Plus, all you honkies look alike to me.”

Hundreds of years from now, our children’s tribes will look back on us, and laugh at our nation-state silliness.

[“National identity” is tyranny. If you argue that all Australia’s citizens must accept a “national identity” you are espousing the primacy of one culture over others within our borders.]

I hear echo's of the Green left weekly or International Socialism in such a patently naive or maliciously deliberate statement.

I say "Primacy" ?- ABSOLUTELY -(inclusive)Primacy (not Tyranny) is probably the best word you could use.

OPEN BORDERS ?
National identity is about territory. If you fail to protect and superintend it.. you will LOSE it. Has history taught you nothing ? I'm detecting the need for heavy duty therapy in some here.

Then, when when the shock of waking up one day to find some group which while still being a minority, but tied together by culture, religion, language and/or former geogrpahical location, have managed to position themselves in a politically powerful way as to basically control or at least steer this country's political situation, they will whine.

It already has happened (Fowler NSW) and in any case, ethnic minorities are VERY atuned to political opportunity and weakness.
I've been there, and done that. In a closely contested federal election it takes just ONE seat to determine the following:

-Who becomes Prime minister
-What policies are implemented and who they benefit.
-The historical direction of the country.
-Immigration policy

In my case, the 'one' seat happened to be a Christian area, which was (in the end) seduced by wall to wall/floor to ceiling outboard motors in brand new cartons, provided by a National Muslim government, because they also knew the strategic value of that ONE seat.

THEY ARE DIFFERENT...SO WE HATE THEM.
if EVER I've heard an over used, hackneyed, flogged to death cliche it is this one. It is about as shallow and sullied as empty political rhetoric can ever be !

Failure to acknowledge difference is (to use Pericles' golden phrase) to put the cart..... etc. Awareness of Difference does NOT mean a sense of self superiority.. when will this sink into the many THICK heads and blinkered eyes abounding on the bleeding heart side of these debates.

"Once “national identity” is truly in the bin, we could consider a new term to replace it - “world citizenry” perhaps." Sociology meets Globalisation. A citizen of the world would become even less significant when placed in a larger pond presided over by an even more remote authority. The ideology is laudable but in real terms, no thanks.

Of course race exists, even if its basis is not in empirical science. Stephen, you are a practicing member of the Anglican Church. Does God exist? Prove it. That you cannot lay the indisputable facts before me doesn't mean that I, and I assume you, no longer believe.

With the ability of sight comes the wonderful capacity to recognise difference. The recognition of difference does not necessarily put into train a hierarchy of superiority with oneself at the top. Many do, of course, and that will always be the case whether it is called 'race', 'world citizen' or 'homogenised organism previously known as [insert racial grouping here]'.

I would doubt that it would be a prudent step to politely inform a proud Scot or Palestinian or Aboriginal that they are not really there and that their historical battles were for squat.

BOAZ_David sets out a pragmatic view of the world around us more eloquently that I could. We are so used to searching out complexity in the world around us that, sometimes, we fail to see the simply obvious.

the word 'racist' is in itself racist - it identifies races of people to be racist about...

the term 'racist' is misleading.

if i were to say a man was stabbed by a Middle Eastern man, then some say the statement is 'racist'.

but if i say a woman was raped by a man, then it IS NOT sexist.

the 'descriptive' terms are just that, descriptive terms - people need to calm down - I am a man, and that is not sexist to say so, and I am a white Australian, and that is not racist to say so - it is just a fact that I am a white Australian man, does anyone have a problem with me sayhing that, if anyone does, then it is those people who have the problem with what I am, so it is they that are the racist ones.

“A bit off topic, I'm afraid, but odsoc should be told.... Shirley Bassey's father, Henry Bassey, was a Nigerian sailor.”

Pericles. Now you’ve really confused osdoc. He thought that babies were found under cabbages. Red cabbages for the dark ones, and green for the pale ones.

TEAM !
apologies in advance, because this post is entirely off topic.. pls bear with me.

I heard something today on the news, which in terms of irony and self indictment for the USA was without parallel :)

HISTORY, the USA and JAPAN.

In 1854ish, a US Gunboat stood of Tokyo harbour, commanded by one Commodore Perry. He had instructions to lay down the law to Japan, so it would '
a) End piracy (the capture and murder of sea farers of other nations along its coast)
b) Open its markets and trade with the West

Today, we had a similar repeat re China: according to the news.....

The US will persue China very agressivly, so it ends the practice of PIRACY and OPENS its markets to the US.

Of course, today they are speaking about 'intellectual property' being 'pirated'.. but the rest is the same.

As King Solomon said "There is nothing new under the sun" Ecclesiasties.

best wishes to all contributors, I continue to be amazed at the depth and quality of various posts, and the breadth of valuable opinion, including those opposed to my own.

I believe we share here in the shaping of ideas, and drawing the attention of government to issues of national significance. Dare I say, the defining of a national identify ?

I know one thing, no one but NO one in Malaysia would EVER say the kinds of things we have said here, for fear of the Special Branch, which I for one have encountered. (not pleasant)

Keep it up, perhaps one day many of us will meet and enjoy social company and the further exhange of ideas.

MAROONDAH FESTIVAL is on this sunday in Croydon, Victoria east of Melbourne. I'll be there on Sunday morning around 9-11am at a stall called 'spiritual journey' and would welcome the opportunity to meet any Vic posters. Scout ? Col Rouge ?

Dear Pericles and Leigh,
Thanks for grabbing the straw. Surely Tom was a better argument for your case as he only gets dark after exposure to the sun!

Pericles, the so what test doesn't quite make it. We all know the "been there done that, didn't work" test does.

What you and Leigh demonstrate is that, while scientifically empty, these term (race, racist, racism, national identity, etc) are not semantically empty - they have real and important meaning, at least for you.

The question is whether the meaning is universal and/or useful for some purpose. Now univesality of meaning requires no exceptions in any language - a big hurdle, try if you can but nobody except, probably, Anna Wierzbicka gets a guernsey here. Utility for some purpose is, maybe, easier, but perhaps less palatable.

Mr. Crabbe is advocating that semantic surgery is desirable in pursuit of peace and harmony in Australian society. Do you deny the desirability of the goal, or that the suggested means are efficacious?

I suspect the latter is the better path. However, you will need facts and facts, unfortunately for me (as demonstrated), often don't fit theories based on prjudice and ignorance.

But, I await your facts and arguments.

Odsoc

Thanks to all posters so far. I was unable to respond earlier than this, so now I’ll try to cover as many of your main points as I can without writing another article. Leigh advises me to spend more time reading “opposing views”. I had to chuckle. It was reading such views in many OLO threads that prompted me to write the article!

FrankGol and AMSDL: I did consider left/right as more grist for the mill, and “elite” and “academic” may also be worth a few incisions, but wordage limits mean they will have to wait for another time.

Pericles: The “if-so-what-then” test. I’m not suggesting any replacements for the terms examined in the article. That’s my very point: these particular words have been crutches for lazy thinking, and when you take the crutches away you have to really think honestly about what you and others mean. That’s the test. To grab hold of some new shorthand term to replace “race” will just help us to continue avoiding confrontation with what you call the “fear and suspicion of one human being for another”. Stereotypes and clichés do not simplify a complex world; they simplify our concept of it, which therefore corresponds all the more poorly to reality. To this extent they are excuses for lazy thinking and communicating.

BOAZ_David: “National identity” is not used to refer to national borders. It refers to espousal of particular beliefs, tastes, customs and behaviour patterns – a dogma. When one calls another “un-Australian”, it has nothing to do with territory and borders. It is completely to do with the desire for power over the other, even though both are probably perfectly legal citizens of Australia. It is anti-democratic.

Individual differences are real and innumerable, but collective terms like “race”, “white”, “black” do not help us to recognise such differences. They’re used to assign masses of unknown individuals to a group in which all are seen as homogeneous. Thus the terms prevent us from seeing people as they really are.

Craig Blanch: Regretfully, I used “world citizen” too hastily. It does not convey my meaning.

Well, I must be on another planet. I describe myself as having Irish and Polynesian heritage (not race). That is where I started. I was born in Aussie. I have strawberry blond hair, very white skin, heaps of freckles, and facial features very similar to Indigenous Australians. Is that my race?

I have often been asked if I have Aboriginal heritage.

So what politically correct terms will now replace race, racism etc?
Cheers
Kay

Stephen Crabbe writes that immigrants must behave in accordance with the laws of the land.
If the original white immigrants had done this then there would be a lot more forest, a lot more fresh water and a lot less salt effected land in Australia today.

"racism" needs to be used as the word it is, disliking someone for their race.