More sober and insightful than this article is a letter to the editor of The Australian Financial Review of 8.1.2008:
"I suggest the Australian Cricket Board go to Pakistan for a lengthy stay. If they do not return, cricket in Australia will be better off."

Those Aussies are so racist they give those eastern europeans and their offspring law degrees. How is Tony Mokbel these days Mirko?

Like most crises, the present cricket crisis has been a long time coming. Indian cricket, the financial powerhouse of the game, has long been seeking to exert much greater influence. Australian boorishness has turned so many people off. Finally the two have collided.

That the unpiring was bad is beyond doubt; and while good and bad decisions will even out in the long run, a single game is not long enough for this levelling to occur. Had every umpiring decision been correct it is quite likely Australia would not have won. Symonds certainly didn't help matters by almost bragging about being given not out. While I do not believe he should have walked, I do believe that when subsequently asked whether he had snicked the ball he would have been much better advised to have claimed uncertainty.

While it is clear that "monkey" is quite hurtful to Symonds, one wonders if this is really a racist taunt or is it related to his somewhat outlandish coiffure and trowel-applied zinc cream. It has not been reported that black English, South African, or West Indian players have been similarly abused in India. Once a team (or its supporters) find a way of getting under the skin of a player it becomes relentless. The "Hadlee is a w@nker" chant, while clearly not racist, was hurtful to Sir Richard and highly effective in putting him off his game.

Perhaps the Indians might discover that asking a Tasmanian "Show us your scar!" causes some offence, and might thus target Ponting. Would that be racist?

The author's drawing a mighty long bow to connect indifferent umpiring and sledging in a cricket match to calling Australia 'one of the most racist countries in the world'. Really need to build a logical argument.

re walking, Bradman would only walk if he knew he was well and truly out otherwise he would wait until the umps finger went up, ditto Miller, Benaud, etc. The umps decision is final.

Playing the game and walking-the argument of not walking when one should is a major moral argument.The analogy of breaking road laws to rush patients to hospital can be taken as far as the argument that we need to incarcerate around 83 000 people in gulags and torture them to make sure we have all the information we need to sleep well in our beds, even if 82999 of those incarcerated are innocent of anything but wanting to look after their familes. The end (whether winning a test match, or torturing civilians) has never justified the means. Ambulance drivers are still liable for prosecution should they jump red lights and injure a pedestrian.It is not permissible to torture and imprison without trial and deny the right of Habeus Corpus to people suspected of being trrorists. Why? It just isn't cricket.

Symmonds should have walked

Australia one of the most racists countries in the world? What absolute crap!

Students mainly from nice Western countries? More crap! Universities are chock-a-block with non-whites who are given the opportunity to stay here permanently after they finish their studies. And, the greedy tourism operators and Minister for Tourism would get Martians in if they were available.

As for the Indians, an arrogant race if ever there was one, they are simply not good enough to beat Australia and have spat the dummy because of this.

Bagaric retains a Baltic chip on the shoulder. This ‘racism’ nonsense is getting dead boring, and he and anyone else who thinks Australia is “one of the most racist countries in the world” can stay right away and/or leave any time they like.

Leigh,

By defining Bagaric's shoulder-chip as Baltic you have, apparently unwittingly, made a racist comment. You have thus demonstrated how deeply racism is ingrained in our culture.

I accept that we are racist, although not as overtly so as many other people - consider the endless inter-tribal warefare in Africa! I think it is part of the human condition - an inevitable consequence of the Selfish Gene theory of Richard Dawkins. This theory suggests, among other things, that we will generally favour those who are most genetically similar to us at the expense of those who are less similar.

Once again we have Liegh who is no doubt white telling us that Australians are not racists. Only a white person in Australia would be stupid enough to say Australia is not a racist country because most minority groups especially Aboriginal people will tell you it is based on the number of racially based incidents against minorities by whites.

Leigh forgets that this country was invaded by whites because they claimed we had no law and weren't white or christian, and that the white Australian conststution wrote into law various laws that denied Aboriginal people rights for 67 years untill the referendum.

Aboriginal people in Australia under the same constitution have no real property or civil rights than an illegal immigrant, with any proposed changes to that being met with hostility by the mainly white australian community.

The culture and institutions created by whites are designed to exclude Aboriginal people in particular and the fact that major change is in the wind upsets Leigh and people like her/him so the defence of racism is just a smoke screen to camoflage the truth.

I don't know anything about cricket its far to slow a game for me prefering pistol shooting, but if this beat up means that the game will be cancelled and something decent will come on tv then I am all for it.

It is clear you are an armchair cricketer, Mirko.

>>And as for the controversy over Symonds not walking... the rules state that a batsman that is caught is out. But this rule is subordinate to the rule that the final judge of whether or not a batsman is out is the umpire. Hence, Symonds was right to stand his ground and let the umpire make the, albeit factually wrong, decision.<<

As a statement of fact, this is utter rubbish. Even as an opinion, it is woefully underinformed.

The rule is that if the batsman is caught, he is out. It is not negotiable. The umpire is there to adjudicate when there is doubt, and rule in the batsman's favour where there is such doubt. There is no case for this adjudication to have primacy over the fact that the batsman is, without doubt, out.

This was not a case of a tight lbw decision, or a close run-out call. Having tickled the ball into the wicketkeeper's gloves, an act which he freely admitted that he had been aware of, Symonds was out, caught behind. He should at that point have tucked his bat under his arm, and walked. The fact that he did not do so means that he is a cheat.

>>[Refusing to walk] is the best way to ensure a rough degree of fairness on the cricket field. Walkers distort this equilibrium in a manner that is detrimental to their team and country.<<

That was essentially the Symonds defence. If I walk, my team mates will be upset with me, and after all, it is a team game.

The only reason that would occur is if you have a captain who approves of cheating, and sets an example as a cheat himself.

It does not however absolve a player from his responsibility to the game of cricket.

If being successful outweighs the game itself, the game is inevitably diminished. Why would anyone watch a match where cheating is condoned - even, if we use Mirko's logic, encouraged as being a natural and necessary facet of the game.

Dear Leigh,

Spoken like a true blue eh? And no one could accuse you of racism
could they?

You believe in the "fair-go" ethic obviously. "If they don't like it, they can go back ..." To where?

After three generations - and several mixed marriages some folks may have trouble trying to figure out where you'd like them to go back to. And being born in Australia - they just may really feel that this is where they belong...

Playing the game I_ do agree has to be done by the rules, with respect
for your opponents coming from both sides. It has to be mutual, or it doesn't work. Both sides should shake hands and move on. Both did not
behave well.

Pericles – I would have to disagree seeing that if every batsman took your advice the only time the batsman wont walk will be when he generally did not hit it. Even then he maybe given out by the umpire thus making things unbalanced. I think it is a noble thing to walk but if you stand your ground you have every right too.

The only way to do the job properly is to get the third umpire to call it.

Should we bring in the third umpire more? I don’t know!

Oh and how did Mirko Bagaric turn an article which started off with an Australian being racially abused by some foreigners into an article about how racist he thinks Australians are?

Besides if it had been an Australian calling a Indian a monkey I am sure Mirko would have been baying for blood.

Yindin

It will always be convenient for the indigenous people to label the whites as racist. Interesting that people from just about every other nation are able to get along with white Aussies (bar a few red necks). The chip on the shoulder that many aborigines have seem to totally blinded them to their own faults. They will never climb out of their victim mentality until they face up to their own problems and shortcomings. All people to some degree are racist and the black Australians are among the worse.

Leigh: "...the Indians, an arrogant race if ever there was one"

"Bagaric retains a Baltic chip on the shoulder"

If Leigh's Australian, I can't imagine why anybody'd think we're prone to racism.

Leigh seems not only deeply racist, but geographically challenged as well - he did mean "Balkan" didn't he?

EasyTimes, this is the classic excuse for cheating.

>>if every batsman took your advice the only time the batsman wont walk will be when he generally did not hit it. Even then he maybe given out by the umpire thus making things unbalanced<<

On the other hand, if it was the normal practice to walk, the umpire wouldn't be called upon so often. It is only because he is challenged by the batsman to make the decision in the first place.

I saw a replay of part of the West Indies vs South Africa game last night in the pub. One of the WI batsmen got a thin edge to the keeper, but instead of standing his ground and staring at the umpire, he walked straight off without even looking up. He knew he was out.

>>I think it is a noble thing to walk but if you stand your ground you have every right too.<<

Nobility has nothing to do with it. Playing cricket has everything to do with it.

In the grade of cricket I play every week, the batting side provides the umpires and the scorers. It is the only way those essential functions can be fulfilled, given we are playing "park cricket". The conventions that are adhered to, week in and week out, given that the game relies upon them, are simple.

The scorers do not cheat. They record only the runs that are made.

The umpires do not cheat. It is well understood by the fielding side that an lbw decision is going to be pretty hard to acquire, but those that are "plumb" are given.

The batsman doesn't cheat. He walks when he is out. Those who don't are not admired for their commitment to winning, they are told - frequently and forcefully - that they are cheats.

And no-one is in any doubt that this is the way cricket is played.

Cricket is Australias national sport. It is played by both sexes in every state and territory in Australia by people of all color and creeds.

Why are we criticising the epitome of our cricketers when they win?

An umpire made wrong decisions. So what? The Indians lost. Stop the whining, cop it on the chin and move onto the next game.

Remember the Aussie saying

'Winners are grinners and losers ... well ... they can please themselves.'

Any sympathy I held for the Indian team following the non-dismissal of Andrew Symonds quickly dissappeared after witnessing such a disgraceful display of petulant ungracious behaviour by a bunch of visitors to this country. I've never seen the likes of it ever before.

Harbhajan Singh is a racist. He's been found out. Why doesn't he do what any decent person would. Apologise, accept his error, cop the suspension on the chin and move on. Just as did that Aussie cricketer who made a public apology and was suspended for five matches after calling other cricketers a bunch of 'black c...s' in the privacy of the dressing room after unfairly being given out. Now who was that? Hardly anyone would be able to recall the man's name but everyone will remember Harbhajan Singh for years to come... but not because he could bowl fast balls.

In light of the protestation coming from the Board of Cricket Control in India about 'monkey' not being a term of abuse I wonder how they'd react if I said they and all Indians are behaving like a bunch of animated chattering chimps ... or chumps.

Nawhhhh they are just a bunch of whining sore losers

Agree - third umpire.

"Aboriginal people in Australia under the same constitution have no real property or civil rights than an illegal immigrant, with any proposed changes to that being met with hostility by the mainly white australian community."

Where does this utter rubbish come from? Aboriginal people have exactly the same civil rights (including the right to own property) as anyone else. Illegal immigrants don't. That's because they're illegal immigrants.

Look, if you really want to see racism in action, take a walk through some of the outer suburbs of Paris and see how the Africans are treated. Try being black and working in China. It's a no go.

Pericles – Your park cricket is different to competitive cricket. Sure I have played cricket for many years and even if you get the tiniest snick you still feel it on your bat. That said we are dealing with people and when the “human” factor is taken into account not everybody is as honest as you. So you can walk all you like but in the end its to your disadvantage and seeing that the other team has the same option when playing competitively bending the rules in your favour can be the difference between winning and loosing. (See second test Australia vs India 2008). And when you win or loose it can decide whether or not you get a big fat pay cheque or a tiny little one it could also mean whether or not you are selected to go to England and play for the ashes or whether you stay at home and watch it on the couch.

Stuart Clark, the Australian medium fast bowler of mixed Indian/ Anglo- Aust. descent is today quoted as saying that the notorious second test was played in good spirit, and has commented on bemusement within the team at Kumble's post match reaction.

Our Afro-Anglo all-rounder at the centre of the upset must be wondering what it is like to be a b_____er c_____ round about now.

Pericles, cricket teams mirror the mores of their times. That a society like ours throws up a group as enthusiastic and willing as our First Eleven is a great thing. That they pay little heed to civilised niceties that mask more vigorous attitudes shouldn't be surprising or even remarkable.

Why not judge them for their brash confidence that enables them to hit through the line of the ball with a regularity unmatched since the '20's and '30's? They have rewritten the cricketing worlds expectations on run rates, made fabulously athletic fielding a norm rather than an exception, and all but banished the draw from their lexicon.

And batsmen who do not walk have been around for a very long time now.

But palimpsest, you can use that as an excuse for almost any behaviour.

>>Pericles, cricket teams mirror the mores of their times<<

Right now, the US sporting scene is going through paroxysms over allegations of widespread drug use in baseball. Reputations have been destroyed, credibility lost, and legions of fans betrayed. Few commentators doubt that the scandal will have an impact on attendance in the upcoming season, and on the always-critical TV audience.

Since drug usage is without doubt a classic example of mirroring the "mores of their times", this makes it OK?

The parallel with cheating is instructive. Both are examples of voluntary behaviour based upon the ethics of the individual, and contrary to the spirit of the game.

Drug use in sport has become so widespread that some folk are suggesting that drug tests are abandoned, and that competitors can use whatever performance enhancing techniques they choose.

Is this really a good idea? Because it exactly parallels your stance on cheating in cricket.

EasyTimes makes the same point.

>>So you can walk all you like but in the end its to your disadvantage and seeing that the other team has the same option when playing competitively bending the rules in your favour can be the difference between winning and loosing<<

That would seem to be it then. Cheating becomes sanctioned as a way of life in cricket, and sadly, very few people seem to care.

It's all about winning, any way you can.

Steroids, anyone?

Leigh is geographically challenged - and yes, it should have been
a "Balkan chip on his shoulder."

But then - Balkan, Baltic, what's the difference - right?
Austria, Australia - same thing...

PART I

To call Australia, or any Western Country, a racist country (let alone one of the most racist countries), is not only pathetic but rude to a generous, liberal people, and most of all it is itself an extremely racist comment coming from a non-Westerner, who's parents came from a society much more closed minded culturally and socially conservative, much less or NO immigration, certainly no multiculturalism, and no doubt a higher intra-cultural marriage rate than all these things in Australia.

In 1950s the demographic makeup of Australia was around 90-95% Anglo heritiage, and in the 2001 census the population of all people of Anglo heritage was down to about 45%, includes all people born in Australia who claim Anglo heritage and all people born in the UK who now claim Australian citizenship.

Not to mention that, as with all liberal democracies of North-Western Europe (as I think it is clear that the Southern and Eastern European nations are much more religious and socially conservative than the North West), due to extreme ability to undergo change of all sorts, including cultural, the rest of world pathetically makes jokes about how there is no culture etc.

A good example is here in Australia: what culture? they say. I say, this culture: One that has made all these changes: demographic changes, the massive workforce restructuring where most manual labor factory jobs are now entirely in Asia. Go to Sydney or Melbourne and you will clearly see that, whilst nationwide Anglos are 45%, in these cities it seems more like 10% Anglos. The issue is not that there just needs to be Anglos everywhere, it clearly is not since it is ONLY the ANGLO cultures of North-West European descent that have ever undergone such massive demographic changes, where the new citizens are complete equals in law. More than just being the only peoples to undergo these massive changes, the changes have occurred with no street protests, no violence. If anything, due to the racism and violence of some groups we have brought here it has caused many ANglos to flee Sydney altogether.

Part II

How dare you call Australians racist. Most people who are from monocultural and social conservative backgrounds (most immigrants come under this group) are going to be more likely to blame others for their culturally internal fear and hate, this is what is occurring when someone from the Middle East, or Greece, or Italy, or Eastern Europe or Asia calls Australians racist.

As for wondering where our culture is, well,being a post-enlightened North-Western European culture, as Australia is, we have left all the superficial aspects of ourselves largely behind. We have absorbed all the good bits from most other cultures in the world, and in true democratic style, all these things such as fashion, what we eat, pop art, etc., are in constant flux.

If you wanted to find a specific dance or a certain dress or dish when you look at an Anglo culture, whilst those things are still there in the background, but they are largely in the distant past, left there with hatred and fear of others and war tribal mentalities, the type that leads the Serbs, Croats and Greeks to cause ethnic violence at the old NSL games and now the tennis, or the kind that causes the Lebanese muslims to wantonly attack Anglo men and women randomly and non-stop, even killing and gang raping.

These things are all still in us but written down in history books. The best kind of "culture" that current liberal democratic peoples like to practice is tolerance, respect for others, open mindedness, decency, all things that the Anglo peoples of the world have proven they have more of by being the only nations in the world's history to undergoe mass migration and multiculturalism, where these new people are treated in all areas as equal.

Stop "othering" the Anglos and confront the racism of your own Eastern European heritage, Mr Bagaric. Start with the Australian open at Melbourne, where no doubt ethnic violence will again occur.

Dear White Warlock,

As I've written in a previous post - it's important to remember Australia before the wave of the 1948 -49 migration. It was dull, self-satisfied and joylessly conformist. Not simply null and boring, but nullarboring. Not merely mindless, but lobotomised.

Anglo-Saxons ruled indeed...

Your food, like your beliefs, was basic. At your place, the diet was toast with dripping. Golden Syrup or Mira Plum jam while the main meal was likely to be skewered corned beef awash in tomato sauce with mashed potato stained with two slices of beetroot. Bread was High Tin or Square Tin and cheese was a choice of cheddar off the block or Kraft in blue packets.

In the past you had to travel the globe (which thanks to multi-cultural marketing, media and technology is suffering from galloping homogeneity) to see worlds that contrasted with your own.

In a multi-cultural society, as you eventually became, such experiences were within walking distance. Or over the back fence. Good heavens you could suddenly even risk inviting them inside...

Do you remember ordering my first "cappa-cheeno." Minutes later you may have learned two new words from the man behind the hellishly steaming espresso machine - "prego" and "grazie."

Then things happened in a rush. You may have seen your first films with writing-on-the-bottom at the Savoy, had your first Greek and Italian friends (mind you - second generation they tended to over-conform to what they thought were Australian values. Still it was a beginning). And just possibly you may have begun to suspect that the world didn't end sharply a few miles byond St. Kila beach.

You're absolutely right White Warlock - Australia wasn't (and certainly isn't today) ever racist.

You and your post are living proof of that!

Dear Foxy

Once Australians were racist.

Why don't you celebrate the change today rather than harbouring ill feeling towards Australians of older heritage because of the attitudes of their parents, Grand-parents, Great-grand parents, Great-great-grand parents and Great-great-great-grand parents.

We've forgiven them, helped many alter their attitudes and moved on.
Why can't you? We arn't scared of change ... it's part of our heritage. I think you look at White warlock's views in a fashion unbecoming to open-minded liberalism. Never once in WW's post did I see a hint of WW suggesting Australia wasn't racist in the past. He did suggest anglo-descended Australians were less racist and evidence of that was less than evidence of racist attitudes among non-anglo later arrivals. But I think because you cannot absorb WW's view you simply point the racist finger.

It's so much cleverer and ... a lot bloody easier than thinking.

But look if you actually do some real study you'll find even among our older settlers each generation had it's liberal and open-minded pioneers who had attitudes that led the world ... and led to many changes

Dear Keith,

When you've grown up being told to "speak English" (despite the fact that you spoke several languages, including English). When your teachers did not attempt to pronounce your name correctly, and instead called you "unpronounceable" in front of the class (amid gales of laughter). When you were(and still are) continually being asked and "Where do you come from?" (despite the fact that you were born here). And when it is hinted at that you would get the university scholarship if you were to "anglo-size" your surname - then
yes, it is rather difficult to move on ... you'd like to - but you're constantly not being allowed to.

No matter how hard you try - you are reminded that you are "non-Anglo." Australians - were racists - and from my experience - many still are. Moving on would be a pleasure - and perhaps I shall be allowed in another lifetime ...

PART I Foxxy,

When you've grown up in LIverpool, Fairfield, Cabramatta in the l990s (a major ethnic hub) where Anglos have been no more that 20% since the 1990s and is now even less, and your experience is that ALL other cultures looked down their noses at the Abroginal Australians and the Anglos, because in those areas traditionally the poorer Anglos can be found there. They looked down their noses at the lowest class of Anglos, and in my experience they enjoyed imagining that ALL Anglos were like this.

On numerous occassions I was told that my country is rubbish, that all Anglos were dumb, that we had no food. Whilst 80% of my friends were either Vietnamese, Lebanese or Yugoslavian, there was always the distance they kept from you by randomly speaking in their own language, even though they had been here since kindergarten and could speak fluent English,as thought you were not important enough to hear certain things. If I ever went to one of my ethnic friends houses I was never allowed inside, their parents never even looked me in the eye. However, I did have a Croatian friend whose family was very kind to me.

I remember a particular Greek teacher constantly making remarks about how Anglos are lazy, they have no culture, they are racist, when that was what he was being himself - racist.

I remember feeling extremely unsafe most of the time because it was common knowledge that if there was ever a fight with any non-Anglos, the ethnics would immdeiatley muster up a hundred people if they wanted, so you imagine that whenever an Anglo had a fight with a group of non-Anglos (mostly Asians, Middle Easterner and sometimes Serbs and Croats), whether the guy caused it or not was not important to the ten or twenty people who could unhesitantly kick his head in. And, being an Anglo, he couldn't just muster up a hundred fellow tribesmen at will. Being from a culture of individuals ther is concern that they may be helping a person that may have caused the fight.

PART II FOXXY,

However, just because my experiences were negative regarding many ethnic groups, I wouldn't dare judge whole cultures on that. I only did this when later in life I realized that most other people from these same cultures don't acknowledge this type of racism from their youth. Whilst they are quite cognizant about someone calling them a "wog" or a "nip" but they have no concern for these youth of "wogs" or "nips" forming racist "KKK" type gangs of thugs and letting of their juvenile steam in an extremely tribal and violent way, ususally on young Anglo males, who, due to their culture of individualism and the current nihilism Anglos are sufferring, the Anglo male is the easiest of targets out in South-Western Sydney since he can't just bash or defend someone on racial grounds as easily as many other cultures can.

And again, Mr Foxxy, the racism comes out. Why on earth would you attack a people by making fun of the types of food they ate during a great depression? How can you hint that Anglos live in a small closed world when they are the only culture in the world's history to undegoe such massive changes, in every way (including demogarphically).

You are the racist Foxxy, and so are most people from non-Anglo cultures. Until you all confront the hate and racism and bigotry in your own cultures, the way the Anglos have, then you will continue to try your hardest to find fault with Anglos, you will continue to feel immense hatred at the kind of food we eat (god knows how this is possible), and you will continue to believe that you are on a higher platform when in fact you are in a cesspit of cultural and moral filth, the way that the old Christian churches were like.

Dear White Warlock,

I am not "Mr Foxy" - I am female.

I too grew up in the Western suburbs of Sydney. My parents were part of the first wave of immigrants known as "Displaced Persons" following WW2.

They lost everything as a result of the war - their country, their family, their social position. Both were highly educated people, (Academics). The experiences of which I spoke in my earlier post - are ones that we lived through. And you can rant and rave as much as you want. Call me "filth" (knowing nothing about me - my friends - my profession - or the great contributions that my family and our national group - have made to this country). But that will not change the experiences that we all had.

And you Sir, if you are not a racist - take control of your temper - and your spleen - everyone was made to feel welcome in our home - because that was the way we were brought up. It was "good manners" to be polite. My father did not scare the living daylights out of any child in our neighbourhood. Yet the "Anglo" neighbour across the street chased my terrified brother with an axe for daring to come into his yard to retrieve a ball he'd lost. So, I repeat - I speak from my experience...

cont'd

I want to add just this - we both seem to have had rather unfortunate experiences... You with "Migrants" and I with "Anglos." I do not want to tar all "Anglos" with the same brush. And I definitely don't wish to give you the impression that I find all of them racist, ignorant, narrow-minded, et cetera. Only some.

And its the "some" that continue to prevent me from moving on - much as I would like to

It is fascinating to read all the comments about racism in the Australian society. Racism does not seem to be restricted to White/Brown/Black colours alone. White of various shades also matter -- British White, Welsh White, Scottish White, NSW White, Victoria White, Tasman White, Balkan White, Serb White, Croat White, Swiss White, Swedish White, and on and on and on. Just a few years ago I happened to see a TV programme in the American Public Broadcast System about how the various segments of society see themselves as fitting into it. Leave alone the Indians, Pakistanis, Chinese, Vietnamese etc. Even the whites who had migrated from Italy or Germany or Ireland or elsewhere did not feel that they were part of a homogenous society but were only second class citizens in an Anglo-Saxon dominated society.

My My, aren't all whites racist? And they call Indians racists!!

mani

Dear Mani,

As Australian society has become more diverse with continuing immigration, expressions of racism in Australian popular culture have changed over time. Racist language and attitudes that were common at the end of the nineteenth century are no longer acceptable one hundred years later. However, racism continues to find expression in new ways, reinforced through the popular media.

Contemporary expressions of racism which have emerged in recent years relate to notions of nationhood which are seen as incompatible with diversity. These racist beliefs may be expressed in various stereotyped views of who the "real" Australians are. This form of racism is based on an ideology of national culture in which minority cultures are regarded as alien and a threat to social cohesion.
It consists of pervasive cultural assumptions where the customs and beliefs of the dominant group in society are presented as the norm.

As a result, the status and behaviour of minority groups, particularly those who are more visibly different are defined and
judged with respect to the dominant group of largely British and Celtic backgrounds.

These attitudes are widely discussed in the media where they are presented as reasonable and commonsense and reflected through media images that do not accurately portray Australia's cultural diversity.
In this way, racist idealogies are expressed and reinforced through a process of group interaction and thereby absorbed into popular culture.

As the famous journalist, John Pilger has pointed out, "Australia is the only developed country whose government has been condemned as racist by the United Nations." (13 Oct. 2000).

Well, Foxy, I guess you are right, by and large. Anyway, let me go to the main article now.

Mirko says: "No one likes being verbally abused." Glad he says so. But what have the Aussies been doing all these years, particularly since Steve Waugh took over? What is sledging? And the Aussies will lay down the rules as to what abusive words can be used, and what cannot be used? Hogwash, Mirko.

>>And as for the controversy over Symonds not walking, there is a classic case of much ado about nothing.<<
Sorry, Mirko, you are totally off-key. Ponting and Kumble made a gentlemen's agreement that they will accept the word of the fielder if he says he took the catch cleanly. What that said was that they will trust the honesty of the player. Well, the player cannot say that he will be honest and truthful when he claims a catch, but reserves the right to be dishonest and untruthful when he knows he himself is out.
It doesn't wash.

>>Given the human element involved adjudicating, baring bias, over a period of time statistically all teams will have as many poor decisions go in their favour as they do go against them.<<
Theoretically, yes. But when the adjudicaters tend to favour the Aussies more against India in Australia, and then be more kind to India against Bangla Desh or Kenya, the "statistical evening out" is not acceptable. In Sydney all commentators have agreed that the imbalnce was atrocious. Look at the way the third umpire gave Symonds not out to a stumping when even the Aussie commentators, who too watched the same TV replays, had declared him out. No, Mirko. There was something perverse about umpiring in Sydney.

>>As spectators we want a contest on the field and for predictability in the manner in which the game is adjudicated. Thereafter, may the best team win.<<
As brought out above, the adjudication had been "predictably" pro-Aussie, as it has happened with other teams visiting Australia also. So only Australia can win, not the best team.

Dear Mani,

Racism affects everyone. It damages communities by limiting the contributions of its members and disrupts peaceful co-existence and
co-operation between groups. It damages individuals by destroying self confidence and preventing them from achieving their potential. It is particularly damaging for children as it hampers social development and limits educational opportunities. The consequences of racism - social injustice, a less productive economy and a divided community are clearly detrimental, not only to its victims but to society as a whole.

And nothing will change until we all realize that racial prejudice is a corrosive influence attacking the most fundamental values of Australian society - our commitment to justice, egalitarianism and a "Fair go" for all.

Sport is so much a part of the "Australian" way of life - it is a passion of all races. But I think Australians would weep if they were taken on a tour of black sporting Australia. The annual Aboriginal Games in the Northern Territory (an event of great significance to black Australians) is played in a dust bowl without the most basic facilities. There are no athletics tracks, no swimming-pools, no basketball courts, often not even a set of goalposts...

In 1998, the Howard government enacted legislation that effectively took away the common-law rights that the High Court said belonged to Aborigines. Nothing like it has been passed by a modern parliament. It is just one of the disgraces that has given Australia the distinction of being the only developed country whose government has been condemned as racist by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

The UN has also called racist the mandatory sentencing laws in the Northern Territory and Western Australia, which have given black Australians an imprisonment rate at least as high as that of apartheid South Africa, and have been a primary cause of one of the highest suicide rates in the world, among young Aborigines.

Dear Foxy

I am an immigrant and experienced many of the things you've experienced. I got over them. I grew, worked, had a family, mixed, became involved and now have a diverse range of friends and acquaintances. Few are racist and wouldn't dare indulge in the things you apparently still experience ... for they know the damage it causes to everybody and the community. Australias have genuinely changed in my 30 years here. And
I don't doubt a part of that is and was because of my attitudes.

Dear ALL,

the thing that really annoys me is that, in the entire world's history, it is only North-Western European cultures (which includes their descendents in Australia, US and Canada and NZ) that have undergone these MASSIVE demographic changes, that have multicultural policies that sometimes border on utter madness (when we put up with clear bigotry from some sections of some ethnic communities). It is only these North-Western European cultures that have a public shaming policiy on racism, that (I think) even talk about the concept, and here we have people from all over the world, many of whom are from cultures that have absolutely NO history of smooth ethnic/religious relations, or even have equality and discrimination policies that are upheld (even Japan is periodically chastised by the UN for their treatment of ethnic Koreans), telling people from a culture that has proven its tolerance, that champions human rights worldwide, and that frankly, if it didn't exist (mostly by way of the power of the US and Britian), the world would be a moral cesspit in an intellectual iceage.

Why don't any non-Anglos ever attack the racism and bigotry and racist marriage practises of your own cultures? Don't you think that it is morally wrong to just come to a country that culturally is light years ahead of your parents' country for human rights, equality, and actual racism discourse (since most other nations don't even have this term in their vocabulary), and start calling us racist and asking us to change our flag, etc.?

Dear Keith,

Please don't misunderstand. I love this country. I was born here.
Although my ancestry is from Northern Europe - the Baltic (not Balkan).

I am simply reacting when someone pushes the right buttons. But I do feel that enough has been said on the topic. And it is time to move on.

As I said in another post - It would be good if all of us would realize that racial prejudice is a corrosive influence attacking the most fundamental values of Australian society - our commitment to justice, egalitarianism and a "Fair go" for all