i would have to say the opposite Robert. Anti-racism is a cultural construct and is something that is trained into people. Five year olds discriminate perhaps more openly than an adult. I see it all the time - it has'nt been trained into them at all.

That said, there is a trend among western nations to delibrately multi-racialise there societies so that our intellectuals can continue to do B grade re-runs of the civil rights movements. They know racism is inevitable - a convenient way to patronise the ordinary working person.

Sorry, Davo, have watched my own kids in a totally ethnically mixed kindy have friends and enemies from all different backgrounds and they were no more interested in one kid's skin colour or shape of eyes than they were in another's height or fatness or freckles or red hair or funny laugh.
Redneck, I appreciate your open-ness to debate the issue. And I agree that none of the attributes I describe are inherently evil, but each may lead to evil behaviour if left unchecked. That is what parenting is for, to check the negative behaviour, not the negative feelings.
I suspect racist feelings that lead to discrimination, insult and placing unfair limits on others on the basis of attributes they cannot change may meet the criteria for evil behaviour, particularly if they then are used to justify actual harm, cruelty and brutal treatment.

To Mr Swilkie.

Your entire assumption that racism is entirely learned behaviour is based upon the behaviour of children?

OK. Male 5 year old children are not noted for engaging in homosexual behaviour, are they Mr Swilkie? But homosexual behaviour is certainly not entirely learned behaviour, is it? Homosexual behaviour is usually considered instinctive behaviour which does not usually manifest itself until puberty. In what way is this different to racism or any other form of group identity?

Children simply accept that they are children, they do not think much in terms of group dynamics or group survival. But when they become adolescents, they desperately seek both an acceptable personal adult identity and a group identity. Simply being regarded as “adolescents” is not a good enough group identity for tweenagers or teenagers. It is usual for young men to form gangs where group affiliation reflects the cultural values, relative affluence, and recreational activities of a particular area. (Goths, bikies, surfers, boogie boarders, punks, ethnic gangs, Sloane Rangers, grotty yachties, etc). These groups of young people are traditionally very hostile to one another. Especially if the groups are composed of low status young males and there are girls around.

Prisons are usually full of young men, because young men are naturally prone to irresponsible, attention seeking, impulsive and violent behaviour. Young men do not need to be taught how to be idiots, they seem to manage that feat quite instinctively themselves. No matter how much the culture of older people tries to make them act responsibly. Fortunately, they grow out of their hormonal induced behaviour, sooner or later.

Different youth groups do instil learned loyalty and hostility to outside groups in their members. But this hostility is based upon each individuals instinctive need to belong to a group that they can identify with and their own natural, youthful aggression. Once in a group, it is normal and natural to regard the welfare of the group as paramount and to be hostile to other groups infringing upon your groups territory.

BOAZ_David,

I apologise for making assumptions about your political stance. I took the time to read some of your other posts (the ones I hadn't yet read) and you are a little more neutral than I first thought.

But as a person who was brought up in a protestant Christian household, I will never understand this unusually strong link between The Right and the Christianity (especially in America). Seems like a bit of a contradiction to me.

I agree with your "lesser of the two evils" comment. I just seem to disagree with you on who the lesser of those two evils is.

Redneck,
The difference between verbally attacking a political party and attacking (as you've put it) Jews and "Niggers" is that Jews and negros never hurt an entire nation of people in one simple act.

There are much bigger things in life to worry about than those "funny looking" people. I'd suggest concentrating some of this this potencially constructive rage on something like fighting for the rights you are about to lose at work.

To Mr Man.

Your explanation that the Liberal party is somehow "guilty" of some undefined crime against the entire nation of Australia is typical of the attitudes of a racist person who has extreme hostility towards a group of people that he regards as contemptable.

The most amusing aspect of the attitudes of anti racists is that they are extremely racist themselves. They demand that minority groups must not be prejudged while simultaneously prejudging their opponents as "racists" and "bigots".

They passionately claim that ethnic minorities must never be stereotyped. Yet they unashamedly stereotype their own opponents as "ignorant", "of low intelligence" or as "members of the herd", while stereotyping themselves as people possessing unequaled powers of intellect and morality.

Finally, when confronted by people uttering racist labels, they act like outraged virtuous schoolgirls who have just got their first feel up at a drive in. But this does not stop them from thinking up derogatory names for their opponents, of which "redneck" is a favourite. Trendy lefties are so obsessed with mindlessly acting out the role of the morally pure, that they are unable to even figure out that calling somebody a "redneck" is a racist term which sneers at people entirely upon the basis of their skin colour.

To summarise, your own hostility towards identifiable groups of people who's cultural values you oppose, and the hostility which I exhibit towards identifiable groups of people who values, attitudes and behaviour that I find offensive, are exactly the same thing.

The only difference is that you have not figured that out yet.

When you do, you might reset your scrambled logic circuits and begin thinking straight.

From the Islamic Foundation for Education and Welfare (IFEW) [ http://www.IFEW.com/ ] NSW Australia

A Proposal:
Development of
Da'wah(spreading of islam) Efforts in Australia
Daud Batchelor

(ii) Australia is not a developing country so that the Malaysian concepts presented cannot necessarily be applied directly (without modification) to Australian conditions - except in the case of the Aboriginal Community which is a "developing" community.

http://www.ifew.com/insight/v12i01/dawaprop.html

Are our aboriginals less developed and there for easier targets for conversion to islam?