I believe 300% that it is really culture that divides people rather than skin colour but the world still sees culture and race intermixed so we can't change the way the world sees.

I have seen this amplified in some reports in the Indian press and also other areas like the US. They seem to have such an obession to race that we do actually look very much better in comparison than we are portrayed.

The problem I have seen though is that it has become such a re-occuring theme that people who used to defeND themselves with great passion against charges of racism now shrug and say Ok I am racist. The whole racist this, that and the other has been really counter productive. People do not care anymore. Over played I am afraid.

I blame the fact racism has become an industry. People spend their lives scouring You Tube, media, or rumours to make sensationalistic news so they get paid. Sick. Real sick. What is worse they pretend they promote harmony.

In Brisbane Sophia Tun and a friend used their stiletto heeled shoes to viciously beat Canadian student Tammy Hinchey.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26576145-952,00.html

Plainly this is the issue of skin colour and different culture C J Morgan wrote about earlier. To quote CJM: "Racists do things to people who have a different skin colour to them and/or are culturally different to them because they regard the objects of their racism as being lesser himan beings than they are."

Should the Canadian government be complaining about 'Australian' racism and what sort of cartoon would be suitable to bring home that point?

Nice to see that Cornflower's peculiar logic has survived the holiday period.

If there had been a well-reported wave of serious assaults perpetrated by Australians against Canadian students who were apparently selected for being Canadian, and if the Australian authorities seemed to be in denial about that, then undoubtedly the Canadian government would advocate for the interests of its expatriate citizens.

But there hasn't been. All you've got is a single report of a drunken cat-fight outside a notorious Brisbane night club. Sort of pales into insignificance against the gutting of some poor guy on his way to work, or the setting alight of another in a quiet suburban street, etc etc etc, doesn't it?

CJ

So now you are disputing your own definition? No doubt about it you take any and every opportunity to vilify Australia and Australians even if it takes some contortions to do it.

You have no idea how many Canadians have been assaulted because no-one has played the racism card on their behalf. However, from your form you probably wouldn't be interested in assaults of Canadians and would find some way of rationalising such crimes so that it is never racism.

Just where is your proof of racist intent in the examples you gave because without that it is all just speculative gossip, innuendo and mischief-making.

I am also reminded of a comment by an ex-police Commissioner (AFP, I recall) that much knife and gun crime in Australia was attributable to certain migrant groups bringing their favoured traditional ways of solving disputes with them.

CJ,

<I agree crabsy - at least to the extent that, as a biological term, 'race' is meaningless when applied to humans. However, it certainly exists as an ideological construct in the minds and actions of racists, which is why you're completely wrong to try and avoid the issue in this debate.>

Can’t let that one go! Where did I try to “avoid the issue”? What I actually said was that we should stop using certain words – i.e. “race”, “racist”, “racial” and “racism”. In doing so we force ourselves and others to look more honestly at the statements and arguments in circulation.

If accused of “racism”, I might answer “There is no such thing as race. So what are you talking about?” In effect this demands of the accusers a reappraisal of their perception and a charge based on empirically more testable grounds.

By continuing to use the “race” vocabulary – by arguing on their grounds – you simply perpetuate the ideological construct in the minds of those who embrace it.

Contrary to the common view, semantics is far from being a distraction from whatever issue at hand: it is actually a major tool in identifying the problem and negotiating the solution.

crabsy: << If accused of “racism”, I might answer “There is no such thing as race. So what are you talking about?” >>

Indeed, and it's a ploy that's been used here at OLO often enough by the cleverer racists. My point is that, while 'race' is meaningless in biological terms when applied to humans, it clearly exists as a social construct for many (if not most) people who haven't had the benefit of an education through which they've learned that it's a scientific nonsense when applied to people.

These ignorant people - not all of whom act in racist ways towards others whom they believe to be 'racially' different to them - attribute essential differences to other people on the basis of phenotypical features like skin colour, and also on the basis of ethnicity and religion.

I agree that the semantics are important, but when you have what is probably a majority of the population misusing 'racial' terms in their categorisation of others - often in the most pejorative and essentialist ways - then I think that it's counterproductive to insist on semantic correctness. The bigoted boofheads who are picking on others because they believe that they are essentially inferior due to phenotype, ethnicity or religion don't care about the semantics. What terminology would you suggest?

Cornflower - have you read Andrew Jakubowicz's article and the discussion here, or are you doing your usual thing and trying to pick a fight with me regardless of the context? Besides which, where exactly have I vilified Australia and Australians? I thought I'd made it clear - even for one as apparently intellectually challenged as you - that racism isn't confined to 'whites' or Australians.