The recent topic from Amel: "Is Australia Really a Racist Country" is one in a long line of obsessive interest with Australias' and Australians' attitude to immigrants to our country?

How about a change? What about the people who come here?

How do you find immigrants and their attitudes to Australia?

Are any overtures you make to immigrants successful and welcomed, or do you get looked at as if you are something the cat dragged in?

What do you think about many of the newly arrived cultures herding into "ghettos" because they feel more comfortable with their own kind? Do you think that it is as wrong for them to prefer the company of their own kind in the same way as many people think it is wrong for Australians to feel better in the company of their own kind? Many ethnic groups arriving in the 40's and 50's are still doing it and speaking foreign languages.

Do you think there are double standards in this "debate"?

Do you really give a stuff one way or the other, or do you think it's about time we accepted ourselves the way we are and got on with life?

I would suggest Australians are racist but in comparison with many immigrant groups (white and black) and indigneous groups we are a pretty to;erant lot.

As I've said before, it's pretty obvious to me that there is more variation within any given culture than there is between. Racism exists in every culture, including those that immigrate here. Luckily overtly racist attitudes are almost always in the minority.

Racism (and prejudice in general) is a problem in all of humanity, and not confined to or a defining feature of any group. It's up to individuals to think about and understand their own attitudes, throwing blame onto other groups doesn't help anyone.

When I see white Australians they all speak their own language and want to hang around their own kind.

But none of them know anything about the land or how to take care of the delicate environment we have. The water crisis is a good example of this ignorance. They dig up the land, put animals with cloven feet on it and then spend millions of dollars researching soil erosion.

After more than two hundred years I've to meet one white Australian who can speak Pitjinjarra, Yolgu or Gu gu Yimidirr or any of the 400 different languages that represented the different Aboriginal nations.

Everyone knows how to say Kangaroo, Wallaby, Uluru but no one who's language it comes from or the history behind how it became part of their 'white Australian' vernacular. There favourite song is about a man who loved a sheep!

They are indeed a strange bunch of people. And they are getting upset about other immigrants doing just what they did themselves!

Go figure!

In my experience poms are a pretty racist lot, there are
- the migrants from the Midlands in the 1970s who left the UK because they didn't want Paki neighbours
- the [aged] gilded youth of the empire who look down on all colonials
- Many poms who think that the French are the lowest of the low

Interactions with asian students of Chinese descent leads me to believe they regard Australians as
- lazy
- stupid, check our maths ability against their maths ability
- prejudiced when we pick on their spoken and written English. We go overboard on singular and plural and we are simply not as numerate as them

Many people who have migrated to Australia from Asia have quietly questioned the wisdom of continued mass migration. If we want to make multiculturalism work then we have to spend money providing remedial speech therapists for schools with large Vietnamese populations to ensure that all primary school pupils can ennounciate their vowels and consonants clearly so the who community can understand them. Australians tend to swallow ending consonants and asians take consonant swallowing to new extremes making it really difficult to understand some aussie born kids in the Vietnamese community.

Some time ago, I advised Ranier why I would not respond to his abusive posts against me. Anyone who insists on equality for Australians of aboriginal entity is automatically branded as "racist" by Ranier.

However, he believes that he is making a valid point in his latest post and, on the face of it, he is.

But, we are now talking about a civilized (in the correct sense of the word - no offense intended to the original immigrants) society as opposed to the original colonisation of a country inhabited by some 500 to 600 tribes who were separated from, and warlike to, each other and who had no idea of the country they inhabited in realtion to the rest of the world.

Let's see if he can overcome his "racism" and hatred towards white people come back into the fold as a contributor rather than a knocker.

Leigh, I'm not sure why (being disabled and all) you think the Aboriginals past lack of understanding of the wider world renders their tenancy of this country less valid.

Almost all immigrants who arrive today do so legally and peacefully, whereas the original invasion of this country...well, there was a few brutal massacres here and there - and that sort of thing tends to leave a bit of a sting..

I'd like to see you engage in this kind of debate without getting angry or insulting, Leigh. I see I'm not the only one who's copped the "stop being abusive, you person of lower intellect!" passage of reasoning.

I like Rainers courage.

I have my suspicions about Amel. I was on another blogg the other night, putting a post to an anthropological postulation.

The Leftoid hate mongers that run it branded me a 'racist' immediately. They blocked and censored me. I was giving a trained anthropological, academic response to the Blogg.

I might continue on with this in a later post. But I want to put something to Rainer. I wrote a eulogy to the two artists in Kalgoorlie. It was in response to some flirting from a poster named ‘Rose’. Rainer, I want to put the eulogy here, and get your take on it –if you want to Rainer. As follows:

Such bitter sorrow doth thy indigene bereave; galling, struggle longa way the fence. Tis such sorrow to part so far form all – art, times, country and heart. All gone now. Drifting, dreaming tis the passing of some time long ago. Finding they did sight and sound, oh where to put such aching souls. Spirit, mourning, life all there in Tjuntjunjara. Sweet spirit a Rose by any other name. Goodnight, Goodnight. Parting is such sweet sorrow.

Ranier said a lot of good things... *clap*.... but he does not know all Aussies so is a bit unfair to imply that very few know Aboriginal langauges.
He will probably find that those who have the most knowledge and experience of them are Christians. We have this thing..about wanting people to understand the Word of God in their heart language, so we first convert it to written form, then translate it and publish it, thus preserving the language forever. Now who would have thought of that ?

But LEIGH.. migrants racist ? nooooooooooooo mate... of course not, the Serbs and Croats hacking into each other yesterday was just playful banter :)

And the Lebs who attacked Maroubra..was just 'youth letting off steam'

and so it goes.

I think we should have an advisory council for the PM.and I nominate RANIER to be on it :) (Seriously)

Aaaah GADJET.. welcome to my world :) yes.. that is exactly the reason I put up with so much flack, and am driven to strive even harder in places like this, due to them not being able to either censor or censure me. They can abuse, distort, disagree, heap scorn on all that we say but they cannot repeat CANNOT.. censor us :)

http://www.caliphateprotest.wikispaces.com
http://www.truetruth.wikispaces.com
http://www.10-teams.wikispaces.com
http://truetruth.wikispaces.com/The+Truth+about+Christianity.

All power to reasoned argument. PS. .. do you have some anthropological background ? check this out http://www.cabrillo.edu/~crsmith/steelAxes.pdf

One of the most instructive papers applicable to many issues including even feminism. (loss of male identity)

I think on the whole most cultures that have migrated here have done reasonably well.
If they are racists at least thier polite enough to keep it to themslves and dont demand that we make ludicrous changes to our lifestyles to accomodate thier beliefs.
And if they do mette out violence they generally keep it in house which is fine and most whom have come here generally are not a drain on our welfare unlike the Lebanese whos welfare wroughts are without equal.
I believe that our east Asian migrants have a lot more upstairs than our middle eastern countrymen. Even if they come from poor uneducated backgrounds they are still a good chance at making a decent living.

Low IQ + welfare = Higher propensity towards violence.

I know Chinese Australians who are more ocker than BAZZA Mckenzie.
No problem there AUNTY.

Well spotted Boaz

IF anybody is in doubt about how the world of Leftist Academia can change [things], check out the differences in the following two documents. One is a fake. Presumably it is being passed of as legitimate by those who should know better. If ever somebody was looking for a case of Academic Fraud, this is it.

It is one sure way to foster Racism, and even Feminazism.

Original:
http://mrs.umn.edu/academic/anthropology/chollett/anth1111/CourseReadings/Steel%20Axes%20for%20Stone-Age%20Australians.pdf

See page 8, the bit “ideology”. Compare it with the fake.
See page 10 (455), the bit about “kinship roles”. Compare it with the fake.

Fake:
http://www.cabrillo.edu/~crsmith/steelAxes.pdf

Compare:
P 5
P 7
Note also paragraph alteration.
There are probably other faults.

Dear Gadget... I'm stunned... Actually I didn't pick up anything you mentioned but I sure as heck will look now !

Please USE this in your encounters with opponents.

I was just referring to it, as a means of illustrating how an academic work shows how the loss of male identity and tribal disintegration are connected. Femenists don't realize the damage they are doing because they only see the 'incremental' change.

Regarding 'racist' immigrants.. there are also other aspects of 'danger' which could be construed as 'racism' but on the religious level. I've been wading through some Islamic hadith again.. this time in "Sahih Muslim" and I find my rather harsh assessment of Islam further confirmed.

Muslim Book 001, Number 0031:
It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that he heard the Messenger of Allah say: I have been commanded to fight against people, till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the messenger (from the Lord) and in all that I have brought.

This is a recurring theme.. "fight them....until"
Until what ?

1/ Confess no God but Allah
2/ Confess I am his messenger.

Again, the understanding of aggressive and violent 'Islamic Evangelism'
in the mind of Mohammed and his followers is underscored. To think that this has no implications for us in 2006 is pure naivity. Specially in regard to Muslim immigrants and a growing community.

This is about equal to the Communist idea of violent revolution by the proletariat against the Capitalists.

The observable fact that this does not seem at THIS TIME to figure prominently in the minds of 'moderate' Muslims does nothing to diminish the impending reality.

Yes.. many migrants are racist, and some are so as described above.

And Mr Speaker, before the honorable Mr Chamberlain stands up to dispute this, please censure him.

Spendocrat,

The subject is: “Are Migrants Racist?” not what happened 200 years ago.

Ranier, as always, gets his mob into just about any subject and he is way off the subject here. As I kicked it off, I think I’m entitled to say that. My only reason for responding to him was that, although he is entitled to hang onto the past and his own opinions about what happened to his people, his post would be better used for another topic. I do not believe that first white settlers and aborigines of 200 years ago have anything to do with the topic.

I will stick to my undertaking not to argue the toss with you. I might feel the urge to expand on the comments I made re aborigines some time, but I will not be doing it in response to your querulous challenge.

David,

Good on you. Your patience is at least on a par with Col Rouge’s. I have never been able to master the art, unfortunately. Keep striving!

I think it’s pretty arrogant for the self-haters to think that it is only we who are the “racists”, and all those other lovely cultures and races think that we are wonderful

The original posting by Leigh is interesting in that mistrust and prejudice probably run both ways.I agree with some of the comments here where the attitude of some immigrants are considered as appalling. However most are not. The current social environment and the constant reminder of people's race/colour through daily interaction, media and stereotyping has probably contributed to "ethnic monorities" to feel isolated and excluded. It is not unusual to hear/see people of minority background being targeted at on a street at night full of drunkards. or them turning up in places of only the "white" race only to feel out of place. It is also not uncommon to see in a equal opportunity workplace some of the attitudes displayed which could be interpreted as less than equal. Try tuning to one of the shock-jock radio programs. And the daily subtle discrimination goes on....

My point is rather than asking the question "are immigrants racists?", it is more important to understand the causes of their mistrust. They are not by nature "racist", otherwise why would they be here? (to specifically engage in racist behavior?)It is always easy to find faults in other people but not seeing their own problems. Some commentators here have very entrenched preception that there is no way that different races could live together in harmony. Going by the amount of prejudices and complete lack of attempt to understand other races, it is no wonder that they hold this view. The question Leigh raised "Are any overtures you make to immigrants successful and welcomed, or do you get looked at as if you are something the cat dragged in?", what purpose or benefit does it have, other than trying to entrench and consolidate prejudice?

And by the way I do not see people of the same race congregating as being a symbol of racism. It is a democratic right to do so. The formation of "ghettos" per Leigh is caused by (a) people of same race congregating and (b) people of other race leaving. So by implication, Leigh is clearly wanting to understand why the white population is leaving and moving to exclusively white suburbs. Do they dislike people of another colour? Some time ago, a TV documentary on the US racial divide showed that when some black families move to a wealthy suburb previously exclusively dwelled by whites, the whites started leaving in mass numbers. It is also fine by me if they do not like to live in a culturally diverse community, afterall it is their democratic rights. what concerns me is the disposition to impose their way of live (arrogantly) on others when other lifestyles are perfectly legitimate. It is no organised power struggle between the races, some commentators need to wake up..

Goku,
In most cases its the governments that decide to move these "people" into these communities and what follows is generally a rise in crime and anti-social behaviour. Thats why the white people and generally anyone who can afford to move out do so because they dont have to put up with that sought of crap if they dont want to. That dont make them racists, there just people who want thier families to be safe

In the case you are referring to the Govt moved 1100 Somalis into a normal suburb and turned it into a ghetto pretty well overnight if its the case Im thinking of, it was a while ago.

Mate if we dont want to live next door to a bunch of sub saharan muslim blacks then we dont have to that is our right, eventually as is our right we can put up a great big razor wire fence around our communities as is our right to keep us nice and safe just like South Africa now wont that be nice.

Should govts and social engineers move these "peoples" into these communities without consultation or a suburban referendum well Ill leave that one up to you?

Leigh stated:

• “I do not believe that first white settlers and aborigines of 200 years ago have anything to do with the topic.”

Well of course you wouldn’t that was the whole point of me posting. Doh!

And actually Leigh my post was very contemporary in context, not 200 years ago.

To dislocate one set of race relations from another just so you can make convenient and ridiculous claims and pretend to have some expert and insightful intellect on the topic is not only bizarre but embarrassing.

But still you ask “Do you think there are double standards in this "debate"?

What a joke!

Your knowledge of immigration history is astoundingly incomplete but like most OLO posters I've tolerated how lazy you are in this regard.

Where are the ghetto's you speak of? Provide some proof!

I think some ‘long-time Australians’ (like you) aren’t
engaging with cultural diversity at all: In fact one could go so far as to say people like you are more
culturally insular than those you despise.

Which brings me to this point - how well do you mix with your own kind anyway?

If the tone and your fondness for making unruly racist statements is anything to go by I know for sure you would find yourself very isolated in a social gathering where there is majority of white Australians.

They'd be embarrassed and apologetic, not just to me but to each other.

And I reckon it wouldn't be unusual to hear the question being politely whispered -

"Who invited the socio-cultural troglodyte?"

And guess what - I would bravely answer on your behalf: “Sorry I did, but he’s ok, just needs to get out a bit more.

Dear GOKU.. nice nick, you would be popular with my kids...They love Jap anime etc.

But.. you mentioned b) People leaving .. as in, when different races come into an area, and the previous residents/race move out.

Yep..they sure do. We have a contributor here named Benjamin Burns, who experienced basically threats and intimidation (something common in areas where particular migrant groups want to take over)
to GET OUT of his area so Lebanese Muslims could move in and have more property choice. Pamphlets were placed in his letter box to that effect.

Goku mate.. its not that most people 'dislike people of another color' its often that the people of the other color/race become aggressive and thats WHY 'white' (or any other) people gravitate to areas where their own mob are strong.
Undoubtedly, you will get racists who move out for the reasons you mention. My white Aunty would probably be one of them. It must have taken her great restraint to not voice open criticism of my Asian wife.
People congregating with their 'own' is a serious problem, not a democratic right. Sure..its legal, but plain stupid. Its racist by nature and that applies to whites and blacks and every color in between.
If I may, please read this article I wrote some time back, aimed at overcoming such a situation.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=164

In the mean time, why not share with us something of your own background and experience here.
Cheers
BD

So, there is the ugly side of the ghetto coin.

Goku,

Do you class as non-white Italians, Greeks, Yugoslavs etc. who are still huddling together after several generations? I have not mentioned colour.

And no, it is not more important to ask about “mistrust” when I wanted to ask a simple, straightforward question. I asked whether immigrants were racist, not about trust or anything else.

As for them not being racists or “why would they come here”, you’ve completely lost me. Perhaps they come here because they will not be subjected to racism from Australians? If Australia is “racist” as has been suggested, I could ask how is it that they are encouraged to come here?

The final sentence of the first part of your post needs translation.

However, your overall message is clear. Australians are the bad guys, and immigrants are the good guys. Thanks for the contribution.

Ranier,

Glad to have given you the opportunity to vent your spleen and venom again. You continue to be impossible to deal with.

I definitely believe that aboriginal/white settlers 200 years ago has absolutely nothing to do with the subject, so the “whole point” of your post was totally wasted.

And “duh” to you too.

Leigh, you say "I definitely believe that aboriginal/white settlers 200 years ago has absolutely nothing to do with the subject" but fail to provide any justification for doing so.

Immigration/emigration has been a feature of the development of the world's population since man first toddled around on two feet - why do you feel that now is an appropriate time to ignore all that history? The arrival of successive waves of Europeans and Asians into Australia has been a process, not an event, and you cannot realistically ignore the fact that the arrival of the first lot was just another part of the process, simply because it suits your argument.

Well, not without making at least a token effort at justifying your position you can't.

And Boaz, you are taking an early lead in the 2007 challenge contest for the most number of fallacies in the shortest space:

>>People congregating with their 'own' is a serious problem, not a democratic right. Sure..its legal, but plain stupid. Its racist by nature<<

Not one of those phrases contains the smallest degree of logic or reality - try it for yourself, one by one, and you'll see just another stream of rabble-rousing nonsense.

"However, your overall message is clear. Australians are the bad guys, and immigrants are the good guys. Thanks for the contribution."

Sorry, show of hands - who made this claim? Cause I can't see it. Anybody?

I can speak for myself at least, I was saying that there's little point in analysing the groups individually in the first place, as it's pretty clear there's a percentage of racists in every culture, immigrant or not.

So then I think Leigh's original question would need to be adjusted - from 'Are Immigrants Racist'? to 'Is there a higher percentage of racist people in recently immigrated groups than groups that have been here for a couple generations more?' Of course the problem with this question is that people immigrate from all over the world, most of which have more variation between each other than they do with Australia.

Despite this, I would still say no. People with a passport generally have a more rounded, well informed view, and are therefore less likely to be racist, than those who, say, haven't left their home town for their whole life and complain about it being invaded by people from places they can't even find on a map.

I'd say the most racist people from other countries are far less likely to immigrate in the first place.

Again, we come back to a definition of what racism is. To simply bring attention to the fact that your neighbour is different to you, is to invite the cry of "racist". So by definition, we all have to be racist, as we all notice the differences of others (whether we think they are good or bad). However, a line needs to be drawn between this ultra-PC'ism, and damaging, hatred based forms of racism. For example, I dont believe that I am a racist (in the bad sense) if I complained that in areas of the Gold Coast, the shop signs are mainly japanese, with English subtitles. Why dont I think this is a problem - easy, we are an English-speaking country! Have the signs in English, with japanese subtitles, if necessary. I would be a "bad" racist if I took action to destroy the offensive signs, or encouraged others to do so.

Likewise, the violent, hatred based racisms of the likes of the serb/croat communities should be of major concern to us. I'd be having stern words with "australian" supporters of the IRA or anti-IRA groups for exactly the same reasons. When you come to this country, leave your prejudices behind you. Whilst the early white settlers didnt adhere to this, two wrongs dont make a right. We cant fix any errors/unjustices of the past, but we can do our best to ensure that we dont repeat previous mistakes. For someone like Rainier to say that whites did it to the blacks, so the whites should put up with it now, is just nonsense. We have a pretty good society compared to the rest of the world, so we should be seeking to protect that, for ALL the people that live here, and want to come here

Rainier, you should get out more, or at least out into the areas where indigineous languages are spoken. Many of the health workers in remote areas, will do their utmost to learn as much as they can of the local language. My aunt is an example, spending many years as a RAN in arhnem land, kimberly and cooper pedy. The last language she learned was Pitjinjarra, and tried teaching me some of the written words.

Further to my above post mentioning a certain blogg site that immediately took it upon itself to smear me with the label 'Racist'; I have included for your careful study, the site:

http://www.leftwrites.net/2007/01/14/hobbes-spins/#comments

I would argue that these spiteful Leftist hate mongers have no more qualification and right to cencsor and delete, than the rest of us.

And I would also argue that 'Leftwrites' is in fact an engineering site for Racism. It is quite likely that this mob know me by reputation, and have sought in their nefarious way, to blacken my pitch on the thread topic.

Poster "Rose" was allowed to continue, but my posts were manipulated to make a fool of me. Another site did this to me as well, but for now I wont say anything.

You see, these Leftoids think that by manipulating things in cyberspace and beyond, they can grasp a monoply on morality, and the determination of what is "offensive".

'Leftwrites' are a dispicable offence of the highest order. And probably Racist.

Dear Gadget
you are finding one of the very chilling realites of leftist politics.
"by fair means or foul"...mostly foul.
The further to the left, the more they approach the Marxist idea and the concept of physical violence in the name of ridding the planet of the rapacious owners of capital.

As you probably read, when I held up a sign at the IR laws rally, I was phyisically attacked by a hard core commy woman. That is the 'Left' for you and it would also be the ultra 'right'.

Remember the Family First candidate for Eltham ? He got whacked by a couple of thugs also.

Its WAR out there mate..and that is why I'm trying patiently to form 10-teams.. groups who can be self contained and able to stand up to any such intimidation and also make a solid social point through peaceful demonstration and activism.
http://www.10-teams.wikispaces.com (Its a Pericles free zone :)

keep up the good work mate.

It seems as though some people can't stand the fact that they have racist attitudes.Some wonder why some immigrants don't want any kind of association with them.

They are 'dead weight' to alot of communities, so maybe they need to be around people who share their mindset and way of life.

I think anyones capable of the nasty tactics Gadget's describing, right or left is pretty irrelevant. People do it on both 'sides'.

I wish people would stop making this black and white division. People aren't that simple. The issues discussed by the 'left' and 'right' are rarely that simple. Yet people are obsessed with choosing a team and sticking with it...think for yourselves!

There's no such thing as left and right. There's just different people and different opinions.

IF you were one of the last persons left on the earth and there were two other people and only one could stay and you had to choose which person was to stay with you and to reproduce, you would choose the one that is the most like you because that is the combination that will better work and that you feel more comfortable with.

That people prefer their own is not racism - it is a survival instinct.

The hostility and tensions between different groups is a result of an attitude problem that has developed from years and years of issues and problems never been appropriately dealt with, addressed and resolved and as a result of issues being left for the people to work things out for themselves.

When you leave issues to be dealt with by the people it always ends in violence. That is something that I am sure that History will show.

Our Government is to blame for what is happening in Australia as they refuse to acknowledge and deal with the concerns of the people.

@Jolanda:

When someone calls someone a racist its not always because that person wanted to be with their own kind. Its has more to do with the fact that someone is being discriminated against because of who they are. When people come out of their community they don't want to be targeted because of their race or religion. Most people don't want to associate with people who think their superior to them. Especially when they know their rights and have respect for themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

Country Gal, I can speak and write in your only language, have a professional job, lots of friends from different cultures, travelled to few places in the world but this ain't enough for you huh?

Wow, you must be so worldly!

Relying on your Aunt for your own credibility is a bit lazy don't you think?

And while you think all that waffle you about what racism is somehow informative and deep, take it from me Gal, its just so shallow and amature its not worth pulling apart to reveal that its simply crap. Do some real research about racism, read a book, take a cours, puleeze

Amel there is nothing wrong with thinking you are superior - our thoughts should be our own.

The problem is attitude and that isn't limited to Aussies. I am married to a Lebanese and I myself was born in Spain and from my experience everybody from every culture has an attitude in relation to everybody else.

Racism isn't limited to Aussies. Everybody has an attitude about everybody else because we are all different and depending on upbringing, exposure, experience and environment that attitude can be very destructive.

Amel,

You say: “It seems as though some people can't stand the fact that they have racist attitudes.Some wonder why some immigrants don't want any kind of association with them.”

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

Who are the “some people”? Who has adjudged these people to have racist attitudes?

Leigh,

Its like when we're unemployed, we're called lazy; when white Australians are unemployed it's called a "depression".

Rainer. I think that the regularly lazy unemployed Australian people are just as lazy as the regularly lazy unemployed Aboriginal people.

Who are these people that see the difference that you talk of.

Ranier,

That was apropos of nothing, surely? I can’t make the connection between the question I asked Amel, and your post.

But, in relation to your comment, I have to say that you seem to make more distinctions between you blackfellas and we whitefellas than I do. A bludger is a bludger in my book, irrespective of colour.

As I said before, I seem to be more interested in equality for blackfellas than you do. If you can find anywhere that I have said that blackfellas should not be treated the same as whitefellas, please point it out to me.

Leigh, explain to me how this post (by your good self)
is not indicative of treating Aboriginal people and issue as less than others?

If equal means the same outcomes and you believe in equality please explain the logic behind this assertion.

"Right on, Hasbeen. 3% of the population should really be allowed to cause only 3% of the fuss and bother. Apart from activists and people paid to make a fuss, most Austalians are not the slightest bit interested in them.

You have the right attitude. The aboriginal minority and it's self-inflicted problems have really become THE most boring subject on OLO"

Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 28 December 2006 7:38:30 PM

Leigh, I have to agree with you, a bludger is a bludger, no matter where he lives or what colour his skin is. Few that have lived in country towns are under any illusions that the bad "whites" are any better than the bad "blacks".

Rainier, I wasnt trying to use my aunt to justify my position - simply to make sure YOU knew that there are white people out there, still alive, that speak one or more native languages. She's not the only one I know, but mentioned her because I knew what language she spoke. Shame on you to knock someone who devote a large portion of her life to aboriginal health in remote communities.

You seem to despise the society that you live in. Hell, it aint perfect thats for sure, but it could be an awful lot worse. You sound like you are doing fairly well for yourself, so a society that let you get ahead cant be all bad. I assume you had to work fairly hard to do so - if thats the case then dont be so arrogant as to think that you are the only person to do so, or that it isnt just as hard for someone from a disadvantaged white background as it is for someone from a disadvantaged black background. On the other hand, if hard work didnt get you where you are, then stop whinging!

Country Gal,
Theres nothing worse than a black fella with a chip on his shoulder. Rainier get over yourself, Id hate to be one of your white students. Your views are as racist as anything written here.
You are very typical and remember always your more white than your black, I bet that gets right up your kyber dont it?

GOODBYE

Am I finally getting through to you Boaz?

>>[10Teams](Its a Pericles free zone :)<<

That guilty grin again, like a schoolboy hiding his peashooter after pinging the maths teacher.

Again, but as ever in vain I suspect, I urge you to read about your predecessor-in-interest, Oswald Mosley. And to understand him in this context:

That he believed very strongly (very, very strongly) that he was right. That any intelligent, patriotic adult would see the problem in the same way that he did. That the formation of groups to "protect our way of life" was the natural right - nay, duty - of every right-thinking man. That to defend one's position against physical threats was the only honourable thing to do.

History sees it a little differently. His "enemies within" were normal human beings going about their daily business. His followers were largely drawn from the ranks of the man-in-the-street who were self-selected on the basis of being unable to rationalise the problems for themselves, looking to Mosley for the answers instead. The groups he formed quickly turned from defensive to aggressive, using only the flimsiest excuse to strong-arm their opponents

Placard politics may provide you personally with a warm glow, but it can so very quickly get out of hand. So please, learn from history, and back off from your rabble-rousing habits. Start reading up on those bits of your religion that talk about living together in harmony, and stop trawling through ancient books in order to find stones to chuck at your religious opponents.

Finally, may I gently remind you of one of Mosley's more infamous utterings:

"We will not tolerate within the State a minority organized against the interests of the State. Jews must either put the interests of Britain before the interests of Jewry or they will be deported from Britain."

Substitute the words "Muslims", "Islam" and "Australia" for "Jews", "Jewry" and "Britain" in the above statement, and you have Boaz-ism, complete and unadorned.

Does this ring any bells Boaz? Or do you see Mosley as a vastly misunderstood person, with everyone's best interests at heart?

Is anyone else getting tired of trying to keep up with like five different threads at the moment, all of them on basically the same racism/immigration/multiculturalism topic? The comments on them are basically interchangable....

Rainer, in my view equality is more about the opportunities rather than the outcomes. Even that has some significant issues as family circumstances make a massive difference, people living in remote communities will have a different set of opportunities to those in urban areas - some better some worse. The Packers children are more likely to end up as company directors than mine (but my son will get some freedoms theirs will never have).

It becomes discrimination when the opportunities are different because of what should be an irrelevant factor (skin tone for example). There is some validity to using outcomes across large numbers of people to determine if there is equality of opportunity.

In doing so we have to find way of allowing for other factors - cultural factors which impact on the use opportunity is put to.

We should also be helping the current generation get past the impacts on their environment of inequality experienced by their parents.

A free society can never guarantee equality of outcomes, we should be working towards evening up access to opportunity as much as possible.

R0bert

Boaz's one man jihad against Islam bears absolutely no resemblance to Mosely's anti-Jewish diatribes of the 1930s. I know this because Boazy reckons he doesn't wear a brown shirt or jackboots.

Oh hang on - that's the same Boaz who delights in posting untrue and unsubstantiated bulldust in this forum in order to try and rouse the rabble to his odious causes.

On the topic, I've noticed that some of the most racist sentiments that I encounter in my daily life emanate from immigrants who experienced the 'rough end of the stick' when they first arrived in Oz. To address Leigh's question, I think the form of this kind of racism is something they learned here, rather than something they brought with them

Jolanda,

You are entitled to hold you own beliefs but that doesn't make them right. Criminals can have their own beliefs also.

-

Leigh wrote.

You say: "It seems as though some people can't stand the fact that they have racist attitudes.Some wonder why some immigrants don t want any kind of association with them".

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

-

A racist hates to be call a racist even when its obvious.

It means there are also immigrants who fear living around close minded people.

Who are the "some people"? Who has adjudged these people to have racist attitudes

-

Racist people.

Those who feel they have been discriminated against.

Ranier,

I don’t see anything in the post that you have resurrected that is in conflict with my belief in equality for aborigines.

A small minority of people, white or black, should not be indulged in any shenanigans disproportionate to their numbers. That’s democracy. I have said the same thing about other minorities who demand special treatment, or who have it demanded for them by politically driven agitators.

Most Australians are no more interested in aborigines than they are in other minorities. It’s the nature of the beast.

Aborigines do have the same rights as everybody else under law, and the problems of modern aboriginal life, for some, are self-inflicted. There is absolutely no need for anyone in Australia to live the way some aborigines choose to live. If they do choose to live differently from the rest of us, then they must cope in their own way.

The aboriginal people the public DOES NOT hear about – including you - are proof that you don’t need to be a loser because of aboriginality. There are many, many indigenous people, like you, who have managed to keep contact with their roots but who are living and working successfully in wider society with great success.

While there are individuals from all sections of the population who need help and should get it, the politicisation of aboriginal “causes” has only created more divisions and has achieved nothing in real terms. It has also created people – so-called leaders of the community and ignorant whites - who are unpleasant and aggressive, and who have added to the alienation, suspicion – and yes, boredom – which has seen absolutely no progress or improvements for anyone.

Amel,

You seem to bear a grudge. I suspect that you think that you have been subjected to racism and so Australians are racist.

Other people are not necessarily racist just because you think that you have been discriminated against. Perhaps it’s your attitudes to others.

People you call racist probably couldn’t care less. It’s a silly word used to hide the inadequacies of those who use it.

Leigh, I do think that there is still an issue for many aboriginal people in getting past the very real disadvantages of the past. It's my impression that the formal discrimination has been removed (although the dry community thing does raise some interesting issues) but that the informal issues still make it much harder.

Some genuine racism (from both sides) combined with environmental factors which create a vicious cycle for aboriginal people wanting to create better outcomes.

The ongoing issues faced by indiginous people across the world are not simple or easily solved. There is history which is not easily put aside but which in my view continues to poison the minds of indigenous people against their own opportunities and there are still enough people who let their racism impact on their actions to perpetuate stereotypes on both sides.

R0bert

Leigh,

Just because I speak out against negative people doesn't mean I have a problem. I'm not overly suspicious of anyone or have paranoia,even though some of the comments here are abit shocking.Its probably because I'm not use to hearing people say theres nothing wrong with racism etc.

"People you call racist probably couldn’t care less. It’s a silly word used to hide the inadequacies of those who use it."

Leigh, you've called a number of people racist yourself. Are we to assume then, that you also fit into the above category?

Heh, reading that sentence again, it just makes no sense. You're basically saying the word never has any accurate or valid use. Pretty ridiculous really. Ahahah you even use it in the title of this thread!

Think before you press 'post'!

Rainer you sure are bitter! White people have done so much for the aboriginals and all they do is whine! If it had not been for white settlement in Australia, Australia would be just like Africa with people fighting civil wars over petty argument and could well be the poorest and most backward country in the world. But alas Rainer you were lucky you had those horrible white people help you out. Sure things could be a lot better for native people in Australia but they need to put in a bit of effort themselves. If they only had a bit of go in them and were willing to make the effort.

Amel what ethnic background are you? Just wondering.

EasyTimes - what you've expressed is, while not technically untrue, a very narrow perspective. Here's why.

1. You assume that the western way of life is inherently better for all people. This is because you assume our standards and values are universal, the best way for people to be. As an example of how this is wrong, I'd remind you that before this country was invaded, Aboriginals had no concept of ownership - everything was shared. We applied the concept of ownership onto them, and then persecuted them for failing to understand.

2. You say that Aboriginals 'need to put in a bit of effort themselves'. Some remote communities don't even have running water, or sealed roads. How can we expect them to even come close to keeping up with our imposed style of society, when many don't even have basic amenities?

3. You assume that a society without western values would be more backward. Although in some respects you may be right (like the practice of violent punishments for those who break tribal law in some tribes), I fail to see how a generally very sharing society thats entirely in touch with and one with nature could be perceived as backward.

And don't forget - there were massacres when this country was invaded. True Australian culture was blown to pieces. 200 years ago may sound like a long time, but think about it - that's only 4 or 5 generations, in some cases less.

Besides it doesn't matter who was/is originally at fault for the problems that exist today, whats important is that the problems exist, and regardless of fault, its pretty heartless to be against providing help because of your principles.

Easytimes,

Africa is a Continent made up of 52 plus nations. West Africa alone had 7 kingdoms. If it had not been European colonialism and greed Africa would probably be the riches continent.

Amel. You are entitled to hold you own beliefs but that doesn't make them right.

The myth that the indigneous are the good guys and victims and the white
males are the bad guys will continue to keep many people in poverty. No one denies that their were not some injustices done in the past but to lay the blame for todays drunkedness, violence, child abuse, reverse racism on the whites is very convenient. Its time the indigneous people had some true leaders (sorry to the few that exist) and address their own behaviour without looking for someone else to blame.

Amel "If it had not been European colonialism and greed Africa would probably be the riches continent."

If it had not been for European colonialism there would have been Arab colonialism, or is what is happening in Darfur a myth?

I recall cannibalism was rife throughout many parts of Africa before "European Colonialisation".

Tribal fealty and absolute Monarchs is the sort of social order which the Europeans evolved out of centuries ahead of Africa (European Monarchs are constitutional Monarchs only).

If we consider the European intervention in finding cures for a range of deadly diseases which blighted anyone living in Africa, we could see the benefits of European colonialisation.

One simple question

What is the life expectancy of Africans 20 years ago?
What was the life expectancy 200 years ago?
Since the de-colonisation of Africa, Why is life expectancy going backward today?

Rainer why do you think that your negative attitude towards the white man ISN'T racism?

Is is maybe because you also think you are superior?

I agree with Robert in that it is not equality in outcomes that we should be aiming for but equal access to opportunity for all.

You can't demand a person who chooses to spend their day not working and who is on welfare to have the exact same lifestyle and outcomes than the person who spends their life working hard to get ahead!

It just isn't fair.

Spendocrat – I am not against providing help what I am saying is the aboriginals need to do more to help themselves! You talk about remote communities with no running water (sealed roads is irrelevant there are many areas of Australia which do not have sealed roads) I have not heard this, so where do they get there water from? Traditional ways? The question also has to be asked as to how many jobs are there out there in those communities? Apart from police officer and community workers I can see there being many industries in remote Australia, well hardly enough to support all the aboriginal people there. When there are no jobs and nothing to do why not just sit around drinking grog and sniffing petrol all day? After all the aboriginal get very nice benefits from centerlink.

Sure the western way of life may not be the best in some peoples opinion but if you have a baby with a heart defect you want a western doctor to help you out, if you are attacked by a bigger enemy you want western weapons to defend yourself, if you are starving due to drought and famine you want western agriculture and or economic help. Western culture may not be the best in all peoples eyes but it is what is wanted by all people. I can hardly see someone preferring a grass hut that you share with mozzies to a nice air conditioned home.

Amel – With that statement you go to show how poorly educated you are. Your grasp of economic development I would say is practically nil

Amel,

Fair enough.

To everyone: the discussion, while interesting, has certainly strayed right away from the subject.

I’m not saying this to delight Ranier, but I think aboriginal Australians do deserve “special interest” status in view of their 40,000 years presence in the country, and to discuss them under the heading Are Migrants Racist seems a bit pointless to me. I said as much to him.

Perhaps Ranier might like to be proactive and kick off a new discussion with what really pisses him off as person with aboriginal heritage? No point scoring or nastiness. Just good discussion which could help us all

Joland, Robert and others,

I disagree, for example, "equal access" to education has failed dismally for Aboriginal people. And it was only in my own lifetime that support for access to secondary education was enabled.

The quality of access, the curriculum used in many remote schools, the ability of teaching and administration staff meant that even if you reached the final year (as many did) it did not make you anymore competitive in the market of jobs or further education.

If the intention of a good education is clearly defined from the outset this would also dictate to a certain extent the quality of access.

Affirmative action (which I support) did not in many cases address structural and institutional cultures that were themselves not historically developed for 'Aboriginal access'.

The myth surrounding the so called equality of access that the 1967 referendum apparently delivered unto us continues to misinform perceptions about the actual quality of Aboriginal access to good and services.

Aboriginal gains from “liberation” politics included access to white citizenship, incorporatist models, institutional and internal assimilationist policies and
practices. In short, an opportunity to act and think white. It failed dismally.

Don’t get me wrong - The underlying egalitarian philosophy of “equal access” is important and commendable but it is absolutely useless if it does not – in its implementation- address the very reasons why access was previously denied.

This is where Noel Pearson and I agree in terms of our critique on leftist progressivism in that it assumes simple access without clear purpose is blind and ultimately destructive.

Robert,

Yes to most of that. I do think, though, that the "discrimination" re dry communities was the idea of the community elders themselves. I have also read that in the wider aboriginal community - outside the communities - the problem with alcohol is slightly LESS than it is among the rest of us.

The booze doesn't discriminate between races and cultures.

."...represented the different Aboriginal nations." - Ranier

To the best of my knowledge there were no aboriginal nations. Perhaps, more like the Celts before, Caesar, "came", "saw" and "conquered". But, seemingly not as well organised as the Druits. In the Middle East, there were Graden Cultures, starting c. 15,000 BP. Maybe, these nomadic kin clanship would provide closer model. "Nation" is pushing it.

"Aboriginal" to mean indigenous is clear, and, used correctly. But, not, necessary the original human clans. When the ice age caused water levels to fall circa 60,000 BP, there were waves of migrations.

If memory serves, the first group arrived around 60,000 BP, latter, after 15,000 years, three sets (different DNA) of black invaders (now commonly also called aboriginals) and one set of whites.

The Ice Age and Richard Leakey's discovery of mass animal extinctions suggest humans FIRST arrived in Oz around 60,000 years BP. Mungo Man (Lake 3) is problematic, The skeleton suggests 32,000 years BP, the rock strata suggest 60,000 years BP. Mungo or no Mungo, at this time, 60,000 years BP seems the valid dating for the first arrival.

In sum, Ranier, I would question the term, "nation". Also, the original [human] Australians were invaded circa 45,000 years BP, by a black race, not only by a white race in 1788. It's in the DNA (Wells).

[p.s. Wells and the National Geographic Society are collecting DNA (male)from around the world to map the migration of Humankind.]

[p.p. The Celts and Britons seem have had there fair shair if invasions too. The Norman French, Battle of Hastings, were invaded via Norseman-dy, in 911.

Hopefully, the real "nation state" will settle things down a bit. Then, again we the Middle East situation, don't we?

."...represented the different Aboriginal nations." - Ranier

To the best of my knowledge there were no aboriginal nations. Perhaps, more like the Celts before, Caesar, "came", "saw" and "conquered". But, seemingly not as well organised as the Druits. In the Middle East, there were Graden Cultures, starting c. 15,000 BP. Maybe, these nomadic kin clanship would provide closer model. "Nation" is pushing it.

"Aboriginal" to mean indigenous is clear, and, used correctly. But, not, necessary the original human clans. When the ice age caused water levels to fall circa 60,000 BP, there were waves of migrations.

If memory serves, the first group arrived around 60,000 BP, latter, after 15,000 years, three sets (different DNA) of black invaders (now commonly also called aboriginals) and one set of whites.

The Ice Age and Richard Leakey's discovery of mass animal extinctions suggest humans FIRST arrived in Oz around 60,000 years BP. Mungo Man (Lake 3) is problematic, The skeleton suggests 32,000 years BP, the rock strata suggest 60,000 years BP. Mungo or no Mungo, at this time, 60,000 years BP seems the valid dating for the first arrival.

In sum, Ranier, I would question the term, "nation". Also, the original [human] Australians were invaded circa 45,000 years BP, by a black race, not only by a white race in 1788. It's in the DNA (Wells).

[p.s. Wells and the National Geographic Society are collecting DNA (male)from around the world to map the migration of Humankind.]

[p.p. The Celts and Britons seem have had there fair shair if invasions too. The Norman French, Battle of Hastings, were invaded via Norseman-dy, in 911.

Hopefully, the real "nation state" will settle things down a bit. Then, again we have the Middle East situation, don't we?

Rainer I 100% agree with you in relation to education and access.

Our Government provides Aboriginal children with disadvantaged schools and lawless rundown communities. This is an absolute disgrace, how can these children possibly compete?

Every person should have access to opportunity in an equally supportive, caring, learning and safe environment.

Our Government has a lot to answer to but there are also significant issues in Aboriginal communities that go beyond any action or lack of action of the white man.

thanks jolanda, more independent community controlled schools are needed. We fail or succesd on our own terms then!

Oliver, Aboriginal people in Australia have continued to argue that just as British sovereignty did not wipe away Aboriginal title, neither did it wipe away Aboriginal jurisdiction. This is the logic of the many Aboriginal proponents of a treaty or treaties between the modern Australian state and Aboriginal peoples.

The background arguments you put forward to support your hypothesis are not new to me, I read them in the 1970's and since then (with respect) my personal and professional understanding of these matters is informed by research thats a little more scholarly that national geography.

I say this not to beat my chest but to suggest to you that this topic of discussion is complex but nonetheless requires some foundational reading and study in law and anthropology.

If you are examining international law precedents look toward nations states such as Canada where treaties have recognised Aboriginal jurisdictions. See for example: http://www.delgamuukw.org/

If you don't believe me walk into any remote Aboriginal community and you'll soon understand jurisdiction.
We did not cede and conquoring of this nation has never been declared and those peaceful settlement ideas are just fiction.

Wolf writing in the middle of the eighteenth century Wolff argued that a nation "which inhabits a territory has not only ownership but also sovereignty over the lands and things which are in it.

Mabo did not address Aboriginal sovereignty. Native title is a common law creation.

So too is the word and title Aboriginal a creation. I don’t consider myself to be Aboriginal, I was born within a jurisdiction of custom and tradition and law that automatically bestowed upon me an identity that precedes Australian citizenship. No different to that which the Irish say of British citizenship.

As previously mentioned these are matters of international, not just domestic law.

Rainier's quite correct, of course. The use of the term 'nation' to refer to aggregations of Aboriginal tribal groups linked by law, kinship, language, territory and religion is well documented in the relevant reliable literature.

Back to the topic, I didn't observe explicitly above that I've also noticed that much of the more extreme anti-Aboriginal racism I've encountered over the years has emanated from European migrants, or migrants of European heritage (e.g. South Africans). I live in the bush, in an area where horticulture and market gardening predominate, and such sentiments are still quite openly expressed by some people, particularly first or second generation immigrants from Europe or former African colonies.

Also,

Col Rouge: "If it had not been for European colonialism there would have been Arab colonialism, or is what is happening in Darfur a myth?"

Er Col... the current wave of Islamist expansionism in Sudan, as in other parts of the world, is a direct consequence of the unhappy accident of the location of much of the world's oil reserves since the 1930s in Arab territory. The West's addiction to oil has literally fuelled contemporary Islamism's capacity to reach out into other areas. Until the discovery of oil, Arabs had coexisted and traded with contiguous nations and cultures for many centuries without apparently feeling the need to colonise them.

"I recall cannibalism was rife throughout many parts of Africa before 'European Colonialisation'."

Oh, you were there, were you?

I'm sure such a reliable eyewitness account would instantly resolve the debate that has raged in anthropological circles for years, as to whether cannibalism was ever as rife among tribal peoples as Europeans imagine the practice to have been, or indeed if it has ever existed at all as an acceptable cultural practice anywhere.

Col Rouge wrote:

""If it had not been for European colonialism there would have been Arab colonialism, or is what is happening in Darfur a myth?""

Africa is made up of 52 plus countries.

And I not sure if all those countries would have of been colonialized and robbed of the billions that now make European countries rich.


quote:

""I recall cannibalism was rife throughout many parts of Africa before "European Colonialisation""".

Cannibalism is/was pratice all around the world by every race.

"""Tribal fealty and absolute Monarchs is the sort of social order which the Europeans evolved out of centuries ahead of Africa (European Monarchs are constitutional Monarchs only)."""

Actually African Kingdoms were around before Europeans knew anything about Africa. Like the Malian kingdom which was started around 200 BC.

"""If we consider the European intervention in finding cures for a range of deadly diseases which blighted anyone living in Africa, we could see the benefits of European colonialisation""".

What if we consider the deadly diseases European brought with them to so many African countries, not to mention the millions of Africans killed during their occupation.

In Africa today you can still find countries where their natural resources would them some of the wealthiest in the world.

quote:
"""One simple question

What is the life expectancy of Africans 20 years ago?
What was the life expectancy 200 years ago?
Since the de-colonisation of Africa, Why is life expectancy going backward today"""?

I'd say that before colonialism life expectancy was higher. After the French,German,Portuguese,Spanish,British,Belgians were finished robbing and killing things got worst. Why would they get better after all that destruction and death?

What is so very annoying is the hypocrisy dressed up as expression of religious freedom being used in a very evil way. By his I refer to Hillsong, Assemblies, and Exclusive Bretheren types who are as equally dangerous as the Jihaadist espousers in the Islamic world. No love, or care, for fellow humankind. No one dares speak against them for fear of being branded as unpatriotic or Un-christian.

No difference fundamentally, just different sides of a religious divide - one which fails on all fronts to take into account the diversity and uniqueness of each and every one amongst us. Only zealously, dogmatically proscribing what we should do for "them" through us.

But who are "they", these pulpit pounders of all types? Would they, like the politicians who support them, don uniforms and fight the dirty little war of terror, as they ask us the foot soldiers, to do for them?

Not some altruistic and utopian view, but a real chance to embrace the idea of being human, being of different views, colour, race, ethicity, and to celebrate it all without the clash and clamour of multiculturalism and its negative connotations. Is it not worth the effort?

Some people just do not want to get on, they are the ones who should be sent back from whence they came. You are not welcome anywhere, is that perhaps why you are not in your own countries today?

To the religious right, you are not 'right', you will never be right. You are only right for the time being that the political apparatchiks can get mileage from your over zealousness. And like last weeks bucket of prawns, with a bit of heat you too will be off.

False prophets...both the Bible and the Koran foretell of them, and many other religions besides...now they are in plague proportions amongst us.

Dear Albie, it is with anticipated questions like yours in mind (about fighting the war on terror and the role of Christianity) that I deliberately wrote this thread...
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=348

Please have a read and see if it scratches where your itching.

Re Hillsong.. you can criticize to your hearts content. Let me help
"To the extent Hillsong preaches a 'prosperity' Gospel they are not representing the true Gospel as Christ lived and preached it"

Jesus said nothing about "Follow me and you will get rich" but he DID say plenty about "Lose your life for my sake and you will find it"
(speaking of self denial, not suicide bombings :)
He taught people to pray for "your daily bread" not your dream of a BEAMER.

All I ask is that we criticize the church and preachers from a BIBLICAL perspective not just a 'lets kick them' one.

TO EVERYONE

THE SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS VIDEO (as per the topic)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPBV3hwxTVY&mode=related&search=#

Created by Lebanese Muslims. The following features are present in the Vid.

1/ Territorial Claim. (Australia is under 'new' management... Lebanese)
2/ Glorification of 'thug' life, guns.
3/ Suggestion of Racial superiority over many suburbs in Sydney.
4/ The specific glorification of the Maroubra 50:1 attack on Steve B
5/ Portrayal of 'lowered holden Gemeni's' :) (I just don't get that one.)
6/ Mention of 'Soldiers' of Granville.

The important question we must ask is: "How many Aussies are afraid to mess with such mobs because of their apparent reckless power" ?

If you look at the video and cringe, and shudder.. hoping they never find 'you'... and simply hoping in the police for security, then I think you have lost the plot and you may as well simply approach them and offer your services as their slave.

MAIN POINT. What do I want to say here ? THIS. "Radicals drive agenda's" They might be thugs, morons, idiots.. whatever, but THEY are the ones you are afraid of, and while you are afraid,....they ...control your life.
I've sent this video to NSW POLICE for what its worth.

SIMILAR VIDEO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPBV3hwxTVY&mode=related&search=#

Titled "Wogs Lebs Muslim souljas" is equally bad, but since I saw it, and commented on it, they have now made it 'private' so you won't get to see it. But..NOTE CAREFULLY the Title. "MUSLIM" soldiers.

Rabble rousing Pericles ?

And here is one for you DB

is this one of your apprentices?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EQCy3syaoI

The danger here is that my husband, as are many other people from Lebanese background, are not like that. Nor do they want to think like that.

There are young people in all cultures and religions that are very angry and they are lashing out. What we need to find out is why our youth feels so angry and try to do something to help so that things change.

Jolanda, totally agree with you.

Boaz, See this one on the cronulla riots, Australian flag, and of course chapters of the national front. Is this kind of patriotism what you want my son, his Lbonese mate, his anglo mate, his Koori bro to become one with?

Because this is what they are offered or not offered to become or be attacked by.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfRxT2lBg_4

All humans are a bit racist us included, but if you truly respect the truth SOME minoritys are far more racist than average Aussie.
And again if honesty matters education, that is none, poor or wrong is part of minority racism.
And we are bound for future trouble because of it but some minoritys are hurting themselves more than us with entenched racism.
See we are being educated to dislike them as much as they dislike us.
LIES yes some constantly and with intent lie every time they talk of this problem.
And the very worst lie is pure hate filled racists from minoritys saying our concerns are based on us being racist.
In time dreadfull as it in fact is Cronulla may return on a bigger scale.
But I have hopes, see the vaste majority of Australians ignore lies and those that foolishly use them as weapons.

Can the usual suspects stop deverting this thread to one about the first Australians?
If not can we at least speak the whole truth about the matter.
No I am not from the left or the right but I am sick of the lies.
And the very real harm we do to these people with the refusal to move on from the sins of long dead people.
Country town reality is many far too many of Australias first people are blameing others for a total lack of will to improve life for themselves.
If every charge against white Australia and our past generations is true why have so few climbed out of these country gettos?
Minority racism exists, it is no cure for a problem but it grows faster than self help in country Australia.

Adding on to my previous post..
Has anyone seen the uk version of Big Brother?? in an environment where you have to pick your ally in a small group environment, it appears the Indian actress has been sidelined and being ganged up on. It is disturbing. refer youtube for clips.

I still disagree with the concept that immigrants are racist, as some of you are trying to validate. It is the treatment that some of the "immigrants" go through that has created hostility between them and the white population. Most people come here with an open mind. The general lack of tolerance and acceptance/understanding by the white population of others' background and cultures are the main reasons of conflicts. Why can't people just accept others for who they are without passing personal judgement, as long as everyone is law-abiding and honest? is there something innate in human nature to do just that? I seriously doubt some of the commentators here when they proclaim they are not racist but contribute highly provocative postings.

You can dislike someone's culture and background, but to demand action to be taken based on that or to call to protest (see another current thread), is really a bit excessive. what behavior is it different to the Big Brother UK garbage as it is now causing people to realise the true nature of some of the self-righteous medieval thinkings of some forum commentators?

People are being law abiding.

Bullying, victimisation and harrassement borne from malice, prejudice and spite is PERMITTED by Law.

Didn't you know?

Jolanda: "People are being law abiding. Bullying, victimisation and harrassement borne from malice, prejudice and spite is PERMITTED by Law. Didn't you know?"

I think you'll find that such behaviour is actually illegal under the Racial Discrimination Act.

Or were you being ironic?

Discrimination, bullying and harrassment is illegal under the Racial Discrimination Act. CATCH IS that you have to prove that what happened was directly because of your race, as an individual, before they will even look at your complaints and generally the person/s accused don't confess and they turn it on you and your people as a group. The word racism has been so abused that it has been white washed.

This is the attitude of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.

"You should note that it is not enough that a person is unhappy with the treatment that they have received and that he or she has a disability, or is of a particular age, race or sex. You would need to be able to show a connection between that treatment and your age, race, sex or disability."

How does a person show a connection with their race before the investigation takes place?

There is no law that says that says general harrassment, bullying and victimisation borne from malice, prejudice and spite is against the Law and should be investigated – regardless of race!

It appears to be Law by omission.

Not everybody is protected

"Aboriginal people in Australia have continued to argue that just as British sovereignty did not wipe away Aboriginal title, neither did it wipe away Aboriginal jurisdiction." -- Ranier

My post was not to argue against aboriginal title. Actually, I support these claims, where attachment to a given area can be proven.

That said, genetically, there was a "first" wave. A gap. Three plus other black waves. Then, the whites. It follows, the first wave had title, and, the other later black and white waves were "all" invaders. This is not 1970s [Ranier] data, rather twenty-first century research into the routes of global genome patterns.

Historian, Caroll Quigley, identified 23 major civilizations, and, Toynee made similarly. There are ebbs and flows of human popluations and expansions and declines. My personal view is West III is pretty much bounded by Elizabeth I (c.1600) and Victoria (d.1901). We now are in interregnum [could last 200 years], with the US playing/trying to be the centre state of West IV.

Likewise, The Judiac Wars (c.66-133 CE) demonstrated a play by the Jews to take advantage of the decline of Greece. They did so, when Roman was at its height and were quashed.

As noted, Norman French, whom invaded England (1066), were also invaded by the Vikings in 911. Of course, I could go on and on. It is the History of History. Not Social Darwinism. More, to do with managing the relationship between Episte and Techne. Aboriginal clans missed out on this stage (wont say development, because that is value-laden).

/cont.

How do you explain title that survived conquests since 1606 in Britian?

Law is not informed by Darwinian social thoery as you appear to suggest, but also conveniently disqualify from your thesis.

The fundamental question is - "If Aboriginal sovereignty was exercised before and after the arrival of the British how then was it lost, and when? "

Your successionist theory fails to explain this but then leap frogs to notions of "history of history".

Is not the question i have asked both legal and historically relevant?

Precedent in law is always based on historical notations of law.

The high courts of Australia have never ruled on this directly. Indeed they have avoided the question at least 4 times.

Terra nullius was the legal myth that Mabo overturned.

According to you legal logic native title should not exist - but it does.

Herein, we have Conquest and disenfranchisement, which begs the question of compensation. In an enlightened age, it would seem fair to me, that the conquered be compensated in some way. But, we need to deal with issue of, who were the first arrivals? Perhaps, its only in the last 5-8 years, we know, through DNA testing (Spencer Wells).

Also, does a depreciation schedule need to be applied, so compensation wanes, as the melded society progresses across three or four future generations?

Does Italy (Rome) owe Greece compensation for its conquests? Do the Barbarians, whom brought down the Western Roman Empire, c. 476 (Gibbon), owe compensation to the Italy? Perhaps, they do?

It is naive to believe that were not inter-clan ways would have changed migration patterns in Oz 45,000 BP (second arrival) - 1788 (white arrival). Herein, there would be inter-clan claims lost to History.

-- How and when is the debt extinguished?

CJ Morgan,

A clan is more closed than a nation. Clans tend to have close genetic ties, exhibit familialism, and, often, patrimonialism. In North America, the Sioux clan (not nation)is too homogeneous to mirror the ethnically and culturally diverse US.

I'm of Scotish stock, true of my ancestors too, before, the tenth century, with clanish reminants into the Middle Ages.

Clans will tend to be insular and exhibit strong "Kin Altruism" (socio-biology term), which is self explanatory. Despite, clans sharing the systems you correctly identify with nations, clans are not nations. Perhaps, a conquered clan would see themselves a sub-culture, apart, rather, than than a sub-culture "within".

China, is problematic, it is a country, which exhibits many of traits of a clan. Historically, Germany and Japan, have similar leanings.

Conversely, I posit, had Britain conquered France, or, Spain, England; it is likely the populations would have melded (By-Product Mutualism)like the godheads of Greece, Roman and Egypt.

Philip, also, "came", "saw" and "conquered". The question is, "how does one manage a "just" conquest?

Rainer you said before that more independent community controlled schools are needed for Aboriginal people as that way they then fail or succeed on their own terms!

I cant help but wonder what you actually mean. Do you mean separating all Aboriginal children and teaching them a different curriculum or no formal curriculum at all?

I believe that if the elders asked the young people of today the majority will say that they want to live the Western Way as in reality it is a good life. Kids are not stupid. For sure they will want to all keep ties with their past history and roots but I really don't think that they want to stay there full time - not with so many other things going on.

Will the Aboriginal children be asked what they want to do and will these schools prepare them for the academic competition that they will have to participate in to get access to University placement and compete in this world. Or will there be total seperation.

I am concerned. I would dearly love to see Aboriginal children move forward in greater numbers and be more competitive. I do believe that there are attitudes that are holding them down on all sides. I am interested in your thoughts.

Why the lurch away from the thread? why the debate that refuses to face the facts?
Let me tell you the truth our country streets are full of 15 year old criminals.
Some of them far too many are Aboridginal kids, some can not read or write and do not want to.
Some are full blown racists and do not know it.
Most have no hope and do not care.
Rideing on their backs are fleas both black and white who if not makeing a liveing out of them are at least stopping change.
No visit to a dirty and unhealthy home ,built brand new for them less that ten years ago , does not break my heart.
How long would it take to clean a home and mow the lawn?
How can our ancestors be held guilty because its not done?
Why is child neglect higher there?
Child sexual abuse?
Accounability is not a racist word.
Education is not evil.
Our duty is to fix this problem now.

Belly education can be evil - and it can also do so much good. Depending on what is being taught.

There is a similarity between Aboringal children, those of middle eastern background and those from the West. Too many of their 14/15/16 year olds are on the streets and getting into trouble.

Thing is that not many of the middle eastern ones and or even the ones out West have have the dirty rundown messy homes that you talk about but the children are still suffering and they still get up to mischief.

Whilst the home environment is very important, the most important thing is the quality of the education that the children are receiving and the way that they are being supported and treated by society as that determines how they feel about themselves as individuals.

If these kids are in disadvantaged schools and being treated with disdain and they know that they cannot compete, what exactly do you think should motivate them to do different?

Jolanda: "Discrimination, bullying and harrassment is illegal under the Racial Discrimination Act. CATCH IS that you have to prove that what happened was directly because of your race, as an individual, before they will even look at your complaints and generally the person/s accused don't confess and they turn it on you and your people as a group."

I see. While such behaviour is actually illegal, in your view it is "permitted" under the law because the legal test for proving that such behaviour constitutes racial discrimination is too stringent. I'm not sure that I agree that this constitutes permission - rather that such racist acts persist because the Act has proven difficult to apply in some cases. Certainly, there have been many successful actions brought under the Racial Discrimination Act.

Oliver: "A clan is more closed than a nation. Clans tend to have close genetic ties, exhibit familialism, and, often, patrimonialism. In North America, the Sioux clan (not nation)is too homogeneous to mirror the ethnically and culturally diverse US."

Well and good, Oliver, but this is precisely why the term "nation" has been taken up so enthusiastically by Australian Aboriginal groups in their endeavours to assert e.g. Native Title claims. As in the case of Canadian Aboriginal groups, the political term 'nation' is preferred to ambiguous anthropologically-derived sodalities such as 'tribes' or 'bands' to refer to corporate groups with e.g. claims to territory.

Put more simply, 'clans' are an anthropological concept used to describe kin-based social organisation, while 'tribes' are an athropological concept that refers to politically oriented social organisation. The notion of Indigenous nations is one that has been taken up by Aboriginal people themselves in order to more accurately assert their own perception of their political organisation, particularly in relation to territorial claims.

For more detail on this, perhaps you could enrol in an Anthro 101 course :)

Belly, you make an interesting point.

>>Let me tell you the truth our country streets are full of 15 year old criminals<<

What happened last year? Were the streets full of 15 year old criminals then? Or were they only fourteen?

And what will be the case next year, will the streets be full of 16 year old criminals? Or will they be this year's fourteen year olds, grown up a year?

The sad fact is that our streets have always been full of (pick a teen age) criminals, beating each other over the head with whatever is handy and leading a life of petty criminality. In the mid-sixties in the UK there were pitched battles every summer (for a few years) between mods and rockers. The movie Quadrophenia does a pretty good job of describing it if you cannot get hold of archive footage.

Where kids feel that they are for some reason excluded, they adopt this kind of behaviour. It is not nice, it is not desirable, and there is an entire industry out there that makes a living from "finding solutions", but they are as far from doing so as they have ever been.

The only encouraging aspect is that despite the background only a small percentage actually grow up to be habitual criminals. Some of them do, no doubt about it, and it can be fairly said that they learn their trade in the streets. But a surprising number grow up to be good and productive citizens.

Perhaps if we paid more attention to these folk than to the hopeless cases we would discover what changes - to education, the law, policing and punishment - would be most effective.

Jolanda... when you said theres nothing wrong with being racist you show that there is a double standard in society. You wouldn't have any problem crying out racism when it suits you, but then pretend that the racism that affect others is just normal human reaction. Then you expect to still be taken seriously without any trouble ,it doesn't work like that.

Jolanda..when you said theres nothing wrong with being racist you showed how there is a double standard in society. You wouldn't have any problem crying out racism when it suits you, but then pretend that the racism that affect others is just normal human reaction. Then you expect to still be taken seriously, it doesn't work like that.

Trying to get back to the original theme of the thread, are there different types of racism? Is one kind worse than others, or are they all just bad? Is racism something that can be objectively determined, or is it a subjective thing?

I do believe that it is a subjective thing, and that is the difficulty in eliminating racism or at least minimising any harm that it does. I could say something with no racist connotation on my behalf, but it could be interpreted by someone from another background in an entirely different way. Likewise the same can happen in reverse. Amel for example, by suggesting that Australians are racist, you are making a racist comment (may I suggest that that's why you got such a strong backlash of comments). You didnt intend for your comment to be racist, but I think its been taken that way.

There is KKK-type racism, which should be pursued and hunted down. Then there is the school-yard bully type racism. In this context racist slurs are just a tool to bully, such as mental ability or appearance can be. Not in the same league as KKK or neo-nazi's, but probably no less damaging to the person on the receiving end. To my mind though, this should be dealt with not as racism, but no different to any bullying.

There is no doubt that there are some immigrants to Australia that are racist. Amel, I see this in their attitudes to other immigrant groups, not necessarily towards Australians. This is in part where my problems lie with immigration. Come by all means, but leave your old prejudices behind you. If new ones form after you get here, then so be it, but come as a blank slate.

"If new ones form after you get here, then so be it, but come as a blank slate."

Heh, so home grown racism is fine, just not the imported kind. Interesting.

CJ Morgan. Bullying, harrassment and discrimination is not illegal if the victim is seen as superior.

I know because I made formal allegations of victimisation, bullying and discrimination aimed at my children who are of Lebanese background and highly intellectually gifted. Their marks were tampered with and maniuplated on a systematic basis to keep them out of Selective Schools and I was told that because I couldn't prove that it was because of their race and because discrimination against gifted children is not against the law they wouldn't investigate it. As a result my children have remained targeted.

The fact that the documents clearly show that what I say is the truth is irrelevant to them they dont have to investigate it as those that are seen as superior/gifted are not protected under the Anti Discrimination Act. Only criminals get protection.

Amel you dont seem to understand what I say! There is nothing wrong with being racist in the sense of beliving that your type/culture is superior and nothing wrong with having a preference for your own. Your thoughts should be your own. If we are not permitted to favour own own then we do not have freedom of choice.

The problem arises when you treat others like dirt and don't show respect.

I dont have to like you, but I should have to treat you with the same respect that I would expect you to treat me. That is something that is not taught and that is the problem.

Response to Jolanda: "There is nothing wrong with being racist in the sense of beliving [sic] that your type/culture is superior and nothing wrong with having a preference for your own."

If Jolanda was correct, then you could say "there is nothing wrong with being a terrorist in the sense of believing that innocent people should be slaughtered and kidnapped." Of course that would be silly.

The law on racism is called the Racial Discrimination Act (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/) It does not make any belief illegal, but it certainly shows that it is wrong, and it would be illegal to act upon the belief.

CJ Morgan,

"Put more simply, 'clans' are an anthropological concept used to describe kin-based social organisation," -CJM
-1a- YES. My point. That is why introduced the socio-bological term, "Kin Alruism". A kernel characteristc of a clan.

- "A 'clan' is an artifical kin group and consists of a deliberate amalgamation into one loose federation of a number related lineages". ... "The clan has gentry members". "Membership of 'natural" members is based on lineage". Lineage is used to "buy entry". Individual members have links with ancestors. [some clans are based on surname.]. Clan determines with whom has trust." --[Baker, H.D.R. 1979] Nations are more heterogeneous and membership more fluid. Nations are fraternal with the power to motivate "large numbers of people [Fulcher & Scott, 1999], "imagined [fraternal] communities". Idealistically, bloodlinks (clans) versus brotherhood (nations).

"...while 'tribes' are an anthropological concept that refers to politically oriented social organisation."

-1b- SORT OF YES. More than you specify. Also, lineage based.

-1c- Larger than "clans", but, smaller than nations are "dialect groups", neighbouring clans [or vilages in provinces, for settled peoples.]

"The notion of Indigenous nations is one that has been taken up by Aboriginal people themselves in order to more accurately assert their own perception of their political organisation, particularly in relation to territorial claims." - CJM

-2- YES, AS STATEMENT. Productive, if, the "spin" brings results. Maybe, the end will justify the means? But, people self-designating themselves members of a "nation", in a literal sense, doesn't make it so.

"For more detail on this, perhaps you could enrol in an Anthro 101 course :)" -CJM

/cont...

Jolanda,

Independent schools, like other non-state schools were established to by religious and other groups to provide education for their children.

Why should Indigenous people who have the same ambition be any different?

A school of this kind does exist in Brisbane and it celebrated its 20th year in 2006.

Like any other school it must comply to legislation and school registration tests and formula's and teach appropriate curricula.

And a little known fact is that (besides being culturally appropriate) it enjoys the highest literacy and numeracy outcomes for Indigenous children nationally.

Your questions about curriculum assume cultural matters are incompatible with an academic curriculum. They are not.

In fact I suspect that the cultural elements of there curriculum enhance confidence in academic learning.

Your questions are typical of questions I am aware this school is asked all the time.

When Aboriginal people take charge of their own affairs its called separatism and when we can't participate in mainstream schooling system we get blamed.

I beleive the current mainstream schooling system (the only one available by choice to the majoirty of Aboriginal people) is isolating Aboriginal students anyway.

Look at the educationstatistics and could you honestly tell me the State schooling system is working for us.

Surely the first nations of this country should have the choice on how and who should educate their children?

And by the way I beleive many non-Indigenous children attend this school.

See this story:
http://www.faira.org.au/lrq/archives/199807/stories/09education.html

Spendocrat, see whay I mean about the topic being very subjective. I write something that means one thing to me, and you take it in a totally different context. What I meant was that if immigrants form their racist opinions after they arrive in Australia, due to poor treatment given to them by "Australians", then we only have ourselves to blame. But I just dont think that we should be importing other people's problems (and to clarify that, I DONT mean that we shouldnt help people in need, just in case someone wants to have a dig for that comment).

Even if Australians ARE a racist mob, two wrongs dont make a right. If you think that this is a problem, then we need to work on our problems, not invite more to the table.

Jolanda, I am with you on this one. There is nothing wrong with preferring "your own people", that isnt racist. Its no different to choosing your friends, and making friends with people that have similar tastes and likes to you. Eg, whilst I have a few friends from the city, I tend to make new friends with people from the country (and even more selective, it tends to be people from a farming background), as they have similar views and similar likes to me. To try to liken this to saying that it acceptable to support terrorist because they are like you is just silly and inflammatory

Quiz – yes or no: White privilege

1. You can if you wish arrange to be in the company of people of your race most of the time.

2. When you are told about our national heritage or about "civilization," you are shown that people of your colour made it what it is.

3. You can be sure that your children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race.

4. You can be pretty sure of having your voice heard in a group in which you are the only member of my race.

5. You can arrange to protect your children most of the time from people who might not like them.

6. You do not have to educate your children to be aware of systemic racism for their own daily physical protection.

7. You can be pretty sure that your children's teachers and employers will tolerate them if they fit school and workplace norms; your chief worries about them do not concern others' attitudes toward their race.

8. You can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to your race.

9. You are never asked to speak for all the people of your racial group.

10. You can criticize our government and talk about how much you fear its policies and behaviour without being seen as a cultural outsider.

11. You can worry about racism without being seen as self-interested or self-seeking.

12. You can be late to a meeting without having the lateness reflect on your race.

13. You can choose public accommodation without fearing that people of your race cannot get in or will be mistreated in the places you have chosen.

14. If you have low credibility as a leader I can be sure that your race is not the problem.

15. You will feel welcomed and "normal" in the usual walks of public life, institutional and social.

Adapted from Peggy McIntosh’s paper which you can find here
http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/emc598ge/Unpacking.html

It is sometimes hard to exactly pinpoint the position Country Gal is taking in this debate. (Same for Jolanda.) She appears to have 2 stances when it comes to the issue of racism, one for the white and one for everyone else. I have not come across in this forum anyone suggesting an idiot’s guide to making friends, Gal, but it might be a good idea to start a new thread than to confuse people here. Of course you are welcome to make friends as you wish based on your criteria of race or whether they know how to farm or not. (This does nonetheless make your world quite limited and teaches you on how to find faults in others). Racism appears to be okay if it comes from a white member of the population, but not otherwise. When white stick together, it appears to be fine by you, but when "ethnics" stick together you make a major issue of it. How dare they form ghettos and exclude me! So Gal it kind of makes your argument a little untenable, even when you try to downplay your concern to one of making friends. And your favourite little phrase “Two wrongs doesn’t make a right” sounds catchy and fit for political slogan, but are you implying that apart from the “wrong” you are trying to coin “immigrants”as committing, there is also “wrong” on the white side of the divide you are creating. Sound like an interesting stand.

And praise for Spendocrat and Amel for exposing it.

And for Jolanda, based on your view/attitude of observing the law, in particular the Racial Discrimination Act and similar statutes, I can tell you are not a Christian. Am I wrong again?

-/Cont/- Anthropology 101

3a- The front end of my PhD involved developing cultural antecendents. Periphery reading was concerned the behaviour of clans [Chinese peasants]. Sometimes, there are differences of opinions on definition. Respectfully suggest, you underestimate, the role of Kinship in a clan vis~a~vis nationalism/patriotism/multi-racialism in a nation.

-3b- A clan will coalasce around ancestory; a nation, around an ideology. A nation may be uniculural or multicultural, but, adopt memebership organisation beyond lineage.

-3c- The nation-state is a later development than sovereign's state.

-3d- Is the Jewish Diaspora a nation? Is Singapore, three "nations", Chinese, Indian and Malay? In the first case, I would pefer to stay with Diaspora and in the second society(ies).

-4- I have no desire to rain on the parade, if, "some" aboriginal Australians wish, wrongly, refer to themselves as a "nation", outside their Australian citizenship. These first Australians (60,000 BP) and latter Australians (after 45,000 BP) have a genuine gripe. Irish and Catholic [often both are the case, for one person] have a gripe against the British Crown, from 1788 (actually, before, in the UK too). Seemingly, 1901, was not the turning point. Surely, a just solution involves building mutualism and diversity, and, more pragmatically, a more diverse "middle/upper middle class".

Oliver,
Nationhood is about perceptions-if Aboriginal Australians consider themselves to have been singled out as a group for various forms of racist abuse over 200 years and now want to gather under their Nation's flag to celebrate their uniqueness and give each other strength for the inevitable" battles" with those that resent their existence then fair enough .They are a Nation as far as I am concerned.
Howard's insidious ,wanton destruction of ATSIC proves my point .

Rainier, Are not you a bit hard on country gal's aunt -at least she was in having a go .
If think you no one white person has learnt an Aboriginal Language then if you get a chance try to read some of the Strehlows' literary works with the Aranda people of Central Australia .
The Lutheran Missionary Carl Strehlow's son Theodore was raised at Hermansberg virtually as a member of the tribe in the early 1900's.
He then went to University ,and returned to spend nearly all his life gathering a huge body of wonderfull myths and legends
from old informants that could speak no English [or German for that matter] at all.
The Strehlow Research Centre in Alice Springs is his Legacy to all Australians, particularly the Aranda and Other language groups in Central Australia .
As I am LUCKY enough to contain DNA contributions from all over the world ,[starting in Africa we are told], I find it very hard to maintain a Racist position on anything or anyone,damn it!!

I am aware poor or wrong education is the reason for most problems in the Muslim and Aboridginal comunitys.
The throw away line about always haveing teenage criminals is an attempt to get away from the truth.
Young Aboridginal kids commit crimes to get away from home!
Sexual asults of children are massive! heart breaking! and come from within the comunity.
We white Australians must fix this problem, if tought love is the answer then so be it.
Hideing the problem, denieing the problem, is not the answer.
And nothing less than an end to 200 plus years of waiting for answers to come is our shame.
Bleeding hearted liberalism is the problem not the answer.
Fix it Australia it shames us all.

David Latimer. Wow, I can’t believe what you regard racism (the belief) as the same as terrorism (the act of harming others) !

Tell me, how did you connect preferring your own – to killing others?

Rainer. The Education Act says that that Education is the primary responsibility of the parents. The state has washed their hands. That is why there is so many Independent schools. Parents saw what the public system was doing to their children and they did something about it.

It is good that Aboriginal people are starting to do something to help their own children too. It should have been done a long time ago. The outcomes for Aboriginal children are shocking and it is no wonder that they can’t compete or succeed. This is where alot of people have a problem with Aboriginal people, they are not even looking after their own.

My biggest concern is that when people remove themselves as a group to educate their children, then we create a wedge and children and people stop intermixing and everybody stays with their own.

Australia should encourage and want people to mix so as to have lots of different people working together. Not everybody in culture groups working against each other.

If the public school system ran a fair and just system it could cater for all people and there wouldn’t be this need for so many independent schools and there wouldn’t be so much separation, hostility and discrimination.

I understand the need for Aboriginal run schools; I just think that it is a shame that there is this need.

Goku, Please read the debate to see who has been commenting on ghetto's before assuming it was me.

I'll be the first to acknowledge that there are Australians that are racist. I cant see how that is taking two different viewpoints. I just dont think that we are generally a racist society. My point is, if YOU think that Australia is racist, then we need to address that before taking on the bad attitudes that are held by some immigrants (yes I believe that some immigrants are racist, although not necessarily towards Australians).

Two wrongs not making a right, is not designed to be a political catchphrase. Its a concept that I was taught as a child, and is rather Christian in nature (as opposed to the old Testament, and eye for an eye). Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek and to love our enemies. Whilst I believe that we all need to stand up for ourselves, when a wrong is committed against me, I try to assess whether seeking revenge is going to solve the problem, make me feel better about myself, or achieve nothing other than aggravating the situation. Am I a saint about it? Of course not, I often take the wrong course of action, because it makes me feel better about myself. But the concept is to TRY. To put it in violent terms, do you think that the lebanese community's response to the cronulla riots was the right thing? No, because all it did was cement in the minds of those that supported the original rioters, that they were right in thinking what they did about the lebanese. We must condemn the riot, but we must also condemn the backlash, so matter how justified they felt they were. This is the concept of two wrongs dont make a right.

Jolanda... you're speaking like a hypocrite.You said that people wanting to live with there own kind was the reason for the racism some immigrant face and theres nothing wrong with that. But the truth is a racist is a racist no matter the circumstances, and everybody will not condone it.

Then Quote:

""Australia should encourage and want people to mix so as to have lots of different people working together. Not everybody in culture groups working against each other"".

When it works for you and your family? Why should everyone want to be around silent racist?

Jim,

I was making a point (by example) ...being harsh? I remember my old people being told to 'speak english' by missionaries and government officials. Now thats harsh.

When (like me) you are born a ward of the state, you tend to examine these issues from a sharper perspective. Try it some time.

Country Gal was not making an effort at all, she was trying to proscribe the parametres by which she would determine my and others entry into her dictatorial notions of 'cultural diversity'- where whites (like you) sit at the centre and decide who or what is appropriate around them.

So Goku's excellent rebuttal.

Oh, nearly forgot "Happy Australian Day"

Rainier, It is the topic of another thread, but we are a democratic country (although some like to think not). That means that there is majority rule, and the majority make the rules. So happens that the majority seem to be white european descendants. Fair? Maybe not, depending on whose viewpoint that you have. We are shaped by the experiences that we have and how we and others aruond us respond to them. Your childhood as a state ward will give you a different perspective than will mine from a single parent (father) family, which will differ again from children raised in two parent families with plenty of material goods.

Check my posts, I havent once said that the old missionaries etc did the right thing by forcing the aboriginies that they worked with to speak english. Mind you, english is the official language, so to participate in the society that we have, you need at least a reasonable command of the language. You seem to take umbrage at my view that just because the black population suffered under the white settlment, doesnt mean that the current Australian population (whatever their background) should have to put up with a similar thing now. Correct me if I am wrong, but that is the tone that I discern from your early posts on this thread. I cant change what happened in the past, and nor can you. What needs to happen is that we need to deal with what we have NOW. Instead of complaining (and yes I am as guilty as anyone - human nature I'm afraid!), we should be looking first at what is good about where we live and what we have, and trying to ensure that this is cherished and preserved.

Country Gal,

Yes we have a form of liberal democracy, but i reserve my opinion of whether democracy is the ultimate form of governance and human organisation of politics and economics.

I refered to being a ward of the state not to draw sympathy but to point out the reality.

ie, I survived,grew up and prospered despite people with your opinions, not because of them.

Immigrants to Australia are just as racist as white Australians. There's more white Australians in the country so their attitudes stand out more.

TRUTHNOW78,

Then which race is committing the most racial violence in society?

Amel you really struggle to understand what I am trying to say. It appears that we both have a different idea what racism is and represents. There are two interpretations of racism. The belief and the act of discrimination. They are not the same thing.

People living in culture groups and not mixing is one of the reason for the resentment, hostility and aggression as people are not mixing and getting to know each other and they are basing their opinions on what they hear in the media and sterotypes and there is resentment and anger happening as people feel hard done by.

That is why public schools are so important so as to mix people and cultures so that they get to know each other as people.

However, I can understand why people want to live with their own, its because of the aggressive and hostile attitude that people have towards each other. It makes you feel safe to be with people who understand.

Racism is a belief, actively being hostile and aggressive to another is an action. I can believe that I am better than you if I want, so long as I treat you with the same level of respect that I would expect you to treat me.

Rainier,
Arrgh, come on my brother, we must all know by now ,it's SURVIVAL Day too, not just Australia Day .
Personally, I think we may need a SEPARATE holiday to celebrate the Aboriginal History of Australia, or is that being racist ?

kartiya jim, are you suggesting another public holiday?? You've got my vote!! :)

Leigh, another standpoint on this arguement (seeing as according to some I have two views, so why not throw another in for good measure!!).... perhaps we cant prevent people coming to this country and living as residents from being racist. But why would people become citizens of this country if they feel that it is a racist society. Sure, you can be a cynic and say that it is to obtain the additional benefits that come with being a citizen (such as the right to vote, ha!). But really, it is an interesting concept to me. I wonder though how many immigrants remain permanent residents, and it is their children that end up as citizens by default (birth). Any immigrants care to comment??

Country Gal,

No one expects racism and Australia is not the only country to have immigrants. There are countries all around the world who bring migrants to their soil. Some have no problems with it,while some do.

Jim, my comment was tongue in cheek, and every day is invasion day for me. But feel free to wear your ribbons and t-shirts.

"Nationhood is about perceptions-if Aboriginal Australians consider themselves to have been singled out as a group for various forms of racist abuse over 200 years and now want to gather under their Nation's flag to celebrate their uniqueness and give each other strength for the inevitable" battles" with those that resent their existence then fair enough. They are a Nation as far as I am concerned. Howard's insidious ,wanton destruction of ATSIC proves my point." - Kj.

In a struggle I would not deny the aboriginal community the "tool" or calling themselves a "nation" and a "flag". Both have powerful symbolise to a cause, I support.

Just the same I see mutualism, rather kinskip (many aboriginals) or racist (many Anglos)structures, the solution.

The facts are:

1. The Australian continent was invaded by England. Herein, 300,000 to 1 million people were conquered in the historical sense of the word.

PROBLEMS: THE CONQUEST IS A "REALITY" AND WAS "OVERWHELMING". THE DREAMTIMES AND SOCIAL ORGANISATION OF MANY CLANS WERE SHATTERED.

2. In word "race" original had social connotations. Many of the immigrants from the UK were from low social classes and embittered. In the mid-1800s, the ideas of superior "ethnic" races arose under colonisation. This tended to "buff-up" the "white" colonisalists. The word race changed its meaning to its current day understanding. It was a bit like the shop steward winning a big lottery and turning it the meanest capitalist. Instead of being underdogs to the aristocracy, we can have domain over individuals less developed technologically [forget ideologically or socially]. WE HAVE DOMINION.

PROBLEM: A SENSE OF SUPERIORITY

3. The aborigines, I posit, WERE/ARE kinship clans. Characterically, there are concentric circles moving away from a familial centre. Family first, dialect group second, (aboriginal) trade partners (artifacts, songs, rites). Groups are inclusive. Clan links exist today between Redfern and Wagga Wagga, I have heard.

PROBLEM: INCLUSIVENESS.

[Can't discuss possible solution. Word limit. In China. Hard to connect, since Taiwan undersea earthquake.]

When it comes to Racism the attitudes of Islam toward non-muslims is very clear and those who try to tell you that Islam is a tolerant religion are either decieving you or are decieved themsleves.

All Muslim writtings send a clear undeniable message. The aim of Islam is to take over the would. We non-muslims have three options.

1. Fight and be killed
2. Convert to Islam
3. Surrender and live in servitude to Islam.

When muslims say Islam is a religion of peace they are refering to points 2 and 3 above. To live in peace under Islam is to live in servitude or convert.

I am more than happy for it to be proven that this is not the case. However, the more I study Islam the more I come to realise that those so called "radical extremist muslims" are acctually a refection of the true islam.

Here’s how the Ayatollah Khomeini put it:
“Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter their armies.”

Amel, I disagree. Some DO expect racism, so they are wont to find it where it doesnt exist, and react accordingly. Same way as women who go out expecting to find discrimination against them, will find it for sure, whether true or construed that way in their minds.

Please, what are these countries that have had no problems with immigration. Whilst the media are notorious for choosing a bad news story over a good news story, I cant bring to mind any success stories.

Country gal, the reason why some immigrants expect racism is because of what happened before.I think people become aware of things but still try to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Canada, New Zealand ,Sweden,Namibia, The UK...

I never said these countries have no problems with immigration. Its probably not a huge problem like it is in other places.

Again, the grudges and hatred of a few have sabotaged yet another thread. The constant references to indigenous, historical events has indeed become tedious. Rainier et al insists on dragging up past indigenous injustices though fails to address the current injustices perpetrated on non-indigenous citizens.

Since this thread is now clearly on Aboriginal issues, I shall relay my "racist" views by advising of the criminal events reported by the media last week, which occurred in my community and by Ranier's own people.

"Community safety groups will meet this week to discuss reports of chronic juvenile delinquency, assaults and vandalism."

These indigenous youth are described by bleeding hearts as "disadvantaged", "underprivileged", "bored teenagers" though these delinquents receive precisely the same amount of taxpayer benefits from Centrelink as non-indigenous people (not a penny more or a penny less) and are provided with taxpayers' housing like all others and have access to the same level of education. Yet they congregate in ditches awaiting the next victim and their criminal activities far exceeds those of non-indigenous youth in my district.

There are aged and ill pensioners living in the same area, too frightened to leave their homes.

"When we have a member of the local police force advising us not to walk down a city street between certain hours because of a potential risk, we have a serious law and order problem indeed.

"To that end, if the destructive, dangerous minority cannot exist in society in a peaceful, lawful manner, they should be removed from society; until such time they can behave in a manner acceptable to the majority."

My community (including decent indigenous members) have grown tired of endeavouring to be "politically correct."

Recently an Aboriginal female was prosecuted for racially villifying a white person - just like Ranier does!

Ranier et al need to cease their constant inane intellectual sophistry on historical events and address the issue of unlawfulness and the endemic racist attitude by the youth to whom I refer since their victims are always, selectively white!

Jolanda asks me: "how did you connect preferring your own – to killing others?"

I'll respond by reference to the racism which lead to the death of millions of people. They were all innocent too.

Racial discrimination is illegal in Australia. If you act on your racial beliefs you reject the laws of our nation.

Love can also lead to killing and death David.

and so can INDIFFERENCE!

What dickie? is it getting to you? Sophistry? Its yours and others benign and unsophisticated analysis of racism that urgently needs reviewing.

If you don't understand racism as a complex social and cultural phenomenon it’s not our fault.

Its your own.

Now tell me why you can’t explain to me what it means to be racially, culturally “white” again? Is it because you don't have to think about this as a factor IN all racism - at all?

Ah...... Ranier

How typically condescending of you. And the usual failure on your part to address the contents of a post.

Many of your own young people going down the gurgler which you refuse to acknowledge when you continue to vent your vitriole on the "invaders" you consider inferior, unsophisticated and lacking your degree of "intellect."

One need not be an anthropologist or a historian to correctly assess the behaviour of many groups of indigenous youth in regional Australia, as unacceptable.

Drop the baggage, Ranier, open your eyes and understand that unlawfulness has little to do with culture or the "underprivileged" but rather an inability and a failure by elders (of any race) to instill and enforce in their children, a firm conscience of what is right or wrong.

The verbal and physical assaults on one's person and property simply produces a form of racism in the victims. This is a natural human reaction in people who are repeatedly targeted by the same groups of delinquents.

Unfortunately Ranier, your silent condonation of these problems, as an elder, makes you part of the problem - not the solution!

Jolanda said :and so can INDIFFERENCE!

And thats why people demonstrate and riot against racism.Its not just to steer up the media.People become fustrated and angry about things.

Amel. People also get frustrated and angry about other people coming into Australia with attitudes, causing problems and demanding more rights and respect than the rest. Thats why Cronulla happened. Everybody has an excuse and justification Amel but it doesn't always make it right.

If these Muslims respected Australia they wouldn't challenge Australians way of life and actively insult their culture.

Does a Muslim suddenly become incapable of racism when they leave their own Country and enter Australia?

Or isn't there any racism in middle eastern countries?

Jolanda, I'm not really talking about the Arab muslim situation in Australia. I know about the problems in Sudan and in other countries.

I'm refering to the racism and discrimination,not about the people who want different treatment or to dominate society.

When people come to a country to live in some peace,and to get on with their lives shouldn't they be allowed too? Like in most countries?

Amel “When people come to a country to live in some peace,and to get on with their lives shouldn't they be allowed too?”

Yes they should.

However, they should also be mindful of the social and cultural values which prevail in the country which they are seeking to “live in some peace”.

Describing the acceptable dress choices of the majority of youthful females of the prevailing society as “uncovered meat” does not reflect the values of someone who came here to “live in some peace”

Publicly announcing that Muslim immigrants have a greater right to live here than people whose ancestors arrived here 200 years ago does, not reflect the values of someone who came here to “live in some peace”.

Recognising or accrediting or not rejecting an identified leader who makes inflammatory and unconscionable comments, places all members of the minority community in the same camp as their identified (and presumably supported) leader.

Any migrant community which comes to Australia and expects to “live in some peace” has a duty to respect the values of the incumbent majority. That immigrant community need to question their attitudes and values when and if they conflict with the attitudes and values of that majority, otherwise, the opportunity to “live in some peace” is not going to happen.

The reason Muslims seem to be getting a bad public reputation and seem to attract extra criticism is not because Australians are racist or intolerant of people of different races or religions.

It is because of the practice of the Muslim community leaders to denigrate and criticise the long held rights and values of the non-muslim majority.

If Muslims want to achieve a better public profile than the one they have got and “live on some peace”, they better publicly denounce and dump Halaly and the other bigoted leaders for themselves.

Non-Muslims are not responsible for the deficiencies of Muslims or Muslims community Leaders, Muslims are.

Actually little dickie, I work with youth,children and those children you choose to call delinquents & speak so authoriatively about.

I showed your post to a colleague who also works in this area and her response was, 'don't you get tired of hearing that silver-bullet craap from no-brainers like that'.

What do you do besides sitting around concocting bigoted theories about non-white peoples and others to test here on OLO?

Do you do anything productive that contributes to humanity in your life?

I reckon its time you did some walking to back up your talking little dickie, get out and talk to youth, ask them about their lives, get down and listen a bit instead of pontificating.

Or arn't you able to do these simple human acts? If not then I reckon thats a bigger problem than any young one I've worked with or who have decided to make me one of their friends.

No run along and go chat with your other mates here on OLO who are too scared to get real, too scared to get down and learn something new about the world around them beyond your safe bigoted, racist, sexist, homophobic,selfish, insecurities.

Now you've been told, take it in and think

David Latimer: "Racial discrimination is illegal in Australia. If you act on your racial beliefs you reject the laws of our nation." Absolutely. That why those that started the Cronulla riots, should be dealt with in exactly the same manner as those that retaliated. They are all as bad as each other.

One of the problems that I have seen and that is becoming evident in these discussions, is that a number of people have some difficulty accepting that white Australian's can be subject to racism as well as anyone else. On another thread I described being verbally attacked by an aboriginal man and called a "white etc". This type of treatment is common in some rural towns (particularly in north western NSW). I (and others of my race) am subjected to comments about "uncovered meat" by a twit (I think we all know who this is). These are two prominent examples that stick in my head. Other "races" can be very racist indeed, but there appear to many that attempt to treat racism as a white phenomenon. What about the various ethnic cleansing that goes on around the world, some quite recent? I'm not trying to deny that some white people are racist, but they are not the only ones.

Amel, the UK is not a very good example of somewhere that multiculturalism has worked. There are significant racial and religious tensions that still exist. That said, those that have immigrated to England from colonial countries (such as India) appear to have fitted in better (by way of fewer inter-group tensions) than more recent arrivals.

My dear Ranier

I tremble for the children in your care. And what hope do they have who enter your web of maliferous ill-will?

Ranier,

What is "your" plan to change manage:

1. The invaders' sense of superiority?
2. The aboriginals' sense of inclusiveness?

For the reasons stated in my previous post, I posit these are key questions, to be addressed, before, moving-on. It is not skin "colour". Mostly, Chinese and Indian immigrants are not marginalised.

Sociologists (e.g., Triandis)note, that immigrants (he main study was Hispanics in the US) often become super-citizens of their adapted country for a generation or two to actively "fit-in", then, there is a swing back to one's roots. As a result, overtime. there is a melting pot, at a macro-level, and, multi-culturalism at a micro-level. Where there are exceptions,the society, I posit, will often be clan base.

Infant aboriginals are born into a conquered country. Distasteful or not, they born, effectively, as societal immigrants. Herein, sociologically, it is better not to pull against the more powerful party. "Join them"... Then, produce a "traditionalism" annex; while, remaining attached to the main society. Be Australians, yet, retain a deep interest in historical traditions and customs. Many other commmunities succeed in this way.

Moreoever, with regard to being economically disadvanged, we don't want an aparteid. Benefits should be managed based on merit and need only, regardness of DNA.

Land disputes are a legal matter to be decided by the Courts. Personally, I feel that compensation should be paid, but, not to every generation. The traditional Chinese build patrimonial trusts which belong to the descendants of ancestor "x". Herein, the governemnt could make a one time only paymeny, say, $100,000 per year for five years to each aboriginal. If it turns in millions in a few generations, good. If not, who has whetted it away? [The Canadian Indian clans seems to have been good managers. In Nauru, its citizens were advised not to spend on consumerables, but invest, and, we now know the situation "they" achieved for themselves.

Ranier: Don't forget the questions. Tah.

Country Gal,

Some other Countries do better, and I never said the UK was perfect with Multiculturalism. I believe the UK is not as openly anti-immigrants like some in Australia, but I didn't say the situation was perfect.Although it probably feels more natural to them since migrants came there many years ago.

Col Rouge, when migrants come to live in a different country they bring apart of themselves. I know that doesn't mean they should try to dominate or make life harder for others, but thats what make some cultures and religions different to each other

Oliver, your idea is akin to dumping a desert nomad into Sydney and expecting him to thrive (although he would probably be more successful than a Sydney professional dropped into the desert!). You cant just say here's $x, goodluck, dont come back. Not without teaching financial management, long term goal setting and planning. These dont happen overnight. Wouldnt be much different to giving the same bequest to today's street kids (of whatever background). Some would prosper, others would end up back where they are in 6 years (I give it 12 months after they get the last payment). Given the quantum of money that you talk about, it would be better spent on improving education and infrastructure for the benefit of all Australians.

We are better off to force children to go to school. With education there is hope. Withhold parents dole payments if school attendance records drop. Provide a breakfast and lunch program if kids arent being fed properly at home. The biggest problem I saw when living in western NSW was kids wandering the streets at the age of 5/6 (well before becoming teenage no-hopers). In the small town where I lived (was about 60-70% indigenous), there were luckily enough caring adults (mainly white) who would pick up these kids if they saw them, and drop them into school, or one in particular that I can think of would take them to work with him for the day (at least they were doing something and off the streets).

Likewise, withhold parents income if kids miss their health checks and vaccinations. In communities where substances abuse is rife, provide little support by way of dole money, instead give vouchers for food, clothing and medical supplies. Yes, its paternalistic, and denies freedom of choice, but we need to at least give the kids a chance to get a good start in life, with a reasonable education and good health.

Oliver /CG see these, http://www1.aiatsis.gov.au/exhibitions/treaty/links.htm

Rainier,

Will have a look at link. Thanks.

CG,

Can see your point to a degree. But, these folks [today's clans] were not born in the [nomadic] eighteenth century. Thus, a change management strategy is needed, and, hence, my questions to Rainier.

Dole payments are as much for the children as the parents.

Agree, its behavioural and [with Rainier?] about being disenfranchisement. That said, both parties, [in fact there should not be a "both parties" in Oz], need to come to grips with the real situation:

1. The aboriginal clans lost the war.
2. There are plenty of white racists
3. There are plenty of black racists
4. Clans tend to be inclusionary.
5. According to the World Bank, Australia is the wealthiest country on the planet [assets/population]. We can pay for any financial solution. Also, 2nd on HDI (sometimes, we swap with Canada). But, ther is more to it.
6. We have a largely aboriginal driven aparteid.

Were one to take the 1788 map of "any" continent and compare it, WITH A map today, the political, military, and, significantly, territorial power, would have changed by large measure.

Australia is a member of ABCA [America, Britain, Canada and Austalia] the US lead core Western military powers, the most powerful power in the History of History. The clans have been defeated, but each is now under umbrella of its power. Accept it. Maybe, sadly, much culture has been lost. Accept it. [So, was the Library of Alexandria, with tomes on early Greek and other histories.]

We can't turn back the clock [1787].

The push from the aboriginal community and the pull from the Anglo community must be better synchronised. Its, perhaps, more about attitudes and behaviour, than "land rights" and "compensation". [charge are independently valid.]. Having income does solve situatation, as in Nauru, which in the 60s had a higher per capita income than Oz.

One can't ride a dead horse, but, one can ride a fresh one.

CG, agree, education is important. So is a positive outlook and good home life.

Oliver, agree that dole payments are for both parent and child, but sadly is often not used that way. I have seen (on more than one occasion) little black kids (sorry Rainier, not trying to be derogatory, just black and white type quicker!), at the checkout at the general store/supermarket counting out 5c coins to try to buy a single roll of cheap toilet paper. Other trying to buy a loaf of bread, crying from hunger. What happens?? Mum and Dad (or carer) drink the payments, or play the pokies, leaving next to nothing for food, or health care, let alone anything else. This is happening NOW. Where I lived you could pick Payment Day - the pub and club were full (not just black people, the white scum were there too, but due to town dynamics, were in the minority). What I suggest is a mechanism, geared to the individual needs of each town, that provides for the basics for the kids, but punishes mum and dad if they dont ensure the kids are meeting basic health and education standards. I dont mean making mum and dad starve, give them food vouchers etc as needed. But take away the play money. Look its not just a black problem - my own grandfather relied on his adult children to stock his pantry so that he wouldnt go hungry (the rest went on smokes and grog). The issue is that a higher proportion of the black population have addiction problems and it would seem that a higher proportion of black children do not get the basics, even when the facilities are there.

Rainier, thanks for the link. Will check it out.

CG,

-- YOUR IDEAS --

Generally agree. Good common sense.

The large sum suggested, in a relatively short period of time, was meant to extinguish, once and for all, compensation for the invasion. [Reverse reparations. Normally the loosing side pays.]. Wherein, a serious sum is paid. It would the responsibility of that generation to spend it wisely. If some don't, they are accountable to future generations.

- THAT SPENT, NO MORE "GENERIC" CLAIMS CARRYING-ON TO THE THIRTIETH CENTURY.

Generic claims now settled, we can still look at social security at a micro-level, largely along your lines, perhaps. However, such a programme, would need to also apply to similarly-based non-aboriginals.

Rainier,

--LAND--

Freehold title is not absolutely, absolute. One owns Estate in the land. Ownership is ultimately held by the British Crown. Has anyone partitioned Elizabeth, for the deeds of George? Australia did not take possession of aboriginal lands, England did.

We need to learn to differenciate between discrimination based on a persons race, gender, height or other characteristics that cannot be changed, and disagreeing with a persons choice of religion, sexual preference or even football team. Having said that, we should allways respect the individual even though we may disagree with their opinion or preference.

I should be free to disagree with with the practice of homosexuals as long as I do not disrespect the individuals involved. I should also be free to disagree with that practise withoput being subjected to personal attacks.

I do resent negative labels such as Homophobic. Now it seems that Muslims have also taken to labeling anyone who disagrees with them as Islamaphobic. They say that attack is the best form of defence and what better way to attack somebody who disagrees with you than to accuse them of having an irrational and ilogigal fear. What will this come to? Is Kevin Rudd a Liberalaphobic or was Peter Brock a Fordaphobic.

If we are so insecure and unable to inteligently defend our opinions and ideas without resorting to name calling then maybe we need to review our opinions and ideas

Rainier ,
Having to speak English on missions is a problem if one wants to preserve one's birth language and pass on Culture .
However ,many Aboriginal people can speak two or three languages plus English ,and use them in their everyday life in the more remote parts of Australia.
I believe school age whites, school age immigrants and Aboriginal people should learn a working Aboriginal Language. I think the language of Uluru,[think it's Pitjan-jat-jara] as the Centre of Australia would be a good one as most Australians ,old and new will travel there at some stage of their lives and the the revelations in Aboriginal mythology available to be taught about this area may well give us some long overdue appreciation of of our First Nation Peoples' Cultures and their problems.
Teaching the basics to teachers down south will take a while unfortunately .
That should take the Racism out of a fair few of us-but I suspect there are a few hard nuts on OLO that would do a bit of beard chewing if they had to join the classes.

Yes KJ,

I'm not in favour of teaching languages inside schools as they are not condusive to learing ['living, land, people, story languages'] such as my own 3.

I for one do not believe reliance on the revival and retention of languages won't itself mean the revival of whole cultures - but it would help. The underlying cultural philosophy of languages need to be focused on rather than simply concentrating of linguistic competency.

I lament young ones who know kinship 'names' (who is aunty, grandfather, counsin brother) BUT don't know the importance and context these familial relationships,loyalty,responsibility and respect and how they themselves fit into the matrix. (at least in the classical sense).

Or alternatively older ones who abuse these these important kinship layers of belonging and being.

Language alone will not undo or teach this.

Oliver wrote:” Australia did not take possession of aboriginal lands, England did.”

Yes I know this to be the case.

There have been a few challenges to this - see the Paul Coe case.
http://www.austlii.edu.au//cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/unrep183.html?query=coe

In 1979, Pual Coe was a young barrister took an action in the High Court of Australia arguing that at the time white people came to Australia, Aborigines were here and therefore the Court had to recognise their rights. (Paul Coe vs. Commonwealth of Australia ).

See also:
The Australian High Court's Use of the Western Sahara Case in Mabo by Shirley Scott The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 45, No. 4 (Oct., 1996), pp. 923-927

In 1788, British common law recognised three methods by which the Crown could legitimately acquire new territory and claim sovereignty over it. If the land was already occupied, the Crown could claim that it had acquired the land from the Indigenous peoples by:

• Military conquest

• Or by cession (treaty).

• If the land was unoccupied or terra nullius (owned by no one) it could claim that it had acquired the territory by occupation.

NONE of these have been formally proclaimed in law in Australia.

In fact in Mabo 1 and 2 they avoided addressing anomally altogether.

Native title is the weakest form of land title in Australia.

Native title is not land rights.

Response to Jolanda, who wrote "If these Muslims respected Australia they wouldn't challenge Australians way of life and actively insult their culture."

Jolanda challenges the Australian way of life. She believes it is OK to be racist. Nobody who supports racism can ever speak about the Australian way of life. Racists reject Australia and our way of life. You cannot be a real Australian and a racist at the same time. That is the way it is.

Response to Jolanda who wrote: "Love can lead to killing and death ... and also INDIFFERNCE!"

This is a silly absurd comment. I'll go over my points again:

Racism is connected with killing and death of innocent people. Australians are against racism and we have passed laws to prohibit racial discrimination, so to protect ourselves as far as possible from being affected by racist attitudes and attacks. To believe in racism is to believe in wrongdoing and criminality.

How do I challenge the Australian way of life David? Why don’t you better explain what you mean? Sure I believe that it is okay to be think you are superior or better than another (some people are better than others, we are not the same) so long as you treat the other with the same level of respect that you expect to be treated yourself. Our beliefs and feelings belong to us and should be our own. Nobody can demand another person like another or try to control how we feel and what we think. We are free to love and hate – what we are not free to do is to hurt people.

If it hurts Muslims that lots of people don’t like them then maybe they should stop and consider why a lot of people are scared of them and feel threatened by them as it isn’t actually because of race it is because of the ACTIONS of groups of people of their race. If it hurts Australians that a lot of Muslims don’t like them then maybe we should stop and consider why this is happening as it isn’t actually because of race, it is because of the actions of some of those from that race. As always the actions of a few impact on others.

I am a real Australian. I believe that we should protect Australia and the Australian way of life from being taken over or damaged by those who are so stuck on their rights that they dont consider that they have obligations and they don’t care who they hurt or how it affects others.

My comment about Love and indifference also being capable of leading to killing and death was not absurd. It was a fact.

Racism is only connected with killing if those that are racist are violent and actively go out and do harm. Aggressive and violent people come in all shapes, sizes nationalities and religions, it isn't limited to one.

David says "Racism is connected with killing and death of innocent people".
Democratically elected Australian Governments have known for 100's of budgets that Aboriginal Australians are something like 2-4 times sicker than other Australians. Men die some 17 years earlier than you or I. Their wives and children are also much sicker .
Earlier Australian Governments believed they would die out - end of problem .

There have been and are predictable deaths and sickness caused by neglect and continuing Racism on a massive scale .

We are not a poor country ,lack of money could never be an excuse .

Using your definition Australians are guilty of appalling Racism to the Race of Australians least able to defend themselves...

Kartiya Jum says "We are not a poor country ,lack of money could never be an excuse."

That is true. Unfortunately, poverty is not a money issue.

For years we have thrown money at problems all over the world and the poor are still poor and people still get sick from preventable disease.

The issue is education. Many aid agencies realise that people can get out of the poverty cycle simply by giving someone an interest free loan and helping them set up a small bussiness and giving them a few basic finance skills.

We don't need more money. Giving people welfare is not the answer (although I do admit that some people [black and white] will never get off welfare due to other issues such as substance abuse, mental illness etc). We need to make better use of the money we have. Sure, fix up the food and water supply and housing in remote communities. but lets motivate people, help them see that there is light at the end of the tunnel. Teach them some basic life skills including self respect and confidence in their own ability to get out of the downward spiral.

I have been a full time volunteer worker for 25 years. I have about $50 in the back I own a 1987 Camry with a blown engine and I live in a small apartment with my wife and our two children left at home. In my eyes I am rich and succsessfull.

We need to be looking at raising peoples value of them selves and others, not their bank balance

Proberbs, I am glad your life is happy.
The money I talk for Aboriginal Welfare is for health and education. Howard gives a lot of money to private schools, it costs !
Ever looked for a dentist in the bush?
Ever looked for a doctor in the bush ?
Ever looked for cheap healthy food in the bush?
They are all hard to find .

I agree 100% Jim, we need to address those issues but I don't think that is going to solve the problem lomg term.

In my opinion we are not doing enough to address the poverty mentality in this country. I have met many people who are suffering in poverty in the bush and the city and most of them have several things in common. They don't really believe there is anything they can do about it and that it is always someone elses fault. There is a high degree of hopelessness amoung the poor.

You and I know that to a certain degree people can achieve great things once they set their mind to it. Every now and then we hear about the entrepenuer who grew up poor and became a success. What makes them different? Why do we have some people who are born into wealth and die in poverty and others who are born in poverty who have become weralthy and successfull.

We need to give the poor hope. Help them to realise that they are valuable. They can do something about it even if no one ever gave them a cent

Rainier,

Thank you. Interesting legal history. There seems to have been an attempt towards treaty arrangement in the NZ (as provided in your link to this Sit.. Here, I have elsewhere read. there were difficulties, owing to language on subtle areas like control, sovereignty and ownership. Internally, two main groups needed to agree too, the Maori and the Pakhe (spelling?)? Ratified in the 70s?

Oz would have the problem that there may have been 400 clans, by extrapolation, and, a guess only, 40-50 dialect groups. These guys would need to understand reach other, and, then deal with the British. Some would never have been in contact. Difficult. But it is a pitty the British didn't try harder. Just the same, the British legal notion the Land was empty prior to settlement is ridiculous, in fact.

In latter history, there was the problem of the Squatters taking unallocated land outside British law. Also, massacres. When an aboriginal murdered a settler, maybe, 100 innocents were killed, in reprisal.

Appreciate the links. Will scan soon, and then go back for a more detailed read. [Busy over the next few weeks with tight deadlines.]

Oliver, the Treaty of Waitangi was in 1840.

Are you really doing Phd studies in this area?

Amel “Col Rouge, when migrants come to live in a different country they bring apart of themselves. I know that doesn't mean they should try to dominate or make life harder for others, but thats what make some cultures and religions different to each other “

Amel, I am a immigrant myself. I have lived more of my life in a different country, in fact 2 different countries.

That cultures and religions are different is as obvious as a nose on a face.

My closing comment to the post you responded to was

“Non-Muslims are not responsible for the deficiencies of Muslims or Muslims community Leaders, Muslims are.”

Get this, I know what it is like to arrive in a new country and have to settle in. I found my acceptance within the greater community including finding work and a home to live in was enhanced by listening to what people who already lived her had to say and me not preaching to them on how they should live.

The problem which the Muslim community have is due to the practice of some of the Muslim community leaders to make public statements which denigrate the values of the non-Muslim Majority.

If Muslims want to live in peaceful co-existence with non-Muslims, the solution is simple. Muslims must deal with the religious bigots who claim to be Muslim leaders or find somewhere else to migrate to.

As out Federal Treasurer suggested, Emigrate to somewhere which shares similar values to those of the Muslim community.

Australia was forged on non-Muslim values which include tolerance to race, religion and creed.

Australia does not need or want religious bigots with “cultural and religious differences” who cannot or do not live up to those "non-Muslim" moral values of "tolerance" to migrate to or settle in Australia.

Jolanda thinks she is "a real Australian", but her admitted support for racism suggests she perfers to flaunt Australian values.

She believes "we should protect Australia and the Australian way of life" yet she proposes its OK to subvert our laws. She proposes that we should harm Australians and Australia by condoning racism, which she naively describes as non-violent.

She's worry about other people fulfilling their "obligations" and how "they don’t care who they hurt or how it affects others."

But her obligation is to obey the law, which includes the Racial Discrimination Act. Jolanda breaks this law in every post. This law is designed to protect people from being unlawfully hurt by others.

Jolanda fails to recognise Australia is a democracy. Yet, she only wants to impose her own hateful prejudices upon us. She wants to tar everyone with the same brush. She does not want to give people a fair go. Listening to Jolanda is like listening to a criminal trying to justify their crimes against society. "What about MY rights?" they selfishly cry!

Australia is not a dictatorship with a self-appointed fanatics making paranoid statements about law-abiding men, women and children. It is a wonderful democracy and parliament makes the laws.

The parliament has rightly declared that racial discrimination is unlawful in this just and free country. This law is fully supported by the people.

Response to Kartiya Jim: I support medical services and good health for all Australians, and the current situtation is unacceptable. There is a legacy of bad and racist policy which has contributed to this. Those are now completely rejected, so we must now overcome the practical obsticles to universal good health whereever they exist.

Just visited the Taj Mahal.
Entry Fees : Indian Citizen. R50/-
Non-Indian. R750/-

Is this racial discrimination?

Rainier,

-- WHY THE MOCKING TONE? --

[1] "Oliver, the Treaty of Waitangi was in 1840."

[So?] I knew that date, at least, approximately.

Living in China, now. I didn't want to drop my link checking the spelling, as an earthquake has damaged an undersea cable and the Internet is unstable, here. That is why didn’t name the Treaty. Spelling.

Are you lampooning me about my mention of the 70s? I think so. Note, The Treaty of Waitangi was not RATIFIED until 1972. Didn’t provide a date, too busy to check. The 70s, was best from memory.

The 1972 date is mentioned in the document:

http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/delbil06.htm

[2] "Are you really doing Phd studies in this area?"

Nope. Undergrad. in psych. & economics, two masters in business and a PhD. Several academic and national awards. The PhD has nothing at all to do with law, treaties or aborigines. My interest is in how cultural antecedents influence knowledge discovery.

More relevant, I do have a sound knowledge [published] of the operation of civilisations [including, under occupation], and, clans (internationally), and, acculturation and, the development of science and technology in history (especially, East/West). Beyond that, I wish to stay anonymous.

[3] No point wasting my time, here.

Rainier, given your sad attitude, my heading [3] says it all.

I wanted to share some knowledge of how disenfranchised Diaspora and Clans can manage their way towards a better life, when occupied by an overwhelming power. Obviously, this is not the place, to make histographically tethered recommendations, which have worked in the past histories.

Don't want some lessons known, based on six thousand years of invasions and subjugations across twenty-plus civilisations? That is your call, Rainier.

[4] What you need to know about yourself.

I little less wit and a lot more listening would serve you well

Epilogue:

All,

Discussed and ratified in intent in the 70s. The "actual" Treaty had major issues, with the meaning "sovereignty", which didn't translate well linguistically back in 1839/1840. My understanding is the original Treaty didn't receive Royal Accent. [Even today, there are still on going issues.]

Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975: [NOTE: 1975],[NOTE: 1975]

http://www.onenzfoundation.co.nz/THE%20TREATY%20OF%20WAITANGI%20ACT%201975.htm

Rainier, specifically, if, you are ever given the opportunity become a negotiator, lawyer or historian. Don't.

[Bye.]

Oliver, citing Rainier: "[2] "Are you really doing Phd studies in this area?"

Nope. Undergrad. in psych. & economics, two masters in business and a PhD. Several academic and national awards. The PhD has nothing at all to do with law, treaties or aborigines. My interest is in how cultural antecedents influence knowledge discovery.

More relevant, I do have a sound knowledge [published] of the operation of civilisations [including, under occupation], and, clans (internationally), and, acculturation and, the development of science and technology in history (especially, East/West). Beyond that, I wish to stay anonymous."

I think this is an utter crock. While Oliver's ideas about 'clans' and such have been an interesting read, it's now clear that they are his own confabulations, rather than anything worthy of serious intellectual consideration.

If he has really published his idiosyncratic ideas internationally, why on earth would he want to remain anonymous in this forum?

Sounds like more loony bulldust to me.

Is Mise asks "Just visited the Taj Mahal. Entry Fees : Indian Citizen. R50/-. Non-Indian. R750/-. Is this racial discrimination?"

750 rupees is about $20.
50 rupees is $1.50

This is discrimination, but not racial. An Indian citizen can be any race or religion. In Australia we do not give citizens a financial advantage over non-citizens, which is good policy.

I guess the Indian authorities are suggesting citizens are the true owners of the Taj Mahal, or more likely, that international tourists are richer and worth fleecing a little bit.

Oliver, Mocking tone? naaah, just find it amazing that I'm citing 1st year anthrop/law, [ie, some really basic stuff] to someone who purports to know something about land law, politics and history in Australia.

I've got 2 honours students who would eat you alive, not because they are combative souls (or because I would want them to) but because they put the hard work and read primary research across a number of disciplines related to this very area of discussion. One of them just commented to me “Why do you bother” to which I have no answer. Which in turn raises a more interesting question – is this the only academic engagement you have with someone? OLO is good but it’s hardly a place for rigorous academic training.

As for me being a lawyer, never. They are an animal I find useful but invidious.

But I’ve been-there / done-that in terms of negotiator and oral historian.

To be honest I find your pseudo Keysian /Darwinian application to land law oblique and contrived.

As for you accolades, well I'm more of a practitioner than a 'traditional academic' so I don't put much weight on getting gongs. Nor do the majority of my peers whose own scholarly careers are internationally revered.

In a nutshell nothing you’ve provided me so far has inspired me. Sorry.

CJ, LOL! Watch out Keith Windshuttle!

Rainier,

I should hope your Oz history students WOULD eat me alive. I haven't even read Fatal Shores! I made no NO CLAIM to being an Australian History prof. After they have consumed me, trust there is room left for you. They would eat you alive too. You allegedly teach law/history and didn't know the Treaty of Waitangi was ratified in the 1970s. That's something. [A bit like a mechanic, whom doesn't know fuel injection has replaced carburettors in modern cars.]

Just in case you missed it:

http://www.onenzfoundation.co.nz/THE%20TREATY%20OF%20WAITANGI%20ACT%201975.htm

See, "1975" [leveraged from NZ's 1972 International Treaty obligations]. In the decade, I said it was [without even looking]. If being right is makes me a certain mediocre "101" shoe-in; then, where does that leave you, one who is wrong?

Darwin? Keynes? No., Quigley, Wells, McNeill and Toynbee. Then, hit the journals. Big picture histories, not evolution and economics.
Socio-biology, yes. Culture is a product of its ecology (Triandis).

One needs to read other [non-Australian] histories, patterns in 200-500 year chunks. What, you seemingly see as special, has happened before.

Rainier, country gal is correct, it is not just about money payments. Nauru's indigenous people had in coming out of their ears in 1960s. Gone. Spent. Little invested. Now, it is in as bad a state, as our aboriginals' stereotype. It's about change managing acculturation.

Land law wont help much in understanding managing acculturation under occupation. Land rights are are the smaller part of solution.

p.s. Trust your "internationally revered" colleagues, know the difference between a "clan" and a "nation". [Assume you mean "esteemed", not venerable?]

CJM,

My PhD is not in "Clan Kinship". Please check back. READ what I said. Clans were merely at the periphery of the scales, I developed. But, I have comprehensively read about clan/peasant groups.

Read, Hugh Baker, Daniel Little, Samuel Popkin and James Scott, and, on and on. Background. Then, log-on to a university database and type in "kinship" and "clan", you, will see more Bull Dust [your impression].

All,

[Here endth my last post, here.]

David, "In Australia we do not give citizens a financial advantage over non-citizens, which is good policy" I'm not aware of any situations based on citizenship but I have come across differing prices for local residents vs visitors. I don't remember just were it was but have seen it.

A visit to a hospital can also get rather expensive for a non resident for treatment that is covered under medicare for residents - maybe that is an equivalent.

R0bert

OLIVER ,
You said "landrights are a the smaller part of the solution".
You underestimate the value of land to Aboriginal People.
No Land plus No Treaty = No Peace for Australia.It's NOT rocket science .
This is because the younger Aboriginal People are acutely aware of their Disposession without Compensation, and the Government of Australia's racist attempt to re write history amongst other social insults, simply fuels ongoing Racism and anti social conduct.
The Governments prefer to take the option of things like mandatory sentencing and restriction of access to try to keep a lid on Aboriginal unrest.
As well we now have Howard's Indigenous Intelligence Unit [Ok if it's just to stop the violence in Aboriginal Society ]- ugly if it's the new 21st Century version of the Native Police .

Thanks Jim for pointing that out,

Oliver, really! Such a precious fellow it seems. I knew Waitagi was ratified in 1970 but hey, what’s the point in discussing this with something who was not even aware of the common law arguments that underpinned the Mabo case?

Any time you'd like to come to my uni and give a guest lecture let me know through OLO.

My legal, anthropological, literary, sociological,and philosophy mates all need a good laugh.

Seriously let me know!

Response to Robert:

Yes. Citizen and Resident have different meanings. To discrimate against non-residents (eg Medicare, Social Security) is also not racism either.

AMEL just a quickie....what term do you use for those who discriminate against those who are intent in subverting their culture and political system ? :)

Another.

How did Mohammed and his companions intepret Surah 9:20 ?

YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Hadith Bukhari Volume 4 Book 53, number 386 should help you out there.

I'd be most interested in your response to this. It will answer a fundamental question about 'are immigrants racist'.

Cheers

Boazy: "AMEL just a quickie....what term do you use for those who discriminate against those who are intent in subverting their culture and political system ? :)"

I'll have a go: how about "paranoid bigot"... "fascist"... "totalitarian" etc. Your description fits exactly with e.g. Chinese suppression of Falun Gong, the Soviet suppression of Hungarians etc.

Like most religious extremists, Boazy is a closet fascist, and in that respect is no better than the Taliban.

Our culture and political system tolerate dissent, free expression of ideas and peaceful change from within. It's called democracy.

"Ever looked for a dentist in the bush?
Ever looked for a doctor in the bush ?
Ever looked for cheap healthy food in the bush? " Kartiya Jim, I hear you! Where I live now, all are reasonably easy to come by, but it hasnt always been so. The more remote you get, the worse it gets.

Whilst we cant provide city infrastructure to every person in this country, we should be able to provide reasonable access. Fly in visits from health professionals is a must for communities (again, black or white). Food is a harder one, but the more remote areas should be encouraged to have communal gardens, with necessary training provided.

But aside from this, what was the life expectancy of an aboriginie in 1788? Have we gone forwards or backwards? Whilst I will not deny that most blacks live under worse standards than most whites, they still have better shelter, clothing etc than 200 years ago.Does this make things right -nope. My point is simply that there seems to be some small improvement.

I do actually understand the connection to the land and the need to recognise that connection - the feeling of belonging. I am from an old farming family (have owned the land for well over 100 years). My husbands family owned their land for 1 year less than mine (although completely different area). I have my own strong sense of belonging - whilst neither myself nor my siblings will ever return to farming ourselves, we have all agreed never to sell. It is US. It is what makes me who I am. My husbands family has lost their land, and I see the ongoing grief that the younger generation suffers as a result. They cannot let go. So, you might find, particularly amongst the 4th, 5th and 6th generation farmers, an understanding, at least at a deep level, of the idea of connection to the land.

R0bert, there are also temporary residents compared to permanent residents. Temp residents have to pay for their kids to go to a public school (around $10k/pa in NSW). Permanent residents do not. There are a number of other things, but this one springs to mind. A client of mine had huge financial difficulties in moving to Australia on a skills visa (with the intention of staying permanently). He had to leave everything he owned in his home country (due to their laws) and then had to fork out $20k/pa for his kids to go to the local small town public school, on top of building some cash reserves, learning the tax system (never underestimate how hard our tax system is until you try to explain it to someone who doesnt speak engish well!), buy a house etc. I'd have suggested using the local catholic school as it would have been cheaper, but wasnt really appropriate given he was muslim (a good muslim though - he has given me and my staff a christmas cake every year since he moved to the town!!). Heck, re-reading this before posting, I am not as redneck as some other posters would have you believe.

Country Gal,
Australian Explorers generally found in reasonably watered areas, mostly well proportioned ,strong and healthy people.There were some very old people amongst them-their elders .
Phillip and those that arrived on Invasion Day were in much poorer health.
Aboriginal life spans were quickly cut short by the musket ball and many diseases; then came the bullet and the flour full of plaster of Paris and that great old sheepman's stand-by arsenic etc.
Judging by the deaths of young children in my own white family in the 1800's life for many Australian's was tough in the early days.
One example of white racist thinking [I will call it Racism with a little genocidal tinge to it] occurred in the late 1800's in WA . A fund was started by the WA Government taking a small levy from all land sold to aid the missions and Aboriginals' health and welfare as they were under severe pressure from diseases and settlers' expansion carried out with ruthless effeciency.
After a short period the fund had accumulated a large amount of money.However the fund was short lived and unpopular as the pastoralists and settlers complained and as they had the "whip hand", the government closed it down .
Nothing much has changed for our Indigenous brothers and sisters and our Governments' attitudes .
Were Australia's last big wave of immigrants Racist ? If our Democratic majority vote Government is the yardstick ,we sure are!

Jim

Were Australia's last big wave of immigrants Racist? Yes we WERE (past tense).

I am horrified when I see what we have done to the Aborigines. My late grandfather (who was born in the 1890's) once told me he didn't think there was a black person on earth who had the mental age of any more than a ten year old child. That is the sort of thinking we have had to overcome.

However, I believe we are making headway. If you're Aboriginal you can receive assistance with housing, education, legal aid and so-on. That same assistance is not available to non aboriginals.

With all this assistance why don't we see more Aboriginal people rising up. I am aware of instances where Aboriginal people have been given housing only to see that housing neglected.

We have tried to assist Aboriginal people with money when that is not what they need. The greatest injustice was to take away the dignity and self respect of the Aboriginal people. They have 200 years of being told they are no better than a ten year old. An Aboriginal man told a friend of mine they they are ashamed that white men raped Aboriginal womenit because they see it as a reflection of their failure to protect their women.

When you have been stripped of your self worth and confidence in your ability to be what ever you want to be then of course you are going to have problems and money wont fix that

I believe we will only see a change in the plight of the Aboriginal people when we as a race take responsibility for our PAST actions and apologise for stealing their children, dignity, self worth and purity.

As a white man I am ashamed of what has happened in the past. I am ashamed of my Grandfathers attitude but most of all I am ashamed that my people were responsible for breaking the will and destroying the heart of an entire race. I only hope and pray that we can restore the dignity and soul of the Aboriginal people.

Proverbs, you are right in saying that no amount of money can fix a problem that money is not the cause of. This is where education comes in, and not just education of the classic sense. My late grandfather (born in the 1880's) had a slightly different attitude - more paternalistic. In the early days, he employed aboriginal stockmen (as well as white stockmen). The aboriginies in those days were normally not paid a wage, they were given premises to live in, food, clothing and anything else they needed. It was considered that they were not advanced enough to handle money. In a way, they werent - but not from a mental poitn of view, but a cultural one. It has been discussed elsewhere that white culture and all the things that go with it are learnt from our parents. These generations of aborigines, didnt have anyone to learn money handling from. I am not denying for a moment that there are not some white farmers (and perhaps many) that abused this. My grandfathers take on it was that if you treated your black workers badly or didnt give them their due, they simply went walkabout, and you were left high and dry. If you were in a more remote area, as he was, where labour was hard to come by, it then made sense to look after your workers properly.

Proverbs I'd love to get your email but I can understand if you wouldn't want to publish it here.

Mjpb
Go to www.renapur.com.au

Proverbs, Too true.

My guess it will take a long time to heal all those broken hearts.
I bet the Federal Government would not be game to calculate the real cost of repairing those broken spirits.
Unresolved War and Dispossesion Trauma in Aboriginal People should be a University Psychology Course ,compulsory for politicians and particularly for Prime Ministers and Premiers .

That's right Jim.

I also think that the current system is not helpfull. Remember when we refered to welfare paymenst as uneployment "benefit" or Family "benefit". It was seen as financial asistance that the government were not obligated to provide but choose to provide. Now we see welfare payments as a right, not a privelage.

Untill we break that mentality, so many people (black and White) in our society are not going to be motivated to do any more with their life.

While we have a lot to be ashamed of in our past I do think previous generations had a much better work ethic and also saw it as their personal responcibility to do something with their life.

We will go a long way if everyone in this country took the attitude that no one owes us anything. Sure an apology would be nice but there is no point loosing sleep if we don't get one. We need to learn to forgive and move on.

Psycologists and Psyciatrists will tell you that a lot of sickness, anxiety depressions and so many other things comes when we are unable to forgive and hold bitterness. They don't say anything about problems that come from not saying sorry.

The only person who suffers is the one who can't forgive. Don't waste your time waiting for the Prime Minister to say sorry. It may never happen so just move on

Proverbs, ok I'll move on (and have) but can you? Nothing in your post is original thought, just lazy lendings from here and there.

Let me just say that I totally believe we cannot fully move forward untill the government takes responcibility for the actions of previous governments and makes an official appology for not only the stolen generation but for countless other atrocities commited by whites.

I know my thoughts aren't original but they need to be repeated because, unlike you and I, there are many Australian who are going to die in their self pity without ever realising their full potential because they refuse to move on untill they receive their apology.