Joe (Loudmouth),

There is a lot taught as fact in schools and implied as truth by the taxpayer-funded national broadcaster that not only has no evidence to support it but stretches the credulity of any but the naive elitist metropolitan liberals.

Liberals who presume to always know what is best for others and patronise the hell out of Aborigines, sentencing them to lifelong learned helplessness, dependence and even crime.

I come across many indigenous (some dislike that word) workers in building construction, but none of these effective, occupationally skilled, good family men, all good citizens, ever pull out the cultural card to impress, excuse or wangle some benefit. The conversation on the job is no different to any other men.

That is how it should be.

My present home was built by an aboriginal carpenter. Ask him and he is: a husband and family man first; second, he is a proud carpenter who wants to try some small development; and third, he is a passionate supporter of the Brisbane Lions. He was not impressed at all by that first grade footballer who confronted and hugely embarrassed a girl. Men protect kids he says and means it.

Prejudiced thought always involves the use of a
stereotype - a rigid mental image that summarizes
whatever is believed to be typical about a
group. (the word originally referred to a printing
plate, used for stamping the identical image over
and over).

Like ethnocentrism, stereotyped thinking is an almost
unavoidable feature of social life.
People tend to think in terms of general
categories, if only to enable them to make sense
of the world by simplifying its complexity.

We all probably have our own stereotypes, for example,
of what an Australian Aborigine, or an American Indian
is like.

The essence of prejudiced thinking, however, is that the
stereotype is not checked against reality. it is not
modified by experiences that contradict the rigid image -
especially when describing the Indigenous who live in
small rural communities and their problems.

So if a prejudiced person finds that an individual member
of a group does not conform to the stereotype for the
group as a whole, this evidence is simply taken as
"the exception that provesd the rule," and not as grounds
for questioning the original belief.

Or as in the case of Adam
Goodes - who's described by some -
as "arrogant" or even a thug, trouble-maker or
uppity black man. How dare he confront us with our prejudices -
and say - "Enough is enough!" He needs to -
play the game
according to "our" rules. As those uncomfortable with
multiculturalism will continue to remind us - "The heritage
of every Australian is to be exactly the same."
Heaven help you if you don't toe the line!

In any case -folks, Australians are decent people with the
right instincts and they wish everybody well: but if all
is not well, it is none of their business and they will
not lose too much sleep over it.

Booze and drugs, are the bane of our society ! Both, manifestly contribute to many good people becoming intractably bad ! In the hands of our aboriginals, the effects are even worse ?

The answer; before society can do anything constructive, we must catch and heavily punish ALL and EVERYONE engaged in the illegal or irresponsible supply of alcohol.

And when it comes to illegal drugs - for the first offence of trafficking, introduce a mandatory minimum of 3 years imprisonment. Second offence, mandatory minimum, 10 years. Third offence, mandatory minimum of 30 years. After which, if the offender having just completed his 30 years gaol, wishes to pursue a further career of drug trafficking - well... jolly good luck to him !

Of course, all this is just a mere pipe dream ? Unless or until our tedious judiciary decide to dispense justice, of a type that meets with both the community's and the police's expectations, all this ludicrous 'rambling' above, is just that, 'rambling' !

A case of...the coppers catch them - and the judiciary promptly cut them loose ! What a deplorable waste of time !

Dear Foxy,

The saying, "the exception that proves the rule," has an interesting history. Of course a rule applies to all circumstances. If there is an exception the rule is not valid. At the time that saying originated the main meaning of the word, prove, was test. The exception tests the rule, and, if there is an exception, the rule does not pass the test.

All an exception proves is the lack of validity of a rule.

'Booze and drugs, are the bane of our society !' Strangely enough O Sung Wu this was what many of the early missionaries warned against when floodgates were being made to aboriginal communities now run by 'enlightened' Government paid workers. They (the missionaries) were mocked and ridiculed. The revisionist of history do us no favours. Loudmouth is a breath of fresh air and obviously is interested in fact over fable unlike many of the academics wo push the rabbit proof fence fantasy along with many others.

Dear David F.,

I was refering to people speaking in generalisations
and stereotypes and retorting with the platitude that
this is just the "exception that proves the rule,"
which is an easy way of brushing aside this inconsistency
instead of questioning the original belief.