Use of the word 'racism' (1 Viewer)

[MoonlightSonata]

Re: the word 'racism'

Says who? The people who discriminated against asians on the gold fields? The farmers who shot aboriginals? Those people who implemented the white Australia policy?

I think that you're in denial (like many people) - Australia is quite the opposite of a land of tolerance.

Freedom yes; freedom which has come about only due to intolerance.

Do you want Australia to be a land of tolerance?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Re: the word 'racism'

Tolerance should have its bounds like all things.

Well, certainly. Freedom of religion is fine so long as one's religion doesn't preach killing people.

 

[Comrade nathan]

Firstly, realise that there is NO Aboriginal Nation. They are not a nation. When we arrived here, they were a group of early neolithic people. They had and still have no independent nation.

They are a Nation. They are a group of people sharing a common ethnicity, and before the British came they were dependant on no one. Today they are a group of people sharing similar treatment and as a nation the majoirty of them are excluding from society as a group of people.

Independence and neolithic* (which by the way is totally wrong) has nothing to do if people are a nation. That would mean there are no nations in the old Colonial world, that since their independence was taken from them they were not able to fight for it back. You could also state they were not a nation due to their technology and living when Europeans colonised. This was shown not to be true during post WW2 when begin an era of independence from colonailism.

*Archæol. & Geol.) Of or pertaining to, or designating, an era characterized by late remains in stone; the late stone age. Estimated as beginning around 9000 b. c. in the Middle East, this period is characterized by the beginnings of farming, the domestication of animals, and the manufacture of textiles and pottery.

What you fail to understand that part of TRADITIONAL Aboriginal beliefs is that there is no sharing of land. 'But they're not the traditional people!!!' Exactly. And that's why they have to act like the colonial bastards that now run this place.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but if you mean they do not live their traditional way they lose all claims to some form of self determination, then you are wrong. It does not change their position in society that they face now, it does not change they way as a group of people they are treated today.

I suppose that I'm just going to be called a racist -- as if I write off an entire group of people. I'll remind you that I think the biggest problem is the current government's complacency with just giving the 'Aboriginal Nation' what they want when they want. What they need to do is provide assistance to Aborigines when they work. None of this centrelink 'we'll give you a dollar for ever dog, and two for every child you have' bullshit.

Also none of this PC bullshit which you're coming out with. Seriously. Nation? What the fuck? They were NEVER a nation. They had NO sense of agency any more than my pet cat does. I'm not being a racist, it's just their luck that it's the way they progressed.

You have a colonialist mentality and a petty bourgeoisie mentality. We can't expect much from middle class White people, they biggest thing they face as a group of people is getting over the fact that British Imperialism is a explioting thing.

But what makes you think i support many of the government programs? Do you really find my line to be the same line as the government? Im proposing Nationa Liberation, the are proposing bureaucracy.

And i am not being "PC". Being "PC" comes from White bourgeoisie mentality who actually don't want to see self determination for 1st Nations People. They pefer to through money at the problem and work deals behind peoples backs. My line is more close to Black Panther ideology that realises the existance of nations among nations and their expliotation. So don't group my in with soft hearted liberals.

 

[Serius]

Re: the word 'racism'

You give your (or your parents) house and land back to the aboriginals, and then i'll believe what you're saying. You're just as bad as those "uncivilised barbarians" by staying here in Australia and using its resources.

Perhaps you should review your opinion on this matter, and try and see where my point of view is and where it is coming from

i pose this question: how can one giveback something to themselves?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Re: the word 'racism'

Compensation for what? Both parties to the case are absent by way of death in this instant, I didn't steal anything of any aboriginal.

Thats like saying that i should be put into gaol for my grandfather killing your grandfather.

The parties are not you and a group of indigenous people though. The parties are the government and the indigenous people. It is true that the government will be paying compensation from taxes. But again the government is an entity that has existed over time - it has the same rights and responsibilities even if the constituents change.

Suppose that the Federal government entered into a contract with you to sell you some goods. Then there was an election and a new, Labor government came to power. That government would still have obligations to you under the contract. This is so, despite the fact that the members have changed. The government is a separate legal entity and it continues over time.

 

[Comrade nathan]

And there was no aboriginal nation; there were hundreds of nomadic tribes with their own languages, each of whom were as foreign to each other as europeans were to chinese.

Semi nomadic. They were nomadic within set out borders and had rules and penalties for crossing borders. Each group had similiar language to the group next to them. They trading with each other, some trade routes went across the country. So they could cross each others borders within rules that had been stated between the two groups.

Just letting you know how it was before you would like to make more claims.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Re: the word 'racism'

The tolerance, freedom and human rights which people like you value so dearly is in danger of being undermined by Islam. There is no greater threat to it.

People like the greens follow a paradox and they dont even realise it. They want the right of muslims to be here, and they want people to be able to have what ever sexuality they want. Islam over-rides this right (and many others). It's almost like suicide.

Well, the debate about Islam is a separate debate. But I do have some concerns about it because it seems to have produced so many extremist followers in recent times. The groundwork or theory of the religion may be peaceful but you only have to look at some of the followers to realise that, like all religions, if it is interpreted and applied in certain ways then it can be very dangerous indeed.

That's not to say that most of all followers of Islam are extremists of course. In comparison it is a small percentage. But because it is such a large religion, that percentage - however small it may be in relative terms to the rest of the followers - is a significant and dangerous one.

 

[Serius]

Re: the word 'racism'

You're an aboriginal? rofl.


When they make up the majority of the population they severly restrict freedoms of course.

yeah very funny, i dont really know what you find amusing but whatever

and Jack, iam not amused

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Re: the word 'racism'

And there was no aboriginal nation; there were hundreds of nomadic tribes with their own languages, each of whom were as foreign to each other as europeans were to chinese.

Wow, sounds to me much like Australia...
We have states, local government.....different rules, but all united by common agreements. The only difference I guess is there was no federal structure, however I hardly see how this means they were not a nation, or at least a grouping of small nations :/

 

[xeuyrawp]

Re: the word 'racism'

Wow, sounds to me much like Australia...
We have states, local government.....different rules, but all united by common agreements. The only difference I guess is there was no federal structure, however I hardly see how this means they were not a nation, or at least a grouping of small nations :/

Let's see. If you ask most Australian citizens 'In which nation do you not only reside, but belong', I'm sure they'd say 'Australia'.

At the very most, you could claim that there were Aboriginal nations. Then again, the evidence to support sedentary occupation by Aborigines has been hotly disputed (and generally regarded as an attempt to forward Aboriginal rights). I'm not sure about everyone else, but I don't think you can be part of any nation unless you participate within it.

Say if I kept my South African passport but moved here right after birth. I was born in South Africa, why can't I be south african? Because I don't have any sort of link with the geography or the culture.

Then again, I'm saying that I wouldn't be south african, and that is a clear identity. What is the 'Aboringal Nation'? I say that it doesn't exist because the only link between the various Aboriginal groups was ETHNICITY. Nothing more. There has been linguistic studies showing that many Aboriginal languages weren't even comparable (not to mention the ones that didn't have a language...). Language, as most historians know, is the first step towards a unified group of people. Without a unified group of people, you don't have a nation.

'Palestine simply exists because people want it to exist; regardless of borders.' That kind of hippy crap is so superficial and naive, and goes so well with 'A church is not a building, but a group of people'.

It's historically impossible to have such a diverse group of people at such an early age, yet call them part of the same nation. Someone give me one other example where 1000s of incommunicable, segmented, warring, and pre-agrarian cultures identified with each other. Not to mention the fact that Australia is a group of Islands -- where was 'Australia' for them? What about the northern New Guinea islanders, of which some were CLOSER in similarity than other fellow 'Aboriginal Nationals'? Well, I guess NG was ALSO part of the Aboriginal Nation, then?

Oh wait. There were calcolithic people ALL OVER AFRICA which were COMPARABLE to the Aboriginal people of Australia. I bet I could find a group of calco Africans that were more similar to Aboriginal group X than Aboriginal group X was to Aboriginal group Y.

So lets see.

They didn't have any sense of land ownership other than their current, present location (ie, they didn't need to farm). They didn't have any similarities. Their 'nation' was borderless. Yet they still seemed to form a nation. Not only that, they had no sense of non-Aboriginal. How can you form a nation unless you can say 'nope, he's not part of it.'

That's a pretty good effort of defining 'nation', if you ask me... Pre-Unification Egyptians had more sense of the Egyptian nation than these people did.

And that guy above, please don't patronise me with ideas about prehistoric history and archaeology, it's what I study.

Also, can some people here please fucking learn how to read and write, and learn the difference between 'Aboriginal' and 'Aborigine', please?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Re: the word 'racism'

Let's see. If you ask most Australian citizens 'In which nation do you not only reside, but belong', I'm sure they'd say 'Australia'.

I'm sure if you asked these aboriginies which tribe they belonged to, where their lands are... they would have an answer too :/

Then again, I'm saying that I wouldn't be south african, and that is a clear identity. What is the 'Aboringal Nation'? I say that it doesn't exist because the only link between the various Aboriginal groups was ETHNICITY. Nothing more. There has been linguistic studies showing that many Aboriginal languages weren't even comparable (not to mention the ones that didn't have a language...). Language, as most historians know, is the first step towards a unified group of people. Without a unified group of people, you don't have a nation.

There is no such thing as an aboriginal nation, however as you admitted before...

At the very most, you could claim that there were Aboriginal nations.

'Palestine simply exists because people want it to exist; regardless of borders.' That kind of hippy crap is so superficial and naive, and goes so well with 'A church is not a building, but a group of people'.

I dunno what this person was talking about, however I think when it comes down to it 'might is right'. Aboriginies historically etc have a very good claim to their land, as do palestinians and the jews... however it is the person with the most power whom has the rights - The arabs didn't want to accept isreal as a nation, so they attempted to drive them into the sea... they could not, isreal had the power (diplomatic/military/etc) to stop them - and that is why they have the right to the land

Oh wait. There were calcolithic people ALL OVER AFRICA which were COMPARABLE to the Aboriginal people of Australia. I bet I could find a group of calco Africans that were more similar to Aboriginal group X than Aboriginal group X was to Aboriginal group Y.

Yea I agree, claiming that the aboriginal people had a 'nation' is quite a stretch of the word. But at the same time I find it hard to not accept that they had a good claim to the land - However see my above post... might is right, there is nothing else.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practices, by Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn.

On page 178-179;

...[with] significant anthropological comparitive studies showing that in stages I-III*, identity with a greater social structure only occurs as far as this structure is built by the agent

* From the stages of hunter-gatherer societies up to and including chiefdoms.

ie; an agent does not feel part of of any society that he has not participated in. It is likened to a family to which an agent does not belong.
pp.125-126;

It is also shown that basic governmental structures and societies are only effected when the society exits the first stages of experimental agrarianism... Until this point, classical stage I leadership of elders and shamans exists... Self-awareness is limited to the simple and infrequent pan-tribal encounters ... [with] cultural diversity only being recognised as a part of trade.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Re: the word 'racism'

I'm sure if you asked these aboriginies which tribe they belonged to, where their lands are... they would have an answer too :/

Yes, and their answer would be 'I come from tribe/family x'.

There is no such thing as an aboriginal nation, however as you admitted before...

That's my point. I couldn't even say I'm part of the south african nation; which is easily identifiable and distinct. How could you say you're part of a nation that has so many different definitions; with the only real one being ethnicity?

But at the same time I find it hard to not accept that they had a good claim to the land - However see my above post... might is right, there is nothing else.

But the issue is that if we want to accept any part of their beliefs, we have to accept it in TOTALITY. And since they moved around, this entire island is theirs. Realisitcally, a native person could be sitting right where you are.

That's the issue. By saying 'you can share our land', we're saying 'you can have our scraps'. By saying 'you can share', we are sharing only by our standards. Because the land to them was far different than it is to us.

 

[krabby_me]

Re: the word 'racism'

The so called racism in Cronulla was NOT racism. It was standing up the rights of all Australians. For to long lebanese and other people have come to Australia and tried to force their vales upon us. We as Australians have been Australian and layed back for too long. We stood up against the people trying to take over the country our fathers and grandfathers fought for for so long.

People bringing the ideas of gangs to Australia should be attacked. People who try to bring a new culture to Australia should be attacked. People who annoy children should be attacked.
DONT come to Australia unless you are prepared to adopt our values, our culture and our way of life. Your culture has wrecked your home country, we dont want it to wreck the best country in the world.
It is a lot like a bully trying to make someone unhappy just like them. PLEASE stop trying to change australia.
All Australians want is for you to have BBQ's, for you dress Australian, for you to adopt an australian attitude.

I and many other people are not racist, we are just trying to prevent a takeover.

Sydney has already been transformed into China, both structurally and culturally. We dont want the rest of Australia to go the same way.

 

[StGeorgeDragons]

Re: the word 'racism'

The so called racism in Cronulla was NOT racism. It was standing up the rights of all Australians. For to long lebanese and other people have come to Australia and tried to force their vales upon us. We as Australians have been Australian and layed back for too long. We stood up against the people trying to take over the country our fathers and grandfathers fought for for so long.

People bringing the ideas of gangs to Australia should be attacked. People who try to bring a new culture to Australia should be attacked. People who annoy children should be attacked.
DONT come to Australia unless you are prepared to adopt our values, our culture and our way of life. Your culture has wrecked your home country, we dont want it to wreck the best country in the world.
It is a lot like a bully trying to make someone unhappy just like them. PLEASE stop trying to change australia.
All Australians want is for you to have BBQ's, for you dress Australian, for you to adopt an australian attitude.

I and many other people are not racist, we are just trying to prevent a takeover.

Sydney has already been transformed into China, both structurally and culturally. We dont want the rest of Australia to go the same way.

U NO GOOOD!! U BAD!!

 

[leetom]

Re: the word 'racism'

The so called racism in Cronulla was NOT racism. It was standing up the rights of all Australians. For to long lebanese and other people have come to Australia and tried to force their vales upon us. We as Australians have been Australian and layed back for too long. We stood up against the people trying to take over the country our fathers and grandfathers fought for for so long.

People bringing the ideas of gangs to Australia should be attacked. People who try to bring a new culture to Australia should be attacked. People who annoy children should be attacked.
DONT come to Australia unless you are prepared to adopt our values, our culture and our way of life. Your culture has wrecked your home country, we dont want it to wreck the best country in the world.
It is a lot like a bully trying to make someone unhappy just like them. PLEASE stop trying to change australia.
All Australians want is for you to have BBQ's, for you dress Australian, for you to adopt an australian attitude.

I and many other people are not racist, we are just trying to prevent a takeover.

Sydney has already been transformed into China, both structurally and culturally. We dont want the rest of Australia to go the same way.

What right do you have as an Anglo-Australian to force your culture on Australians of differing ethnicities?

 

[xeuyrawp]

Re: the word 'racism'

What right do you have as an Anglo-Australian to force your culture on Australians of differing ethnicities?

Hyperthetically, what if it was in another's culture to do things that are illegal in Australia? Do we have a right, then?

The law, really, is part of our culture. Or maybe our culture is part of the law... But in any case, what if, hyperthetically, a another's culture included doing socially perverted things?

Let's look at both situations: Middle Eastern culture brings with it not only illegal social beliefs, but socially perverted beliefs. Yes, 'socially perverted' from my perspective, yes, 'illegal' from my perspective, but my perspective is that of the people that have to live in this country.

Essentially, we have every right to force our culture (and our law) onto people migrating here.

 

[erawamai]

Re: the word 'racism'

Essentially, we have every right to force our culture (and our law) onto people migrating here.

1. 'Our Culture' is hardy homogeneous as are the cultures of the world. The culture and 'way of life' that I live is most probably quite different to the culture which you live by. My interpretation of Australian culture is probably different to yours.

2. The notion of forcing our 'culture' onto the people who come here is a bit heavy handed. In any case our interpretation of Australian culture is rather vaguely based on notions on mateship and being generally good. Unless you are talking about stereotyped Steve Irwin type Australia culture (Has anyone seen the new immigration video they show on international flights to Australia featuring Mr Irwin? :\ )

3. Australia is a sovereign nation is entitled to force the the law onto everyone. However to 'force' the law isn't really a good way to describe it. The law isnt really forced onto anyone. It simply applies to all people within our borders. I think it's a a bit of a leap to say that because we are allowed to apply our laws to newly arrived immigrants that we are entitled to force our personal, and different, conceptions of Australian culture onto those people.

4. Not every aspect of 'Australian culture' is perfect and, just perhaps, it is good that certain aspects of other cultures exist in Australia. to suggest otherwise is to infer than culture does not improve by comparison and examination of other culture practices.

As for the question of forcing our culture onto people when they come to Australia. Forcing people to adopt a culture will not result in people actually liking the culture which they are being forced to adopt. It would be better to say that new immigrants from different cultures should be encouraged to adopt a baseline culture. Essentially the baseline culture of Australia is to find a job, work and not break the law.

But you have to be realistic. A person who has come to Australia after living in a country that has a totally different culture is not going to adjust easily or overnight. It would be reasonable to say that a person who is grown up and lived in a certain culture will always identify and possibly miss the culture in which they were brought up no matter how long they live in their adopted nation. It would be hard for me, having grown up in Sydney and having been born here, to turely love and adopt the new culture. Some people adopt and love the new culture faster than others but one thing is for certain is that that person will always identify with their original culture. The difference is with the culture of the children of these people. It is very likely that the children of these people will feel for the culture of their birthplace more so than the culture of the place of their parents birthplace. This may be because of the language barrier or simply because they did not grow up in the culture in which their parents were raised.

There is a slight problem with the children of some islamic immigrants who have not adopted a baseline culture of their country of brith but rather the culture of their parents.

 

[xeuyrawp]

You're correct in saying that our culture is difficult to define. Yet the obviousness of Middle Eastern ways (treating women like shit, etc) being different from our own shows that it is possible to identify something as 'un-Australian', regardless what 'Australian' is.

We are and always will be multicultural, but I think the purpose of multiculturalism is to bring all the good together. Yes, that means destroying some of the bad.

 

[StGeorgeDragons]

Re: the word 'racism'

Let's look at both situations: Middle Eastern culture brings with it not only illegal social beliefs, but socially perverted beliefs. Yes, 'socially perverted' from my perspective, yes, 'illegal' from my perspective, but my perspective is that of the people that have to live in this country.

Essentially, we have every right to force our culture (and our law) onto people migrating here.

so ur saying muslim immigrants from lebanon bring their illegal social perverted beliefs and its displayed in the behaviour of the children, are we talking about terrorism here or what?? But they havnt even attacked australia yet so how can that be? Its not rape is it? U cant seriously believe rape is part of Lebanese culture?