I believe that rascism is encouraged by people that don't take the time out to understand where they are coming from, what their needs are and of course, refuse to change themselves to accept something, or someone, different.

We all have different sub cultures and sub sub cultures even anglo saxons can't stop bickering between themselves. I don't believe we should confuse a culture with religion because a culture will generally have many religions and/or many different ways it practices that religion. Yes, the culture's may have been influenced by a religion but also by many different variations of that religion. It is also possible  that the religion may have been influenced by the culture. Keeping in mind that the culture may have been influenced over time by many different religions.

I would like you to ad to this list on the causes that you believe creates rascism


Causes of Rascism:

• Gossipers.
  

• We all need someone or something to take our frustrations out on.
  

• Media/Propaganda
  

:)

• fear
• ignorance
  

that about covers them Id say :-/

I think Freediver summed it up in 2 words but let's probe deeper.

What causes Fear and Ignorance?

• Vanity
  

• Alcohol
  

• Drugs
  

• Education
  

. Aussie Nationalist ;D

Ignorance causes fear. We fear what we don't understand. Lack of knowledge causes ignorance. The solution to the world's social problems is knowledge and communication. The more you talk to people and understand them, the less inclined you are to fear them and attack them by various means. All successful resolutions of seemingly intractible social problems that threatened to destroy societies involved opening up channels of communication.

I agree.

Everyone here sounds like Yoda.  ::)

freediver wrote on Mar 7^th, 2007 at 5:44pm:

Ignorance causes fear. We fear what we don't understand. Lack of knowledge causes ignorance.

Having knowledge can also cause ignorance because it may be the wrong knowledge (conditioning).

The right knowledge doesn't mean that it is the true knowledge. For example the Japanese were never taught the truth about world war 2 up until a few years ago.


freediver wrote on Mar 7^th, 2007 at 5:44pm:

The more you talk to people and understand them, the less inclined you are to fear them and attack them by various means.

The more you talk to people and understand them does not mean that you agree with their beliefs. When you understand people it allows you to attack them in more suttle ways or smarter ways like;

---

You don't have to agree with them, you just have to stop fearing them.

Being knowledgeable about something that is irrelevant does not mean you aren't ignorant.

Freediver
Quote:

You don't have to agree with them, you just have to stop fearing them.

Do you mean that everytime I get on a plane don't think about it blowing up?


Freediver
Quote:

Being knowledgeable about something that is irrelevant does not mean you aren't ignorant.

Please explain
:)

Enviro gave the example of Japanese students not being taught about WWII. You could make a similar argument about Australian students not being taught about historical treatment of the Aborigines. They are taught something else instead, and they know something, but where it counts they are ignorant.

I don't believe that it's necessarily fear and or ignorance of the other party, rather a lack of understanding of self and their own identity. Think about racism or any form of associative discrimination whereby it is not he individual and his actions that are judged, but rather his associations be it ethnic, cultural, football team preference etc and you have the most basic form of self identity through segregation. There is no need to justify one's own position or creed, just as long as it's not 'them'.

What causes racism in people?  :-?

Could it be that culture incompatibility causes racism?

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Mar 10^th, 2007 at 10:09pm:

What causes racism in people?  :-? Could it be that culture incompatibility causes racism?

Definitely a strong factor.

Quote:

Definitely a strong factor.

Indeed. So why is everyone putting it merely down to 'ignorance,' 'fear' and dare I say it... Drugs??? WTF??? :o

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Mar 11^th, 2007 at 2:04am:

Quote: Definitely a strong factor. Indeed. So why is everyone putting it merely down to 'ignorance,' 'fear' and dare I say it... Drugs??? WTF??? :o

Because that is the PC way of dealing with it.

Were the British afraid or ignorant of the various people they have brought under their Imperial yolk back when the British Empire was around e.g India, Africa, China etc? Watch the movies and they'd argue that they were, but seriously, it was all about power and money through exploitation of cheap labour and someone else's natural resources. Saying that the natives of the subjugated lands are savages and are subhuman is merely a convenient way of not only justifying it, but to further prove to themselves how great they are. Nothing to do with fear and ignorant in that regard.

Quote:

Because that is the PC way of dealing with it. Were the British afraid or ignorant of the various people they have brought under their Imperial yolk back when the British Empire was around e.g India, Africa, China etc? Watch the movies and they'd argue that they were, but seriously, it was all about power and money through exploitation of cheap labour and someone else's natural resources. Saying that the natives of the subjugated lands are savages and are subhuman is merely a convenient way of not only justifying it, but to further prove to themselves how great they are. Nothing to do with fear and ignorant in that regard.

Ah... I guess that's another way of looking at it.  :-?

What about fear of loosing the gravy train and position of surperiority? Once people are born into that and come to think of it as normal, the fear of losing it can be strong. When people throw off their oppressors it can get very ugly very quickly. I suspect that the British realised this after learning it the hard way and eventually took an approach of yielding power slowly rather than trying to hold onto it at all costs.

freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2007 at 5:13pm:

What about fear of loosing the gravy train and position of surperiority? Once people are born into that and come to think of it as normal, the fear of losing it can be strong. When people throw off their oppressors it can get very ugly very quickly. I suspect that the British realised this after learning it the hard way and eventually took an approach of yielding power slowly rather than trying to hold onto it at all costs.

That is more of a fear of loss of a benefit rather than 'oh my god! you can kick my arse!' fear as is usually implied in such illustrations that I've encountered.

It usually comes with a good ass kicking, at no extra cost.

I notice when debate gets a little heated re topics in here on Muslims , Aboriginal People and other foreign groups and people with disabilities, mental or physical, a lot of colourful language is used to describe them . Language not based in commonsense or any understanding at all.

The question is not if its right or wrong but why do we need to feel so pasionate and angry about pple we know little of except from media beat up , hearsay, and general bias and predjudice passed on from our families around the kitchen table growing up as kids.
Why have we not learned to take our veiws and ask ourselves WHY we believe them and if they are actual fact or just popular misconceptions , thats its easier to dismiss pple this way then to actually take the time to get to inform ourselves of facts .


Who and what are we afraid of?

Are we intimidated and threatened by these pple?

If so why?

Is it fear of the unknown and what it my reveal about us.?

I think part of the problem stems from visibility issues. The 'problem people' (drunken aborigines, violent muslims) tend to be far more visible than the majority of the people they are taken to represent. This is why the impression many people have is so different from the reality.

Before anyone gets all technical on us, I think it is reasonable to use the term to apply to unfair discrimination based on religion, as I am not aware of any commonly accepted 'ism' for religionism (religious discrimination? - doesn't exactly roll of the tounge like racism).

I think racism is more to do with criticizing someone for the way they look and their genes rather than the way they act... hence... RACISM.

There is nothing 'racist' about criticizing a culture or religion.

It just so happens that people of different colour worships a different relgion or culture that the host country disagrees with. And impulsive people sometimes label people 'racist' just for speaking out against a culture they disagree with, even if the accusation is incorrect.

DT,

Thanks for your reply..I could get a dictionary meaning and I will, but I always understood racism to mean when one race thinks its race/culture is superior to another.

I think the term rascism encompasess both -white pple feel superior to black and black pple feel superior to white..it works both ways..in the way they see theyre own culture and values as functioning and being better . If a man is black he will be judged and cast into a certain mould because he is black,  if he were white he would also be judged accordingly and for the same raesons, so yes, colour and gentics do play a part in what I perceive top be overall defintion if racism.

My question goes more to why it is we cant see out side of our own value system to believe that its possible that just because a culture and or value system is not neccessarily our own that we cannot comprehend that is still a useful functioing tool for that society..and that because IT IS different that it can compare in functioanality to our own..and be as good and in some cases better.

For instance the way pple veiw Ind society and other races that exist in our multicultural society..

It cannot be said on even this forum alone that veiws of Indigenous pple are generally scathing and that little thought goes into commentary about subjects and veiws relating to them.

correction..

"It cannot not be said on even this forum alone that veiws of Indigenous pple are generally scathing and that little thought goes into commentary about subjects and veiws relating to them. "


Should read 'it can be said...' :-[

Quote:

but I always understood racism to mean when one race thinks its race/culture is superior to another.

If that's the case, I must be a racist and not even know it.  :P

For example, I think European (My culture), is superior to that of an Aboriginal, African or someone from the middle east.
Now even though what I said is undoubtedly true, why do people argue otherwise and blame me for stating the obvious? ::)



Quote:

I think the term rascism encompasess both -white pple feel superior to black and black pple feel superior to white..it works both ways..

I think it should too... unfortunately it doesn't. To me, our society only sees 'white people' to be the racist ones. I don't think this is fair.



Quote:

colour and gentics do play a part in what I perceive top be overall defintion if racism.

Yep. But I think that's the ONLY definition of racism. I've had this discussion on cracker a thousand times with beo. We've been through all the online dictionaries and we've discovered that some dictionaries include the 'culture' argument for racism, but then some don't include it. We eventually found out that the original term 'racism' was coined by communists during the russian revolution to vilify people who discriminated against other 'races' based on their appearance (Yes, the term 'racism' is a rather recent word).
The 'culture' definition was only recently added so that politically correct bigots had the pleasure of labelling more people racists wherever they went.



Quote:

It cannot be said on even this forum alone that veiws of Indigenous pple are generally scathing and that little thought goes into commentary about subjects and veiws relating to them.

I can argue this point, but I'm not going to bother.

To me, our society only sees 'white people' to be the racist ones. I don't think this is fair.  

I don't think so. I think the first people to be charged under racial vilification laws were some aboriginal girls from WA.

Quote:

I think racism is more to do with criticizing someone for the way they look and their genes rather than the way they act... hence... RACISM. There is nothing 'racist' about criticizing a culture or religion.

DT, I disagree. You have to include culture. And culture is shaped by religion, so that should be included too.

Palestinians and Israelis share the same blood lines. They look the same, and have the same genes. Obviously, they are different races.

Polynesians have the same ancestry, yet have different customs. Stand a Hawaiin and Maori next to each other, and you would be struggling to tell them apart.

There is a huge variation in the caucasian race. You would be struggling to differentiate between a southern Italian and Turk. Once again, the difference is cultural.

These examples show that race is defined by culture, not by genetics.

Aushole
Quote:

DT, I disagree.

I agree to disagree.



Quote:

These examples show that race is defined by culture, not by genetics.

Um. No they don't. To be honest with you, nothing you wrote disproves my  argument at all.


Freediver
Quote:

I don't think so. I think the first people to be charged under racial vilification laws were some aboriginal girls from WA.

This is true, but irrelevant. Not many people know this occured except you and I, freediver. -I think it was a rather low profile news-story.

It's a wide public perception that most European people (The so-called oppressors of minorities) in Australia are racist. You'd have to be pretty ignorant of public opinion not to realise this.

This is true, but irrelevant. Not many people know this occured except you and I, freediver.

Wasn't it on the front page of the Australian or something? There is no general assumption in the community that only white people are racist.

It's a wide public perception that most European people (The so-called oppressors of minorities) in Australia are racist.

I think they are very tolerant actually. Maybe you could say that about South Africans, but not Australians. Given that most Australians are of European descent, if they realised they were themselves racist, wouldn't they stop being racist? There is a wide perception that racism still exists, but not that most Europeans are racist.

DT you said:


Quote:

For example, I think European (My culture), is superior to that of an Aboriginal, African or someone from the middle east

Don't you believe this is a result of your upbringing?  I don't remember my parents saying anything specific about people from other nations or aboriginals, but  I was in my teens before I met people of a different colour.  We lived in an insular suburb where most Australians believed that the White Australia policy was a good idea.  

Time and further conditioning has changed my attitude fortunately and the fear has gone, but I vaguely remember feeling the same as you DT.

Do you think more socialising would help you change your mind?

Quote:

I think racism is more to do with criticizing someone for the way they look and their genes rather than the way they act... hence... RACISM.

You are arguing a literal interpretation of a dictionary meaning, and refusing to accept the current legal definition. A legal definition will reflect the values of the society in which you live. If you refuse to accept societies values, and reject the law, you are an anarchist.


Quote:

Um. No they don't. To be honest with you, nothing you wrote disproves my  argument at all.

Really? So if you don't use logic to support an argument, what do you use? You should tell us all, so that we can try to understand the point you are trying to make.

Aushole - its clear from your posts that you are unaware that there is a racial difference between polynesians and melanesians. Racism is about race and nothing else. Full-stop.

I don't think it's possible to define race in a genetic sense in any meaningful way. You can break up the worlds population into races in any number of ways. Once you get past skin colour and physical traits, you really start getting down to history and social/cultural differences.

Quote:

Aushole - its clear from your posts that you are unaware that there is a racial difference between polynesians and melanesians. Racism is about race and nothing else. Full-stop.

Yes I made an error there, Hawaii is part of melanesia.

I think you missed my point. I was arguing against the DT definition of race. Hawaiins and Maori share the same genetics and look similar. But are different races.

I think the problem with this thread is that no-one can agree on a definition of race, so how can you define racism?

I've been around for a while now but I've always understood that the term racism arose out of the South African apartheid system. They didn't accurately define the races, just black white and coloured, but the law was applied differently according to the race of the person as defined - they discriminated. The South African government was accordingly deemed to be  "Racist". Racism is just the noun to be applied to this concept. The concept got extended to apply to individuals who acted towards different races in different ways and therefore discriminated. Nothing at all to do with culture - just race as understood.
A little later the term racist got to be applied to anyone who recognised that racial differences actually existed. At this point it started to become confused and bizarre. Many on the left asserted that there were no racial differences and that anyone who said otherwise was a racist.
But of course there are racial differences. Any young Chinese/Monglian racial type youngster intent on becoming the 100metres world running champion is doomed to fail. West African negroid types will always win at the very highest level. Similarly, at the highest level East Africans will always win the middle distance events. Negroid types have no hope of winning any Olympic swimming gold medals - they have, on average, a lower bouyancy. Real racial differences are responsible for physical capabilities. Similarly intellectual racial differences exist. The mongoloids beat the caucasians who beat the negroids - and the Jews beat the lot. Something like 27% of nobel prize winners in Physics are Jewish. The Ivy League Universities (merit based) are dominated by Jews out of all proportion to the percentage of Jews in the popoulation.

So racial differences exist. Is it racism to assert this? South African law didn't assert superiorty - just discrimination. I believe the term should be reserved to apply to anyone or any organisation which applies discrimination on the basis of race. I never have. And I'm not Jewish.

Thats a very interesting insight. Genetically we are all different but the way we live led by our culture evolves our genes to suit. Negros will one day be able to hold their breath under water and the anglo will beat a negro in a spinting race if our culture dictates so.
:)

*The following quotes are from mantra.


Quote:

Don't you believe this is a result of your upbringing?  I don't remember my parents saying anything specific about people from other nations or aboriginals, but until I was in my teens, I didn't encounter many people of a different colour.  We lived in an insular suburb where most Australians believed that the White Australia policy was a good idea.

Who said anything about 'skin colour,' mantra? You did.

In this quote of mine:

Quote:

For example, I think European (My culture), is superior to that of an Aboriginal, African or someone from the middle east

But I can see where you got confused there, I didn't insert the word 'culture' after I said 'European.' Apologies. It was meant to read "European culture is superior."

You have to admit, race aside, that European culture is superior to that of an Aboriginals culture or that of an African culture. That is FACT.



Quote:

For years I didn't feel comfortable socialising with black people, although I did and pretended that we were all the same, but I felt fear and alienated towards people with a different skin colour and culture.

I don't mind talking with black people, so long as they're educated, well spoken, well-dressed and aren't rude. Unfortunately, this doesn't occur very often. And no, it's not because European culture 'supresses them' it's because they're conditioned to be that way because of their rotten cultures.



Quote:

Do you think more socialising would help you change your mind?

I've had too much socialising mantra, that's my problem.


The following quotes are from Freediver:


Quote:

Wasn't it on the front page of the Australian or something? There is no general assumption in the community that only white people are racist.

Can you honestly say that the average joe blow reads the Australian?  ::)



Quote:

I think they are very tolerant actually. Maybe you could say that about South Africans, but not Australians. Given that most Australians are of European descent, if they realised they were themselves racist, wouldn't they stop being racist? There is a wide perception that racism still exists, but not that most Europeans are racist.

I agree, and hope you're right about people perceiving us that way.


*The following quotes are from Aushole


Quote:

You are arguing a literal interpretation of a dictionary meaning, and refusing to accept the current legal definition. A legal definition will reflect the values of the society in which you live. If you refuse to accept societies values, and reject the law, you are an anarchist.

Well, call me an anarchist then, because I REFUSE to accept that stupid law that changes the definition of a WORD to suit their politically correct agenda. Wanna throw me into jail for that? Go ahead. It'd be a ridiculous thing to do.



Quote:

Really? So if you don't use logic to support an argument, what do you use? You should tell us all, so that we can try to understand the point you are trying to make.

Naturally, I would ask an explanation from you, because my definition is ONLY 'genetics' and your definition is BOTH 'genetics' and 'culture.' You include my definition in your answer, therefore, my position does not need explaining. The difference being that you include another definition in your answer. So it'd be more logical to expect you to answer me. Not vice versa.

But fair enough, I'll try to answer for you. By your definition, Aushole, Speaking out against a culture is racist, correct? Hence, if you criticized a COMPONENT of a culture, such as religion, it would be deemed racist, correct? Therefore, everyone who criticizes Christianity is a racist, correct? Therefore, everyone who criticizes McDonalds, a component of American culture, it would be deemed racist, correct? And if someone criticized Vegimite, it would be deemed racist, correct? And if you criticized belly-dancing, that'd be deemed 'racist,' correct? If you criticize Muslims cruelty to women, that's 'racist,' correct?

The list goes on and on and on and on. According to you, the whole world is 'racist.'  

And if 'criticizing a religion' is racist, wouldn't that make communists and socialists the most racist people on the planet? Even though they preach against 'racism?'

You see what I'm getting at? If you criticize ANYTHING that's slightly cultural, by your definition, it's racist. To me, that's just downright fascism.

Are Christians a 'race?' Are Muslims a 'race?' Are Americans a race? In my opinion, no. I think it's ridiculous to label a culture/nationality a 'race.' This definition oozes fascist elements and prevents people from expressing their opinions.

Sense, I agree with your definition of racism. There is no need to provide physiological evidence of differences between races, that is a given.

Racism has probably existed since mankind split into tribal groupings. They just didn't have a word for it. As I said before, it is not the term (or word) we should be arguing, but the concept.

I do have to question your argument that Nobel prize winners indicate intellectual ability. I would say that it indicates intellectual influence. American universities spend far more on research than any other country, therefore it would be expected that scientists affiliated with those universities have an advantage over those who are less fortunate to partake in research. This attracts academics, therefore improving the exchange of ideas. Perhaps those who practice Judaism are 'trained' by their religion to be more diligent, therefore are able to apply themselves for longer hours in a laboratory.

Russia has produced more chess masters than any other country, and has also produced a disproportionate share of mathematical geniuses. So does that mean Russians are the best in the world at tactics and reasoning? I don't think so.

Quote:

You see what I'm getting at? If you criticize ANYTHING that's slightly cultural, by your definition, it's racist. To me, that's just downright fascism.

My definition of racism? I haven't provided one. I was arguing your point of view on race, not the definition of racism.

There is no law against criticism. Criticise all you like. Play spot the difference between races (however you define them). I see no problem in that. If there were no differences between races, we wouldn't be having this discussion! What is a problem is when an element of superiority is introduced.

In Australia, there are anti-discrimination laws, dealing with, race, religion, political persuasion, disability, etc. So it doesn't really matter whether you call it 'racism' or not, the concept is the overriding factor. If you want my definition of racism, it is the definition as provided by the UN, and which underpins the laws of Australia.

Quote:

You have to admit, race aside, that European culture is superior to that of an Aboriginals culture or that of an African culture. That is FACT.

It depends on how you define superiority.

I would agree that currently, European culture is more economically successful than African culture and Aboriginal culture. That is because the principal of democracy and a free market economy is applied, and these political and economic systems govern the world.

If you were to travel back to the Dark Ages, you would say that Persian and Islamic culture was more successful than European culture, based on trade, political thought and scientific achievement.

The problem we have in the world is that not all cultures are on equal standing. Some emphasise wealth over family, others spirituality over tangible items.

Based on the size of the pleasure centres in the brain, scientists have found that the most satisfied people on earth are buddhist monks (of Tibet, I believe). This is largely because they spend so much time in a higher state of consciousness, via meditation. Does that make them a superior race?

auhole writes "Russia has produced more chess masters than any other country, and has also produced a disproportionate share of mathematical geniuses. "

These were all mostly Jews. Their Russianness is incidental. 54% of chess world champions have been Jews - including the only US champion. Further evidence of a racial difference.

Any young Chinese/Monglian racial type youngster intent on becoming the 100metres world running champion is doomed to fail.

A lot of that is down to recent history. The size of a person is determined by the health and size of their mother as well as by genetics. By starving a person you can turn someone who is genetically very big into a skinny runt. Such a female will have smaller children, partly because her womb is smaller. It can take a few generations for these effects to disappear.

Similarly intellectual racial differences exist. The mongoloids beat the caucasians who beat the negroids - and the Jews beat the lot.

This is definitely down to cultural differences. Asian students work a lot harder than Australian ones. If a society values academic achievment, it will put out good academics. It it values good cricket palyers, it will put out good cricket players.

In addition, any true genetic differences between races are swamped by the variation within a group.

You have to admit, race aside, that European culture is superior to that of an Aboriginals culture or that of an African culture. That is FACT.

No it isn't. It is a value judgement.

By your definition, Aushole, Speaking out against a culture is racist, correct? Hence, if you criticized a COMPONENT of a culture, such as religion, it would be deemed racist, correct?

No, if you discriminated against someone based on religion or culture then it is. For example, if you wanted to ban an item of clothing merely because it was associated with a certain religion or culture, that would be racist.

Quote:

These were all mostly Jews. Their Russianness is incidental. 54% of chess world champions have been Jews - including the only US champion. Further evidence of a racial difference.

Sense, you are brilliant! I am a crap chess player, and agnostic. So if what you are saying is correct, if I convert to Judaism, I will become a better chess player!

Speaking of US champions, Fischer was an anti-Semite and holocaust denier, even though his parents were Jewish. So where does that place your argument?

Aushole - I'm using the term Jew in its racial sense - Ashkenasic Jews to be pricise. Their religion has nothing to do with this discussion - you have obviously understood nothing to be raising the religion aspect. Fischer was an Ashkenasic Jew, the same as Kasparov, Botvinik and many others. So you believe it is purely co-incidence the 54% of chess world champs have been racially Jewish and not all from Russia. And also just a co-incidence that so many Nobel physicists were Askenasic Jews - Einstein, Oppenheimer, Szilard, Teller, Weinburg etc etc and from many different countries and cultures.

You seem to know a lot about jews sense!
Here is another type.

---

Quote:

My definition of racism? I haven't provided one. I was arguing your point of view on race, not the definition of racism.

Well Aushole, a quote of yours tells me otherwise:

Quote:

DT, I disagree. You have to include culture. And culture is shaped by religion, so that should be included too.

To me, this is you re-defining the term 'racism.' You're telling me to INCLUDE culture. Therefore, you explain it to me.



Quote:

There is no law against criticism. Criticise all you like. I see no problem in that.

Well, according to you, culture is part of the definition of being a 'racist,' correct?

So if I criticize Islam, that would be 'racist,' correct?

And there ARE laws that prevent me from criticizing, in your own words:

Quote:

In Australia, there are anti-discrimination laws, dealing with, race, religion, political persuasion, disability, etc.

Therefore, you're giving me information that's incorrect. There ARE laws that prevent me from criticizing a culture.



Quote:

If there were no differences between races, we wouldn't be having this discussion! What is a problem is when an element of superiority is introduced.

So if I state the bleeding obvious, such as 'European culture is superior to that of Aboriginal culture,' then would I be a 'racist?' Therefore, I would be arrested? That's plain stupid. It basically prevents the truth from being told.



Quote:

So it doesn't really matter whether you call it 'racism' or not, the concept is the overriding factor. If you want my definition of racism, it is the definition as provided by the UN, and which underpins the laws of Australia.

What's the definition of the UN? That criticizing both race and culture is 'racism?'



Quote:

I would agree that currently, European culture is more economically successful than African culture and Aboriginal culture. That is because the principal of democracy and a free market economy is applied, and these political and economic systems govern the world.

And these are European cultural traits aren't they? And also the concept of the Westminster system and 'parliament' are cultural traits of European countries as well.



Quote:

If you were to travel back to the Dark Ages, you would say that Persian and Islamic culture was more successful than European culture, based on trade, political thought and scientific achievement.

Too bad it ain't the past then, hey?  ::)



Quote:

The problem we have in the world is that not all cultures are on equal standing. Some emphasise wealth over family, others spirituality over tangible items. Based on the size of the pleasure centres in the brain, scientists have found that the most satisfied people on earth are buddhist monks (of Tibet, I believe). This is largely because they spend so much time in a higher state of consciousness, via meditation. Does that make them a superior race?

Give me a break.  ::)

DT, I think a few people have already explained that criticism of a culture alone does not constitute racism.

Quote:

Quote: DT, I disagree. You have to include culture. And culture is shaped by religion, so that should be included too. To me, this is you re-defining the term 'racism.' You're telling me to INCLUDE culture. Therefore, you explain it to me.

I ask you again, go back and reread my statement. I was arguing against what you said, that race does not include culture and religion. I think your argument has merit, and accept it. So we agree to disagree on that point, that is the definition of RACE.

If we move onto the definition of RACISM, you keep saying that it includes criticism of a race (however race is defined). How do you come by this definition?

The UN uses the following definition of racial discrimination: shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

This definition hinges on the denial of human rights and fundamental freedom. It doesn't say you cannot criticise a race.

And to quote the laws of what you consider to be a superior race (whichever it is in Western Europe) the EU provides an even wider application of discrimination: Article 21 of the charter prohibits discrimination on any ground such as race, color, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, disability, age or sexual orientation and also discrimination on the grounds of nationality.i

Quote:

So you believe it is purely co-incidence the 54% of chess world champs have been racially Jewish and not all from Russia. And also just a co-incidence that so many Nobel physicists were Askenasic Jews - Einstein, Oppenheimer, Szilard, Teller, Weinburg etc etc and from many different countries and cultures.

Sorry, my last post was a wind up in response to all your statistics.  ;)

My understanding of Judaism is that it is more like a race than a religion. Regardless of religious belief, the Jewish 'family' consider anyone born a Jew to remain a Jew. Which is why even if you convert to Judaism, you will never be considered a real Jew by the orthodox followers. Jewishness comes from ancestry (I think it is the mother's side?). So Fischer was an anti-semitic Jew!  :o

As I said before, I don't know if Nobel winners provide a good indication of intelligence. Which is why I threw chess players into the equation. Could it be the statistics reflect a grouping based on academic excellence and/or opportunity?

If we are going to throw around statistics, check out these... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_IQ So it appears that Australia has a higher IQ than Israel. So does the US, UK, NZ and Vietnam. Given that Israel has the largest number of Jews per head of population in the world, shouldn't they have the highest IQ?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Three-charged-over-Vic-race-hate-attack/2007/03/06/1173156497719.html

A Jewish businessman who was punched and abused will continue his struggle for justice despite police charging three men over the race hate attack.

After he was abused and had his religious skullcap taken, the businessmen confronted the busload of rowdy footballers and their driver, an off-duty policemen.

The involvement of the off-duty senior constable prompted Mr Vorchheimer to launch his own civil action in the case, accusing the police of racial and religious discrimination.

On October 14 last year, the textile distributor - dressed in traditional Jewish garb - was walking along a road in suburban Caulfield with his two children when he was abused and attacked.

About 20 football players drove past him in a minibus driven by the off-duty police officer and subjected him to racist abuse.

The men yelled "F... off Jews" and "Go the Nazis", Mr Vorchheimer later told a newspaper.

When Mr Vorchheimer caught up with the bus and demanded his skullcap be returned he was allegedly punched in the face.

Those dear old poms have decided that pom is a derogatory term and should no longer be used in advertising. They have formed a group called British People Against Racial Discrimination and are suing to stop the use of the term in advertising.

smh.com.au/news/National/Pom-more-affectionate-than-hurtful/2006/12/03/1165080800070.html

"From 1860 `jimmygrant', rhyming slang for immigrant, was used contemptuously of new chums from Britain, from the red of the pomegranate, perhaps referring to the ruddy complexion of new arrivals.

"As often happens with rhyming slang, the rhyming element disappeared (as with `Noah' for Noah's ark - shark, `she's apples' for she's apples and spice - nice), and we were left with Pommy then Pom."

What is a "Pom?"  Do I even want to know?  

An English person.

And what are the origins of that?  

Immigrant -> Jimmy Grant -> pomegranate -> Pommy -> Pom -> whinging Pom

uno wrote on Dec 6^th, 2006 at 1:18pm:

And what are the origins of that?

He said it a few posts ago...  8-)


Quote:

"From 1860 `jimmygrant', rhyming slang for immigrant, was used contemptuously of new chums from Britain, from the red of the pomegranate, perhaps referring to the ruddy complexion of new arrivals.

Pomegranates are good, but I prefer apples....Golden apples...of Discord!  

PS:  Apple-shaped marzipan are also not too shabby!   ;)

You know, now that I reread your post, it sounds like you are asking what are the origins of an English person.  

England would be my first guess.   ;D

What about strawberry shaped marzipan dipped in chocolate?  

I KNEW that was you!   ;D  ;D  ;D

I cant help but wonder why, if a group of people say that the word poms offends them, why so many people call them whingers and continue to carry on as though nothing has been said.

Surely we should show respect and consider others feelings and make an effort to stop making fun since we know it offends?

Isn't that what we would expect of them?

I am familiar with the term--"whinging pom."  Basically, an English person who complains endlessly, right?  

So I can't help but notice and appreciate the irony of this situation.

I don't think race has anything to do with this. For the most part it is white Australians of British descent throwing the term around, usually in the grandstand at a cricket match when the poms are complaining about the heat, the flies, the beer being too cold, or something like that.

I heard that Pom originally was short for "Prisoner of the Motherland".

Actually that would insinuate that us Australians whose ancestors came out here as convicts are more likely to be Poms - than the English themselves.

The English do whinge though.

Hi Mantra,

Good to see you here on the other side.

Cheers,

Mac

Thanks mac - nice to see some thinkers here.  Freedriver will have this forum up and away in no time - and give Cracker a run for it's money.

I hope so. If you two know anyone else who you think would be interested, please invite them.

Hi all,

I go by the name of avatar...

On the subject of whinging poms...well yes, but Im sure thats not all of them.

Pom in Aus. and racism. Now that is getting nick picky. I thought most people in oz have English background? Must be the sun.  8-)

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Whinging-Pom-beer-ad-deemed-offensive/2007/01/25/1169594422989.html

Australia's advertising watchdog has struck a blow against the stereotype of the whinging Pom - upholding complaints from irate Englishmen offended by a beer advertisement.

The Advertising Standards Board (ASB) on Thursday said the Tooheys New Super Cold radio advertisement negatively stereotyped and demeaned the British, and found it to be in breach of section 2.1 of the Advertiser Code of Ethics dealing with vilification based on nationality.

The board reviewed the radio advertisement, in which a group of British men sing the tune of Land of Hope and Glory using various synonyms of the word whinge including whine, moan, slag and complain.

The advertisement has now been taken off the air.

"The board also considered the annual Meat and Livestock Australia Day ad presented by personality Sam Kekovich, exhorting people to eat lamb on our national day," Mr Jeanes said.

"Some complainants believed the ad stereotyped and vilified minority groups, including vegetarians," he said.

"But the board decided that the ad was in good humour and did not intend to genuinely vilify or hurt any particular section of the community."

The board also upheld complaints about a television advertisement for Shell V-Power petrol which showed a man base-jumping from a cliff and again from the top of a tall building.

POHM stood for Prisoner Of Her/Her Majesty and really they were the first white Australians so crikey we should be poms,oh no i think i have to cut my throat

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Aussie-Brits-take-Pom-whinge-to-UN/2007/01/27/1169788723227.html

A group of Australian Brits who won an advertising ban on the use of the word Pom now want the United Nations to rule the use of term as racial discrimination.

Its 14 West Australian and 12 Victorian members, who have spent four years campaigning against the word, say they don't want Pom totally banned.

Group spokesman Dave Thomason told News Ltd: "We just object to the fact that the media won't use nicknames for other nationalities - the Italians, the French, the New Zealanders, the Americans - but they use Pom all the time."

He said Pom was used at least five times a week in Australian media reports, whereas the word "wog" was used just once in 12 months.

"How would most Australians feel if they were called prisoners in the paper all the time," Mr Thomason told News Ltd.

He said all racial nicknames should be used or none at all.

"We are in the process of submitting a petition to the UN calling for an investigation of Australia's racial discrimination laws because they are deficient."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/2gb-agrees-to-code-compliance-measures/2007/06/26/1182623902586.html

Sydney radio station 2GB will introduce new training procedures after three of its commentators breached racial vilification provisions of the broadcasting code, the broadcast regulator says.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) said Harbour Broadcasting Pty Ltd, licensee of 2GB, "will introduce a comprehensive training program on vilification intended to ensure its future compliance with the code".

ACMA said in its statement the training program met required compliance measures stemming from three investigations into the broadcaster during the past six months.

The investigations related to comments made by Alan Jones on his breakfast program, Brian Wiltshire on his late evening show and Malcolm T Elliott on his weekend program.

Jones and Wiltshire were found to have broadcast comments likely to vilify people of Middle Eastern descent and encourage violence around the time of the Cronulla race riot and retaliatory attacks in December 2005.

Its called free speech.

Waaaaaaaaacist! Waaaaaaaaaacist!

Ridiculous... absolutely ridiculous.

So you support free speech, except when it comes ot choosing a name for a Mosque?

freediver wrote on Jun 27^th, 2007 at 8:01pm:

So you support free speech, except when it comes ot choosing a name for a Mosque?

I do, but Islam has no place in Australia or the western world.

I heard they called a mosque in syd "Gallapolli."
A place where Aussies got slaughtered .

stuff like this should be in the main newspapers.
Should have a daily "update" on people who threaten our aussie life

freediver wrote on Jun 27^th, 2007 at 8:01pm:

So you support free speech, except when it comes ot choosing a name for a Mosque?

At the same time freediver... if you accuse us of being hypocritical... we can do the same for those who are banning us from criticizing Islam... etc.  

So really, you don't have a point worth considering. Especially when it's just the name of a mosque we're talking about opposed to everyday speech.

There's a difference between criticising Islam and inciting violence.

freediver wrote on Jun 27^th, 2007 at 8:19pm:

There's a difference between criticising Islam and inciting violence.

Ooooo... so dramatic.  ::)

yeah, and muslims incite violence and are intolerant and won't assimilate.
And the pope prays in a mosque and you think it is cool.

I agree with you Freediver - Alan Jones and Brian Wiltshire appear to be openly racist, although Wiltshire only ever comments if the subject is brought up and can nowhere be compared to Jones who responds with gusto every time the word "Muslim" is mentioned.

How Alan Jones has got away with it for so many years is unbelievable.  Yes we do have the right to comment on certain groups of people, but broadcasters  need to choose their words carefully.  Maybe not so much for the general public, but for those with sick intentions who take his word as gospel.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Sugar-Ray-Robinson-suing-John-Laws/2007/07/03/1183351190254.html

Controversial indigenous leader "Sugar" Ray Robinson has succeeded in his bid to pursue defamation action against high profile radio announcer John Laws over comments made 12 years ago.

Mr Robinson, the former deputy chairman of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, alleges Mr Laws defamed him in a string of broadcasts aired on 2UE radio in 1995 and 1996.

In the Supreme Court in Brisbane on Tuesday, Justice Martin Moynihan dismissed an application, lodged by lawyers for Mr Laws, seeking to strike out the long-running case Mr Robinson first brought against the radio host in 1995.

The details of the allegedly defamatory comments were not outlined in the court nor detailed in Justice Moynihan's judgment.

Amazing the double-standards we have in this country.  ::)



Quote:

Street language ruled to be no racial slur By Paige Taylor September 15, 2006 AN Aboriginal girl who kicked a woman and called her a "white slvt" did not engage in racial vilification because the slur was common street language.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20413977-2,00.html

freediver wrote on Jun 27^th, 2007 at 7:43pm:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/2gb-agrees-to-code-compliance-measures/2007/06/26/1182623902586.html Sydney radio station 2GB will introduce new training procedures after three of its commentators breached racial vilification provisions of the broadcasting code, the broadcast regulator says. The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) said Harbour Broadcasting Pty Ltd, licensee of 2GB, "will introduce a comprehensive training program on vilification intended to ensure its future compliance with the code". ACMA said in its statement the training program met required compliance measures stemming from three investigations into the broadcaster during the past six months. The investigations related to comments made by Alan Jones on his breakfast program, Brian Wiltshire on his late evening show and Malcolm T Elliott on his weekend program. Jones and Wiltshire were found to have broadcast comments likely to vilify people of Middle Eastern descent and encourage violence around the time of the Cronulla race riot and retaliatory attacks in December 2005.

I never liked Alan Jones..hes a wan ker.

alan jones is not man enough to be a wan ker

same as john laws. how come they get paid for doing nothing ?? They don't achieve a thing.

Quote:

I never liked Alan Jones..hes a wanker.

He's a poof as well.

I thought that was John Laws?

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2007 at 3:37pm:

I thought that was John Laws?

No, John Laws is straight.  Look it up, Alan Jones is a Homosexual.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22171885-29277,00.html

DiSGRACEFUL, dangerous, gutless and just trouble – a tirade against Islamic identity Keysar Trad by a Sydney broadcaster in December 2005 was "the works", his lawyer says.

Mr Trad, president of the Islamic Friendship Association and former spokesman for controversial Muslim cleric Sheik Taj Aldin Alhilali, is suing 2GB's Jason Morrison and the station's licensee, Harbour Radio, for defamation.

The case relates to a December 19 broadcast about a peace rally held in response to the Cronulla riot, at which Mr Trad spoke.

Commenting on the rally the following morning, Mr Morrison, who was filling in for regular talkback host Ray Hadley, accused Mr Trad of inciting hatred and violence against the station.

In particular, the talkback host took issue with comments Mr Trad made about the "shame" of tabloid journalism, which aimed to whip up fear to boost ratings.

Mr Trad's comments allegedly caused the crowd to boo and jeer a 2GB journalist who was present near the stage, causing the reporter to fear for his safety, Mr Morrison said at the time.

"You are gutless, you are just trouble, mate, and I think a lot of people agree with my view," Mr Morrison said during the broadcast, which was played to the New South Wales Supreme Court today.

Mr Morrison lambasted Mr Trad numerous times throughout the 24-minute segment, labelling him a "disgraceful" and "dangerous" individual who incited violence, hatred and racism.

---

Chinese driver outburst lands Laws in hot water again

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22264661-7582,00.html

VETERAN radio broadcaster John Laws has once again incited controversy over an on-air rant, this time saying Chinese drivers are the worst in the world.

Despite outraged ethnic and anti-discrimination authorities yesterday labelling the diatribe as "unfair and unhelpful", Laws denied he was being racist.

Laws, who is just three months away from retiring after 55 years on radio, launched the tirade in response to a call from Helen, a Chinese-Australian listener to his morning program on 2UE.

"I understand that Chinese drivers are probably the worst drivers on the face of the earth. You probably fall into that category, along with the rest of them," he said. 2UE management yesterday refused to comment.

Non racists tend to be non agressive, progressive thinkers who put forward their arguments in a logical compassionate way. And by the nature of compassionate people, they are not going to tell other people how to think. Is this why racism is tolerated?

Leon wrote on Mar 16^th, 2007 at 9:52pm:

Non racists tend to be non agressive, progressive thinkers who put forward their arguments in a logical compassionate way. And by the nature of compassionate people, they are not going to tell other people how to think. Is this why racism is tolerated?

YOU and ZOSO  are trying to tell us what to think.........

So whats your point BIGOT?

Quote:

Non racists tend to be non agressive, progressive thinkers who put forward their arguments in a logical compassionate way. And by the nature of compassionate people, they are not going to tell other people how to think. Is this why racism is tolerated?

Compassionate... yes....

But 'logical?' ::)

As far as I know... I've never tried telling someone what to think.  :-?

The right wing media does tell people how to think. Right wing government policy does tell people how to think. This isn't a personal slant upon either of you and I'm sorry if you are taking it that way.

It just seems that to get accross moderate views it is so much harder that shouting a racist opinion or lashing out against the group you are campaining against. These tools simply don't seem to be available. For people like Donald Rumsfeld, they have no problem with standing up on the World stage and simply lying about foreign threats and destablising the peace in the World to further their own policy.

If you want to understand more then check out Outfoxed:
http://www.outfoxed.org/
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=6737097743434902428&q=outfoxed

Quote:

The right wing media does tell people how to think. Right wing government policy does tell people how to think. This isn't a personal slant upon either of you and I'm sorry if you are taking it that way.

My apologies.

wrote on Mar 17^th, 2007 at 12:11am:

YOU and ZOSO  are trying to tell us what to think......... So whats your point BIGOT?

I couldn't give a d@mn what you think. But if you publicly express ignorant views I will publicly express my opinions of them.

a national shame:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/racism-hits-nonenglish-speakers-health/2007/09/17/1189881356288.html

Racial discrimination is putting at risk the mental health of many Victorians, a new government report has found.

The VicHealth report, More Than Tolerance: Embracing Diversity For Health, was based on a survey of more than 4,000 people.

It found almost two-in-five Victorians from non-English speaking backgrounds reported they had been treated with disrespect, insulted or called names because of their ethnicity, with a small proportion of those saying they experienced discrimination often.

Of those who reported racial discrimination, 40 per cent said they suffered discrimination at work, while 30 per cent were discriminated against in an educational setting, the report said.

Almost 45 per cent said they had a bad experience with racism at a sporting or public event, while 19 per cent said they experienced racism at the hands of police.

About one-third of Victorians said they could identify cultural or ethnic groups they believed did not fit into Australian society.

The report revealed that those who suffered discrimination were more likely to suffer poor mental health, smoke and misuse drugs or alcohol.

The findings tally with previous studies that showed an association between discrimination and heart disease, diabetes and low infant birth rate, VicHealth chief executive Todd Harper said.

People from migrant and refugee backgrounds continued to suffer "unacceptably high levels of discrimination, in turn affecting their health and well-being", he said.

Former Australian Medical Association president Dr Mukesh Haikerwal, who is a GP in Melbourne's west, and who will help launch the report, said the report found a strong connection between racism and poor mental health.

Mr Harper said while the statistics on racism were striking, there was also good news in the report.

"About 90 per cent of Victorian agreed that it was good to have a society made up of different cultures, so I think that there is a fair bit of support that we can build upon here," he said.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Discrimination-sparks-poor-health/2007/09/17/1189881383572.html

More than 40 per cent of Victorians are either born overseas or have a parent born overseas.

But the report revealed that Victorians were embracing diversity, more willingly than people from Queensland, New South Wales and other industrialised countries.

"Preventing discrimination will provide social, economic and health benefits for all Victorians," Mr Harper said.

Dr Mukesh Haikerwal, the former Australian Medical Association (AMA) president, said evidence from the World Health Organisation (WHO) showed culturally based discrimination leads to violence and trauma, affecting people over generations.

freediver wrote on Sep 17^th, 2007 at 5:15pm:

a national shame: http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/racism-hits-nonenglish-speakers-health/2007/09/17/1189881356288.html Racial discrimination is putting at risk the mental health of many Victorians, a new government report has found. The VicHealth report, More Than Tolerance: Embracing Diversity For Health, was based on a survey of more than 4,000 people. It found almost two-in-five Victorians from non-English speaking backgrounds reported they had been treated with disrespect, insulted or called names because of their ethnicity, with a small proportion of those saying they experienced discrimination often. Of those who reported racial discrimination, 40 per cent said they suffered discrimination at work, while 30 per cent were discriminated against in an educational setting, the report said. Almost 45 per cent said they had a bad experience with racism at a sporting or public event, while 19 per cent said they experienced racism at the hands of police. About one-third of Victorians said they could identify cultural or ethnic groups they believed did not fit into Australian society. The report revealed that those who suffered discrimination were more likely to suffer poor mental health, smoke and misuse drugs or alcohol. The findings tally with previous studies that showed an association between discrimination and heart disease, diabetes and low infant birth rate, VicHealth chief executive Todd Harper said. People from migrant and refugee backgrounds continued to suffer "unacceptably high levels of discrimination, in turn affecting their health and well-being", he said. Former Australian Medical Association president Dr Mukesh Haikerwal, who is a GP in Melbourne's west, and who will help launch the report, said the report found a strong connection between racism and poor mental health. Mr Harper said while the statistics on racism were striking, there was also good news in the report. "About 90 per cent of Victorian agreed that it was good to have a society made up of different cultures, so I think that there is a fair bit of support that we can build upon here," he said. http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Discrimination-sparks-poor-health/2007/09/17/1189881383572.html More than 40 per cent of Victorians are either born overseas or have a parent born overseas. But the report revealed that Victorians were embracing diversity, more willingly than people from Queensland, New South Wales and other industrialised countries. "Preventing discrimination will provide social, economic and health benefits for all Victorians," Mr Harper said. Dr Mukesh Haikerwal, the former Australian Medical Association (AMA) president, said evidence from the World Health Organisation (WHO) showed culturally based discrimination leads to violence and trauma, affecting people over generations.

Boo bloody hoo.

Deal with it.

That's the plan DT. Of course, you could save us a lot of taxpayer funds and just stop harassing them.

freediver wrote on Sep 17^th, 2007 at 5:35pm:

That's the plan DT. Of course, you could save us a lot of taxpayer funds and just stop harassing them.

Oh I'm sorry freediver...

Do you know me outside of this computer screen? Have I ever given any indication that I call people of different races names in the street?

Have I ever given any indication that I call people of different races names in the street?

You don't honestly think that racism needs to be so blunt to have a negative impact on scoety, do you?

freediver wrote on Sep 17^th, 2007 at 5:47pm:

Have I ever given any indication that I call people of different races names in the street? You don't honestly think that racism needs to be so blunt to have a negative impact on scoety, do you?

You didn't answer my question freediver. Yes or no?

perhaps they get discriminated agaisnt because the people working in health find it hard to communicate with them dure to language and perhaps culteral background. and in a busy shift they dont wanna put up with it?

or perhaps they are racist.

You didn't answer my question freediver. Yes or no?

I assumed it was a rhetorical question. How the hell am I supposed to know whether I know you in real life? Is DT your real name? Do you stand by what you say in here, or do you support multiculturalism in real life?

freediver wrote on Sep 17^th, 2007 at 6:47pm:

You didn't answer my question freediver. Yes or no? I assumed it was a rhetorical question. How the hell am I supposed to know whether I know you in real life? Is DT your real name? Do you stand by what you say in here, or do you support multiculturalism in real life?

Well you obviously missed this question freediver...

DT
Quote:

Have I ever given any indication that I call people of different races names in the street?

Have I ever written anywhere on this forum that I personally yelled out to other people on the street due to their race? ERM... NO

Which would make you an ASSUMING jackass, freediver. Someone who jumps to conclusions and labels everyone with stereotypes. I'll be damned... isn't that what you accuse racists of doing when they throw all Muslims in the same boat?  ::) HYPOCRITE HYPOCRITE HYPOCRITE... HAHAHAHA

You assumed that since I'm opposed to multiculturalism that I'm a redneck hick who yells out to people on the street. Gee... I guess you're as bad as the 'racists' you're criticizing.  ::) You're just doing it in a different way.

Hi leon,

I see racists as people who think there are differences between the races.
If someone is aggressive or violent is another thing.

Nonracists tend to have never lived in a society where races are mixed.

Nonracists tend to have never lived in a society where races are mixed.

That's a rather unusual generalisation Sprint. Do you have anything to back it up? Did Martin Luther King live in a society where races didn't mix? Perhaps you just mean that the more outspoken ones come from segregated societies.

Have I ever written anywhere on this forum that I personally yelled out to other people on the street due to their race? ERM... NO

Which would make you an ASSUMING jackass, freediver.

No it wouldn't. You are. Did I ever accuse yoiu of hurling racist abuse at people on the street?

Hi freediver -  I meant the more outspoken racists have had experiences of the differences of races.
ie, they speak from a position of experience.

the "non-racists" tend to speak from a position of no experience, more a sense of idealism.


martin luther king knew intimately that the races are different.

Different how? Do you class him as a racist or non racist?

Course he was racist.  He was on the blacks side.
Most would consider that a "good" racist.
Fact is, he knew there was a difference between the races.
He supported a bunch of people according to their colour, not by their income

So opposing racism and speaking out for the oppressed makes a person racist? Should he have just spoken out agaisnt racism in a vague, general sense without mentioning the reality of the situation?

freediver wrote on Sep 18^th, 2007 at 10:44am:

Nonracists tend to have never lived in a society where races are mixed. That's a rather unusual generalisation Sprint. Do you have anything to back it up? Did Martin Luther King live in a society where races didn't mix? Perhaps you just mean that the more outspoken ones come from segregated societies. Have I ever written anywhere on this forum that I personally yelled out to other people on the street due to their race? ERM... NO Which would make you an ASSUMING jackass, freediver. No it wouldn't. You are. Did I ever accuse yoiu of hurling racist abuse at people on the street?

This quote seemed pretty straightforward at the time...


Quote:

Of course, you could save us a lot of taxpayer funds and just stop harassing them.

Looking at it again though... you could be addressing either 'me' or 'everyone' in general. In which case, this is just a simple misunderstanding. But you've had a habit of assuming things about me FD... like in the 'Muslims are rude thread'... you just 'couldn't' believe that I DIDN'T give the Muslims dirty looks or talked down to them... which gave me the impression that that last statement was targetting me.

And yes FD, a LOT of 'non-racists' I know are from societies with little to no 'other races' around. The difference with people like good old, Martin Luther Queen, is that he's the minority. IF, he was in the majority of a society, he wouldn't be talking about 'equality' of man, etc, in fact he wouldn't give a rats @ss.

Minorties who ramble on about the 'equality of man' are just whiners who can't stand living as an outsider. People in a majority society who ramble on about it simply don't live among other races. It's just something they saw on tv that 'inspired' them.

I'm seriously not buying this 'study' found by the newspapers... in that people who live in neighbourhoods with different races seem to get along with them better... I think that's hogwash. IF anything... it makes them hate them more... but they just don't speak up about it in fear of the other races lashing out at them.  

And the state thinks this 'not speaking up about it' is somehow a 'victory' for multiculturalism/diversity, when in fact it's just people shutting up in fear of a backlash.

Almost everyone is racist. Anyone with a shred of commonsense.
MLk opposed "bad" racism, and tried to help those of a specific race.
he also was a racist, albeit a "good" one.

you just 'couldn't' believe that I DIDN'T give the Muslims dirty looks or talked down to them...

No, I couldn't believe that your interaction with them was not influenced by your views. That is, I did not believe your assertion that it was 'all their fault'.

IF, he was in the majority of a society, he wouldn't be talking about 'equality' of man, etc, in fact he wouldn't give a rats @ss.  

Plenty of white people who live in 'mixed' societies like the US and Australia talk about equality.

I'm seriously not buying this 'study' found by the newspapers... in that people who live in neighbourhoods with different races seem to get along with them better... I think that's hogwash. IF anything... it makes them hate them more... but they just don't speak up about it in fear of the other races lashing out at them.  

Seems plausible to me. Ignorance is the greatest cause of social fear. Also fits with my own experience.

he also was a racist, albeit a "good" one.

In what way?

Quote:

No, I couldn't believe that your interaction with them was not influenced by your views. That is, I did not believe your assertion that it was 'all their fault'.

Whatever.. you still assumed. Therefore, you're not correct.



Quote:

Plenty of white people who live in 'mixed' societies like the US and Australia talk about equality.

Such as?



Quote:

Seems plausible to me. Ignorance is the greatest cause of social fear. Also fits with my own experience.

Well fill us in...
Certainly doesn't fit in with my experiences.

Whatever.. you still assumed. Therefore, you're not correct.

1) that's a logical fallacy.

2) It is an entirely reasonable assumption. You cannot expect people to believe that your own views do not affect how you interact with other people in any way. Your focus on the more overt forms of racism reinforces this. It's like you aren't even aware of the subtle ways you could be discriminating against people.

---

Where racism leads:

Race hate attack on Jewish teen

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22270756-1243,00.html

TWO men with baseball bats beat a teenage Orthodox Jew outside a Melbourne restaurant in a racist attack overnight, Jewish leaders said today.

The boy, Alon Tam, said the two men yelled “f---ing Jew, you deserve to die,” as they bashed him with the bats near Mister Glicks restaurant in suburban Balaclava.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 18^th, 2007 at 12:53pm:

Course he was racist.  He was on the blacks side. Most would consider that a "good" racist. Fact is, he knew there was a difference between the races. He supported a bunch of people according to their colour, not by their income

There are various ways of defining the word "racist" but that arguement is a matter of semantics and is splitting hairs. However,  the universally understood definition of the word is a negative one.

MLK is a racist but a good one? I've never heard put in that context before. He was not on the "black's side". Sure, he is black but he preached equality - not blacks are better than whites.

"....one day right down in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls like sisters and brother. I have a dream today."

He didn't ask for more rights for blacks. He asked for equal rights for blacks. A racist he is not.

http://news.smh.com.au/mcg-spies-to-target-racist-cricket-rants/20071223-1io0.html

Australian vice-captain Adam Gilchrist has warned fans they have only themselves to blame if they fall foul of tough anti-racism rules at the cricket.

Fans face life-time bans from the MCG if officials decide their taunts are serious enough.

Undercover officials will monitor crowd behaviour at the upcoming Boxing Day Test against India.

Australian all-rounder Andrew Symonds was the target of racial taunts during the tour of India two months ago.

I saw this on the TV news but couldn't fin it online. There was a witness to the assault saying the group of thugs were chanting Aussue Aussie Aussie, telling the victim to go back home, that this is 'our' country etc.

Start of 2008 marred by deaths, violence

http://news.smh.com.au/start-of-2008-marred-by-deaths-violence/20080101-1jqy.html

The deaths came as a 21-year-old man was in a serious condition in Gold Coast Hospital after being stabbed in the back during a fight on the tourist strip overnight.

Another man, also 21, received multiple superficial wounds during the fight, which began on a bus and continued at the Metro Shopping Centre at Biggera Waters.

hi all, i recently met a white supremacist and he was telling me about the superiority of the white race and how other races are inferior. i really didn't understand his logic and was asking him questions to explain it, he didn't really like me since i pointed out that he wasn't making any sense.

first of all, i asked him what he means by "white race"? his response was people of European backgrounds, which is fair enough.

i then asked him does that include Spain & Portugal? which he said "yes".
so does that make Latinos white as well, since Spain and Portugal colonised South & Central America?
oddly enough, he said "no", Latinos are not white.

okay, so using that logic, u can argue that Australian's are also not white, since Britain colonised Australia in the same way that Spain/Portugal colonised South/Central America. Oddly, this white supremacist said "No, Australian's are white, so are the British, Spain & Portugal, but not Latinos".

obviously this didn't make sense.

but moving on, i asked him about Asians, and he said that they are an inferior race. but i then asked him if they were an inferior race, then why was Hitler allies with the Japanese during World War II? obviously, if the Japanese were an inferior race, then why would Hitler of all people, support them? this white supremacist couldn't reply to that.

i also asked him about Italians & Greeks, who are part of Europe but are typically referred to as "wogs". he mentioned that they are also an inferior race, even though they are part of Europe. but wasn't Italy an ally of Hitler during World War II as well? again, if they are inferior then why would Hitler support them? this white supremacist couldn't reply to that either.

so the point of this thread, i just wanted to clarify what white supremacists mean by "white race"? what is white and what isn't? also, if the responses by this white supremacist are correct, then how can anybody seriously believe this idelogy when it is obviously flawed?

When you meet people who think that way - you have to wonder if they have been educated at all and what their upbringings were like.

We are such a melting pot these days - you're skin may look pale, but you can be made up genetically of a hundred different nationalities to produce the person you are today.

Supremacists are such a contradiction because they want to believe they are superior, but in reality they are so inferior that many races would label them "white trash".

mantra wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2007 at 5:55pm:

We are such a melting pot these days - you're skin may look pale, but you can be made up genetically of a hundred different nationalities to produce the person you are today.

that's true, i forgot to mention that this guy mentioned the "one-drop rule", which basically means if u have an ancestor that is non-white, then u are not white at all.

it was funny since he mentioned that Russell Crowe wasn't white and shouldn't have portrayed a skin-head in Romper Stomper. Why? because his great-great grandmother on his mother's side was a maori and therefore making him 1/32nd maori and therefore not white at all.

by that standard, u can argue that no one is white, since races have been inter-mixing for hundreds of generations.

Quote:

i then asked him does that include Spain & Portugal? which he said "yes".   so does that make Latinos white as well, since Spain and Portugal colonised South & Central America? oddly enough, he said "no", Latinos are not white.

This White supremist is correct but just didn't have the knowledge to back up his own argument, Gavin.

Most Mexicans and South Americans actually don't have European blood in them. They actually aren't decendants of South West Europe, but decendants of Aztecs, Mayans and Incans. There were millions and millions of these people occupying these areas at the time, which continues to this day. -A vast, rich civilisation. These people are not genitically European, but have largely obtained European culture (Some of it, anyway).



Quote:

okay, so using that logic, u can argue that Australian's are also not white, since Britain colonised Australia in the same way that Spain/Portugal colonised South/Central America. Oddly, this white supremacist said "No, Australian's are white, so are the British, Spain & Portugal, but not Latinos". obviously this didn't make sense.

Actually, Europeans segregated themselves from Aboriginals. There weren't that many Aboriginals in Australia (Realistic estimate around 200-500 thousand). Up until the 1960's, they were considered 'flora and fauna' under the Australian Government. When Europeans came, they completely overwhelmed the Aboriginals and segregated them.

You can't compare the two. Completely different things.



Quote:

but moving on, i asked him about Asians, and he said that they are an inferior race. but i then asked him if they were an inferior race, then why was Hitler allies with the Japanese during World War II? obviously, if the Japanese were an inferior race, then why would Hitler of all people, support them? this white supremacist couldn't reply to that.

The problem with people like you and him, is that you tend to throw all the Asians in the same basket (I'm just assuming you mean 'east Asians' as compared to 'West Asians'). For example, Japan and China ae completely different people, with different customs, lifestyles and cultures.

I've read somewhere that Nazis tend to focus on 'master races.' -Not just 'white races.'



Quote:

i also asked him about Italians & Greeks, who are part of Europe but are typically referred to as "wogs". he mentioned that they are also an inferior race, even though they are part of Europe. but wasn't Italy an ally of Hitler during World War II as well? again, if they are inferior then why would Hitler support them? this white supremacist couldn't reply to that either.

I've always been confused about this as well... but I think I found my answer recently when studying Italy. -I think this guy is a pretty uneducated white supremist.

Italians are largely 'whiter' in the northern Italian area. Venice etc...
In the south, Rome etc, they largely look 'meditteranean.' The reason of the physical differences between Italians I'd imagine would be the movements of people between Switzerland and Italy in the north, and the movement of people between 'North Africa' and Italy in the south. This may have played a part in Hitlers thinking, as well as the fact that Northern Italy is the more 'sophisticated' area of Italy.  
Hitler was also obsessed with history, and acknowledged the fact that the Romans created a massive empire, hence the master race thing...

Donald Trump I feel has answered this brilliantly even though it may be guess work the 'Master Race' scenario sums it up. On that note I think all white supremists or any type of radicals are just pig headed F-wits and selfish A-holes. (Pardon the language I couldn't help myself. ::)

Reply #4 - Yesterday at 8:40pm    Donald Trump I feel has answered this brilliantly even though it may be guess work the 'Master Race' scenario sums it up. On that note I think all white supremists or any type of radicals are just pig headed F-wits and selfish A-holes. (Pardon the language I couldn't help myself."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enviro-thats funny-you just described at least a couple pple that post in here    ;D

So true Oceans_Blue... ;)

Anyone that thinks that their way is the best and only way are dangerous people. We only assimulate with the knowledge we have and the influences in life. Life is a continual learning curve. When people get to a certain age they start to think the world owes them a living because they are so much wiser than anyone else, or so they think. The wisest person is the person ready to listen and make changes to their beliefs and opinion as new evidence comes up.

I believe everything is segmented and resegmented etc... (Like a tree with many branches) For example, Ten years ago if you spoke out against Freud you were considered a nutcase. Now Frued is proven to be wrong and he is now the nutcase. This is due to technology advances in other areas like DNA and Genetic Studies.

There is thousands of possibilities and probabilities in every area of thought that may or can be right. When one of those answers are found mankind then improves on that answer going through a cycle of trying to prove to himself that this is the best and only option. He tends to forget about the other 999 directions that he could have pushed technology.

Life really is infinite and mankind can start over again with an infinite possibilities. Our creator discovered the purest form perpetual motion.

As for white supremists I would say you would also have black supremists and yellow supremists etc...
All these people are just scared of the unknown. :)

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2007 at 6:57pm:

Quote: but moving on, i asked him about Asians, and he said that they are an inferior race. but i then asked him if they were an inferior race, then why was Hitler allies with the Japanese during World War II? obviously, if the Japanese were an inferior race, then why would Hitler of all people, support them? this white supremacist couldn't reply to that.   The problem with people like you and him, is that you tend to throw all the Asians in the same basket (I'm just assuming you mean 'east Asians' as compared to 'West Asians'). For example, Japan and China ae completely different people, with different customs, lifestyles and cultures. I've read somewhere that Nazis tend to focus on 'master races.' -Not just 'white races.'

Yeah, i know that Japan and China are totally different cultures, my point was that this white supremacist was lumping all Asians into the one basket (including the Japanese).

So are you saying that it's possible to have a master race that is non-white?



Quote:

Hitler was also obsessed with history, and acknowledged the fact that the Romans created a massive empire, hence the master race thing...

So is previously having a massive empire the criteria for being a master race? if that's the case, then would the Aztecs (or modern day Latinos), Egyptians, Greeks also qualify as master races, since they had created massive empires?

All these people are just scared of the unknown"
----------
ignorance breeds fear enviro..

So is previously having a massive empire the criteria for being a master race? if that's the case, then would the Aztecs (or modern day Latinos), Egyptians, Greeks also qualify as master races, since they had created massive empires? "
------------------

Very good question Trump.

I think the Greek cvilisation would have themselves believe they are superior because of theyre cultural prestige and the building blocks on which theyre culture was founded.And they would be fairly correct in theyre thinking..The greek culture has become the cornerstone on which some countries were founded countries were built.
 So its definitely [possible that other countries ,other than the traditional Hitler types, consider themeselves to be superior..esp the Greek.

Why does one have to be white to be a master race?
Who disagrees with this?

wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2007 at 9:57am:

Why does one have to be white to be a master race? Who disagrees with this?

why don't we just say that there is no such thing as a master race?
every person, regardless of race, is human and since we are all human no race is better than the other.
let's just leave it at that.

enviro wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2007 at 7:41am:

The wisest person is the person ready to listen and make changes to their beliefs and opinion as new evidence comes up.

Nicely put enviro! excellent words!


enviro wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2007 at 7:41am:

I believe everything is segmented and resegmented etc... (Like a tree with many branches) For example, Ten years ago if you spoke out against Freud you were considered a nutcase. Now Frued is proven to be wrong and he is now the nutcase. This is due to technology advances in other areas like DNA and Genetic Studies. There is thousands of possibilities and probabilities in every area of thought that may or can be right. When one of those answers are found mankind then improves on that answer going through a cycle of trying to prove to himself that this is the best and only option. He tends to forget about the other 999 directions that he could have pushed technology. Life really is infinite and mankind can start over again with an infinite possibilities. Our creator discovered the purest form perpetual motion. As for white supremists I would say you would also have black supremists and yellow supremists etc... All these people are just scared of the unknown. :)

And I like the rest of it too... bravo, very well said.

Quote:

Yeah, i know that Japan and China are totally different cultures, my point was that this white supremacist was lumping all Asians into the one basket (including the Japanese).

Sorry I misunderstood. It appeared upon reading that you were just asking your friend about 'Asians' in general.



Quote:

So are you saying that it's possible to have a master race that is non-white?

I dunno. Why don't you ask an actual Nazi this question? And not a stupid, Jerry Springer one, either.



Quote:

So is previously having a massive empire the criteria for being a master race? if that's the case, then would the Aztecs (or modern day Latinos), Egyptians, Greeks also qualify as master races, since they had created massive empires?

I think a Nazis argument would be along the lines of... the Aztecs had nothing serious to compete with and didn't make any 'great' achievements. Which they didn't.

The Egyptians. Well, I think a possible answer for that would be that they didn't have a continuing influence on the World, whereas people like the Italians did. The Italians dominated the world during the Roman Empire and became the saviours  of Europe when the renaissance (Spellcheck) came around. Italy continued to be an influence on the world whereas Egypt seemed to be just a fluke.

As far as the Greeks go, I think the fact that the Muslims occupied Greece for about 400 years or something like that severely influenced Hitlers thinking. As mixing blood according to him destroyed empires and people. And since ancient Greece, the Greeks achieved nothing. -A few Greeks I know agree with that last point.

muslims occupying Greece for 400 years?
at what point in history did that happen?

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2007 at 6:57pm:

Quote: Italians are largely 'whiter' in the northern Italian area. Venice etc... In the south, Rome etc, they largely look 'meditteranean.' The reason of the physical differences between Italians I'd imagine would be the movements of people between Switzerland and Italy in the north, and the movement of people between 'North Africa' and Italy in the south. This may have played a part in Hitlers thinking, as well as the fact that Northern Italy is the more 'sophisticated' area of Italy. Italy is more like a grouping of states, than a country. The reason that southern Italians look different has little to do with the Swiss influence in the north, or Africans. Most of the southern 'darker' features are in the region of the Sicilia and Napoli. Sicilians were initially darker because they have Phonecian ancestry. Napolese are largely Greek and Phonecian. The mainland of Italy is largely Greek, with some ancestry relating to northern European conquests. Further darkening would have occured while the southern states were ruled by Arab emirs for the last 300 years of the first millenia. The emirs also controlled northern Africa. The emirs were Arabs (present Saudi), not Africans. [quote]Hitler was also obsessed with history, and acknowledged the fact that the Romans created a massive empire, hence the master race thing...

The only Romans who were 'pure' were the ruling class (from which the Caesar was elected). All other Romans were a hotchpotch of races, because the method of conquest was to absorb local culture to ensure conformity. So the Romans were in fact the first multicultural society.

Which means that Hitler acknowledged that a master race was multicultural!  ;)

Gavin wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2007 at 4:35pm:

muslims occupying Greece for 400 years? at what point in history did that happen?

Ottoman (Turkish) empire. 1400 to 1800.

Quote:

Which means that Hitler acknowledged that a master race was multicultural!

Haha. Very clever Aushole. I see someones been reading up on Roman history.

Wasn't it 'multiculturalism' that destroyed the Roman empire in the end?  ;)

PS. I'm talking about multiculturalism, not racialism.

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2007 at 5:14pm:

Quote: Which means that Hitler acknowledged that a master race was multicultural! Haha. Very clever Aushole. I see someones been reading up on Roman history.

Most of Italian and Roman history I picked up while I was travelling there. It is much more intereting than the white supremacy story!  ;)


Quote:

Wasn't it 'multiculturalism' that destroyed the Roman empire in the end? PS. I'm talking about multiculturalism, not racialism.

You know what, I dont think the Roman Empire was ever really destroyed it just went into decline over a number of years. The Western Empire was already losing its relevance, and Rome was eventually sacked by the Goths (while listening to The Cure on their iPods). Constantine I just took up where the Caesars left off, controlling the Eastern Empire (Byzantine). The Western Empire was regained from the Goths a century or so later, and held for 1000 years, until those pesky Ottomans decided to invade and conquer all of Byzantium in the 1400s.

I think that part of the problem was the multicultural element... in that Germanic tribes were able to infiltrate and blend in with the Romans, making the final goth invasion much easier. But it was mostly due to poor political and economic management. Which is how the empire came to be split between East and West in the first place.

At the end of the day, most of the plebs (like us) just let the ruling parties fight it out amongst themselves.

I had a really good, long reply planned for you aushole, but my smacking a-hole computer decided to delete it for some reason.  >:(

Oh well... wasn't exactly contributing to the topic, anyway.

Going back to the OP,Gav i reckon you wasted your time even talking to that idiot.Ignorance may well breed fear but total avoidence is better for my blood pressure.White Supremists are by their views mental midgets and should be shunned by every other human being on earth. >:(

It was just small talk, we had to talk about something while we were on a break.
basically, i was at a conference, and i just needed to pass the time.

No worries Gav,wasn't judging you mate,just sort of wondering "why".I would prefer to chuck rocks at people like that,to pass the time 8-)

The latino thing can be explained by the numbers. There is a much higher proportion of natives in South America than Australia. He would probably regard a pureblood spanish living in South America as white. I doubt he would care much either way.

Hitler also allied with Muslims and is credited with bringing a far more militant verions of anti semitism to the middle east.

example, Ten years ago if you spoke out against Freud you were considered a nutcase.

I did tertiary level psychology about ten years ago and the professor acknoledged that Freud was pretty much wrong. He has been considered wrong (or whatever the equivalent is in psychology) for a long time.

The Egyptians. Well, I think a possible answer for that would be that they didn't have a continuing influence on the World, whereas people like the Italians did.

What makes you think that?

Another reason for southern Italians being darker is that they are closer to the equator.

freediver wrote on Apr 5^th, 2007 at 8:36am:

I did tertiary level psychology about ten years ago and the professor acknoledged that Freud was pretty much wrong. He has been considered wrong (or whatever the equivalent is in psychology) for a long time.

Funny, I think 99% of psychology is either wrong or far enough off the mark to be counted as such. For one, you don't solve most psychological problems through medication, a good psychologist usually acknowledges this, but they still seem to just medicate medicate medicate. For another, any 'doctor' who runs tens of thousands of volts through a persons brain and then claims that it helps but they don't know why is not fit to be calling themselves a doctor or claiming any scientific merit to their behaviour whatsoever.

The day psychologists stop using shock treatment is the day I will begin to consider their point of view as relevant.

For one, you don't solve most psychological problems through medication, a good psychologist usually acknowledges this, but they still seem to just medicate medicate medicate.

That's psychiatry, psychologists aren't allowed to prescribe drugs, and 'chemical solutions' are not given any detail in psych courses, except as a philosophy or approach. Psychologists tend to acknowledge the lack of scientific avenues for research and teach different approaches to the same problem, one being Freudian.

freediver wrote on Apr 5^th, 2007 at 11:57am:

For one, you don't solve most psychological problems through medication, a good psychologist usually acknowledges this, but they still seem to just medicate medicate medicate. That's psychiatry, psychologists aren't allowed to prescribe drugs, and 'chemical solutions' are not given any detail in psych courses, except as a philosophy or approach. Psychologists tend to acknowledge the lack of scientific avenues for research and teach different approaches to the same problem, one being Freudian.

Allright fair enough... :P ;D

I do however think that both are undermined by the fact that they rely largely on the honesty of the patient... I have known plenty of people who have worked the system easily just to get cheap drugs to get high. "oh doctor I'm so depressed about everything, I just want to die *sob*"

freediver wrote on Apr 5^th, 2007 at 8:36am:

Another reason for southern Italians being darker is that they are closer to the equator.

FD, that is a crazy statement!  :-?

Italy was largely populated by Greeks. Southern Greece is slightly closer to the equator than Italy, so why arent the Greeks the same colour, or darker, than southern Italians?

As before, Phonecians are the main reason of the dark skin colouring, as are the Arabic influences.

zoso wrote on Apr 5^th, 2007 at 4:11pm:

I have known plenty of people who have worked the system easily just to get cheap drugs to get high. "oh doctor I'm so depressed about everything, I just want to die *sob*"

Either your friends are lying, or you are being loose with your argument. Drugs prescribed for depression cannot get you high. If you are not depressed, they won't work!

AUShole wrote on Apr 7^th, 2007 at 10:02pm:

Either your friends are lying, or you are being loose with your argument. Drugs prescribed for depression cannot get you high. If you are not depressed, they won't work!

Ever taken zoloft and smoked a little weed? Yes I was being loose with my argument, but the point stands I did have friends that would have anti depressants prescribed then take a ton of them with alcohol and other things. Its amazing what cocktails kids can dream up.

I had a few friends that used to lie to get ritalin prescribed to them, then crush it up and inject it. And yes I had friends who would abuse their anti depressants, enough of anything will do something... I used to know a certain person who would sell their children's ADD drugs too.

How on earth did talk about 'white supremacists' come to the subject of 'psychology?'  :-?

Why all this worry about "White Supremacists". There are only a hand full of them, and most are just loonies. There is no race that is superior on this Earth, simply because they are born to a certain creed...like the Jews being the Chosen People by God to smack hell out of Arabs until their messiah arrives...but honestly, wouldn't and shouldn't people be more alarmed by Islamic Supremacisy? Afterall, Indonesia - the largest Muslim population of Earth is just north of us.

Are we not worried about Communism any more, as if that is gone away into the distant on no-threat here? Have we been so brainwashed that we ignore African Supremacisy butchering each other into starvation? These people are in their hundreds of millions - they'd be what 100,000 White Supremacists in the world at best?

Give me a break. Why is it always is it the "White man" who is the racist?

but honestly, wouldn't and shouldn't people be more alarmed by Islamic Supremacisy?

We will deal with each as it arises. Think globally, act locally.

Are we not worried about Communism any more, as if that is gone away into the distant on no-threat here?

Correct.

Quote:

Are we not worried about Communism any more, as if that is gone away into the distant on no-threat here? Correct.

Don't count your chickens, freediver.

zoso wrote on Apr 9^th, 2007 at 2:31pm:

AUShole wrote on Apr 7th, 2007 at 10:02pm: Either your friends are lying, or you are being loose with your argument. Drugs prescribed for depression cannot get you high. If you are not depressed, they won't work! Ever taken zoloft and smoked a little weed? Yes I was being loose with my argument, but the point stands I did have friends that would have anti depressants prescribed then take a ton of them with alcohol and other things. Its amazing what cocktails kids can dream up. I had a few friends that used to lie to get ritalin prescribed to them, then crush it up and inject it. And yes I had friends who would abuse their anti depressants, enough of anything will do something... I used to know a certain person who would sell their children's ADD drugs too.

Psychology and pharmas are off topic... but now the rabbit is out...

The best you can hope for by mixing anti depressants and alcohol is psychosis. From the alcohol.

Almost all anti depressants are seretonin reuptake inhibitors. They will not work straight away. So someone smoking gunja with irregular use of zoloft would only exhibit a high from THC. Maybe some elements of placebo, too.

Ritalin and other ADD drugs are predominantly amphetamine based. These create an immediate high. But these are almost impossible for an adult to get on prescription.

Another option would be Valium, by saying you were having anxiety problems. Most doctors would not prescribe unless they are familiar with your history (i.e. they know you).

The easiest option... good old codeine based painkillers.

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Apr 10^th, 2007 at 4:35pm:

Quote: Are we not worried about Communism any more, as if that is gone away into the distant on no-threat here? Correct. Don't count your chickens, freediver.

Well, at least not the ones producing eggs. The commies will make you share the fruits of chicken labour.  ;)

Baron von Hund wrote on Apr 10^th, 2007 at 12:41am:

Give me a break. Why is it always is it the "White man" who is the racist?

Because white man writes the laws that make white man racist.

AUShole wrote on Apr 10^th, 2007 at 6:40pm:

Psychology and pharmas are off topic... but now the rabbit is out...

;D

Ok yes waaay off topic... sounds like you know what you're on about :)

zoso wrote on Apr 10^th, 2007 at 7:34pm:

Ok yes waaay off topic... sounds like you know what you're on about :)

I must confess, not a whole lot. But my partner does... she is a doctor  ;)

http://news.smh.com.au/indians-still-in-sydney-tour-in-doubt/20080107-1kkd.html

The Indian cricket team has been instructed to remain in Sydney tonight as speculation mounts that the tour of Australia may be in jeopardy.

The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) instructed the team to remain at their hotel in Sydney rather than travel to Canberra for a match against an ACT side as scheduled.

"We have been instructed by BCCI to stay in Sydney until we get further instructions," team spokesman Dr M V Sridhar told journalists.

The development followed a morning of confusion as the Indian players sat on their team bus outside the hotel for two hours before returning to their rooms.

The Indians are incensed at the three-match ban handed down in the early hours of today to spin bowler Harbhajan Singh after he was found guilty of racially abusing Australia's Andrew Symonds during the explosive second Test in Sydney.

The BCCI is understood to have called an emergency meeting in Delhi and was waiting late today for delegates to fly in from other parts of India.

Relations between the teams reached crisis point last night when Indian captain Anil Kumble accused the Australians of not playing in the spirit of the game.

"Only one team was playing in the spirit of the game," Kumble said, echoing the famous remark made by Australian captain Bill Woodfull during the Bodyline series 75 years ago.

Australian captain Ricky Ponting said he believed the match had been played in an excellent spirit and Cricket Australia chief executive James Sutherland suggested today that Ponting and Kumble should get together to help mend relations.

Cricket Australia has heard no official word on an Indian complaint that Australian spinner Brad Hogg had allegedly abused one of the Indian players on the field.

The Indian team also expressed its lack of confidence in umpires Mark Benson and Steve Bucknor and requested that Bucknor be removed from the third Test in Perth due to start next week.

The Indians were on the wrong end of at least five demonstrably poor umpiring decisions during the Sydney Test.

The most blatant of them was an appeal for caught behind against Symonds when he was on 30 in the first innings.

Symonds, who freely admitted he had hit the ball and should have been out, went on to make a match turning 162 not out and was later named man-of-the match.

---

from crikey:

Can there have been a more hollow win in Australian sport? From day one to day five, the second Test match at the SCG was rotten to the core, tainted by appalling umpiring, bad sportsmanship, sledging and, finally, a suspension for racism.

The chain of events that led to Australia’s ‘’triumph’’ over India, starting with the howlers afforded Australian captain Ricky Ponting and Andrew Symonds on the first day, was so embarrassing, it was cringe-making.

Indeed, the Australian victory was so fortunate that it, and the team’s much-trumpeted 16-match winning streak, should forever carry a giant asterisk alongside it in the record books: (*achieved with the help of incompetent umpires and the Australian players’ own double-standards.)

Our reputation for sportsmanship and fair play has taken a battering in the process. Around the world, we are seen as overbearing bullies who happily dish it out on the field but squeal when other teams, such as India, find the gumption to give it back.

---

Race relations challenge country: PM

http://news.smh.com.au/race-relations-challenge-country-pm/20080126-1obr.html

Race relations between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians is one of the nation's great challenges, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said in an Australia Day message, as the word "Sorry" was written in the sky above Bondi Beach.

Mr Rudd, elected last November, has promised to say sorry to Aborigines for past injustices, reversing an 11-year policy under the previous conservative government that damaged race relations.

---

MLC quashes rumours of Camden race riots

http://news.smh.com.au/mlc-quashes-rumours-of-camden-race-riots/20080125-1o74.html

A Camden-based Liberal Party member says the media is to blame for beating up news of an Australia Day race riot in Sydney's southwest.

Earlier this month The Daily Telegraph online reported the Australia First Party was planning to distribute anti-Islamic material in Camden on Australia Day.

A controversial development proposal to build a 1,200-student Islamic school in Camden has drawn the ire of many locals and sparked rumours that supporters and opponents of the school will take to the streets on Saturday.

What does everyone think of this? Is it crossing the line into censorship? Is it silly to try to restrict what people post online, given the ease with which they can do it anonymously? Could the same thing happen in Australia or to OzPolitic members? Could they come after the site rather than the poster?

Canadian court hands rare Internet hate crime conviction

http://news.smh.com.au/canadian-court-hands-rare-internet-hate-crime-conviction/20080206-1qj8.html

A Canadian court handed down a rare conviction to a white supremacist for posting hate material on the Internet, police here said Tuesday.

A judge ruled that Keith Francis William (Bill) Noble, 31, did "willfully promote hatred against identifiable groups, namely Jews, Blacks, homosexual or gay persons, non-whites and persons of mixed race or ethnic origin," said a police statement.

Noble was sentenced to four months in jail, plus restrictions on his use of computers for three years, said the police statement. He was charged after police raided his former home in the rural community of Fort St. John.

Monday's conviction by the British Columbia Supreme Court in western Canada, following a two-week trial last fall, is unusual, Sergeant Sean McGowan told AFP. "The conviction rate for Internet-related crimes is very low."

"This is the second conviction of an individual for hate propaganda in British Columbia, and there have been only four or five cases in all of Canada where an individual has been prosecuted and convicted for hate over the Internet," said McGowan.

McGowan said police were tipped off about Noble's posting by the Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Center For Holocaust Studies, an international human rights organisation.

Nobel "posted quite a bit on a lot of white supremacist websites," said McGwan. "The content of the website and the content of what he posted were offensive enough to meet a high standard."

Noble "was known to the police, the authorities, and to our organisation," said David Eisenstadt, a spokesman for the Wiesenthal organisation.

"We're pleased this (conviction) has happened, not because we condone censorship but because there's a lot of abuse on the Internet," Eisenstadt told AFP. "There are no boundaries on the Internet."

Baron von Hund wrote on Apr 10^th, 2007 at 12:41am:

Afterall, Indonesia - the largest Muslim population of Earth is just north of us.

Indonesia is fairly moderate though. The terrorist attacks, the hate-speech, the violence against religious minorities - all that's pretty rare. It's a huge country with a lot of diversity in ideas. I don't think it'll turn to extremism anytime soon, thank God for that.

I don't get people who are focused on race. Religion and culture, they sometimes make a fair point. I wouldn't want Australia to be an Islamic state. But when you start discriminating on the basis of race, then what if you've got a PI or an Asian or an Arab who grew up here, spoke the language perfectly, lived his life like any other white Australian...why hate him?

I may not like Islam, but I have no hate for the person's racial background or the way he looks. I honestly don't quite get how white supremacists live in Australia. I guess most of their life is filled with hate. Get on the bus, look a Chinese. Stay angry for the rest of the morning. Go out for lunch, ugh an Arab in the restaurant. Dark thoughts until evening. Greek driver cut into your lane, cue the swearing. Get home and turn on the tv, there's ABC focusing on Africans etc. What a shite way to live a life.

How Do You Prove You’re a Jew?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/magazine/02jewishness-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&source=cmailer

One day last fall, a young Israeli woman named Sharon went with her fiancé to the Tel Aviv Rabbinate to register to marry. They are not religious, but there is no civil marriage in Israel. The rabbinate, a government bureaucracy, has a monopoly on tying the knot between Jews. The last thing Sharon expected to be told that morning was that she would have to prove — before a rabbinic court, no less — that she was Jewish. It made as much sense as someone doubting she was Sharon, telling her that the name written in her blue government-issue ID card was irrelevant, asking her to prove that she was she.

In recent years, the state’s Chief Rabbinate and its branches in each Israeli city have adopted an institutional attitude of skepticism toward the Jewish identity of those who enter its doors. And the type of proof that the rabbinate prefers is peculiarly unsuited to Jewish life in the United States. The Israeli government seeks the political and financial support of American Jewry. It welcomes American Jewish immigrants. Yet the rabbinate, one arm of the state, increasingly treats American Jews as doubtful cases: not Jewish until proved so.

More than any other issue, the question of Who is a Jew? has repeatedly roiled relations between Israel and American Jewry. Psychologically, it is an argument over who belongs to the family. In the past, the casus belli was conversion: Would the Law of Return, which grants automatic citizenship to any Jew coming to Israel, apply to those converted to Judaism by non-Orthodox rabbis? Now, as Sharon’s experience indicates, the status of Jews by birth is in question. Equally important, the dividing line is no longer between Orthodox and non-Orthodox. The rabbinate’s handling of the issue has placed it on one side of an ideological fissure within Orthodox Judaism itself, between those concerned with making sure no stranger enters the gates and those who fear leaving sisters and brothers outside.

---

Replace Aboriginal families: candidate

http://news.smh.com.au/replace-aboriginal-families-candidate/20080312-1yxk.html

A mayoral candidate in Saturday's Queensland local government elections wants to replace 25 indigenous families from a south-west Queensland town with the same number of Vietnamese families.

A brochure written and distributed in Cunnamulla by 66-year-old Paroo Shire mayoral candidate Kevin Wise pledges to ask the federal government to pay $50,000 to each of the 25 local indigenous families to move out of the shire.

Mr Wise says he would invite 25 poor non-English-speaking Vietnamese families to take their place on a five-year contract.

"I guarantee that within that five years, these families will have advanced this shire's wealth and future prosperity out of all proportion to that achieved to date with the integration on totally racial grounds of this 'dead in the water', last one leaving `turn the lights out' community," the brochure says.

Born and raised in Cunnamulla, Mr Wise says he had served in the Australian Army during the Vietnam War and believes hard-working Vietnamese families will help rejuvenate the town's economy.