The idea of discussing how Australia is changing is an interesting topic, however, some posts in the original string went too far and have offended several readers.Please do not post racist remarks on this forum it upsets many people and it does not reflect the spirit of kindness, generosity and inclusiveness that this forum has become known for.Thanks everyone for your support and for your understanding.
Roostertales said
08:03 PM Jan 30, 2009
For what it's worth I agree. Life is too short and most of the world is much worse off than we are.
Most westerners would not survive in 3rd world countries if dumped there so it is hardly surprising that many would be migrants legal or illegal are motivated by this reality and do not share our sense of fair play. It is sad to say something they have never experienced therefore we need to step back from our narrow view of the world.
It's not that long ago western powers were oppresors to the rest of the world- often with catastrophic consequences.
ibbo said
08:12 PM Jan 30, 2009
Thank you for taking the step you have done to withdraw the Changing Australia comments.Cheers Ibbo.
xina said
08:23 PM Jan 30, 2009
Thank you from me too. I was starting to wonder if I was in the right Forum. Cheers, xina.
-- Edited by xina at 19:24, 2009-01-30
brickies said
10:45 PM Jan 30, 2009
We also agree we can do without red neck the world is big enough for all we must respect other peoples way of life has long has it is lawfull
Basil Faulty said
10:31 PM Feb 1, 2009
This was the thread started by the suggestion that Australia Day be moved??? yes... well we got off the mark I guess but we should all be adult enough to discuss this without going to extremes.... Some of us have strong opinions on this topic, myself included but maybe we could do it without being racist, though the original gesture on the part of Aussie of the Year was done on racist grounds ie his race was offended by those not of his race celebrating something he found offensive. Hmmmmm I guess thats why we have a democracy - we just have to face it we live in a very racist society....
What I guess I am trying to say is that if all debate/discussion here that has racial overtones is to be deleted then I'm probably on the wrong forum. I'd have preffered to see the more extreme comments edited but to totally stifle debate on this or any issue reeks of exactly what we were discussing in the first place, that is that a minority wish to impose their views on the majority. No one said being a webmistress was easy!
-- Edited by Basil Faulty at 07:14, 2009-02-02
sgntbilko said
07:48 AM Feb 2, 2009
For Australia Day and more the Australian Flag in particular and thought this may make interesting reading:-
Subject: Australian flag
If this is true, I would have loved to have been there!
I am led to believe,an incident occurred in a supermarket
Recently, when the following was witnessed:
A Muslim woman dressed in a Burkha (A black gown & face mask) was
Standing with her shopping in a queue at the checkout.
When it was her turn to be served, and as she reached the cashier,
She made a loud remark about the Australian Flag lapel pin, which the
Female cashier was wearing on her blouse.
The cashier reached up and touched the pin and said, 'Yes, I always
Wear it proudly. My son serves abroad with the forces and I wear it for
Him.
The Muslim woman then asked the cashier when she was going to stop
Bombing and killing her countrymen explaining that she was Iraqi.
At that point, an elderly Gentleman standing in the queue stepped
Forward, and interrupted with a calm and gentle voice, and said to the
Iraqi woman:
'Excuse me, but hundreds of thousands of Australian men and women,
Just like this ladies son have fought and sacrificed their lives so that
People just like YOU can stand here, in Australia, which is MY country and
Allow you to blatantly accuse an innocent check-out cashier of bombing YOUR
Countrymen.
'It is my belief that if you were allowed to be as outspoken as
That in Iraq, which you claim to be YOUR country, then we wouldn't need to be
Fighting there today'. .'However - now that you have learned how to speak
Out and criticise the Australian people who have afforded you the protection
Of MY country, I will gladly pay the cost of a ticket to help you pay your
Way back to Iraq '.
'When you get there, and if you manage to survive for being as
Outspoken as what you are here in Australia, then you should be able to help
Straighten out the mess which YOUR Iraqi countrymen have got you into in
The first place, which appears to be the reason that you have come to MY
Country to avoid.'
Apparently the queue cheered and applauded. ...IF YOU AGREE...
Pass this on to all of your proud Australian & other Worldly
Friends..
I just did.............!!!
It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice.
It's also nice to be AUSTRALIAN.
JRH said
12:35 PM Feb 2, 2009
sgntbilko wrote:
For Australia Day and more the Australian Flag in particular and thought this may make interesting reading:-
Subject: Australian flag If this is true, I would have loved to have been there!
I am led to believe,an incident occurred in a supermarket Recently, when the following was witnessed:
A Muslim woman dressed in a Burkha (A black gown & face mask) was Standing with her shopping in a queue at the checkout.
When it was her turn to be served, and as she reached the cashier, She made a loud remark about the Australian Flag lapel pin, which the Female cashier was wearing on her blouse.
The cashier reached up and touched the pin and said, 'Yes, I always Wear it proudly. My son serves abroad with the forces and I wear it for Him.
The Muslim woman then asked the cashier when she was going to stop Bombing and killing her countrymen explaining that she was Iraqi.
At that point, an elderly Gentleman standing in the queue stepped Forward, and interrupted with a calm and gentle voice, and said to the Iraqi woman:
'Excuse me, but hundreds of thousands of Australian men and women, Just like this ladies son have fought and sacrificed their lives so that People just like YOU can stand here, in Australia, which is MY country and Allow you to blatantly accuse an innocent check-out cashier of bombing YOUR Countrymen.
'It is my belief that if you were allowed to be as outspoken as That in Iraq, which you claim to be YOUR country, then we wouldn't need to be Fighting there today'. .'However - now that you have learned how to speak Out and criticise the Australian people who have afforded you the protection Of MY country, I will gladly pay the cost of a ticket to help you pay your Way back to Iraq '.
'When you get there, and if you manage to survive for being as Outspoken as what you are here in Australia, then you should be able to help Straighten out the mess which YOUR Iraqi countrymen have got you into in The first place, which appears to be the reason that you have come to MY Country to avoid.'
Apparently the queue cheered and applauded. ...IF YOU AGREE...
Pass this on to all of your proud Australian & other Worldly Friends..
I just did.............!!!
It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice. It's also nice to be AUSTRALIAN.
G'day, I concur 100%, if they don't like our way they are free to leave.
Best Regards and Safe Travelling.
John
Basil Faulty said
04:23 PM Feb 2, 2009
brickies wrote:
We also agree we can do without red neck the world is big enough for all we must respect other peoples way of life has long has it is lawfull
Absolutley - we must respect other cultures of course they must respect ours equally. That is not easy when we respect other cultures who have what we consider babbaric habits, like for example stoning women who commit the sin of being raped. The world's a weird place.....As long as those with such babarric pracises leave them where they are and don't bring their own racial intolerances with them then they are welcome here.
Basil Faulty said
04:29 PM Feb 2, 2009
Roostertales wrote:
It's not that long ago western powers were oppresors to the rest of the world- often with catastrophic consequences.
You only have to look at our colonial past, the floggings etc commited by suposedly genteel society....Port Arthur was not built in a day....
Yep, here is what Sir William Deane thinks about this issue and a cuppla comments on his thoughts - these are from the Canberra Times......
What Aborigines should think of king and country
27/01/2009 1:00:00 AMSorry, Mick Dodson (''Rethink 'invasion day' says Dodson'', January 26, p1), but 1788 was hardly an invasion. In 1770, according to the law of the day, Captain Cook claimed the east coast of Australia for King George III, thus making all Aborigines British subjects. Naturally, the couple of million locals scattered around the continent might not have been aware of this, but ignorance of the law is no excuse, which as a lawyer you well know. So the 1788 and subsequent arrivals were merely a population shift, many of the newcomers being moved off their own lands elsewhere quite legally by enclosure and other laws, so they applied the same principles when they arrived, being quite willing, if not seeking, to even employ Aborigines providing they didn't interfere with private property such as cattle. Sure, there were tough laws then by today's standards but, then, male sexual mutilation was once a popular punishment for adultery amongst indigenes, at least in the Northern Territory, and I gather spearing is still condoned for other offences in a few areas. What some misguided people regarded as an invasion also occurred in the mid-1970s when a few hundred thousand Vietnamese arrived with no English and the backsides out of their pants, having also undergone a kind of invasion and legal dispossession of their lands, but their kids are now doctors, accountants, lawyers and the like and have been saved from a life of drudgery up to their knees in a flooded rice paddy. So there's always hope, eh? Best wishes for the recent award and you'll be doing me and maybe a few dozen others a favour if, apart from raising the level of indigenous school attendance, you can finally define what reconciliation means specifically and how it will practically operate: I've worked with Aborigines and never felt ''irreconciled'' from them, or they me, as far as I could tell. Bill Deane, Chapman GG retired
Might may have the legal right in 1788, but not now
29/01/2009 1:00:00 AMBill Deane engages in a neat piece of sophistry in arguing against the concept of a British ''invasion'' of Australia (Letters, January 27). The fatal flaw in his presentation is that while the law, ''as it was'', did allow Britain and European nations to subjugate native peoples in Australia, Africa and North America at will, it didn't make it just. In other words, it was the application of the concept ''might is right' that resulted in Mr Deane's sadly euphemistic ''population shifts'' in three continents. Later, and equally unjust for indigenous Australians, was the application of measures derived solely in terms of English law, without any consultation with or consideration for those being ''moved off their lands by enclosure and other laws quite legally'' (sic). While I might also be among the misguided, as Mr Deane labels Professor Dodson and his followers, his argument comparing the Vietnamese boat people with the situation in 1788 and later is, to say the least, tenuous. Similarly, it's nothing more than a sophistic red herring to assert that, because British law was harsh, so too is native law and, therefore, indigenous Australians ought not to complain. Mr Deane tells us lastly he never felt ''irreconciled'' when he worked with Aborigines. I suspect that his experience may have been in a time and place when ''reconciliation'' was not a concept in popular vogue or any vogue at all among the white population and that most of us didn't give a damn what Aboriginal people thought. In fact, my recollection is we didn't give them much credit for thinking at all. Fortunately, some things, if not all, have changed for the better, as even Bill would concede. Eric Hunter, Cook Thank you, Bill Deane (Letters, Janaury 27), for your edifying comments. I'm so glad to know that Britain's ''invasion'' of Australia was ''legal''. As a white Australian, it takes such a load off my mind. Presumably, then, Bill, you also sanction other ''legal'' activities, such as the extermination of Jews, political prisoners, homosexuals, Gypsies and other ''non-desirables'' under Hitler (highly documented in its ''legality''), the political assassination of Jesus Christ (ditto) as well as the (thoroughly legal) racial discrimination against those nasty blacks in 1980s South Africa.Maybe even the public stoning of women in some countries whose ''crime'' has been to ''allow themselves to'' be raped. Makes me feel much better about a lot of things, Bill. Just try to never be an ''enemy of the state'' or you might regret it. Robert Bednarik, Lyneham I genuinely like Mick Dodson, particularly his recent comments against those indigenous community opinion leaders who use the intervention to serve their own ends. However, I find his use of the Australian of the Year acceptance speech to promote a debate over Australia Day unconstructive in the current political climate. Far more useful would have been to promote the establishment of a democratically elected representative body of indigenous nations or a notional Congress of Indigenous Nations of Australia where each representative of an indigenous nation is democratically elected by their own nation. Such a body could debate such issues and present such a call if they felt it was a priority. A further use of the congress would be that representatives of the indigenous nations affected by the intervention could serve as liaison points for government services to those communities and advise on culturally appropriate service delivery. Derek Green, Dunlop
ibbo said
07:53 PM Feb 2, 2009
String deleted?
Basil Faulty said
03:33 PM Feb 3, 2009
ibbo wrote:
String deleted?
Yeah well lets discuss without going overboard....If you find the topic offensive you always have the right NOT TO READ IT!!
JRH said
04:04 PM Feb 3, 2009
Basil Faulty wrote:
ibbo wrote:
String deleted?
Yeah well lets discuss without going overboard....If you find the topic offensive you always have the right NOT TO READ IT!!
Well it would seem that a minority have successfully lobbied the Webmistress for the deletion of a thread that some apparantly have found to contain offensive remarks.
All this hullabaloo leads me to ask 3 questions and it would be nice if the minority group could answer them but I won't hold my breath in anticipation.
My questions are this.
1) If a black man calls me a white B******* that is ok. If I, a white man call the black man a black B******* then I am deemed to be racist. Why is this so?
2) If a black man chooses to celebrate his colour and race that is ok. If I, a white man, choose to celebrate my colour and race I am deemed to be racist. Why is this so?
3) If a white man criticises a white family for trashing a house that is ok. If the same white man criticises a black family for trashing a house the white man is deemed to be racist. Why is this so?
The answers will be interesting.
John
Basil Faulty said
05:14 PM Feb 3, 2009
JRH wrote:
Basil Faulty wrote:
ibbo wrote:
String deleted?
Yeah well lets discuss without going overboard....If you find the topic offensive you always have the right NOT TO READ IT!!
Well it would seem that a minority have successfully lobbied the Webmistress for the deletion of a thread that some apparantly have found to contain offensive remarks.
All this hullabaloo leads me to ask 3 questions and it would be nice if the minority group could answer them but I won't hold my breath in anticipation.
My questions are this.
1) If a black man calls me a white B******* that is ok. If I, a white man call the black man a black B******* then I am deemed to be racist. Why is this so?
2) If a black man chooses to celebrate his colour and race that is ok. If I, a white man, choose to celebrate my colour and race I am deemed to be racist. Why is this so?
3) If a white man criticises a white family for trashing a house that is ok. If the same white man criticises a black family for trashing a house the white man is deemed to be racist. Why is this so?
The answers will be interesting.
John
Well I was quite vocal in the deleted thread. I can't answer your questions simply because I belive that they are simply some of lifes imponderables. I'd also like to see answers.... I'd really have prefered the person or persons who found the remarks offensive to say they found the remarks offensive and say so openly. Robust, healthy debate is what gives these forums their character. No one is ever going to to be able to satisfy everyone all of the time and each and every one of us is entitled to their opinion. I may not agree with all that is said on this forum but I will defend to the death your right to your opinion. Frankly wowserism is as bad as racism especially if it's done sneakilly rather than have the courage of your own convictions and say what you feel. Ok the original thread was right over the top and in an earlier post I said I'd have preffered the offensive remarks edited rather than deleting the lot.... Still it's not my forum and if I don't like it I can leave can't I?
JRH said
05:33 PM Feb 3, 2009
Well said Basil, just one small request, Please do not leave, resignation never did a thing to win the day and like you I will also fight to the death to defend others right to express their opinions, and as you have said it would be nice if the person or persons would step forward and openly state some remarks were offensive and that they were upset by them.
Unfortunately there will always be those who prefer to hide behind the anonyminity of the internet. It would have been so easy to simply state "I found such and such a comment to be offensive and would prefer not to read such on our forum" or words to that effect, we would then know that a statement was offesive to some and it would then be up to the individual who made the statement to consider others feelings and not make such remarks in the future, but we do not live in a perfect world.
John
PS: Edited for a typo
-- Edited by JRH at 16:35, 2009-02-03
sgntbilko said
08:38 PM Feb 3, 2009
I agree with both Basil and John.
What annoys me the most are those which are offended and I would say in most cases have not have had 1st hand experiences but have read most of it if not all from books.
My opinion is this, if you have not had 1st hand experience with the subject matter, you really are not qualified to speak on it and if you are not qualified or experienced on anything 1st hand, how can you be offended? I guess you can always say:- In My Opinion
Text book experts (which I call the minority) seem to make the most noise and are listened to, because the majority sit back and say nothing. Its a poor situation and solves nothing. Its about time the majority stood up and were counted and that would leave the minority in no mans land.
Take care and stay well
Peter
twobob said
10:48 PM Feb 3, 2009
Sarg I am with you, but tired, maybe old
In the past i would stand up and be counted, but these days, I let the "no facts" ball, go through to the keeper
You may notice elsewhere here, i have a problem with TV. Basically i have a problem with the media, as MOST aussie, get their opinion from it. When what is delivered by the media, is challenged for facts, they are lacking
We, GN's, should be able to expess opinions, as we see it. I do not agree with an opinion that has no facts to back it up, but if we talk through them, we all learn. Having them censored, stops the mis informed, gaining a new view.
The idea of discussing how Australia is changing is an interesting topic, however, some posts in the original string went too far and have offended several readers. Please do not post racist remarks on this forum it upsets many people and it does not reflect the spirit of kindness, generosity and inclusiveness that this forum has become known for. Thanks everyone for your support and for your understanding.
Cheers,
xina.
-- Edited by xina at 19:24, 2009-01-30
Some of us have strong opinions on this topic, myself included but maybe we could do it without being racist, though the original gesture on the part of Aussie of the Year was done on racist grounds ie his race was offended by those not of his race celebrating something he found offensive. Hmmmmm I guess thats why we have a democracy - we just have to face it we live in a very racist society....
What I guess I am trying to say is that if all debate/discussion here that has racial overtones is to be deleted then I'm probably on the wrong forum. I'd have preffered to see the more extreme comments edited but to totally stifle debate on this or any issue reeks of exactly what we were discussing in the first place, that is that a minority wish to impose their views on the majority. No one said being a webmistress was easy!
-- Edited by Basil Faulty at 07:14, 2009-02-02
I concur 100%, if they don't like our way they are free to leave.
Best Regards and Safe Travelling.
John
Yep, here is what Sir William Deane thinks about this issue and a cuppla comments on his thoughts - these are from the Canberra Times......
What Aborigines should think of king and country
27/01/2009 1:00:00 AMSorry, Mick Dodson (''Rethink 'invasion day' says Dodson'', January 26, p1), but 1788 was hardly an invasion. In 1770, according to the law of the day, Captain Cook claimed the east coast of Australia for King George III, thus making all Aborigines British subjects. Naturally, the couple of million locals scattered around the continent might not have been aware of this, but ignorance of the law is no excuse, which as a lawyer you well know. So the 1788 and subsequent arrivals were merely a population shift, many of the newcomers being moved off their own lands elsewhere quite legally by enclosure and other laws, so they applied the same principles when they arrived, being quite willing, if not seeking, to even employ Aborigines providing they didn't interfere with private property such as cattle. Sure, there were tough laws then by today's standards but, then, male sexual mutilation was once a popular punishment for adultery amongst indigenes, at least in the Northern Territory, and I gather spearing is still condoned for other offences in a few areas. What some misguided people regarded as an invasion also occurred in the mid-1970s when a few hundred thousand Vietnamese arrived with no English and the backsides out of their pants, having also undergone a kind of invasion and legal dispossession of their lands, but their kids are now doctors, accountants, lawyers and the like and have been saved from a life of drudgery up to their knees in a flooded rice paddy. So there's always hope, eh? Best wishes for the recent award and you'll be doing me and maybe a few dozen others a favour if, apart from raising the level of indigenous school attendance, you can finally define what reconciliation means specifically and how it will practically operate: I've worked with Aborigines and never felt ''irreconciled'' from them, or they me, as far as I could tell. Bill Deane, Chapman GG retiredMight may have the legal right in 1788, but not now
29/01/2009 1:00:00 AMBill Deane engages in a neat piece of sophistry in arguing against the concept of a British ''invasion'' of Australia (Letters, January 27). The fatal flaw in his presentation is that while the law, ''as it was'', did allow Britain and European nations to subjugate native peoples in Australia, Africa and North America at will, it didn't make it just. In other words, it was the application of the concept ''might is right' that resulted in Mr Deane's sadly euphemistic ''population shifts'' in three continents. Later, and equally unjust for indigenous Australians, was the application of measures derived solely in terms of English law, without any consultation with or consideration for those being ''moved off their lands by enclosure and other laws quite legally'' (sic). While I might also be among the misguided, as Mr Deane labels Professor Dodson and his followers, his argument comparing the Vietnamese boat people with the situation in 1788 and later is, to say the least, tenuous. Similarly, it's nothing more than a sophistic red herring to assert that, because British law was harsh, so too is native law and, therefore, indigenous Australians ought not to complain. Mr Deane tells us lastly he never felt ''irreconciled'' when he worked with Aborigines. I suspect that his experience may have been in a time and place when ''reconciliation'' was not a concept in popular vogue or any vogue at all among the white population and that most of us didn't give a damn what Aboriginal people thought. In fact, my recollection is we didn't give them much credit for thinking at all. Fortunately, some things, if not all, have changed for the better, as even Bill would concede. Eric Hunter, Cook Thank you, Bill Deane (Letters, Janaury 27), for your edifying comments. I'm so glad to know that Britain's ''invasion'' of Australia was ''legal''. As a white Australian, it takes such a load off my mind. Presumably, then, Bill, you also sanction other ''legal'' activities, such as the extermination of Jews, political prisoners, homosexuals, Gypsies and other ''non-desirables'' under Hitler (highly documented in its ''legality''), the political assassination of Jesus Christ (ditto) as well as the (thoroughly legal) racial discrimination against those nasty blacks in 1980s South Africa.Maybe even the public stoning of women in some countries whose ''crime'' has been to ''allow themselves to'' be raped. Makes me feel much better about a lot of things, Bill. Just try to never be an ''enemy of the state'' or you might regret it. Robert Bednarik, Lyneham I genuinely like Mick Dodson, particularly his recent comments against those indigenous community opinion leaders who use the intervention to serve their own ends. However, I find his use of the Australian of the Year acceptance speech to promote a debate over Australia Day unconstructive in the current political climate. Far more useful would have been to promote the establishment of a democratically elected representative body of indigenous nations or a notional Congress of Indigenous Nations of Australia where each representative of an indigenous nation is democratically elected by their own nation. Such a body could debate such issues and present such a call if they felt it was a priority. A further use of the congress would be that representatives of the indigenous nations affected by the intervention could serve as liaison points for government services to those communities and advise on culturally appropriate service delivery. Derek Green, DunlopString deleted?
All this hullabaloo leads me to ask 3 questions and it would be nice if the minority group could answer them but I won't hold my breath in anticipation.
My questions are this.
1) If a black man calls me a white B******* that is ok. If I, a white man call the black man a black B******* then I am deemed to be racist. Why is this so?
2) If a black man chooses to celebrate his colour and race that is ok. If I, a white man, choose to celebrate my colour and race I am deemed to be racist. Why is this so?
3) If a white man criticises a white family for trashing a house that is ok. If the same white man criticises a black family for trashing a house the white man is deemed to be racist. Why is this so?
The answers will be interesting.
John
Unfortunately there will always be those who prefer to hide behind the anonyminity of the internet. It would have been so easy to simply state "I found such and such a comment to be offensive and would prefer not to read such on our forum" or words to that effect, we would then know that a statement was offesive to some and it would then be up to the individual who made the statement to consider others feelings and not make such remarks in the future, but we do not live in a perfect world.
John
PS: Edited for a typo
-- Edited by JRH at 16:35, 2009-02-03
What annoys me the most are those which are offended and I would say in most cases have not have had 1st hand experiences but have read most of it if not all from books.
My opinion is this, if you have not had 1st hand experience with the subject matter, you really are not qualified to speak on it and if you are not qualified or experienced on anything 1st hand, how can you be offended? I guess you can always say:- In My Opinion
Text book experts (which I call the minority) seem to make the most noise and are listened to, because the majority sit back and say nothing. Its a poor situation and solves nothing. Its about time the majority stood up and were counted and that would leave the minority in no mans land.
Take care and stay well
Peter
I am with you, but tired, maybe old
In the past i would stand up and be counted, but these days, I let the "no facts" ball, go through to the keeper
You may notice elsewhere here, i have a problem with TV. Basically i have a problem with the media, as MOST aussie, get their opinion from it. When what is delivered by the media, is challenged for facts, they are lacking
We, GN's, should be able to expess opinions, as we see it. I do not agree with an opinion that has no facts to back it up, but if we talk through them, we all learn. Having them censored, stops the mis informed, gaining a new view.