Hello again, s:Quote:
Originally Posted by saupuss
So, when I talk about Mexicans outworking white guys, I have to be politically correct and mention other creeds too? Nope. It don't work that way here.
excon
|
Hello again, s:Quote:
Originally Posted by saupuss
So, when I talk about Mexicans outworking white guys, I have to be politically correct and mention other creeds too? Nope. It don't work that way here.
excon
Hey, you're not a right winger, but look who is classifying people according to color, and making stereotypical statements on work ethic based on race??Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
G&P
There appears to be a certain section of society who thinks that there should be a distinction so that they can point out that us terrible white folks have done something terrible because of race to others. They forget that people everywhere make distinctions because of race and enforce it in various ways. The arabs in Dubai don't employ non arabic speakers, for example. Your skin does not make you immune to racism anymore than it should make you a victim of it. I live in a polygot society where there are people of every race but for some this is beyond their experience. I have certain points of view arising out of my experience that may give me a poor opinion of people from certain racial groups. But that opinion may not arise out of ethnicity but their world view. White defines european for many but the caucasian race spans both europe and asia and includes people who are sun tanned and those who are not, so who is white is a moot pointQuote:
Originally Posted by saupuss
The word "mote" is spelled "moot".
Hello in:Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Yeah, I don't live up to my hype.
excon
When did being Mexican or any other race become a creed do they take an oath to be Mexican. I know American children every day take an oath to be American but does it extend to othersQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
Quite an amusing thread this one, I have particularly enjoyed the sanctimonious ranting of paraclete. He displays a peculiar type of Calvinist righteousness, (or rather, self righteousness) that was de rigueur during the Howard years, and makes itself apparent in the vigorous defence of Australian virtue he has so adroitly presented. No doubt there is virtue here worth defending, and much of it at that! However to suggest that Australian Aboriginals have been given a "fair go" in this country, and that it is they themselves who are entirely to blame for the substantial difficulties they now face, is short sighted in the extreme.
Given paraclete's extreme dislike of laziness, it is pehaps ironic he should display an intellectual sloth that, it must be said, is one of the defining characteristics of his ilk. Cultural influence perhaps? Maybe, however the sheer vulgarity of such thinking suggests to me that it may well be a lack of culture that is to blame. Let's take his assertion that...
It is really only one short step from this assertion, to what is actually at the heart of the problem. Why does one stop here, if not for laziness? What "they" have been conditioned to expect, is FAILURE! Ambition? That is nothing more than desire, and it makes little sense to desire that which you believe you cannot have. Where does this belief come from? How can WE, as FELLOW CITIZENS set about changing it, TOGETHER? It seems to me that a goodly portion of the Aboriginal population do not even feel like they are a part of the wider society. Aboriginal MPs? Yes, 8 out of 800. Doctors? Lawyers? Policeman? Teachers? I have yet to meet even one that was Aboriginal, and it is not that much of a stretch, even for the laziest of minds, to conceive of how this state of affairs might influence the beliefs of a generation.Quote:
... they have been conditioned to expect welfare and they show little ambition.
Really? "They" think that jail is "great"? When did "they" tell him this I wonder? Was it all of "them"? Or just some of "them"? Given that this question is obviously rhetorical, why does he choose to proclaim this subset as being "representative", and not the subset mentioned elsewhere in this thread? The group he mentions are in an extreme minority, yet he uses the term "them", as if to imply Aboriginal people as a whole. Why is this? And if he is to say "I only said they were not representative of their fellows, who are not like them", then I would ask what the point of the statement actually is? To make a statement that essentially says "Honest hard working people are not representative of criminals and bad parents", seems to me to be a statement worthy of only the utmost imbecile.Quote:
You think that singleling out a group who consistently under performs despite the money thrown at them is offensive, well I tell you, I find them offensive, they even have to be forced to send their children to school and their dole taken so that they are forced to buy food for their families. We have no concept of the noble savage here. Do you know they actually think jail is a great place, where else could they get three square meals a day and roof when it rains for nothing?
There is no doubt that if the problems faced by Aboriginal people are to be surmounted, then it is Aboriginal people themselves who must bear the ultimate responsibility. In order for them to do this however, they first of all need to overcome the institutional marginalisation that is still very much a reality. Paraclete's simplistic representation of the situation is lazy, dishonest, and ultimately worthless.
Tokugawa, another one with a penchant for rhetoric without knowledge. There are indeed aboriginal people who have surmounted the difficulties and become politicians, judges, doctors, teachers, police, medical workers, even building contractors and other trades persons but that they are in the minority among their fellows and that they have not come to Tokugawa's attention doesn't make them non-existent but representative of the views expressed here that it is welfare given to these people that holds them back and creates the environment for laziness and disadvantage. Yes there are whole communities who have a view that jail is a whole lot better than their day to day existence but what can you expect when imposition of tribal law offers a far worse alternative. A tribal law they tell us should apply to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokugawa
Australian aboriginals have been given an opportunity to do something but rarely take it. Who creates the squalor of the communities, not the government, not the people in the cities, nor should they be expected to clean it up, but those right there on the ground, and you cannot say this is because someone has not taken the trouble to create employment for these people, or offer them care. When employment opportunities are available they will often cite local tribal reasons the project should not proceed , or tie it up in endless discussion and wrangling. Have they been given a fair go, yes in recent years they have, but their own heritage holds them back. This place is no longer the BBQAREA of two hundred years ago of the aboriginal dreaming, but a viverant community open to anyone willing to have a go. If an aboriginal wants to live in a tribal manner, fine, but don't expect the rest of us to support the life style, because some sort of hybrid really doesn't fit.
So, Tokugawa, as we say here, you are barking up the wrong gum tree, mate!
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:10 PM. |