I have rarely heard 'of Anglo-Saxon appearance' used as a description in Australia and I have never heard of 'Nordic' or 'Germanic' appearance used at all and yet people of these groups certainly commit crimes.

I would also like to know how many of the Muslim Lebanese people are law-abiding citizens. I suspect most of them are.

You mention damage done to synagogues but I see you do not mention the damage done to Mosques etc since 9/11. What about the school buses from Muslim schools that stones were thrown at, and the children verbally abused. Guess what, the people doing this seemed to be of Anglo-Saxon appearance to me. It is hardly surprising that Muslim communities are concerned about backlashes. What did 9/11 have to do with the majority of Muslims in Australia? Nothing at all but many Malay Muslim women wearing a veil had it pulled off them by 'Anglo-Saxon' Australians.

One of my cousins is noticably Aboriginal. I remembering going places with him and being called names because I was walking with a black man. The abuse came from white people. I have sat at a table with him in a restaurant and seen people served around us but we were given second class service. People no doubt believed he was a danger because he was aboriginal, They might say that aboriginals commit more crime but I know my cousin never has. He is feared because of his appearance just like many people of Middle Eastern appearance' are.

And as far as bag-snatchings go - how do you know that bags aren't being snatched by Anglo-Saxons as well but the media considers that un-newsworthy?

BTW your link is not working for me.

The term used to describe people who are not of middle eastern appearance,asian or pacific islander/aboriginal is caucasian kuu.I read it twice in todays Sunday papers.Sorry you can`t get that link but your reply to my post was a little too fast,you replied before I could test the link,which i did within about half an hour of posting.It`s sad that youv`e had bad experiences with your cousin,I`ve been lucky in that when I`ve been out with my cousin and her aboriginal husband we have never been served any differently,and I would certainly have made a noise if when out with my other cousin and her Lebanese husband we had been served in a lower standard than the other diners.The Bali bombings by muslim terrorists have certainly changed the tolerance level of non-muslim people living in Australia though,I don`t have to wonder why for too long and I assume as a thinking Australian you don`t have to either Kuu.

Well technically people of Middle Eastern appearance are as much Caucasian as me, the term should not be used to describe just people of European descent. The term isn't even in scientific use anymore. Most people from India are trchnically Caucasian too and I read an article that the Aboriginals are simply very dark Caucasians. Remember that in some full-blonded desert tribes blonde hair is not uncommon.

So I think the terms 'Nordic, Germanic, or Anglo-Saxon' would be far more appropiate than Caucasian.

I must admit my and my cousin problems happened about 20 years ago so maybe racism isn't as blatant today but it is still common.

My opinion on reverse discrimination. My cousin gets free tutoring for his children simply because they are aboriginal. People might say this is unfair. I don't. My cousin's mother wasn't allowed to go to highschool and the reason for this was that she was aboriginal. No other reason at all. It was a common policy when she was young (1940s-50s). As a result the next generation tended to be more illerate than the average Australian and my cousin wasn't given much encouragement either at home or at school. So he is semi-literate. So I think the government owes his children something.

Lanni is quite right. If the Whites Only prom is a privately sponsored event, which is not held on school property, then it can be as exclusive an event as the organizers wish it to be. Events held on school property, or under school auspices, must abide by laws which prohibit segregation--because government funds are involved. Private functions are not bound by any such governmental influence, nor should they be.

The notion that integration should be forced in all situations and places, or that "outsiders" have a right to barge into all places, whether wanted or not, is sheer nonsense. People have a right to privacy--and that right allows one to congregate within exclusive private groups.

When it comes to social and recreational functions and activities, people do have a right to congregate with whomever they choose--and private groups have a right to exclude those they do not wish to be with, for whatever reason. There is nothing necessarily inherently racist, or sexist, or bigoted about wanting to be with people who are similar to one's self or who share similar values or interests. People may simply feel more comfortable about being "among one's own kind" in certain kinds of situations.
For instance, there are health clubs that cater exclusively to women--Lucille Roberts, I think is one. Many women feel more comfortable in an all female group where they can be less self conscious about their appearance or where they can engage in a program exclusively designed for women. Is this sexist? Not really. Should such private facilities exist? Of course. They cater to people's needs, and when it comes to individual needs one size does not fit all. Should men be permitted to have all-male private clubs? Of course. And I do not feel that women have a right to insist on membership in an all male private club or private organization.

Even when private clubs--such as certain country clubs--engage in clearly biased policies, such as excluding members based on race or religion, they still have a right to do so. People have a right to engage in such behaviors in the private areas of their life. That is part of our constitutional guarantee to a right to privacy and one we should fight to protect.

Obviously, when the area of activity involves public facilities, and any venue specifically covered by government funds (such as schools and colleges), the situation is different. The government can interfere--and insist on non discrimination--if there are laws being violated or if government funds are involved. But, beyond these boundaries, the government really has no right to force integration.

We have always had de facto segregation in the Northern U.S. While certainly not as blatant as the institutionalized segregation of the pre-60's South (with it's segregated schools, buses, drinking fountains, etc.), segregation by neighborhoods in the North effectively kept most schools segregated--and school district boundaries were drawn up to protect those segregated boundaries as much as possible. Even in the North, whites often attended schools only with whites and blacks only with blacks. Native New Yorkers (of which I am one), cannot really pride themselves on being less bigoted than Southerners. I attended a public elementary school in Manhattan which had no black students. I later attended two Junior High Schools which had no black students, and my High School had only a handful of black students. My parents, simply chose to live in white neighborhoods, not because they were bigots, but because they were upwardly mobile and they wanted to live in "good" neighborhoods and send their children to "good" schools--I don't think issues of race ever crossed their minds when they selected places to live or checked out the school districts. They really didn't care who I went to school with, they were more concerned about the quality of the school, and, at that time, the better schools were in white neighborhoods. The de facto segregation was as much based on economic factors as it was racial.
Attempts to force integration, by busing children out of one school district and into another, and thereby hoping to overcome segregation by neighborhoods, were dismal failures and did little more than get everyone agitated. You can desegregate individual schools, as they did in the South, but you really can't force educational integration much beyond that, and you really can't change attitudes through busing children to other schools.
When middle and professional class blacks began quietly moving into previously all white middle class neighborhoods the situation began changing in a much more natural and organic way. As long as people were economically on equal footing there was less concern about race and less concern about property values declining due to integration. This was not always the case in blue collar neighborhoods, but that is what happened around here in middle class neighborhoods over the past 30 years. But it was slow in coming. The North is not immune to racism and never has been.

I think we have to accept that people hold private attitudes which are not always politically correct. People hold all sorts of biases. But we cannot legislate or control what goes on in people's minds and hearts. The government can force integration only in the public sphere, and even then they can achieve only behavioral compliance with laws. Hopefully, that's enough to produce some attitudinal changes and enough to insure that various groups at least have some contact with each other. But that's as far as the government should go. The rest is all a private matter.

I enjoy diversity but I also enjoy being in certain exclusive groups at times. I don't want outside individuals or the government telling me who I have to allow into my private groups or clubs. I have a right to surround myself only with those people I wish to be with in my private life.

The women's movement did not advance because individual women insisted on crashing into private male clubs--it advanced because the government ended discrimination through equal opportunity in hiring and through government insistence on women's acceptance into government run colleges or government supported private colleges and universities. Whether some private clubs or organizations decided to open their doors to women was irrelevant. Similarly, racial equality was promoted through education and hiring practices, and not through blacks insisting on membership in all white private clubs. The private sphere was, and is still private.

You do not diminish bigotry by insisting that a private group, which does not wish you as a member, accept you whether they like it or not. That scenario does not help anyone and, if anything, it fosters animosity between groups.
People have a right to congregate socially with those who they want. If you want to exclude me from your private group that is fine with me. I personally do not want to force myself into private groups where I am not welcome--what on earth would be the point of that. And if I wish to keep you out of my private groups, because I feel your presence would disturb the purpose or nature of my group, I will fight to keep you out.

In public places and in our public schools and employment we should all be treated equally regardless of race, sex, religion, ethnicity, etc. In public is when we all come together and that's when the playing field should be equal.
But our private lives and our private activities are an entirely different matter. The government has no more right to tell me who I have to allow into my private club than it does to tell me who I have to have as a dinner guest in my home. I value my privacy and I want it protected.

If those kids want to have a Whites Only prom that's privately sponsored and off school property, that's fine. With attitudes like that I can't imagine why a black kid would even want to attend such a prom.
I also fail to see how having a prom open to everyone in the school would affect interracial dating one way or the other--a prom is only one night--but, then again, I didn't grow up in rural Georgia.

Around here they have begun to hold county-wide Gay Proms because the gay students don't always feel comfortable at the regular school proms when they attend with a same sex partner. These have been very successful events. Should the gay students be forced to allow heterosexual students to attend their prom? I think not. If they want a separate event so they can enjoy themselves in private without any outside tensions to mar the evening they are entitled to that privacy.

Sometimes we just have to make allowances for each others differences. In some cases private separate exclusive events, functions, clubs, organizations, etc. may be the best way to do that. Forcing social integration--integration along any lines--is not always the best way to achieve harmony. Tolerance implies just that--we tolerate differences. That does not necessarily mean we welcome them, embrace them, or seek them out in our private lives. Some of us do, but others don't--and we have to respect that too. Just achieving tolerance in a highly diverse society is a worthy goal. True universal brotherly love is probably more than we can ever wish for--it would be wonderful if it happened, but, until then, I'll settle for public tolerance.

Personally, I think that the idea of a "whites only" prom is stupid and racist.
I'm sure everyone would like to say that the black vs white problems are all long gone and that that kind of discrimination dosen't exist anymore, but it does.
There are whites who are racist and there are blacks who are racist.

At my school there are Hispanic leadership confrences and African American leadership confrences but no kind of Anglo-Saxon or caucasion leadership confrences because THAT, of course, would be racist. Still, there are just as many white students needing leadership skills as there are black or hispanic students needing leadership skills.

Ace - I think your comment about specific origins was totally uncalled for, The Curry House owners are actually Bangladeshi.
The Manager of the restuarant, in Bowness Cubria has since been sacked on the instructions of the owners.
The ban was brought to light by an Asian couple who were turned away on their 40th Wedding Anniversary and they have complained to the Commission for Racial Equality (Quite rightly in my view).
Whilst not being completely integrated I would say that here in Leicester we have one of the most tolerant societies. We have one of the biggest ethnic mixes in the Country, Poles, Latvians, Hungarians, West Indians, Asian, Afro Asian, Afro Carribean, etc etc.etc. and to the most part live in relative harmony and accepting and joining in the others holidays and religious festivals.
I'm sure you enjoy the Mardi Gras, Halloween, Christmas, Thanksgiving, New Year Festivals well we have a lot of others we can have a night out and enjoy ourselves. (oh yes we have a large Irish contingent as well so St.Patricks Night is one to be savoured)
If others could accept the differences as we do (all of us!) then perhaps there wouldn't be the discord.
Accept people for what/who they are (as a person) not for what you THINK they are.

Dakota, I'm ignorant on the politics of P.A. so I won't opine on those but as for some of your other comments...

Quote:

---

The blacks have Miss Black America, yet black women can enter into Miss America.

---

-I see backing your argument with ethnic pageants, or Black pageants more specifically, as a good one. Although there are arguments for and against such pageants, I do wonder how many arguments there would be for a Miss. White U.S.A. pageant.

Quote:

---

The blacks have the NAACP, but what do whites have?

---

-I don't think the concept of having a NAACP is racist which is probably why I think Whites, as well as other groups, should be able to have groups to voice their views if they feel underrepresented as well.

If someone says one is right and the other is wrong, then they are being hypocritical, but how often have you heard that one?

Quote:

---

When whites beat and torture a black person, it's called racism, but what is it called when blacks beat and torture a white person? Not racism that's for sure.

---

-When a person assaults another because of their race, it is racism. Have you actually heard someone say otherwise?

Quote:

---

The KKK is considered a monstrous organization because of its racist views, but what about the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam? Aren't their views just as racist?

---

-I've heard various opinions on whether the Black Panthers were racist, but the Nation of Islam? Honestly, how often have you heard people say that members the Nation of Islam don't have racist views?

This doesn't count supporters of the group itself because ask some supporters of White supremacist groups about their ideologies and some will say that they aren't racist but merely advocate a, b, c, and d which are merely less direct ways of stating their beliefs.

So other than supporters, have you ever heard he Nation of Islam equated to let's say, the Freedom Riders? The Boys and Girls Scouts of America?

Or, have you more frequently heard them be referred to as off the mark anti-Semitic separatists who are accused of murdering Malcolm X because he began advocating racial unity?

If the answer isn't the latter, I must say we have had very different experiences.

Quote:

---

A black woman can call a white woman a "white b**ch," but when that same white woman calls the black woman a "black b**ch" the black woman calls the white woman racist. But, who threw the first racial punch?

---

Quote:

---

Most times the first racial punch is thrown by blacks, yet those same individuals are also the first to cry racism.

---

-The same thing may be said about that. Perhaps we've just had different experiences.

I've heard minorities voice the opposite opinion as can also be said about the first punch statement.

It's not exactly a debate anyone can win.

***Everyone can read more on the restaurant Fosse is talking about here.***

I'm probably going off on a bit of a tangent here, but I just want to say this.

I appreciate where everyone is coming from with the whole "colour blind" thing, and I think it's admirable. But I think it's a tad naive to believe that race is something that is only skin deep.

I know that we're all inherently the same, you know, the whole "If you prick us do we not bleed" bit, but we're hardly the same.

From my own experience, I would say that blacks and whites are very different. As are Italians, Muslims, Africans, whatever....different "races" have different cultures, different traditions and different beliefs. People brought up in black families have a different value system to people brought up in white families. I'm not saying that any one is better than the other, but they are different.

I suppose the point I'm trying to make is a quasi-answer to the question of "voluntary segregation" that has popped up a few times. People ask why blacks prefer to hang out with blacks, Turks with Turks, whites with whites, Jews with Jews, etc.

The way I see it is it's just easier. It's easier being around people who grew up with the same traditions as you did. You don't have to explain why you can't do something with your friends, or why you're not eating during the day, or why you need to worship during the day. It's not that we don't like anyone else, it's just easier being around people who know where you're coming from.

Lanni,

I'm not looking to make this thread a CI subject, I hope you know that. However, I must comment on your post.

Quote:

---

-I see backing your argument with ethnic pageants, or Black pageants more specifically, as a good one. Although there are arguments for and against such pageants, I do wonder how many arguments there would be for a Miss. White U.S.A. pageant.

---

There would be a lot of arguments if there were a Miss White U.S.A. or any "white only" pageant. It would be called racist and prejudiced and the "white only" pageant would be forced to desegregate.

Quote:

---

I don't think the concept of having a NAACP is racist which is probably why I think Whites, as well as other groups, should be able to have groups to voice their views if they feel underrepresented as well.

---

I believe that the actual concept of the NAACP is not racist, but if there was such a program entitled the National Association for the Advancement of White People, it would be called racist.

Quote:

---

When a person assaults another because of their race, it is racism. Have you actually heard someone say otherwise?

---

Yes, I have. It's called racism or ethnic intimidation if whites bother, harass, or hurt blacks. However, I can guarantee you that it's not called racism or ethnic intimidation if blacks bother, harass, or hurt whites.

How many blacks are in jail for ethnic intimidation? How many blacks were charged with racism?

Quote:

---

I've heard various opinions on whether the Black Panthers were racist, but the Nation of Islam? Honestly, how often have you heard people say that members the Nation of Islam don't have racist views?

This doesn't count supporters of the group itself because ask some supporters of White supremacist groups about their ideologies and some will say that they aren't racist but merely advocate a, b, c, and d which are merely less direct ways of stating their beliefs.

---

The fact of the matter is that blacks can have the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam, and even though the organization's views are racist, they are not vilified or demeaned. They are able to go anywhere in the country and voice their beliefs.

Now, while I am not advocating the KKK, they cannot go to different states and cities and voice thier beliefs. They are vilified and demeaned.

Two wrongs don't make a right. If the KKK is vilified and looked upon as racist, then so should the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam.

Quote:

---

It's not exactly a debate anyone can win.

---

You're right, it's not a debate anyone can win. However, if everyone would look at each other as a person, instead of a black person or a white person, maybe the world would be a lot better.

Besides supporters of the Nation of Islam, I really haven't heard people say that the group isn't racist.

You say they aren't demeaned but when I hear people talk about the Nation of Islam, what I hear is what I've said above.

I can't recall many conversations where the Nation of Islam wasn't portrayed as anti-Semitic separatists.

Even though it is more common to hear arguments about the values of the Black Panthers, still, those are arguments. Some say they were racist, some say they weren't.

I really can't see it as a "fact of the matter" that these groups aren't vilified, which is why I also can't say it is a positive perception of these groups that is why they are able to hold rallies.

Just like how those two groups can and do hold rallies regardless of how others view their views, White supremacist groups can and do hold rallies as well.

For example, White supremacist groups have held rallies in Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Maine, West Virginia, Texas--These are just what I remember off my head.

Evidently, they can and do voice their beliefs in different states and cities.
---
Anyone who will call someone who assaults a person based on race racist yet say it is not an act of racism when the scenario is reversed is ridiculous.

I don't know why you say it is a guarantee that if a Black person were to assault a White person because of their race, that it wouldn't be called racism because I believe if we were to poll the site there is a guarantee that others would agree with us in that it is an act of racism.
---
It has been rare but I have heard some people view the concept of having a NAACP as racist so I can't say that it would surprise me that people would view the concept of having a NAAWP as racist as well.

I wasn't really asking if there would be people who would view such an organization as racist but rather how many people have you heard say they think one organization is acceptable but the other is racist (it was just a rhetorical question really).

I've never heard that.
---
I also believe there would be commotion over a Miss. White U.S.A.

Just like the other ethnic pageants, I agree many would view it as racist.
---
When saying "not exactly a debate anyone could win," I was referring to the which race threw the first punch argument.

You have your view but I see even attempting to debate that as good as debating whether the chicken came before the egg.

I have never understood racism and cannot see why people aren't judged as the great orater said "by the content of their character." (Martin Luther King Jnr). It would seem sensible that any event, whomever sponsors it, be open to all; it should then be up to the individuals attending with whom any relationship should be formed. Regards, Tin

DakotaNorth - If you don't agree with the (hate to use the expression!) Blacks Only competitions then take the legal route and sue for discrimination against whites not being able to enter.You have I understand "Freedom of speech and religion" in the USA. Your other comment which put Moslems and other religions into the non-white category was also offensive to many people, there are many "WHITE" Muslims.
When is the attack on the Jews to surface, they are historically the ones who get to be attacked and persecuted.
I wonder if there are any Afro-Asian-Hindu's who've converted to Islam and had children who are now considering becoming Jews/Roman Catholics/Protestants or followers of Wicca. One thing for sure - if their skin isn't white they will not be accepted by the bigots in the USA!

As far as I'm concerned so-called "colored" people are still people. Everyone is the same on the inside. What does color matter? It doesn't change you personality or who you are inside.

Fosse4, if you read my post closely then you would have seen what I was attempting to do. I was not attacking anyone.

My first post states at the end: If racism is to be exterminated, it can't just be one sided. Black and white are just colors...and everyone is a human being. Maybe we should all strive to be the best person, instead of striving to be the best black person or white person.

My second post states at the end: However, if everyone would look at each other as a person, instead of a black person or a white person, maybe the world would be a lot better.

Again, I stress that I did not attack anyone, and I would appreciate it if you would not state that I did. And, I also would appreciate it if you did not call me a bigot, as I am not one. If I were a bigot, would I have made the above mentioned paragraphs??

Lanni, thank you for explaining.

It was just a misunderstanding.

The Nation of Islam probably doesn't have much of a fan base out of the U.S., which can only serve to increase the probability that the name will lead to misinterpretation.

Okay, my 2 cent tirade after a long silence in these arenas…

The dream of integration has been bled to death on the spear of "multiculturalism."

Segregation today in the U.S. is largely self-imposed and is heightened by an academy and a media that is obsessed with the things that matter least--skin color, clothing, food, dance--what is called "ethnicity" and "race."

Race and ethnicity have again become stand-alone virtues ("race" counts for college admission credit, for instance, as though it were a virtue to be born a certain color). This view of race as a defining characteristic that determines your virtue has not been so strong since the days of Jim Crow--and I don't see any hope, sadly, on the horizon for true integration or a true color blind society--not so long as the academy and media and society continue to emphasize ethnicity, culture, multiculturalism, diversity, etc....as though the "diversity" that mattered was not diversity of intellect or talent, but diversity of color.

I didn't realize affirmative action was divisive to the Democratic party. It seems like such a great power tool. I mean, keep labeling according to race…keep up the multicultural fairs…keep up the emphasis on "diversity" as a positive value…force people to dance manufactured ethnic dances their ancestors probably never danced….divide them up according to race, color, and ethnicity…pretend that if you are one color you can't "relate" to the great literature or philosophy written over the past eleven centuries and must therefore have special narrow classes…pretend that who you were born to matters more than what you achieve…and we'll keep segregation alive and well for years to come. And, if we prevent integration, and de-emphasize achievement in favor of race and ethnicity, we can also keep the minorities from integrating and excelling in society, which keeps them dependent on the government, so that they'll keep voting Democrats back into power for their succor…it's a beautiful plan, really. (But I think—or at least hope-- the damage is more often a case of the road to hell being paved with good intentions than a case of Machivellean plotting.)

That said, I think the kids who organized and all white prom are ignorant, yes backward, fools, but if they are doing it on private property on their own private time, then they are free to do so, as the constitution guarantees freedom of assembly.

Race and ethnicity did not "become" a standalone virtue anytime recently.

As long as there has been a U.S.A., race and ethnicity have been a standalone virtue.

Yes, there are college admissions that give credit based on race, as there are those that give credit based on region of origin, legacy, athletic ability, economic disadvantage, sex, and possibly other things rather than solely on academic achievement.

So actually, other types of diversity are looked upon, however the racial one seems to be the most controversial.

It's an issue causing discord in both major parties, but I don't quite think it's for the issues you're citing.

The only dance I've been forced to do that my ancestors probably didn't perform was the square dance, however, I don't think that's what you had in mind.

If you're referring to people of color taking what you see as narrowing classes, have you asked a substantial amount why they choose to do that?

My suspicion is no. Merely based on what I know from my experience, you didn't quite hit the nail squarely on the head with that one.

But, that's really the motive of those in the Democratic Party who support A.A.? How about for the Republicans?

Here's a thread on A.A.