[KaRzY6]

@Finn4life
Your looking at the past where, i agree, the Europeans treated non-whites like sh*t. But this is about present. It doesn't matter what colour/race you are these days. Why should I, as a white, be discrimanated for what the whites of the past did. Instead of Aborignals get benifits now, for what whites did more than 100 years ago.

An example, I heard on the news about a guy holding a family hostage and raping the mother. He then murdered the family after this. He was meant to get life in prison, but guess what? He is of Aborignal descent. He ended up only getting 13 years in prison, none other reason than because he was Aborignal. To me, this is so unfair and the law is making whites get it worst because they are white.

@DarrinPA
They did kill the natives in the Americas and Australia. But I read that 85% of the native population died of diseases brought by the Europeans.

This post has been edited by KaRzY6 on Thursday, Aug 9 2012, 09:44

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (KaRzY6 @ Thursday, Aug 9 2012, 10:26)

An example, I heard on the news about a guy holding a family hostage and raping the mother. He then murdered the family after this. He was meant to get life in prison, but guess what? He is of Aborignal descent. He ended up only getting 13 years in prison, none other reason than because he was Aborignal. To me, this is so unfair and the law is making whites get it worst because they are white.

I don't buy that for one second. Care to provide some information about the case, because the judgement that his sentence was reduced because of his aboriginal descent to such a low one in light of the crimes committed is entirely absurd to me. I can almost categorically say that there will be some other mitigating factor involved.

[KaRzY6]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Thursday, Aug 9 2012, 20:43)

QUOTE (KaRzY6 @ Thursday, Aug 9 2012, 10:26) An example, I heard on the news about a guy holding a family hostage and raping the mother. He then murdered the family after this. He was meant to get life in prison, but guess what? He is of Aborignal descent. He ended up only getting 13 years in prison, none other reason than because he was Aborignal. To me, this is so unfair and the law is making whites get it worst because they are white. I don't buy that for one second. Care to provide some information about the case, because the judgement that his sentence was reduced because of his aboriginal descent to such a low one in light of the crimes committed is entirely absurd to me. I can almost categorically say that there will be some other mitigating factor involved.

Sorry I can't give a link, heard it on the radio.

[finn4life]

QUOTE (KaRzY6 @ Thursday, Aug 9 2012, 20:26)

@Finn4life Your looking at the past where, i agree, the Europeans treated non-whites like sh*t. But this is about present. It doesn't matter what colour/race you are these days. Why should I, as a white, be discrimanated for what the whites of the past did. Instead of Aborignals get benifits now, for what whites did more than 100 years ago.

I see where you are coming from and i get what you mean.

But the main reason they get so many benefits is because their life span on average is about 60 something years, that is almost 20 years less <--Link than the average non-aboriginal life-span in Australia.
Clearly they need some help, but as usual there are those who wrought the system, a friend of mine is 1/8th Aboriginal he says and his parents are pretty well-off, but he gets a couple hundred bucks a week for having that 1/8th.

This post has been edited by finn4life on Thursday, Aug 9 2012, 10:13

[KaRzY6]

QUOTE (finn4life @ Thursday, Aug 9 2012, 21:11)

QUOTE (KaRzY6 @ Thursday, Aug 9 2012, 20:26) @Finn4life Your looking at the past where, i agree, the Europeans treated non-whites like sh*t. But this is about present. It doesn't matter what colour/race you are these days. Why should I, as a white, be discrimanated for what the whites of the past did. Instead of Aborignals get benifits now, for what whites did more than 100 years ago. I see where you are coming from and i get what you mean. But the main reason they get so many benefits is because their life span on average is about 60 something years, that is almost 20 years less <--Link than the average non-aboriginal life-span in Australia. Clearly they need some help, but as usual there are those who wrought the system, a friend of mine is 1/8th Aboriginal he says and his parents are pretty well-off, but he gets a couple hundred bucks a week for having that 1/8th.

Thanks for seeing my side of the agrument. But I do agree with the bit about life span and help. But I don't think they should get anymore help than say, a homeless person in Sydney and Melbourne. Just because he's white, he should still get the help that the Aborignals get.

Another thing I hate, I think it was mentioned in another topic not long ago, about schools ingoring white history in Australia. What happened, happened. It's history and they can't change that.

[.dre.]

QUOTE (KaRzY6 @ Thursday, Aug 9 2012, 09:45)

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Thursday, Aug 9 2012, 20:43) QUOTE (KaRzY6 @ Thursday, Aug 9 2012, 10:26) An example, I heard on the news about a guy holding a family hostage and raping the mother. He then murdered the family after this. He was meant to get life in prison, but guess what? He is of Aborignal descent. He ended up only getting 13 years in prison, none other reason than because he was Aborignal. To me, this is so unfair and the law is making whites get it worst because they are white. I don't buy that for one second. Care to provide some information about the case, because the judgement that his sentence was reduced because of his aboriginal descent to such a low one in light of the crimes committed is entirely absurd to me. I can almost categorically say that there will be some other mitigating factor involved. Sorry I can't give a link, heard it on the radio.

Typical.

[goin-god]

QUOTE (finn4life @ Thursday, Aug 9 2012, 04:35)

QUOTE (goin-god @ Thursday, Aug 9 2012, 03:29) QUOTE (finn4life @ Wednesday, Aug 8 2012, 05:14) QUOTE (goin-god @ Wednesday, Aug 8 2012, 08:54) QUOTE (finn4life @ Tuesday, Aug 7 2012, 18:52) QUOTE (ryuclan @ Wednesday, Aug 8 2012, 01:19) Calling it eeverse racism pretty much states that only white people can be racist. Elitist f*cks. It's just an easy way to refer to it as most people perceive racism as discrimination against blacks, which is the majority of racism. That's wrong. And creating a new term isn't much better. Well if i heard from a mate, "Know this racist prick at work" i would probably assume he was white and that he was racist towards people with dark skin. I certainly don't. Because I know the true meaning of the word racist. And I don't jump in conclusions. And like ryuclan said, it has nothing to do with sensitivity. Well thanks to DarrinPA who actually explained what was wrong with the term that the OP used, rather than just saying it is wrong.

I didn't go in detail because I already explained my point in the first pages. Page 4.

[Otter]

You see a lot more cries of "reverse" something-or-other these days from good ole boys who're slowly being dragged into the 21st Century. Take Chik-fil-A, for example, and the recent complaints of "reverse bigotry."

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence can easily see through that bullsh*t. The problem is that there are droves of idiots who take a hold of these terms and embrace them as if, oh lord Jesus, someone finally understands our plight. And then we find ourselves actually discussing it in an online forum.

Reverse racism should be taken literally - we should all be so lucky to love everything about everyone. But instead, it has been taken to mean "why do the brown people has as much stuff as me all of a sudden" and everyone begins to hate everything about everyone.

[DarrinPA]

QUOTE (KaRzY6 @ Thursday, Aug 9 2012, 04:26)

@DarrinPA They did kill the natives in the Americas and Australia. But I read that 85% of the native population died of diseases brought by the Europeans.

Does that 85% include the fact that some of those diseases were spread on purpose by the Europeans? That's murder in my opinion.

[goin-god]

QUOTE (DarrinPA @ Thursday, Aug 9 2012, 20:26)

QUOTE (KaRzY6 @ Thursday, Aug 9 2012, 04:26) @DarrinPA They did kill the natives in the Americas and Australia. But I read that 85% of the native population died of diseases brought by the Europeans. Does that 85% include the fact that some of those diseases were spread on purpose by the Europeans? That's murder in my opinion.

Genocide.

[Adept]

Wow, this is a touchy subject. To me, racism is anyone of any race who dislikes or fears a person or group of people based on the color of their skin. I guess we could argue about that definition but that is what I'm going with. The first thing that we experience when meeting someone else is usually through sight. We can see what they look like and for many automatically make conscious or unconscious judgements about them. We should instead assume that these illogical assertions are wrong. Obviously this is not how it works in the "real world" so you would have to personally take on the responsibility of making sure you are going to train yourself to do this. Now experience and "common sense" discretion should be taken into account if the person appears unstable or dangerous. But most of the time if you yourself are calm and friendly the other person will be so as well. Most people can sense fake sincerity so you are going to have to learn what it takes to make yourself "real". You have to know fear in order to have no fear when dealing with people. You are probably always going to come in contact with racists. This has ALWAYS been the case. Don't let others hatreds lead you to hate the haters. This is going real long but I'll just say it takes more effort to love someone who hates than to let their hate replicate into yourself. There is real strength in this.

[DarrinPA]

QUOTE (goin-god @ Thursday, Aug 9 2012, 18:33)

QUOTE (DarrinPA @ Thursday, Aug 9 2012, 20:26) QUOTE (KaRzY6 @ Thursday, Aug 9 2012, 04:26) @DarrinPA They did kill the natives in the Americas and Australia. But I read that 85% of the native population died of diseases brought by the Europeans. Does that 85% include the fact that some of those diseases were spread on purpose by the Europeans? That's murder in my opinion. Genocide.

Yes, but what is genicide? According to the UN it includes acts of murder against different groups. It's just a way of lumping all the acts of racism and murder into a politically correct term.

Genicide = homicide

[ryuclan]

QUOTE (DarrinPA @ Friday, Aug 10 2012, 00:34)

QUOTE (goin-god @ Thursday, Aug 9 2012, 18:33) QUOTE (DarrinPA @ Thursday, Aug 9 2012, 20:26) QUOTE (KaRzY6 @ Thursday, Aug 9 2012, 04:26) @DarrinPA They did kill the natives in the Americas and Australia. But I read that 85% of the native population died of diseases brought by the Europeans. Does that 85% include the fact that some of those diseases were spread on purpose by the Europeans? That's murder in my opinion. Genocide. Yes, but what is genicide? According to the UN it includes acts of murder against different groups. It's just a way of lumping all the acts of racism and murder into a politically correct term. Genicide = homicide

Not really. Genocide is the extermination of a certain sex, race, type of people. Genocide can be very specific or it can be very broad. I wouldn't put it in the same lump as murder. Murder can be spur the moment or accidental. Genocide is systematic and usually pretty well thought out. The introduction of disease to a certain group of people for example.

[DarrinPA]

QUOTE (ryuclan @ Thursday, Aug 9 2012, 19:59)

Not really. Genocide is the extermination of a certain sex, race, type of people. Genocide can be very specific or it can be very broad.

"According to the UN it includes acts of murder against different groups." Includes, I never said it is ONLY acts of murder. I understand that genocide can include no deaths also. The "genicide = homicide" was just to point out "cide" which is Latin and shows that it's derived from the same sufix.

QUOTE

Murder can be spur the moment or accidental.

You may be confusing the term murder with homicide. Murder is an intentional or purposely commited act of killing. Homicide is the killing of another human, but not necessarily purposely or done with malicious intent.


*The term exterminating is used by those who commit genicide to dehumanize their victims. It's not a great term to use.

[ryuclan]

Homicide:

2. a person who kills another; murderer.

Not to argue but there isn't much difference between homicide ans murder

This post has been edited by ryuclan on Friday, Aug 10 2012, 01:27

[DarrinPA]

I'm not sure where you got that definition but it isn't complete. Homicide is the killing of a person no matter how it happens, which can include accidents. Murder is done purposely with malicious intent. Murder is a sub catagory of Homicide.

"Not to argue but there isn't much difference between homicide ans murder " From a legal stand point there is. But yes, they both mean somebody is dead at the end of the day.

[goin-god]

Ofcourse Genocide is murder dude.
But Genocide is the proper term here because it means: deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.
In this case Native Americans.

I don't know why we are even discussing this.

[DarrinPA]

I agree, but ryuclan seemed like he was argueing that genicide wasn't murder by his dehumanizing term of "extermination".

My original response to you [goin-god] was to point out that genicide seems to water down the fact that it's racist/ethnic/ect murder.

This post has been edited by DarrinPA on Friday, Aug 10 2012, 01:54

[goin-god]

QUOTE (DarrinPA @ Thursday, Aug 9 2012, 22:51)

I agree, but ryuclan seemed like he was argueing that genicide wasn't murder by his dehumanizing term of "extermination". My original response to you [goin-god] was to point out that genicide seems to water down the fact that it's racist/ethnic/ect murder.

He obviously didn't mean that. Because extermination isn't a dehumanizing term. And Genocide dosn't water down the fact that it's racist/ethnic/ect murder.. it does the opposite.

[DarrinPA]

Well I guess I read it differently than you did when he said "Genocide can be very specific or it can be very broad. I wouldn't put it in the same lump as murder". But I'll just continue on with the assumption that he meant it the way you took it and put this to rest.