I'm ashamed of some of my fellow Australians

jack:

From what I understand, he was doing nothing of the sort.

Every one of these 5,000 Australians were drunk? Did the police breathalyze them?

Oh wait, I forgot. It's much easier to attribute this riot to 'drunkeness', than dare postulate that perhaps the Australians had a good reason to riot and force the Middle-Eastern gangs off their beaches.

Too late. Trouble already existed on that beach for years, in the form of Middle-Eastern gangs, who believed that they 'owned' the beaches and suburbs.

Innocent people were hurt, which is a pity. What would the Americans say? UMMM, collateral damage?

Perhaps it demonstrates to minority groups that the average Australian is sick of giving them perpetual fellatio every time they try to force their culture on us. We are sick of bending over backwards to accomodate for certain members of minority groups who refuse to assimilate.

That wasn't the initial purpose of the mob which went to the beach. Their rage overflowed, and some innocent Middle-Easterners got in the line of fire. Who ever said that mob rule was perfect, or 'reasonable'?

So the Allies were wrong in killing Germans to liberate France and Poland? Two wrongs don't make a right... let's settle this peacefully!

Violence is the only language these Middle-Eastern thugs understand. The police have done nothing, the politicians have done nothing, and the common man is fed up. They rioted. Not a totally rational response, but one which I can sympathize with.

And I resent it when ignorant retards cry 'RACISM!', as if that is the underlying cause. It has nothing to do with the white Australians belief that Middle-Easterners are somehow inferior. It had to do with them being damn fed up of hiding in their homes from Middle-Eastern thugs and ruffians. Whether the rest of the world likes it or not, Australia is degenerating to a stage where it is going to have it's own, non-lethal minature version of the 'Boxer Rebellion'

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In any case, total assimilation wouldn't be very good! I'm a white Australian who lives in a predominantly Chinese (though there are also lots of Indians/Africans/Vietnamese etc.) populated suburb in Melbourne, and I think it's fantastic. I can walk down the street and buy curry or fried rice for a couple of bucks, and see all these different and exotic cultures at the market along the way. I'd hate to see that go.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't even understand this. What does this reference to American have to do with anything?

One of the things I particularly dislike about this forum is that people dissect others' posts, quoting tiny snippets completely out of context and attacking them. I find it irritating. In any case, I'm not going to respond to your post any more, we are going over the same ground now. I think your stance is wrong, plain and simple. I'm ashamed of these Australians, and embarrased that attitudes like yours are being put to the rest of the world.

(edit: messed up my quote brackets)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

quad:

Umm, no they aren't. The Americans were separate entities from the British, and were not responsible for the British's actions in giving smallpox infected blankets to the Indians in Canada. To claim that Americans were to blame is like blaming the son for the actions of the father. America was an offshoot colony of Britain... it was NOT Britain.

Well, the smallpox saga actually occured somewhere in Canada from memory, but never mind. The point I was establishing is that you can't blame the Australians for the actions of the British Government, because we are two totally different peoples. Both Australia and America are not British, they are a diverse mixture of races, all of who assimilated into a British culture and way of life, including the following of their laws.

NO!! Once again, the BRITISH showed up in Australia and occupied empty land, where they established their own culture.
Then numerous Europeaners from various lands immigrated to Australia, hence diluting the English 'race'. However, they assimilated into the British culture.
The aborigines did not own the land. Once again, they were NOMADS. Hence, there was no requirement to assimilate into their culture. You only are required to assimilate when you become a citizen of a nation, or at least the civilization which has settled on the land. When you settle in empty land, you aren't required to adopt the culture of neighbouring nomads. The fact that you can't distinguish between bringing culture to empty land you have settled, and adopting the culture and laws of the civilization you have decided to become a citizen of, hints at how you are grasping at straws.

The British did not bulldoze aboriginal homes. There were no dispossessed Aboriginals. The British occupied land which even the Aboriginals at the time religiously believed nobody owned, and which the Aboriginals never used (why would they need flat plains of dirt? They didn't have cattle to graze, or crops to grow).

Back in the late 1700's (when Australia was colonized), the Kingdom of Scotland had just merged with Britain. The fact is that the Scottish, and the British (aka. English), were two radically different people, with different cultures. To equivocate Scottish with British back in the 1700's is a little deceptive.

Wrong. The last time I checked, back in the days in which Australia was colonized, European countries tended to speak their own native languages, which were generally different from each other. And I'm sure that the Germans would have been flattered had you told them that they were part of the 'Slav culture/civilization' back in the 1800's and 1900's.

Irrelevant. Being 'descended' from a British individual tells us next to nothing about your bloodlines, nor does it imply that British are still a majority in Australia. The British bloodlines have been diluted very thin by 'invading' non-British Europeaners, who immigrated not long after Australia was successfully colonized. I'm sure that quite a few Australians could find a British ancestor if they go far back... but they would have to go back to the days of initial colonization.

I never claimed that Aboriginal civilization was 'inferior'. The fact that you are making shit up sure hurts your credibility.

Argumentum ad hominem. When you lack any valid argument, just fall back to calling your opponent a racist! WHOOWAH!

In this day and age... it's a pity that you can't understand the concept that colonization died out hundreds of years ago, and is no longer acceptable. Then again, why am I not surprised that an opponent who has presumptiously attached the label of 'racist' to me is introducing irrelevances and red herrings? How people acted 200+ years ago is IRRELEVANT to how we expect people to behave today. In this DAY AND AGE, you are expected to assimilate if you become a citizen of a nation.

Your argument is equivalent to us Westerners demanded that the Muslim extremists stop using violence to force their views on us, and them replying "Yeah, well, you did it to us 200+ years ago!". Times change. The generation of today is different to the previous generation. To blame the Australians for the actions of their British forefathers is equivalent to blaming the Germans of today for the actions of the Prussian and Nazi forefathers.

In fact, it's even more absurd than doing that, since the Germans tend to be direct descendants of the Prussians and Nazis, whereas many Australians are not the direct descendants of the British. I fail to see how a Greek who immigrated to Australia is responsible for the actions of the British colonialists 200+ years ago. But then again, the minds of the politically correct work in strange and illogical ways.

Actually, white AUSTRALIANS did, and have, assimilated. You must be talking about the British, who settled empty land, and established a nation, which many non-Europeaners then immigrated to.

Remember, the majority of Australians have bloodlines consisting of mostly non-British ethnicity. Polish, German, Irish, Greek, Italian, Chinese, Japanese, etc.

I never made that claim. Once again, you're making shit up. Perhaps before you engage in argumentum ad hominem, you should actually take the time to understand your opponent's position? Never mind! It's far easier to label him as racist, and then work from the assumption that he holds the stereotypical views of a racist.

Ironically, this is my 666th post. Is that a coincidence, or is there a hidden message here?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It wasn't empty until they killed off all of the Aboriginies living there. Sure, Aboriginies rejected the idea that people could "own" land in the Western sense, and were the bearers of a nomadic culture, but that doesn't mean they weren't wiped out in large numbers by white settlers. The very first Australian settlements may have been far from where Aboriginies lived, but to suggest that they weren't the targets of genocide is to paper over Australian history. But apparently it's perfectly acceptable to eradicate civilizations where people move from place to place rather than building fixed houses.

Dude, in terms of world civilizations, Scots and English are practically identical. So one of them likes to wear kilts and play bagpipes, so what? Sure, they tend to define themselves in terms of their differences, but that's just because they live close together. "radically different" would be Brits and Aboriginies. The term I would use for Scots and English would be "indistinguishable to outsiders."

You didn't use the word "inferior," but you've been pretty clear. Note that you still haven't denied that you *think* Aboriginal civilization is inferior, only that you *stated* as much. But feel free to clarify, if I'm so wrong in my assessment.

I never said colonization was acceptable at any time. What I said was that everyone does it anyway when they migrate, and Australia is a great example of that. You can try to lay the blame for that at the feet of the British all you want, but it doesn't change Australia's identity as a colony of white people who replaced the indigenous culture with their own European one. This puts them in a problematic position with respect to absorbing new immigrants. But, het, what else is new; America and Canada have the same problems. You need to more clearly define what you mean by "assimilation." Naturally, one expects new immigrants to learn the local language and follow the local laws. But beyond that, what does "assimilation" even mean?

Nobody's "blaming" you. You're not being asked to submit a formal apology to the Aboriginies and move back to England. All I've said is that you look pretty stupid telling others "assimilate or die!!" when you're the bearer of an imported culture yourself. Only in light of these basic facts can a sensible, rational approach to immigration be formulated. Whether modern Australians, of whatever extraction, are responsible for that situation is beside the point.

That's simply false. All of those groups except the Irish immigrated too recently, and in too small of numbers, to have such a profound effect on Australian demographics. According to the Australian government, "English" is the most commonly reported anscestry amonst Australians, with double the percentage as "Australian." (http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/49F609C83CF34D69CA2569DE0025C182)

So, while you are free to consider yourself free of the taint of English anscentry, more than a third of your countrymen don't share the sentiment. Less than a fifth of them label themselves as "Australian." Even if you add in the ethnicites you listed above to the "Australian" column, you're still at less than 30% of the population. If you add up all of the various English ethnicities, you get over 40%. This is why everyone in the entire fucking world refers to Australia's population as "Anglo-Saxon," and why you look like a moron trying to refute it.

 

quad:
I'll address your arguments a little later. If you don't hear a response, contact me via PM. I have a bone to pick with James R. He's obviously awoken from his slumber to clash with me yet again in debate.

James:

No, it was not the 'reason' given by the rioters. You're making a false generalization.

What it boils down to is that white Australians are sick of Middle-Easterner gangs dominating their beaches and suburbs. If you had bothered to listen to a news station which actually gave the rioters a chance to explain their actions, instead of BS statements by a news commentator, you'd know this.

Thanks.

So made a false + inflammatory comment to provoke people (especially the local 'racists', who you knew would be baiting) into responding? Why, that's TROLLING my dear James.

"Bad white Australians" can also go back to whatever European country they came from if they can't assimilate into our British-Australian culture.

They are when we a powerful majority limits their own power, out of 'compassion' and 'tolerance'. Aka. Political correctness.

That's right. If you don't want to assimilate, we don't want you here. You make that viewpoint sound so unreasonable, but it's how countries and nations have worked since the beginning of time.

I never said that James. You seem to have trouble distinguished between my irritation for ANY immigrants (Asian, Arab, white, or black) who refuse to assimilate, and a hatred of anyone who has a different coloured skin. I don't hate Middle-Easterners, I hate Middle-Easterners who come to Australia and want to merge politics and law with the Koran.

No, it's not really that Australian. Lately Australians have rolled over to expose their stomachs to invading members of minority groups who don't want to assimilate.

Ahh, I see. Now you're an authority of what reports are 'biased'. Quick everyone, let's bow before James R's non-existant credentials! If he says that his sources are unbiased, and that mine are biased, then he's obviously right!

Because we all know the bureaucrats and politicians understand the mentality + motives of the rioting Australian, better than the rioting Australians understand themselves.

Since when did the State Premier become an authority of judging the mentality of a mob?

However, since you enjoy appealing to irrelevant authorities, may I point out that our Prime Minister basically denied that these riots against Middle-Easterners were due to racism?

My authority is a Prime Minister. Yours is only a State Premier. Eat shit, James! Oops, because I'm 'acting immaturely', I'm obviously racist, and don't have a valid argument. Yep, I was ready for that ad hominem, James, so don't even try it. I know you too well.

And the pot says to the kettle: "YOU'RE BLACK!"

 

mountainhare: as James R said, terra nullius? Please. Just because the Aborigines didn't own land doesn't mean it was empty. I honestly thought that as a nation we'd moved past this.

The government doesn't condone rape, violence, thuggery; whatever ethnicity it is committed by. I don't know where you get these ideas! Nobody is giving Lebanese a light hand when they commit crimes, they are subject the exact same processes of law as the rest of us. WE ARE ALL AUSTRALIANS!

As for assimilation, you're simply wrong. We don't expect minority groups to totally assimilate to 'Australian' culture. Nobody has a problem with people retaining their own beliefs and cultures! I can not believe your intolerance of other peoples' RIGHT to maintain foreign customs in Australia. Of course they're expected to have respect for Australian law etc., but as a country we are a multicultural one.

Furthermore, you're acting like middle-eastern/Mediterranean culture would condone the sort of behaviour (rape, violence) that sparked this riot.

Make the distinction between foreign culture and the purported behaviour conducted by a slim proportion of those same foreigners. Cut the assimilation stuff, or at least define to what extent you demand assimilation, because no one else believes in a single culture Australia.

(edit: spotted a few spelling mistakes)

 

James R:

No. In 'essence', you said nothing of the sort. Here's what you said:
"Apparently, these "Aussies" were upset about people of a different skin colour coming from neighbouring suburbs to use "their" beach. "

You made the actions of the Aussies sound as if they were motivated by racism. It had nothing to do with skin colour. The Lebanese gangs could paint themselves white, that wouldn't change the fact that people are sick of their thuggery.

If someone hates Australia, and claims that they would prefer to live in Lebanon, then they should. Even if they were born in Australia. Being born in Australia does not make you 'Australian', as is evidenced by the terrorists who bombing British buses and trains.

No. That they accept our culture, and stop trying to change our way of life. If they really feel that we are 'morally degenerate', then there are plenty of Middle-Eastern countries in the world where the Koran is law, and treating women like second class citizens is natural.

Yeah yeah, hyperbole and distortions. I could care less about physical appearance. I'm interested in actions.

I don't even know who Alan Jones is... so how can I be a fan? I was replying to your arrogance in feeling that you are somehow qualified to label certain authorities statements as 'biased', without supporting evidence.

The Police Commissioner is all talk and no action. If the police had been doing their jobs in the first place, the Lebanese gangs wouldn't a problem. But no, they didn't. And the only alternative is for the 'natives' to live in fear, until they finally lose patience and strike back.

jack:

You still fail to understand. What people do in private is their own business. However, people who refuse to assimilate actually try to change their adopted country to make it like their homeland.

Quite simply, anyone who craps on about me being 'racist' against Middle-Easterners doesn't have a damn clue, and has failed to review my numerous posts. How many times here have I defended the Palestinians right to the West Bank and Gaza Strip? Muslims in Islam countries, Westerners (and moderate Muslims who want to live like Westerners) in Western countries.

Australia has thrown off the shackles of Catholic extremism which pervaded our country when it was first colonized. Our country is secular, and I'll be damned if we replace one religion with another.

 

I don't think I've called you a racist once. Nor do I think that people following their own religions publicly are actively trying to change their adopted country. And I say this because Australia is multicultural: these relgions, these people, are Australian. And they are no more or less Australian than a white European.

 

No, I believe both I and the world media are right, the attacks were on people of “Middle Eastern appearance”, what is your point?

Yes, I am aware of little Johnny’s opinion on the issue…so what?

I’m confused as to what you are actually disagreeing with me about here, Vincent…Are you saying I said somewhere the attacks were not on people of Middle Eastern appearance? Or did you just completely miss the point of my post, which I though was quite simple, as I was merely saying it has little to do with Religion or terrorists and more to do with appearances and Gang problems.

 

quad:

I'll have to read through that article you posted, it's huge. However, one comment you made:

Ironically enough, that is what many aborigines, and some white Australians, are demanding.

Which would be darn silly, since few people are purely English. Once again, while many people may have British ancestors, this doesn't change the fact that this blood has been diluted by immigrants. I challenge you to find a 'pure' British citizen in Australia.

No, it's NOT silly. Firstly, as I've already explained, the situations are not parallel. Australia is a sovereign nation, which is recognized internationally as owning the land. We are a civilization, unlike the nomads who lived before us. They had no homes, no settlements, no formal laws, no boundaries, no deeds or titles. How can they 'assimilate' us, exactly?

And once again, what was acceptable and practical 200+ years ago is no longer acceptable in this day and age! Back in the days of colonialism, building on empty land and 'pacifying' native nomads was natural. In fact, even invading + annexing your European neighbours was viewed as a normal occurance.

So, in otherwords, we are completely justified in telling migrants to assimilate. The fact that our British 'forefathers' refused to assimilate into the tribes of natives (nor were they required to, since they weren't a civilization, and didn't even own/farm the land) is irrelevant). Because what was appropriate then is not appropriate now. If we are too have a cohesive, successful, happy nation, then people must follow our customs and laws. Doing otherwise leads to disorder, as Europe has learnt time and time again in the past.

 

So the Aboriginies didn't own the land because people in Europe hadn't heard of them? And what is international recognition of territory but a fancy way of saying that you have both a government and a military?

Define "civilization." Moreover, a culture that is not "civilized" has no right to territory? I'm going to go ahead and call you a racist again, and repeat my request for you to confirm or deny this assertion. You've already scored your debate points by citing this is as an ad-hominem, so perhaps you can address the substance of it this time.

The same way that you would assimilate them. You give up your old way of life and live among them, adopting their customs and laws. What's the question again?

Dude, that was never "appropriate." Colonialism was not "okay" when it was happening, just because Europeans didn't have a problem with it. I guarantee you that the peoples being colonized didn't see it that way. In fact, just about all of them still seem to be kind of pissed about the whole thing.

I'd agree that to have a cohesive, successful, happy nation, everyone needs to follow an agreed-on set of laws and customs. But there's no reason that prevailing customs (if not laws) can't meet the immigrants half way. I'm not encouraging the wholesale destruction of Australian culture, but all immigrants have cultures, and they're typically not thrilled about being white-washed. Shit, even if they do their best to blend in, they still won't be immune from drunken mobs of rioting rednecks, by simple virtue of their skin color, features and last name. That problem wasn't nearly as bad with white European immigrants, since everyone had a similar culture and appearance to begin with. So wasn't hard for the existing culture to come to terms with them, and thus the immigrants didn't feel as pressured or ostracized.

In order to assimilate the newer, more foreign immigrants, however, the existing culture will have to change more radically. It's understandable that this causes some anxiety amongst white Australians. But if you act out of fear, and throw up some kind of "it's all on you to adopt our ways, which are to be preserved as-is" attitude, the immigrants will naturally react with "fuck these whities; they want to destroy my identity." And then they'll circle the wagons and that will be the end of any hope of assimilation.

It's always easy to say "these immigrants are guests in OUR country, and they have to do all of the work to fit in here." But the fact is that succesful assimilation has always required the dominant culture to accomodate the new elements in some ways. Look at France, where they try to paper over immigrant culture and make everyone "French." Doesn't fucking work. Also note that, for the most part, the British didn't assimilate the Aboriginies any more than the Americans assimilated the Indians. Instead, they wiped them out. Perhaps the cultures were too different to reconcile, but the point is that the alternative to assimilation (which requires compromise) is war. Which side are you on?

 

Oh yeah, Christians are greatly overrepresented amongst immigrants from "Muslim" countries to the West. They don't like Sharia law any more than mountainhare, and probably figure they'll fit in pretty easily in predominantly Christian countries. And they do, for the most part.. Here in San Diego we have the 3rd largest population of Iraqi expatriates in America, and they're like 90% Christian. Lebanon, in particular, has exported lots of Christians, what with the religious wars there over the past few decades.

People need to worry less about Sharia law and look at the bright side of Middle Eastern immigrants: Shawarma!!!

 

The four different gang-rapes that occurred recently in Sydney is part of it.

The Brothers Grim The four Pakistan brothers hunted girls like a pack of wild dogs. For six months in 2002, they targeted young, vulnerable girls, lured them to their home in Ashfield, and raped them. They would video their victims, typically baby-faced teenagers, semi-conscious after being plied with alcohol, as they committed grossly degrading acts.

Many of the girls on the videotapes, perhaps a dozen, could not be identified by the police. Of those who could, only six agreed to testify at trial and only three of them did. That they went ahead at all is remarkable - they had to endure countless delays over two years because the brothers persuaded the courts their trials could not proceed as juries might have been prejudiced by publicity about the crimes.

Three arrested over 2002 Sydney gang rape
Three men,one Australian born and the other two were born in Lebanon, have been arrested over the gang rape of a teenage girl in south-west Sydney, police said today. The rape allegedly occurred in the south-west Sydney suburb of Hurstville in 2002. Two of the three men were aged under 18 at the time of the attack, police Superintendent Robert May said this afternoon.

Australia: 20-year-old jailed for 55 years on gang rape charges
New South Wales Judge Michael Finnane sentenced a 20-year-old youth to a 55-year jail term after he was found guilty of leading a series of gang rapes in Sydney. The lifetime imprisonment follows the conviction and sentencing of two other young men—Belal Hajeid and Mahmoud Chami—for their part in the crimes. Hajeid is serving a 23-year sentence, with a 15-year non-parole period, and Chami, an 18-year term, with 10 years non-parole.

Gang Rape Convictions Trigger Ethnicity Debate

The conviction of a group of young Australians of Lebanese origin for a series of brutal gang rapes involving white teenage girls has sparked a public debate about ethnicity and crime.

Most of the 14 convicted men have not been named because they were under 18 at the time of the offenses, which occurred in Sydney over a six-week period in 2000, and involved assaults on at least seven teenagers, the youngest aged 14.




And the really sad thing is, when the DNA inside the rape victim positively identifies the perpetrators, the typical response from their family is denial followed by blaming the teenage girls - saying they disserved it.

Just painful.

I read an article last year from two Police officers that had pulled over a car full of Lebanese for speeding. When they asked the guys for some ID the drivers had already called their extended family and before these two police knew anything they were surrounded by 50+ men throwing bottles and rocks at them. The Police had to flee. When they complained to their superiors they were told not to make trouble in that neighborhood. The one guy quit.

What kind of crap is that?

Also, the owners of one of the bars over in Darling Harbor told about how he was told to pay $5000/week to this Lebanese gang or else they’d send people to come in and randomly stab people while they were dancing. Apparently they made good on their threat. So he paid.

??

Jesus…. It’s out of control here.

And I don't buy this crap about how Middle Easterners are being treated poorly and therefore that’s the reason they end up the way they end up. The Chinese came here and I’m sure it wasn’t a treat to integrate. But, guess what? They pulled their finger out of their arse and made something of themselves.


A moderate Muslim I know:

Sort of says something doesn't it?

 

THAT is your response to racism charges?! Oh my...

I think you'll find that the vast majority of immigrants (Muslim and otherwise) who move to new countries are very much willing to assimilate, as long as they feel welcome and respected. There's always going to be a few bad apples, some of which will inevitably seek influence by riling up the sensitivities of their countrymen, but they're a tiny minority. Immigrants understand what's involved with moving to a new country, and the vast majority simply want to fit in and live their lives. They understand, as you should, that they are small minorities and as such will have little influence in the culture and laws of their adopted homes.

Nobody's going to introduce Sharia to Western countries, even if a few ineffectual radicals pass out a few pamphlets on it. Well, maybe a little in Canada, but we all know what pansies they are. Shit, they never even kicked out the British! .... Wait, did Australia ever kick out the Brits? Maybe you should be worried after all...