Discussion The Random Discussion Thread

[PoppedCorn]

Oh so shootings in the street by organised crime is acceptable and not lawless but if an Aboriginal person does it, it is crime. Ok then

Yeah
That’s what he said

Lol

 

[Sully111]

So you think others label Christianity as extreme? But you don’t? Is that what you’re saying.

No

That's not what I'm saying

I never mentioned my views on Christianity.

 

[phantom13]

I'd argue that any Christian religious beliefs are labeled extreme today.

No

That's not what I'm saying

I never mentioned my views on Christianity.

So, youd argue that Christian beliefs are labeled extreme, but youre not mentioning your views on Christianity and your also not saying others would label Christian beliefs extreme...

Can you clarify what you meant cause im confused.

 

[South of the Yarra]

Yeah
That’s what he said

Lol

Yes he said ‘hardly equates to lawlessness’ suggesting the Aboriginal behaviour he was comparing to was lawless yet this was not. Thanks for reiterating

 

[Sully111]

So, youd argue that Christian beliefs are labeled extreme, but youre not mentioning your views on Christianity and your also not saying others would label Christian beliefs extreme...

Can you clarify what you meant cause im confused.

What I said was pretty clear

I'm not doing this with you mate. You're relentless.

 

[George]

Oh so shootings in the street by organised crime is acceptable and not lawless but if an Aboriginal person does it, it is crime. Ok then

Quit while you're behind lmao

 

[phantom13]

What I said was pretty clear

I'm not doing this with you mate. You're relentless.

Think ive demonstrated that what you said was anything but clear but fair enough.

Im actually not doing anything other than trying to understand what your point was.

 

[South of the Yarra]

Quit while you're behind lmao

Quit what? Standing up for Aboriginal rights, ensuring that Aboriginal people are not stereotyped and telling the truth of what really takes place in the communities. Yes, have been told to quit doing that all my life.

 

[Sun Ra]

Check this out to see how we got here .......

Alfred Deakin, architect of modern Australia … and white supremacist

Alfred Deakin’s great-grandson decides that on the eve of the Voice referendum, a deeper truth should be considered about his great-grandfather, the architect of modern Australia.

www.theage.com.au

 

[bergholt]

This one's worth watching, fascinating and terrible story

BS High - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Dard Ball Get]

Check this out to see how we got here .......

Alfred Deakin, architect of modern Australia … and white supremacist

Alfred Deakin’s great-grandson decides that on the eve of the Voice referendum, a deeper truth should be considered about his great-grandfather, the architect of modern Australia.

www.theage.com.au

Might have to copy and paste mate

 

[Mowman]

Starts as fun ends in tears

 

[phantom13]

Starts as fun ends in tears

Im way more confused than upset. Story of my life.

 

[George]

Quit what? Standing up for Aboriginal rights, ensuring that Aboriginal people are not stereotyped and telling the truth of what really takes place in the communities. Yes, have been told to quit doing that all my life.

Quit your ridiculous exagerrations and assumptions about what people are saying and perhaps look at things objectively. "Standing up for Aboriginal rights" lmao, as if anyone here is disputing their place in society.

 

[George]

Starts as fun ends in tears

Wanting to learn more is just a front for our racism.

 

[Sun Ra]

Might have to copy and paste mate

I don't remember being taught this at school ..........

​

Alfred Deakin, architect of modern Australia … and white supremacist​

By Tony Wright​

September 1, 2023 — 8.41am

Indigenous singer, songwriter and author, the late Archie Roach, was at a writers’ festival discussing his book, Tell Me Why, about the pain of life as a child stolen from his parents, when Peter Sharp told him he believed he knew who was responsible.
It was, he said, Alfred Deakin.

Alfred Deakin, the second prime minister of Australia.

This was a monumentally confronting claim.

Deakin is a much revered Australian politician and lawmaker, a father of Australia’s Constitution, the nation’s first attorney-general, and three times a prime minister during the first decade of Australia’s federation, of which he was visionary and prime mover.

Deakin University is named for him, and so is the suburb in Canberra which is home to the prime minister’s residence, The Lodge.

Deakin was also Peter Sharp’s great-grandfather.

And here was the great-grandson standing at a writers’ festival in Geelong in 2019, just across town from the central campus of Deakin University, declaring to Roach, who wrote and sang the heartbreaking Took the Children Away, that Alfred Deakin was, in essence, the father of the Stolen Generations.

Roach was in broader discussions at the festival, and simply replied that he found Sharp’s comment very interesting.

But Peter Sharp was not about to let it go.

He has spent years uncovering the evidence for his contention that his great-grandfather, considered a social progressive who was instrumental in creating modern Australia, was also responsible, more than virtually anyone else, for policies designed to demolish Aboriginal Australia.

Peter Sharp (far left), great-grandson of Alfred Deakin, with Gunditjmara man Reg Abrahams and First Nations women Erin Fahy and Nikki Whitfield.CREDIT: JUSTIN MCMANUS

Deakin, he says, was determined to create “a continent reserved for Anglo-Saxons only”, which “necessitated ensuring the elimination of the Aboriginal population”. The vision of a white Australia was mainstream in Deakin’s time, of course.

But Deakin, a journalist with The Age as a young man, was also a mystic and spiritualist who was obsessed with signs and prophecies, as historian Dr Al Gabay makes clear in his 1992 book of Deakin’s secret written thoughts, The Mystic Life of Alfred Deakin.
Put simply, Deakin believed he had a divine destiny to create a nation for whites only.

In 1884, aged just 28, he wrote one of the numerous prayers that would guide him: “Make me Thy servant and the servant of my race, and grant to me greatness and thoroughness of service though at every step I must sacrifice myself.”
He would, as Australia’s first attorney-general in 1903, rule in the service of his race that people of mixed Aboriginal and white blood were not Aboriginal at all.

The only real Aboriginal people, he asserted, were “full bloods”, and they were dying out.

It was an attitude he had made law in Victoria in 1886, leading to catastrophe for Aboriginal communities.

It was a view that informed his arguments while helping shape the Australian Constitution, which excluded Aboriginal people (that is, those with a “preponderance of Aboriginal blood”) from being counted within the Australian population, and which forbade the federal parliament making laws for Aboriginal peoples.

These provisions remained in the Constitution until 1967, when by referendum, more than 90 per cent of Australians voted to remove them.

Now, as Australia is impelled to its first referendum of the 21st century, its citizens required to decide whether Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people should be granted what they have always been denied – a Voice to parliament enshrined within the Constitution – Sharp has decided it is time to pull the curtain on what he believes were his great-grandfather’s efforts to try to make Aboriginal Australia disappear.

Sharp worried for years that despite his extensive research, he was nothing but an amateur historian. But he became heartened to discover that in recent years, his views have the support of a growing number of historians.

“The shame I felt was more as a citizen than a descendent, and ... I would have most shame if I did not try to bring it into the light.”
Peter Sharp, great-grandson of Alfred Deakin

He points to a long study of Deakin’s racial attitudes, published in 2018 by Dr Fred Cahir and Dr Dan Tout of Federation University, which reaches similar conclusions to his.
The academic paper finds the racialist legacies of Deakin have not been given the attention they deserve by most historians, and that the truth had been consigned, wrongly, to “the Great Australian Silence”.

In 2020, a group of 16 academics from Deakin University issued a challenge to discuss the fact their university was named after a racist. “We need to talk about Alfred Deakin and his ideal of a White Australia”, they called their seminar.

“Arguably,” they wrote, “[Deakin’s] most infamous statement regarding race is the prediction [in 1901] that: ‘In another century the probability is that Australia will be a white continent with not a black or even dark skin among its inhabitants. The Aboriginal race has died out in the south and is dying fast in the north and west, even where most gently treated. Other races are to be excluded by legislation if they are tinted to any degree. The yellow, the brown, and the copper-coloured are to be forbidden to land anywhere.’

Deakin University was named after Alfred Deakin.CREDIT: VICKY HUGHSON

“From our experience, when staff and students at Deakin University hear this quote and the many others like it for the first time, they are shocked. Some ask why a university would be named after someone whose values are so incompatible with those embodied in the university today,” the academics wrote.
Sharp, however, does not urge a changing of the university’s name. Instead, he says wants the truth to be told about Deakin, and hopes Australians will change the Constitution at the referendum.

He admits that when he first discovered Deakin’s personal role in denying mixed-race Aboriginal people their very identity “it was of course a great shock, and will affect me for the rest of my life.” “But quite quickly I realised, first, that the shame I felt was more as a citizen than a descendent, and second, that I would have most shame if I did not try to bring it into the light.”

His shock, he says, came in 2017 when reading Professor Judith Brett’s biography of his great-grandfather, The Enigmatic Mr Deakin.
Within its pages he discovered it was Deakin, as chief secretary of Victoria, who shoved through the Victorian parliament in the dead of night on December 15, 1886, an act that remains infamous as “the Half-Caste Act”.

Its official title, in the grand tradition of political forces reversing the meaning of their intention, was an amendment to “An Act to Provide for the Protection and Management of the Aboriginal Natives of Victoria”. Its effect was calamitous to Aboriginal communities.

It meant Aboriginal people of mixed descent (known as “half-castes” at the time) were no longer classified as Aboriginal, and were to be expelled from the reserves on which they lived.
Only those classified as “full-blood Aboriginal natives” and their long-term spouses aged more than 34 could remain.

Its effect, beyond breaking up the reserves, was to extend the power of authorities to remove children from their families. Other states followed quickly with similar legislation.

William Barak in 1866.CREDIT: ALAMY

Families and communities were ripped apart, and a whole class of people formerly considered Aboriginal were consigned to the far edges of Australian society, neither Aboriginal in the view of officialdom, nor white in the eyes of the wider population.

It was not until 1910 when a kinder premier, John Hunter, re-established through The Aboriginal Act the right of those who were “half-caste” to be considered Aboriginal again. But it did not stop the removal of children from their families, which continued for much of the 20th century.

The so-called “Half-Caste Act” was long considered to have been driven by the Aboriginal Protection Board, which wanted to reduce the cost of maintaining Aboriginal people on publicly funded reserves.

But this doesn’t properly explain Deakin’s personal interest in seeing it passed into law, nor his choice to ram it through parliament around midnight just before Christmas 1886, Sharp says. Deakin was a famed orator who regularly spoke for hours, but this time he spoke for no more than 10 minutes, omitting to say that the definition of those who were to be defined legally as Aboriginal was to be turned on its head.

An engraving of Coranderrk Station, the government-run Aboriginal reserve near Healesville where William Barak lived.CREDIT: ALAMY

Nor did he mention the act would not only allow, but enforce the removal of mixed-ancestry “infants” able “to earn his or her living”, nor that orphans be removed to the department of neglected children. Sharp sees Deakin’s behaviour as an early indication of what would become his deeper and darker beliefs and intentions.

He believed, and regularly stated, that Aboriginal people were destined to die out. By defining those of “full blood” as the only “native Aboriginals” in 1886, white Australia under this theory would soon enough be rid of them. But figures at the time showed the population of Aboriginal people to be rising, which undercut Deakin’s claim.

By redefining those of mixed ancestry as “half-castes”, and even personally removing the word “Aboriginal” in the legislation from what had previously been the term “half-caste Aborigine”, he was drastically reducing the number of people who could be called Aboriginal.

He was at the time aged just 30, and had attained the high office in the cabinet of the chief secretary of Victoria.

And yet, earlier in his life Deakin had maintained ostensibly friendly relations with Aboriginal elders.

The highly respected Aboriginal leader William Barak trusted Deakin enough to make personal representations to him. In 1882 Deakin drafted a petition to parliament opposing the closure of the Coranderrk Aboriginal Reserve, 60 kilometres east of Melbourne, where Barak and his people lived.

Yet Deakin ended the petition with telling words that would become his mantra. “They are the last remnant of a dying race which in a few years will have passed from the continent we have colonised and all we desire is that … they may be enabled to end their days in peace,” he wrote.

One of Peter Sharp’s earliest memories, while visiting his grandmother, Deakin’s daughter Vera, was standing on what he believes may have been a possum-skin rug given as a gift to his great-grandfather by Barak.
But after becoming chief secretary of Victoria in 1886, Deakin’s attitude towards Indigenous people hardened alongside his political ambitions, Sharp says.

“William Barak walked 60 kilometres from Coranderrk to Melbourne to plead with Deakin about the harshness of the 1886 act, but his voice was ignored,” he says. By then, Alfred Deakin was on his own march. To keep Australia white.

 

[Dard Ball Get]

I don't remember being taught this at school ..........

​

Alfred Deakin, architect of modern Australia … and white supremacist​

By Tony Wright​

September 1, 2023 — 8.41am

Indigenous singer, songwriter and author, the late Archie Roach, was at a writers’ festival discussing his book, Tell Me Why, about the pain of life as a child stolen from his parents, when Peter Sharp told him he believed he knew who was responsible.
It was, he said, Alfred Deakin.

Alfred Deakin, the second prime minister of Australia.

This was a monumentally confronting claim.

Deakin is a much revered Australian politician and lawmaker, a father of Australia’s Constitution, the nation’s first attorney-general, and three times a prime minister during the first decade of Australia’s federation, of which he was visionary and prime mover.

Deakin University is named for him, and so is the suburb in Canberra which is home to the prime minister’s residence, The Lodge.

Deakin was also Peter Sharp’s great-grandfather.

And here was the great-grandson standing at a writers’ festival in Geelong in 2019, just across town from the central campus of Deakin University, declaring to Roach, who wrote and sang the heartbreaking Took the Children Away, that Alfred Deakin was, in essence, the father of the Stolen Generations.

Roach was in broader discussions at the festival, and simply replied that he found Sharp’s comment very interesting.

But Peter Sharp was not about to let it go.

He has spent years uncovering the evidence for his contention that his great-grandfather, considered a social progressive who was instrumental in creating modern Australia, was also responsible, more than virtually anyone else, for policies designed to demolish Aboriginal Australia.

Peter Sharp (far left), great-grandson of Alfred Deakin, with Gunditjmara man Reg Abrahams and First Nations women Erin Fahy and Nikki Whitfield.CREDIT: JUSTIN MCMANUS

Deakin, he says, was determined to create “a continent reserved for Anglo-Saxons only”, which “necessitated ensuring the elimination of the Aboriginal population”. The vision of a white Australia was mainstream in Deakin’s time, of course.

But Deakin, a journalist with The Age as a young man, was also a mystic and spiritualist who was obsessed with signs and prophecies, as historian Dr Al Gabay makes clear in his 1992 book of Deakin’s secret written thoughts, The Mystic Life of Alfred Deakin.
Put simply, Deakin believed he had a divine destiny to create a nation for whites only.

In 1884, aged just 28, he wrote one of the numerous prayers that would guide him: “Make me Thy servant and the servant of my race, and grant to me greatness and thoroughness of service though at every step I must sacrifice myself.”
He would, as Australia’s first attorney-general in 1903, rule in the service of his race that people of mixed Aboriginal and white blood were not Aboriginal at all.

The only real Aboriginal people, he asserted, were “full bloods”, and they were dying out.

It was an attitude he had made law in Victoria in 1886, leading to catastrophe for Aboriginal communities.

It was a view that informed his arguments while helping shape the Australian Constitution, which excluded Aboriginal people (that is, those with a “preponderance of Aboriginal blood”) from being counted within the Australian population, and which forbade the federal parliament making laws for Aboriginal peoples.

These provisions remained in the Constitution until 1967, when by referendum, more than 90 per cent of Australians voted to remove them.

Now, as Australia is impelled to its first referendum of the 21st century, its citizens required to decide whether Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people should be granted what they have always been denied – a Voice to parliament enshrined within the Constitution – Sharp has decided it is time to pull the curtain on what he believes were his great-grandfather’s efforts to try to make Aboriginal Australia disappear.

Sharp worried for years that despite his extensive research, he was nothing but an amateur historian. But he became heartened to discover that in recent years, his views have the support of a growing number of historians.

“The shame I felt was more as a citizen than a descendent, and ... I would have most shame if I did not try to bring it into the light.”
Peter Sharp, great-grandson of Alfred Deakin

He points to a long study of Deakin’s racial attitudes, published in 2018 by Dr Fred Cahir and Dr Dan Tout of Federation University, which reaches similar conclusions to his.
The academic paper finds the racialist legacies of Deakin have not been given the attention they deserve by most historians, and that the truth had been consigned, wrongly, to “the Great Australian Silence”.

In 2020, a group of 16 academics from Deakin University issued a challenge to discuss the fact their university was named after a racist. “We need to talk about Alfred Deakin and his ideal of a White Australia”, they called their seminar.

“Arguably,” they wrote, “[Deakin’s] most infamous statement regarding race is the prediction [in 1901] that: ‘In another century the probability is that Australia will be a white continent with not a black or even dark skin among its inhabitants. The Aboriginal race has died out in the south and is dying fast in the north and west, even where most gently treated. Other races are to be excluded by legislation if they are tinted to any degree. The yellow, the brown, and the copper-coloured are to be forbidden to land anywhere.’

Deakin University was named after Alfred Deakin.CREDIT: VICKY HUGHSON

“From our experience, when staff and students at Deakin University hear this quote and the many others like it for the first time, they are shocked. Some ask why a university would be named after someone whose values are so incompatible with those embodied in the university today,” the academics wrote.
Sharp, however, does not urge a changing of the university’s name. Instead, he says wants the truth to be told about Deakin, and hopes Australians will change the Constitution at the referendum.

He admits that when he first discovered Deakin’s personal role in denying mixed-race Aboriginal people their very identity “it was of course a great shock, and will affect me for the rest of my life.” “But quite quickly I realised, first, that the shame I felt was more as a citizen than a descendent, and second, that I would have most shame if I did not try to bring it into the light.”

His shock, he says, came in 2017 when reading Professor Judith Brett’s biography of his great-grandfather, The Enigmatic Mr Deakin.
Within its pages he discovered it was Deakin, as chief secretary of Victoria, who shoved through the Victorian parliament in the dead of night on December 15, 1886, an act that remains infamous as “the Half-Caste Act”.

Its official title, in the grand tradition of political forces reversing the meaning of their intention, was an amendment to “An Act to Provide for the Protection and Management of the Aboriginal Natives of Victoria”. Its effect was calamitous to Aboriginal communities.

It meant Aboriginal people of mixed descent (known as “half-castes” at the time) were no longer classified as Aboriginal, and were to be expelled from the reserves on which they lived.
Only those classified as “full-blood Aboriginal natives” and their long-term spouses aged more than 34 could remain.

Its effect, beyond breaking up the reserves, was to extend the power of authorities to remove children from their families. Other states followed quickly with similar legislation.

William Barak in 1866.CREDIT: ALAMY

Families and communities were ripped apart, and a whole class of people formerly considered Aboriginal were consigned to the far edges of Australian society, neither Aboriginal in the view of officialdom, nor white in the eyes of the wider population.

It was not until 1910 when a kinder premier, John Hunter, re-established through The Aboriginal Act the right of those who were “half-caste” to be considered Aboriginal again. But it did not stop the removal of children from their families, which continued for much of the 20th century.

The so-called “Half-Caste Act” was long considered to have been driven by the Aboriginal Protection Board, which wanted to reduce the cost of maintaining Aboriginal people on publicly funded reserves.

But this doesn’t properly explain Deakin’s personal interest in seeing it passed into law, nor his choice to ram it through parliament around midnight just before Christmas 1886, Sharp says. Deakin was a famed orator who regularly spoke for hours, but this time he spoke for no more than 10 minutes, omitting to say that the definition of those who were to be defined legally as Aboriginal was to be turned on its head.

An engraving of Coranderrk Station, the government-run Aboriginal reserve near Healesville where William Barak lived.CREDIT: ALAMY

Nor did he mention the act would not only allow, but enforce the removal of mixed-ancestry “infants” able “to earn his or her living”, nor that orphans be removed to the department of neglected children. Sharp sees Deakin’s behaviour as an early indication of what would become his deeper and darker beliefs and intentions.

He believed, and regularly stated, that Aboriginal people were destined to die out. By defining those of “full blood” as the only “native Aboriginals” in 1886, white Australia under this theory would soon enough be rid of them. But figures at the time showed the population of Aboriginal people to be rising, which undercut Deakin’s claim.

By redefining those of mixed ancestry as “half-castes”, and even personally removing the word “Aboriginal” in the legislation from what had previously been the term “half-caste Aborigine”, he was drastically reducing the number of people who could be called Aboriginal.

He was at the time aged just 30, and had attained the high office in the cabinet of the chief secretary of Victoria.

And yet, earlier in his life Deakin had maintained ostensibly friendly relations with Aboriginal elders.

The highly respected Aboriginal leader William Barak trusted Deakin enough to make personal representations to him. In 1882 Deakin drafted a petition to parliament opposing the closure of the Coranderrk Aboriginal Reserve, 60 kilometres east of Melbourne, where Barak and his people lived.

Yet Deakin ended the petition with telling words that would become his mantra. “They are the last remnant of a dying race which in a few years will have passed from the continent we have colonised and all we desire is that … they may be enabled to end their days in peace,” he wrote.

One of Peter Sharp’s earliest memories, while visiting his grandmother, Deakin’s daughter Vera, was standing on what he believes may have been a possum-skin rug given as a gift to his great-grandfather by Barak.
But after becoming chief secretary of Victoria in 1886, Deakin’s attitude towards Indigenous people hardened alongside his political ambitions, Sharp says.

“William Barak walked 60 kilometres from Coranderrk to Melbourne to plead with Deakin about the harshness of the 1886 act, but his voice was ignored,” he says. By then, Alfred Deakin was on his own march. To keep Australia white.

Yes, one of the many failings of our modern education system.

 

[Sun Ra]

Yes, one of the many failings of our modern education system.

A pretty deliberately big one imo.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Like these two South Yarra shootings in the last eight days. Is that what you mean?

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/police-courts-victoria/south-yarra-shooting-man-injured-in-chapel-st-incident-after-gangland-figure-killed/news-story/a923c9779b7adef0bfcc99143dd55eb4

Police confirm Melbourne shooting victim had links to organised crime

A man has died after he was shot multiple times while walking along a street in South Yarra, in Melbourne's inner south-east. Police say the man appears to have been targeted and had links to organised crime.

www.abc.net.au

This is getting silly.
South Yarra is a social hotspot for a city of 5 Million. Even Cape Town, which is getting much aligned here, isn't dangerous everywhere.
A suburb of night spots, the kind of places that attract and are run by organized crime.

Organized crime is CRIME, it says so in its name. But its incomparable and has different problems and solutions to the subject at hand.
But as usual you like to TRY to play tricks with words. Trying to get a bight or a racist reaction i suppose.

 

[phantom13]

Probably be a shock to most given how liberal and left leaning i probably come across but im always a bit like "are we shocked" when a prominent historical figure is outed as racist or sexist or whatever.

I actually thought tearing down the statues in the states was silly. ****ing EVERYONE was racist back then, that doesnt excuse it but holding people who lived 200 years ago with limited access to education or other cultures to our standards is dumb. Im a bleeding heart lefty and theres a good chance in 200 years time my values would be hardcore Trumper.

It is absolutely worth knowing but beyond that, im not sure it does much good for anyone.

 

[phantom13]

This is getting silly.
South Yarra is a social hotspot for a city of 5 Million. Even Cape Town, which is getting much aligned here, isn't dangerous everywhere.
A suburb of night spots, the kind of places that attract and are run by organized crime.

Organized crime is CRIME, it says so in its name. But its incomparable and has different problems and solutions to the subject at hand.
But as usual you like to TRY to play tricks with words. Trying to get a bight or a racist reaction i suppose.

I think the convo has escalated a bit and its worth everyone (me included) taking a breath.

I can see the point being made, we all have a pretty visceral reaction to remote Indigenous communities issues and tend to think the best way to fix them is the most heavy handed solution possible (exactly what led to booze bans and food stamps and shit) but we tend to find reasons why similar issues in non Indigenous communites dont require the same fixes (imagine a booze ban on Chapel because of anti social behaviour). It does look a little double standardy and its hard not to feel that the race of the communities doesnt play a pretty big part in it (or socio-economic standards etc).

I really dont think anyone in this thread is "racist" but i also think you are mad if you think we dont all have some racist ideology built into us (from our parents and friends and school). Doesnt make anyone a bad person or a racist but its worth considering it when youre thinking about issues specific to our Indigenous communities.

 

[South of the Yarra]

This is getting silly.
South Yarra is a social hotspot for a city of 5 Million. Even Cape Town, which is getting much aligned here, isn't dangerous everywhere.
A suburb of night spots, the kind of places that attract and are run by organized crime.

Organized crime is CRIME, it says so in its name. But its incomparable and has different problems and solutions to the subject at hand.
But as usual you like to TRY to play tricks with words. Trying to get a bight or a racist reaction i suppose.

Trying to get a racist reaction by discussing the perception of people viewing crime and drunkenness in Aboriginal people is different to how they view the same issues in South Yarra. Really?

 

[Dard Ball Get]

A pretty deliberately big one imo.

No doubt

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Trying to get a racist reaction by discussing the perception of people viewing crime and drunkenness in Aboriginal people is different to how they view the same issues in South Yarra. Really?

I stated why the examples are different , feel free to explain why they are the same.

You know the guy killing people in South Yarra is likely to get caught at some point and go to jail for a looooong time?
No-one says its ok.

 

[phantom13]

No doubt

Hard to convince all the kids to head to Racist University and then where would all that sweet HECS money go.

I’m a deakin graduate too.