Wonderful to read all this stuff; including the opposing opinions, the positive of which is to make those with a hatred for racism to understand their opponents, to listen to their arguments and to refine their own. Alas, often though, racism is such a deeply embedded thing it is almost impossible to excise from the holder. As I see it, the biggest flaw in the argument of the racist is the bad use, the abuse, of the personal pronoun, the first and third person plural, in particular. The words "we" and "they" are used where they ought not to. The "we" is used as a generalisation and the user assumes that everyone is either on his or her side OR on the other side, the "they/them" side. Similarly with the word "them." It is used as if everyone on the other side of the argument is identical and equally at fault. The two words, are, of course, used to denote that "we" are "good" and "they" are "bad." Generalisation then, is the core flaw of the racist's argument. I find that religion -all of it- has damaged the world enormously. I can go on and explain this thesis but it will take too long and it would be outside the navigation of this argument. But, I do believe that for some, it is a good thing for various reasons, all of which, in my opinion are flawed but nevertheless are effective in delivering goodness to those who believe. Such things as psychological solace and a guidance in one's moral behaviour. However, to say that all believers (of any religion) are "good" or "evil" is to generalise not only on the population but also on the words "good" and "evil" which are uncompromisingly subjective and imbued with a huge variety of meanings. The worse thing that anyone can say is that all members of a particular religion are "good" or "evil." It defies logic and circumspection. It just isn't true and cannot be sustained as an argument. Every religion is also uncompromisingly subjective. Even though there are millions of rules and guides to interpreting the "original" utterances and lives of the Prophets and the gods, there is still a huge gap between the various understandings and interpretations of those utterances. Each person has his or her own view of the worth and meaning of the book they are reading and following.
Race is in exactly the same situation as that of religion. What constitutes a particular race, how it emerged, who thinks what of it is also uncompromisingly subjective and the worse form of judgement about a race can be the use of that third person plural, "they/them." A race is made up of a myriad of elements, just as an individual character is. To lump (and dump) all those individuals into an abstract prejudgement of "they/them" is to defy logic and to speak with mindless emotion: Belief of the unprovable. Lazy minds, mindless media, an education system devoid of clean, unbiased reason, a whole series of govn't depts with a culture of bias and prejudice will not only exacerbate the "us" and "them" division but it will perpetuate it. Totalitarian govn'ts just love that -and the last nearly twelve years we saw exactly such a totalitarian govn't developing and in the throws of being in absolute police and martial power. Such govn'ts only know how to rule by dividing the society: any excuse will do: wealth vs poverty, haves vs have nots, religion, race, birth right, football teams... anything! They will always pit one side of the community AGAINST the other, rather than helping to foster the view that there are no sides to being lawful aussie citizens.
There is also a need to understand that if a society wants to be strong, then it needs to strengthen itself rather than weaken itself. Strengthen the society by fair laws, by fair taxes, fair working conditions, equal access to dispute resolution (criminal as well as civil), to employment, to health, to education. Splitting up and condemning bits (always the weakest and the smallest by the way) of the society because for some subjective reason it is viewed as a group (not as individuals) which, because of the colour of the skin or the turn of their religious beliefs, will serve only to weaken that society.
What was depicted in the 4corners show was both, the sonorous screech of ignorance, as well as the clear, soft voice of reason. One lot of viewers decided to hear the loud war cries whereas another decided that those who explained the conflict were much more worthy of their attention. They saw that in the arguments that these clear, reasoned voices gave lies hope. In the screeches there's only chaos and hatred.
But I know both lots will stay at their position for a long time.
