What is racism?

[Tink]

Well in my view, your indoctrination in schools is more damaging to children, than Christmas songs.
So I disagree.

black is white, a man is a woman, an orange is a tomato, a triangle is a square, in this double speak.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29219&page=11&p=887689#post887689

 

[Tisme]

Seeing as this is the racism thread I was thrilled to receive this in my inbox this morning:

This cannot be right?



Something certainly stinks here.








ON THE ABC 7 30 REPORT LAST NIGHT WHEN MALCOLM TURNBULL WAS EXPLAINING WHY AN INCREASE TO $1 DOLLAR FOR A POSTAGE STAMP WAS NECESSARY HE NEVER MENTIONED ANY THING ABOUT THIS EYE OPENER.




Australia Post

Recently Australia Post which is totally government owned and has been for 200 years, announced the loss of 900 jobs, being part of a cut back program.

This is due to the decline in letters beings sent and that’s true as email has further reduced letter writing and in many ways understandably.

The CEO of Australia Post is Ahmed Fahour who was born in Lebanon and came to Australia in 1970.

In 2009 he was made Managing Director and CEO of Australia Post.

His salary package was estimated to be worth $4.8 million last year. Of this he donated about $2 million to the Islamic Museum of Australia located in Melbourne.

I have a big problem with this fellow’s salary package and so let’s get some perspective here.

The top ten executives in Australia Post combined earn around $20 million each year.

That’s simply immoral and clearly the CEO can afford to give away nearly half his takings to an Islamic Museum as he doesn’t need it, and surprise, surprise .... it's tax deductable.

The founder and director of the Museum is former Macquarie Bank executive ..., Moustafa Fahour - Ahmed Fahour’s brother.

Moustafa’s wife, Maysaa, is the chairwoman and Director.

The Fahours’ sister, Samira El Khafir, is Head Chef and manages the restaurant on site.

How can the CEO of the Post Office earn so much, especially when the postal service is bleeding money from letter delivery. No employee is worth 5 million a year and especially not from a government owned business.

The top Federal Public Servants in Australia have salaries of between $665,600 and $844,800 so how does the bloke in charge of the Post Office received $4.8 million? The Prime Minister of Australia earns a modest $507,000 considering the real burdens of office, while the CEO of the Gold Coast Council earning slightly less and that’s patently out of kilter with the PM’s package. The Mayor of GCCC brings in $225,000 so how on earth can the Post Office justify the massive pay of their CEO?.

Let’s look further. The head of the US Postal Service with 19 times more staff and 11 times more revenue than Australia Post receives $550,000.

In France the head of their post office was paid $1.1 million with a staff compliment of 268,000 employees.

What a country full of mugs are we to sit by and let all this happen?? I would have run the big game of Post Office for a lot less and still done a reasonable job and in fact, if the best of we seniors applied ourselves we could run the damn Post Office better and accept a normal salary and a free lunch now and again.

You had better believe it too.

There is an unpleasant and some would say 'sinister' unbalanced agenda in Australia, which in the end preys on the average citizen, we the people.

We are no longer the lucky country and we are no longer wealthy and this particular game of Post Office reveals major fractures and faults on a number fronts in our society and culture.

Who is running the Country, who is pulling the levers and who is going to win? We the Mugs need to know.

Please pass this on.

I wonder if any of it is true?

 

[SirRumpole]

Seeing as this is the racism thread I was thrilled to receive this in my inbox this morning:




I wonder if any of it is true?

The $4.8 million salary was stated in this report

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-...post-ceos-multi-million-dollar-salary/5514682

Muslim or not, that's far too much for that position. The PM gets half a million.

 

[Value Collector]

Well in my view, your indoctrination in schools is more damaging to children, than Christmas songs.

and what exactly is my indoctrination?

would you want your kids singing songs preaching other religions? if not you should understand why we don't want your religion preached on us

Please put any response into the religion thread.

 

[Value Collector]

The $4.8 million salary was stated in this report

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-...post-ceos-multi-million-dollar-salary/5514682

Muslim or not, that's far too much for that position. The PM gets half a million.

How does it compare to CEO's of other Logistics companies of similar size.

Is it performance related? In my opinion them skimping on the quality of management to save a few bucks would be a mistake.

 

[SirRumpole]

How does it compare to CEO's of other Logistics companies of similar size.

Is it performance related? In my opinion them skimping on the quality of management to save a few bucks would be a mistake.

Maaate, read the sodding article !

In contrast, the head of the US Postal Service was paid $550,000 in 2013, despite running a company with 19 times more staff and 11 times the revenue.

The head of France's postal service, La Poste, was paid $1.06 million for running a service with 268,000 employees.
Australia Post CEO Ahmed Fahour speaks to Radio National

The highest paid public servant in Australia is the Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Ian Watt, who earns more than $800,000 per year.

 

[Value Collector]

Maaate, read the sodding article !

We aren't in those countries.

I am talking about other Australian logistics companies, because its with them that we are competing with for talent.

For example what's the Boss of Toll holdings earning.

edit

I just looked it up, The Toll boss earned $4.9M last year.

 

[SirRumpole]

We aren't in those countries.

I am talking about other Australian logistics companies, because its with them that we are competing with for talent.

For example what's the Boss of Toll holdings earning.

edit

I just looked it up, The Toll boss earned $4.9M last year.

Sounds like he is grossly overpaid as well.

 

[Value Collector]

Sounds like he is grossly overpaid as well.

It pales in comparison to some others, Bob Iger Ceo of The Walt Disney Company earned $44.5 Million last year, But the Ideas he has had have set the company up to earn probably 50 Billion over the next 5 - 7 years, so as a share holder I don't mind

 

[wayneL]

Been thinking about this racism thing (notwithstanding that race might not be a valid construct).

If we define racism as the recognition and different treatment of different races, is all racism bad? Can there be neutral and good racism?

Governments implicitly endorse such a concept with land rights, indigenous recognition in the constitution, affirmative action etc (whether or not these are truly for the greater good or not).

 

[Value Collector]

If we define racism as the recognition and different treatment of different races, is all racism bad? Can there be neutral and good racism?

I guess it comes down to fairness, is it fair to judge an individual based on their "race" or "ethnicity", rather than more relevant factors.

Google defines racism as - the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races

That sort of belief would lead to all sorts of unfairness, giving advantages to one race and disadvantages to others.


---------------------

In regards to native title, I don't think its a race thing, as much as it is recognition that some of the lands of Australia were already owned prior to British settlement.

 

[SirRumpole]

Google defines racism as - the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races
.

I think it is the definition of the words "inferior" and "superior" that are the problem, not whether particular races have particular characteristics.

If you compare Western Europeans to Indigenous Australians and say that the Europeans are superior because of their technology then you also have to consider the adverse effects of that technology, and while the aboriginals did not embrace technology they survived without creating pollution or nuclear weapons so the judgement of superiority in that comparison is a matter of opinion rather than fact.

 

[Value Collector]

I think it is the definition of the words "inferior" and "superior" that are the problem, not whether particular races have particular characteristics.

If you compare Western Europeans to Indigenous Australians and say that the Europeans are superior because of their technology then you also have to consider the adverse effects of that technology, and while the aboriginals did not embrace technology they survived without creating pollution or nuclear weapons so the judgement of superiority in that comparison is a matter of opinion rather than fact.

Its not so much that, its about making determinations about individuals based on your preconceived notions of what you think are characteristics of that race.

Eg, saying something like "Preference of university positions for technology related fields should be given to White Western Europeans not Aboriginals, Because White Western Europeans are better at Technology stuff"

Basing decisions such as that on race will lead you to unfairness, because candidates who may prove to be very worthy students were not be considered for spots in preference of less worthy ones simply because the decisions are being made on race, rather than other more valid attributes of the person.

 

[SirRumpole]

Basing decisions such as that on race will lead you to unfairness, because candidates who may prove to be very worthy students were not be considered for spots in preference of less worthy ones simply because the decisions are being made on race, rather than other more valid attributes of the person.

By the same argument, all "special advantages" for those of certain races must be racist because it implies those races are not good enough to compete on merit ?

eg housing only for aboriginals or job quotas for minorities are racist ?

 

[Tisme]

I think it is the definition of the words "inferior" and "superior" that are the problem, not whether particular races have particular characteristics.

If you compare Western Europeans to Indigenous Australians and say that the Europeans are superior because of their technology then you also have to consider the adverse effects of that technology, and while the aboriginals did not embrace technology they survived without creating pollution or nuclear weapons so the judgement of superiority in that comparison is a matter of opinion rather than fact.

I do wonder if humans burnt out lots of fauna and flora in the 70k years they have been in Oz

 

[Value Collector]

By the same argument, all "special advantages" for those of certain races must be racist because it implies those races are not good enough to compete on merit ?

eg housing only for aboriginals or job quotas for minorities are racist ?

Some of them could be considered racist, But they are generally a blunt tool used to try and correct pre-existing problems.

I don't necessarily agree with such things in all cases, But I can see why such programs have been adopted.

for example say in an industrial town, X group makes up 30% of the population, but only 1% of the job roles in middle management or above are going to X group even though it can be shown that there are willing and able individuals, but they are being overlooked because of racial stereotypes.

Now I am generally against law makers stepping in, But some rule maker stepping in and saying "Look, you are going to have to do something about your system it's is not allowing X Group to advance their careers, you have to start working towards at least 15% of management being from X group.

obviously such a rule is not Ideal, but it is one way to fix existing problems in areas that are really bad.

 

[Value Collector]

I do wonder if humans burnt out lots of fauna and flora in the 70k years they have been in Oz

We probably did, but I doubt it would come close to the extinction caused by humans in Western Europe over the last 70,000 years, Western Europe is unrecogniseable to how it would have looked 1000's of years ago.

 

[qldfrog]

That sort of belief would lead to all sorts of unfairness, giving advantages to one race and disadvantages to others.


---------------------

In regards to native title, I don't think its a race thing, as much as it is recognition that some of the lands of Australia were already owned prior to British settlement.

true for native title
but in that case you would agree that indigenous specific welfare or help is a clear manifestation of racism, to be deemed so inferior to the rest of Australian that you need special treatment or help, based on a % of recognised native blood whether you are born in sydney or in a NT bush, with a surgeon dad or a single mother on welfare.
as you can read thru, I am firmly against race based discrimination, positive or not as positiove discrimination is obviously straight discrimination against the "others" whatever colour of skin, place of birth or footy team they supports

 

[luutzu]

True

Of course racism is predicated on offending someone's opinion about the importance of skin colour that is disagreeable with your own.

Take my appreciation of industrious whitey. Sure there were other peoples who played around the fringes with wheels and fire, but all for comparative nought until the Nordic races decided that didn't like the Romans and their mafioso protection racket anymore and set themselves on the evolutionary track to glorious wars and technology. A slow start to begin with, but by 1066 the things were gaining traction, the church of Rome was busy fermenting it's own Vietnam war with Turkey, while up in the boonies the Godwinson and Conqueror boys were ramping up their family argument over an inheritance that would eventually result in the greatest empire, technological revolutionaries and rule of law givers the world will most likely ever see.

Once upon a time Australia was populated, in the main, with those same British stock and supplemented with the socially retarded micks from Ireland (who found great comfort in the arms of the local aboriginal women it seems). Then along came a vowel challenged foreigner Jerzy Zubrzycki who gave the educated classes something to bang on about instead of their boring conservatism and the next thing we know we have Al Grassby in 1972 giving out the combination to the migrant locks WTF! Most of the silent generation still have nightmares about that, in silence of course.

And that's the history of the modern world right there, done and dusted.

Where are the homelands of the white people you ask...they are Nordics:


View attachment 65278
View attachment 65279
View attachment 65280

I think you missed about 5 continents there McGyver.

The White skin condition has spread all over Mother Earth.

 

[luutzu]

Exactly, and when some one is talking about "The Jesus" and they say there is a good chance he never existed, Saying "Historians disagree with you" is a red herring, because they are talking about some guy or guys who may have inspired the stories.

And at the end of the day, there is pretty much no evidence for the inspiration guy anyway, and historians are just pulling apart the religious texts and saying "well modern Christians probably wouldn't have written this into the story, maybe there is some truth to it" but if you ask me, the bible is the claim not the evidence, it requires independent evidence, which just isn't there.

And did I mention Millions of dollars has been spend trying to uncover evidence for Jesus and its never been found.

Any one interested should do some research and come back to me with what they think the best evidence for the existence of Jesus is, I think you will find yourself holding an empty sack.

Discussion of Jesus starts at 1.40

Were those the millions on examing the Shroud of Turin? Or that's another attempt at not feeding the poor?

I remember watching those docu way back then where scientist/archeologist go searching the bottom of the Red Sea for evidence that Moses and the Hebrew walked it. I remember the evidence they came up with was they've found some pot and broken plates or utensils dating back to around those time - so I guess conclusion was the sea did part and they didn't kinda sail over it or something.

Anyway, might go back watching DaVinci Code to see how the female lead there was descended from Christ again.