"White Flight" - Could this trend happen in Australia?

nhg said:
Like the Westboro Baptist Church, the IRA or the KKK with christianity.
Click to expand...
Or Branch Davidians.

The name "Branch Davidian" is most widely known for the Waco siege of 1993 on their property (known as the Mount Carmel Center) near Waco, Texas. The 51-day siege, by the ATF, FBI, and Texas National Guard, resulted in the deaths of the Branch Davidians' leader, David Koresh, as well as 82 other Branch Davidian men, women, and children, and four ATF agents.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_Davidians

Lovely.

It makes me wonder? Are religions inherently violent? I don't know about that but all religions appear to have a history of violence. It seems that it's just that violence associated (even loosely) is the most prevalent in our area of the world at this time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence
 
So true....particularly with the Chinese speaking Singaporeans.

They seem to have an air of superiority when it seems a lot of them seem to have a serious inferiority complex.

Racism is not only a white issue...the Indians and Chinese are atrocious! I have mastered racism....I hate all races equally. I am of Sri Lankan extraction...I crack my self laughing when some Indians who are dark as coal claim that they are Ango-Indian or Chinese who seem to be rude because you look South Asian.

I love taking using humour to take the ***** out of these situations. :)



JennyK said:
The strange thing is that all the Singaporeans I have met who have migrated to Australia all chose to live in what were once referred to as 'white bread' upper socioeconomic neighbourhoods such as in the Kew area, the Balwyn area extending up through Surrey Hills and Mount Albert, Canterbury, and the Hawthorn area.

I have never met a Singaporean who has migrated to Australia and has chosen to live and raise a family in Tottenham, Dandenong, or Broadmeadows.

Maybe it's just the company I keep.

However it does seem strange that Singaporeans in very large numbers seem to be selecting where they want to live in Australia at least partly by considering the demographics of the various suburbs, avoiding some and focusing on others.

Even stranger is that someone from a Singaporean background would then denigrate "white" or "European" Australians who might want to move away from an area undergoing a demographic change which they find unpleasant, the same type of area which very few if any Singaporeans would apparently ever move to and live.



But of course Australia doesn't exist in a vacuum, we can measure how 'racist' or 'xenophobic' it is for people to move away from a neighborhood they no longer feel comfortable in by comparing it to race-based practices and attitudes in other countries.

We have someone from Singapore who seems to claiming some sort of moral superiority over 'white' Australians who want to relocate way from an area they no longer want to live, so let's have a look at how race is dealt with in Singapore.

Well what do you know, in Singapore, the country created by Singaporeans, it is legal to discriminate against a person on the basis of their race.

Here we have a report from Singapore detailing property rental advertisements which include such caveats as "Accept all race, except indian sorry no offence (sic)." Apparently it is quite common in certain areas that no Indians, ?PRCs? (from the People?s Republic of China) or Malays will be allowed to rent various properties.

http://blogs.wsj.com/indonesiarealt...ervasive-in-singapore-property-rental-market/

Outside the property market it seems there is a growing undercurrent of racial tension in Singapore as Singaporeans resist the ongoing immigration into their country which they claim is putting a growing strain on "jobs, housing and infrastructure, and raised fears about the dilution of the Singaporean national identity."

"Does Singapore have a problem with xenophobia? It seems that barely a month goes by these days without news reports highlighting friction between Singaporeans and foreign workers in the tiny, multi-ethnic city-state."

Look there is even a sign raised at a demonstration saying "Singapore for Singaporeans".

http://thediplomat.com/2014/02/singapores-foreigner-problem/

Oh well nothing to see here, that's different, let's just forget about that and return to the lecture being given by the person from Singapore about how some 'white' Australians are a mixture of racist, xenophobic and ignorant for exercising their own free will in their own country by selling their house in an area they no longer want to live and buying a house in another area where they would prefer to live.
Click to expand...
 
Racism is something which occurs in every culture. The less exposure people have to other cultures, the stronger it's likely to be. I've been the victim of racist attitudes in other cultures; my then 8yo daughter in Hong Kong very much so. But that's no excuse for me to have a bad attitude to somebody else from a different culture or background.
 
Hoffy said:
You think the IRA were acting in the name of Christianity?
Click to expand...
It seems a reasonable parallel; the conflict in Northern Ireland was essentially two sects of Christianity fighting for political power, just as the conflict in Syria and Iraq is about sects of Islam fighting for political power.
 
Perp said:
It seems a reasonable parallel; the conflict in Northern Ireland was essentially two sects of Christianity fighting for political power, just as the conflict in Syria and Iraq is about sects of Islam fighting for political power.
Click to expand...

So when it comes down to it, it's all about sects?
 
Perp said:
It seems a reasonable parallel; the conflict in Northern Ireland was essentially two sects of Christianity fighting for political power, just as the conflict in Syria and Iraq is about sects of Islam fighting for political power.
Click to expand...

It's a ririculously bad parallel, but a common mistake.
 
Perp said:
It seems a reasonable parallel; the conflict in Northern Ireland was essentially two sects of Christianity fighting for political power, just as the conflict in Syria and Iraq is about sects of Islam fighting for political power.
Click to expand...
I didn't think the ISIS crowd were motivated by political power - I thought they were motivated by a religious ideology, which would see the whole world become their ideology or die?

Naturally, they would end up "in power" if this ever eventuated; but it's a religious mind they are exercising from my understanding....

Imagine human life if these blokes ever won.....

We would have gone almost full circle from Neanderthal, to Homo Sapiens; almost back to Neanderthal.
 
Perp said:
It seems a reasonable parallel; the conflict in Northern Ireland was essentially two sects of Christianity fighting for political power, just as the conflict in Syria and Iraq is about sects of Islam fighting for political power.
Click to expand...

I have known several very good people from both religions who have come to Australia from Belfast during the 60s and 70s. They said that it has been turned into a religious fight but it was really all about nationalism - the Protestants are the English invaders and Catholics are the original Irish, who were still fighting the English army and English dominated Parliament that controlled Northern Ireland. It was made into a religious war because of PCness or ideological constructs with the aim to demonise religions.

Referring back to my history lessons, demonising religions has worked well - many Westerners honestly believe that the wars in Ireland is proof that Christians and (extrapolating more recently) Muslims are bad people and that having a spiritual life is to be avoided (at best) and publicly ridiculed.
 
BayView said:
I didn't think the ISIS crowd were motivated by political power - I thought they were motivated by a religious ideology, which would see the whole world become their ideology or die?
Click to expand...

I see it as the same thing in ISIS's case. I think that if a group that is inspired by their religious beliefs wants to form their own community and leave everyone else alone, they are acting without any goal for national political power eg the Nazarenes, the Amish. What do others think?


If they insist on attacking and killing everyone who does not bow to their demands and their goal is to install themselves as the political leaders of the town/country/nation, I think they are acting politically. Hitler got himself democratically elected, and used his leadership to demonise people from all walks of life. He positioned his followers to believe certain groups were "bad" based upon their religions, nationalities and other things, not just their religion alone. He was able to pass laws demonising various groups of people so he did exactly what ISIS is doing, legally according to the laws of his empire.

I get the impression ISIS will kill everyone who stands in their way, set themselves up in power as the new government and change the laws later. I am yet to work out how they will install their Prophet as any country's leader. Maybe they will go back to fighting amongst themselves for the top jobs and wipe themselves out? That's a nice thought. I see them as being politically motivated and using a religion as the "cause" to rally behind.
 
Angel said:
I have known several very good people from both religions who have come to Australia from Belfast during the 60s and 70s. They said that it has been turned into a religious fight but it was really all about nationalism - the Protestants are the English invaders and Catholics are the original Irish, who were still fighting the English army and English dominated Parliament that controlled Northern Ireland. It was made into a religious war because of PCness or ideological constructs with the aim to demonise religions.

Referring back to my history lessons, demonising religions has worked well - many Westerners honestly believe that the wars in Ireland is proof that Christians and (extrapolating more recently) Muslims are bad people and that having a spiritual life is to be avoided (at best) and publicly ridiculed.
Click to expand...

I'll have to disagree with this reply
Until the Age of Enlightenment questioning religion was unthinkable
For hundreds and hundreds of years Catholics and Protestants would have been unable to marry and just to question the existence of God would have been unthinkable and to have a conversation like this would have been at the risk of our life's
To borrow a quote from Hitchens -Good people will do good things, bad people will do bad things but if you want normally moral people to do wicked things you need religion.
 
hugh72 said:
I'll have to disagree with this reply
Until the Age of Enlightenment questioning religion was unthinkable
For hundreds and hundreds of years Catholics and Protestants would have been unable to marry and just to question the existence of God would have been unthinkable and to have a conversation like this would have been at the risk of our life's
To borrow a quote from Hitchens -Good people will do good things, bad people will do bad things but if you want normally moral people to do wicked things you need religion.
Click to expand...

And I would disagree with this.

The English invaded ireland. They settled and took land from the Irish. And of course, the Irish, who were catholic, fiercely resented the protestant settlers.

I'm not saying that religion hasn't been the cause of bloodshed. It has been, many times. But in this case, the reasons were a lot more complex than just religion.

And there have been wars- even world wars- which have not been fought in the name of religion.
 
geoffw said:
And I would disagree with this.

The English invaded ireland. They settled and took land from the Irish. And of course, the Irish, who were catholic, fiercely resented the protestant settlers.

I'm not saying that religion hasn't been the cause of bloodshed. It has been, many times. But in this case, the reasons were a lot more complex than just religion.

And there have been wars- even world wars- which have not been fought in the name of religion.
Click to expand...

And the reason for the Tudors to try and reform Ireland was........oh Religon
Any one who was a child in England under the threat of an IRA bomb would tend to disagree
 
On this conflict I disagree. It had religious overtones, but was primarily a political struggle for independence from England.

According to that authoratative source Wikipedia

The conflict was primarily a political one, but it also had an ethnic or sectarian dimension,[29] although it was not a religious conflict.[11][30] A key issue was the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. Unionists/loyalists, who are mostly Protestants, generally want Northern Ireland to remain within the United Kingdom. Irish nationalists/republicans, who are mostly Catholics, generally want it to leave the United Kingdom and join a united Ireland.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that religion has been a root cause for much bloodshed. But I disagree about it being a primary issue for this struggle.
 
While interesting your reference refers to 'the Troubles', I commented on Religon and the initial reason for there being 2 groups with opposing ideas about an imaginary Friends in Ireland and to answer this you need to go back 500 years not 40..while I'm not questioning the rise of Nationalism to pretend religon isn't a prime cause is not to know
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

see_change
Why I have faith in Australia and the Australian property market
2
Replies
26
Views
5K
Phar Lap
P
I
Themes for next few decades in Australia?
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
Angel
A
C
Cash Converters are nation's fastest growing retailer
Replies
10
Views
2K
Aaron Sice
Aaron Sice
The Y-man
The Interview that never came - Penny K
Replies
0
Views
8K
The Y-man
The Y-man
The Y-man
The monalisa and MsAli interview
Replies
1
Views
7K
The Y-man
The Y-man
Back
Top