How trends change in regards to unpopular people in Australia

[donnashuggy]

I had breakfast with an Indian Jew this morning who came here in the seventies, we were discussing how it was then and how much it has changed, we both tended to agree that Muslims wherever they come from and Arabs in general are not so accepted in society as everyone else.

I remember it being the Greeks and Italians in those days.

We do live in a multicultural society and although I am a Catholic and she is Jewish we both have Muslim friends. My daughter goes to a state school where half of the kids are probably Jewish (I am guessing at that) her children go to a Jewish school but often cover the badge of their uniform when going to suburbs where there are lots of Muslim kids. Neither of us is racist but we both recognise one thing, that society changes to accept or not accept people and it isn't right.

Could it be the newspapers people read?

[iapetus_rocks]

Yes, I remember when I went into a pub with two of my female friends and was told "we don't serve women here"  . . . so the pub lost the business of three people.

A rather long time ago, I was refused service in an English pub . . . "We don't serve long-haired gents here".

Nowadays the pubs serve beer to young men who speak shout in an unbearable loudness of voice, attempting to out-macho their friends.

What is more offensive to the public sensibility? . . . long hair or really loud aggressive bogans shouting over each other?

Once upon a time I was chucked out for having long hair . . . nowadays I leave voluntarily because of the offensive behaviour of patrons who the pubs accepts.

What is the world coming to?

[***super_nova***]

---

@simone4010 wrote:

Donna

Whilst I appreciate the point you are making, I’m rather surprised by how you have chosen to express it. To describe your breakfast companion as simply ‘an Indian Jew’ is almost contradictory to the message you are trying to present. When you describe a person by a single term, you reduce them to a one-dimensional object of the person they really are which to a certain extent, diminishes them.

---

Not in this case, as that description was all that was the only dimension pertinent to the message Donna was trying to convey. 

[***super_nova***]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

---

Personally, I think not to acknowledge a person's race or creed is to efface them.

If a person is black, what's wrong with saying so? It's a form of racism to pretend you didn't notice.

---

That is very weird think to say.  Of-course, you notice if somebody is black or Asian, but why do you need to acknowledge that? 

There is a difference when  you say something like:  "she is so lucky, being black she her skin can take lot more sun than mine".   and saying "I am going to have a dinner with my black friends" 

Just in case you do not get it; you would not say  "I am going to have a dinner with my blond friends" 

[watta*drama*queen]

---

@simone4010 wrote:

Donna

Whilst I appreciate the point you are making, I’m rather surprised by how you have chosen to express it. To describe your breakfast companion as simply ‘an Indian Jew’ is almost contradictory to the message you are trying to present. When you describe a person by a single term, you reduce them to a one-dimensional object of the person they really are which to a certain extent, diminishes them.

Personally, I believe that whilst we continue to identify people purely in terms of race, colour, sex, age or religion rather than their lovely qualities, knowledge and attributes, we are only causing more division rather than acceptance and inclusion.

---

Whilst the use of the word 'jew' is technically correct, most thinking people recognise the negative connotations of using it in that manner as it is frequently used as a pejorative in anti-semetic rhetoric. 

The use of the word 'jew' is jarring to many and perhaps the alternative 'jewish' is more sensitive and therefore preferable on a public chat board. 

[polksaladallie]

Jesus was a Jew in both senses. In fact, he completed the Jewish religion by serving as the Messiah (Christ) whom the prophets had long foretold. The completed form of the Jewish religion is known as Christianity, and its adherents are Christians or "followers of the Christ."

[watta*drama*queen]

---

@polksaladallie wrote:

Jesus was a Jew in both senses.

---

In both senses?

As I said 'most thinking people..'

[polksaladallie]

---

@watta*drama*queen wrote:

---

@polksaladallie wrote:

Jesus was a Jew in both senses.

---

In both senses?

As I said 'most thinking people..'

---

Not my words.

Full Question

If Jesus was a Jew, why are we Catholic?

Answer

The term Jew is used in at least two senses in Scripture: to refer to those who are ethnically Jews and to those who are religiously Jews. Jesus was a Jew in both senses. In fact, he completed the Jewish religion by serving as the Messiah (Christ) whom the prophets had long foretold.

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/if-jesus-was-a-jew-why-are-we-catholic

[watta*drama*queen]

I had hoped it was not necessary to repeat the entire sentence for you.  Obviously it was necessary.

'Whilst the use of the word 'jew' is technically correct, most thinking people recognise the negative connotations of using it in that manner as it is frequently used as a pejorative in anti-semetic rhetoric.'

[debra9275]

Aren't the words Arabs and Jews nouns?

adjectives Arabic, Jewish

[watta*drama*queen]

I suggest you read back for a change to understand why I raised the use of the word.

No matter whether it is a noun or an adjective - it is still seen as a pejorative by many for obvious reasons.

If you still do not understand that, try googling to find examples of anti-semetic pejorative.

I certinaly will not be posting them for you