This whole process of corporate Australia pandering to the woke community is getting totally out of hand
Woolworths Dumps Australia Day Merchandise
Related Stores
Comments
people would own "high quality" Aus day items
I have a 50 year old silver spoon with an Australian flag crest on the handle. Was given to me amongst other more perishable gifts for being one of the first babies born on Australia Day that year.
I don't argue that the day is losing its feel of celebration due to legitimate concerns of our indigenous brothers, but I do enjoy a public holiday on my birthday every year that i'm afraid i'll eventually lose.
Haha, we may loose yhe holiday at some point (I also hope we don't). But at least you'll still have a cool spoon 😉
due to legitimate concerns of our indigenous brothers
"concerns" perhaps but yet NOTHING of substance is done.
Just "concerns". How easy and convenient.I'm against but I don't do much else attitude.
They have manufacturing equipment that is world class
Not really, they have western designed/made manufacturing equipment that allows for them manufacture stuff on behalf of others.
They also apparently undercut to get the work then manufacture to a lower standard in the hope this will not get picked up.
WW could source from Australian made suppliers (a few still exist), but just as they do to farmers, they're all pose and no pros. They want the biggest profit to pad their bonuses and screw the rest of us. I can't stand the virtue signalling and the shame they project onto celebrating your national pride. It's the same sex marriage and referendum all over. They will not learn.
I don't think this is the point really, however I do agree with your comment.
Xi Jinping would not be proud
You act like being made in china makes a difference, if it was made in australia they are still too weak to sell it because of the idiot perpetual online mob of losers that is the left.
Let’s stop selling everything then.
Its all chinese crap that ends up at the tip halloween, easter, christmass, Australia day, made by corporate to make you waste your money.
Actually it goes to Bali orphanges
Who spends money on Australia day crap? It's a day off work and that's good enough for me.
who spends money on <insert holiday here>. I'm sure you waste your money on a bunch of useless shit.
Doesn't everyone?
So why waste even more money on totally useless shit?
There's nothing more Australian than buying some cheap Chinese made flags and sticking them on your Japanese ute that is made Thailand. So Aussie.
And yet all the Halloween crap will still be sold come October, so it's clearly not about "chinese crap that ends up at the tip", but rather a hatred of Australia.
Uhh….Maybe because people tend to dress up and/or buy decorations around the house for halloween more than Aust day? 🤯🤯🤯
More money to be made selling Halloween stuff than Aust day. Your bias and hatred is clouding you from thinking outside the box.
I wouldn’t buy if made in Australia too (rip off), it’d still land up collecting dust or landfill
Last year when I went to woolies after Australia day an employee was giving out all the Australia Day merchandise. There were boxes of them. I took a small crappy looking Australia flag for my kids and she asked me if I wanted more, because otherwise they were all going to landfill. Horrible.
This whole process of corporate Australia pandering to the woke community is getting totally out of hand
The existing process of pandering to the shareholders is already out of hand…
Sell your shares and buy Coles. That'll show em.
You can turn up at an AGM and ask a question if you have a single share.
Stakeholder* not a shareholder
Prioritisation of the shareholder over the stakeholders is what got us here in the first place.
No he's right, shareholder.
I'd be very surprised if your superfund didn't hold shares in ASX: WOW.
@BuzzBuzzBuzz: No he's wrong. Stakeholder.
My superfund might hold shares, but my super plan certainly doesn't.
Great. Hope they keep not selling stuff nobody buys so they make more profits then
A share holder is part owner of the company
This whole process of corporate Australia pandering to the woke
https://files.ozbargain.com.au/upload/313113/107377/woke.jpg
They don't really ponder the idea that if they're not "woke" then they're basically "asleep."
That's what I always thought - "woke" is meant to be an insult, but I actually see it as a good thing!
i think initially it was but then used sarcastically to become the current pejorative term
…by morons.
The term "woke" has an inference that it's simply virtue signalling rather than true empathy though.
The term woke comes out of the American black community in the 1930s. It means being awake to injustice particularly racial. Using it as a pejorative is, particularly, racist.
It looks like some people are offended by facts.
Origin of the word is not the same as the current usage though. It certainly is no longer tied specifically to that community so calling it's use as a pejorative racist outright would be incorrect.
@dowhatuwant2: It has been given that meaning by the rightwing racists. If you misuse the word then don’t be surprised if you are judged. They are trying to silence people by appropriating and denigrating their language. They are even too lazy to find their own word.
@try2bhelpful: The word literally wasn't in use for decades then came back into use recently. That's long enough to consider it a new meaning rather than a misuse of the word. Calling people you disagree with racist is literally trying to silence them by misusing the word…
@dowhatuwant2: Rubbish. It just means the rightwing has decided it is a good word as a cudgel. If the rightwing had any gumption they would create their own word.
@dowhatuwant2: It's been in use since inception and always had the same meaning. Until right wingers came in.
@dowhatuwant2: I'm not talking about how often it was used, I'm talking about the definition. It hasn't changed until right wingers started misusing it as a nonsense word interchangeably with "progressive".
@larndis: Do you interpret that graph as to showing the word having an uptick at all in the 30s when the other user says it was defined? I see no indication of any greater use than saying someone woke up in the typical english usage of the word until the more recent definition became common.
@dowhatuwant2: You said:
"The word literally wasn't in use for decades then came back into use recently."
However, the graph shows that the word was consistently in use for decades, then had a large recent increase in usage. The graph does not support your assertion of a drop in usage.
I don't think try2bhelpful made any claims as to the volume of usage, only that it has been used with a consistent meaning since the 30s. Your graph does not disprove this.
@larndis: Wasn’t in use with that meaning, was in use with the traditional meaning of someone woke up obviously.
@Autonomic: Actually it hasn't.
The real inversion and irony here is that the word originally encapsulated the distrust in the (corrupt) institutions of society that oppressed the black community.
Now, calling people racist has become a way for the mainstream to oppress people, and those large institutions and the new language are embraced by the people that proudly claim to be "woke". Meanwhile, those that still believe those institutions are corrupt and oppress us, have been marginalized and called silly things like "right wing racist extremists" even when said people are asian, black, etc. That's how we get ludicrous stories on asians and blacks attending "white supremacist" freedom rallies and how they must have "internalized racism", when really they simply don't trust our institutions - they are woke as per the original definition of the word. Awake to systematic injustice.
The so called "left" mainstream community have twisted the word to actually serve the large institutional interests, and call those that distrust those institutions "racist".
Now, calling people racist has become a way for the mainstream to oppress people
So minorities are no longer oppressed?
@Autonomic: Perhaps re-read my post, as I didn't state that anywhere.
Or, rather, what "minorities" are you talking about? Certain minorities are over-represented in positions of power and wealth. Certain minorities are called evil and lambasted by mainstream people. Certain minorities have integrated together over time and when categorized by certain attributes, are not a minority. Are middle class black people and middle class whites very different minorities in your eyes, like the original downtrodden black american slaves and the white masters?
Now, calling people racist has become a way for the mainstream to oppress people
Now, instead of strawmanning my statement, what I actually stated here is in reference to the many examples of covid freedom protestors being labelled as right-wing, "alt-right" and white-supremacist by the media, despite showing photos with non-whites in the crowd. In fact, video footage of many of them show black and asian speakers, as well as throughout the crowds. I can't imagine how anybody can see this and not understand that calling them "alt right racist lunatics" is nothing more than meaningless propaganda. Some people i've seen have imagined what I stated in my last post - i.e. completely ignoring the circular logic and stating they must have internalized hatred of their own race.
There are plenty of other examples where calling people "racist" is a way of discrediting someone without attacking their actual argument. It's a very weak attack that works very well on a large number of people. Of course there are many other types of ad hominem (fallacious) arguments against people's povs, but calling people racist is particularly popular at the moment.
Very obviously this doesn't mean racism doesn't exist at all, but a hallmark of somebody using it as a fallacious weapon is often the presenting of a black and white (hah) dichotomy. You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists.
@ssfps: Why don't you post some of examples of people you think have been "oppressed" by the main stream "large institutions" by being (wrongfully, according to you) called alt right or white supremacists.
Are middle class black people and middle class whites very different minorities in your eyes, like the original downtrodden black american slaves and the white masters?
Are you saying middle class black people don't experience racism? Or that's it's but as bad as slavery therefore we shouldn't care?
Are you saying middle class black people don't experience racism? Or that's it's but as bad as slavery therefore we shouldn't care?
Do you really not see the intersectionality of oppression and how race is only one component of it? Honestly, you and half the posters here seem to have gleaned your understanding of history and race relations from the nightly news.
Do you really not see the intersectionality of oppression and how race is only one component of it? Honestly, you and half the posters here seem to have gleaned your understanding of history and race relations from the nightly news.
You said middle class white and middle-class black people are the same. Racism doesn't disappear for the middle class. Employment, healthcare and housing are the most glaring areas.
Why don't you post some of examples of people you think have been "oppressed" by the main stream "large institutions" by being (wrongfully, according to you) called alt right or white supremacists.
Answer this
@ssfps: Woke is nothing more than an insult invented by people who can find nothing wrong with what others say, so they call them woke. If someone is racist, or I think that they are racist, I will not hesitate to call them out. If they are homophobic, transphobic etc, I will call them out. If they are just wanting to belittle or hurt others, I will call them out. Calling me left or woke is not an insult.
embraced by the people that proudly claim to be "woke"
I don't get this persecution complex that you lot have. Who exactly is "proudly" claiming to be "woke"?
Are you just trying to set up some arbitrary group just to be able to say that "everyone is X and I'm not X, look at me, look at how great I am".
Back during the Cold War, it was labelling people "communists", then at some point, it was "SJWs", then "snowflakes", and now "woke" - the thing is none of those terms (when used by you lot in this way) have any actual meaning anymore.
I don't get this persecution complex that you lot have.
I really enjoyed your ironic shitposting.
Who is my lot exactly, that you are trying to strawman?
I'm not going to tell you my personal status for a crappy forum thread, but i'm actually part of a minority (protected class). I suppose if you're white, you're treading dangerous ground with comments like that. Is that what your lot would say?
Back during the Cold War, it was labelling people "communists", then at some point, it was "SJWs", then "snowflakes", and now "woke"
Hahaha, you pick the most hackneyed example of government propaganda in living memory, then jump to game journalists being "persecuted" by a reddit brigade ~5 years ago. Tells me all I need to know about your grasp on history.
Who is my lot exactly, that you are trying to strawman?
The types who just use labels as a convenient way of scapegoating and making yourselves feel superior to others. Basically today, that means anyone who uses the term "woke".
I'm not going to tell you my personal status for a crappy forum thread, but i'm actually part of a minority (protected class)
Haha, mate, I couldn't care less what "protected" class you think you're a part of, "your lot" refers to people who have the same ideas as you. Unfortunately "conservative idiots" aren't a "protected" class.
I couldn't care less what "protected" class you think you're a part o
That's not very woke of you, i'm proud.
"your lot" refers to people who have the same ideas as you
I have ideas like racial reconciliation and unity is important, so given your antagonistic position against my ideas it appears you're a hardcore racist - shame on you.
conservative idiots
You seem to think I'm "conservative"? I've never in my life been politically "conservative" or "right wing".
@try2bhelpful: I'm not leftwing or right wing… But I don't like the word because it just sounds stupid in sentences. It's as if they try to cover what they feel through the use of this lame word.
In saying that I think the meaning has changed on modern day society… Probably why I hate the word. It's overused and a mask to ones true thoughts.. I'll call a spade a spade.@ssfps: Yeah because the white people in America are much more oppressed than the black community. It must stem from those times when the black slave owners had white slaves and the black legislators put in segregation. Oh wait a minute…..
@try2bhelpful: You don't seem to know your history too well. A famous quote from a black freed slave that become an employee after emancipation was that his employment, compared to his earlier slavery, was "only a little less galling" than being a working class employee.
If you think one race has a monopoly on suffering and oppression, you're absolutely the racist one here.@ssfps: A human person being owned as property is an abhorrent practice. You probably think that legislation to allow white people to own black people is not racial discrimination. If not this then I do wonder what you think is racial discrimination?
What you are highlighting is that even with the end of slavery black people were still being oppressed; probably by the same people who owned slaves. A hundred years later in parts of America they had segregation based on colour; unless you think that wasn’t a “racial” thing either?
Do you honestly think this comment bolsters your argument? Trying to deflect by claiming I’m racist is like a school child saying “you too” when their argument is demonstrably false. That is why you are being downvoted.
That is why you are being downvoted.
I'm being downvoted because some people have a Pavlovian conditioning to certain words, and stimulus-response doesn't go via any higher functioning.
Your response is nothing more than strawmanning mine and going off on a tangent, which is funny because I quoted a freed black slave in America and his take on the general oppression of working class people regardless of race, which was my original point. If you had any argument beyond your knee-jerk "muh racist" ad hominem, you'd address my original posts in the comment chain.
@try2bhelpful: To elaborate further, on the off chance you or your ilk may step beyond your comfort zone, here is a larger except that has the quote I referred to.
Address of Hon. Fred. Douglass, delivered before the National Convention of Colored Men, at Louisville, Ky., September 24, 1883
THE LABOR QUESTION.
Not the least important among the subjects to which we invite your earnest attention is the condition of the laboring class at the South. Their cause is one with the laboring classes all over the world. The labor unions of the country should not throw away this colored element of strength. Everywhere there is dissatisfaction with the present relation of labor and capital, and to-day no subject wears an aspect more threatening to civilization than the respective claims of capital and labor, landlords and tenants. In what we have to say for our laboring class we expect to have and ought to have the sympathy and support of laboring men everywhere and of every color.
See bolded. Very strong language for a black ex-slave.
It is a great mistake for any class of laborers to isolate itself and thus weaken the bond of brotherhood between those on whom the burden and hardships of labor fall.
Sounds like he's framing the struggle as one of capital ownership, and speaking against seeing the problems mutually shared by all races as a "white vs black" problem. He's speaking against the framing you are coming up with, as so called "institutional racism" oppressing black people. He is stating it's easy to take this cheap route rather than seeing those capital owners and lawmakers as a very small group of oppressors.
The fortunate ones of the earta, who are abundant in land and money and know nothing of the anxious care and pinching poverty of the laboring classes, may be indifferent to the appeal for justice at this point, but the laboring classes can not afford to be indifferent. What labor everywhere wants, what it ought to have and will some day demand and receive, is an honest day's pay for an honest day's work. As the laborer becomes more intelligent he will develop what capital already possesses—that is the power to organize and combine for its own protection. Experience demonstrates that there may be a wages of slavery only a little less galling and crushing in its effects than chattel slavery, and that this slavery of wages must go down with the other.
@ssfps: So you have one speech in what was probably a group that had specific aims in relation to how the working men were treated everywhere. If you read that speech there is a certain amount of rhetoric in it. It would appear to be saying that freeing the slaves is not enough that paying the working man a decent wage also has to happen. This is likely because there would’ve been people who thought the slaves had been given enough by just freeing them. It certainly isn’t a rallying call to return to slavery.
Now who do we think would own the capital around the world? By and large it would’ve been white men. Particularly in the areas this speech would be aimed at. The very basis of capitalism at that time was white industry owners and the underclasses. If there was an appreciable black population they would, mostly, be in the underclasses. Slavery was just the extreme extension of how black people were usually treated.
This isn’t out of my comfort zone it is smack dab in the middle of it because I believe that the workers are getting stiffed at the hands of the rich. However, I also understand that, on average, black people are getting an even worse deal than white people.
I think you need to understand the context of what is being discussed and the reality of the economic, and social, position that black people, in general, have around the world. It isn’t like their fellow workers in the struggle against capitalism have welcomed them with open arms. Some of the most overt bigotry is from the white “working man”. Attend a working class barbecue and any discussion on blacks is not that we need to welcome them in our struggle against the ruling classes.
I think you need to get out of your comfort zone and consider the big picture rather than one ex slave with one speech which, frankly, isn’t really bolstering your argument anyway. Look at the realities of slavery; what a slave owner could do to a slave that was quite legal. That is where the rhetoric comes in during the speech. I’m sure if challenged the ex slave would concede that slavery is far worse than not being paid well enough.
Look at the statistics on the position of black people around the world. Look at incarceration rates, pay, property ownership, life expectancy and the corrosive effects of bigotry on their lives. I would love it if all workers saw themselves as equal in the struggle. However, apparently some consider themselves more equal than others.
@try2bhelpful: So the tl;dr of your essay there is my concrete example illustrating my point is just some kind of "exception that proves the rule" and your babbling unsubstantiated fantasy is "the reality of the economic, and social, position that black people, in general, have around the world".
Do you realize that those "white people" you're lambasting as the "capital owners" are majority jewish today, and jewish people have been in positions of power disproportionate to their population, to an even greater extent than anglo people? Why are you singling out "white people" when "whites" generally refers to european descent these days, and often times specifically anglos?
I’m sure if challenged the ex slave would concede that slavery is far worse than not being paid well enough.
ROFL. That's right, you tell those black union members that their expressed opinions on their lived experience is wrong. Down with racism!
You must be joking@ssfps: I’m saying you have one example and have tried to extrapolate to all people. This is a snap shot of a relatively small group of people with a particular agenda. I’m not denying their lived experience I am saying it is only one example and I think you would struggle to find a lot more of them that are similar.
You haven’t addressed the issue I raised of the legal things that could be done to slaves with no repercussions. I’m sure the people who were whipped, or raped, or had their children sold out from under them, or were taken from their homeland and crammed into boats, who were sold as property, worked for no wages, hunted and recaptured if they escaped, and the list goes on and on, would differ with them. After the war there are stories of slaves trying to track down where their children had been sold onto. The fact your concrete example has faded into history, whilst the stories of slave conditions are well known, adds credence to my point.
If you look at the history of the Jewish people they have been discriminated against throughout history, and certainly during the timetable of your example it would’ve been very unlikely they were running the businesses targeted by the group listed in your article. So, as I said, at that point in time it would’ve been predominantly white people running the show. Particularly in England and America. That is just a fact.
In an ideal world the end of slavery would’ve brought in a Utopia where all men were treated equally and walked hand in hand to a new Jerusalem, but it didn’t. Even amongst the majority of their fellow “workers” they weren’t embraced as equals. If you look at the history since then you will see that fact. Nearly 100 years after this speech America had segregation laws.
You found one example to hang your hat on. I’m impressed you could find something so obscure, it must’ve taken some tracking. However, one swallow does not a Summer make. The evidence on the counter side is much, much bigger.
I’m saying you have one example and have tried to extrapolate to all people.
I'm not reading the rest of your comment closely because the very first line is gaslighting bullshit. I have more examples, I said I picked one concrete one, and since you've picked 0 to back up your point, you're just rambling.
You found one example to hang your hat on. I’m impressed you could find something so obscure
The fact you think it's an "obscure" example only shows that you don't bother to read much about history and probably shape your understanding of history and race relations from whatever is being discussed on reddit or ozb. The American union struggles and the saga of black people in America are both rich histories we should all understand, and the speech I quoted is quite famous.
@ssfps: No, what I am saying is correct. You can’t extrapolate one persons experience to everyone. That is just a fact. You also did not address all the other things that came with slavery that are far worse than not being paid properly. Selecting responses do your cause no good.
In relation to your example there would be very few people who have even heard of this organisation let alone have heard this example. However, there are many many other sources that talk about the unmitigated horror of slavery. The people with scars of the bodies from being whipped. The parents where their children were sold off to other owners.
I don’t read reddit so I wouldn’t have a clue what was on it. I do not profess to be an expert on race relations but, I suspect, if this was the overarching concerns of the black community then this example would be far more well known. This doesn’t seem to be as famous as you think it is.
Can you please provide me with a bunch of other sites where it is referenced?
That's right, you tell those black union members that their expressed opinions on their lived experience is wrong. Down with racism!
This is a terribly misguided thing to say. It doesn't matter whether certain people (whatever race they may be, because that is irrelevant) believe that people were better off under slavery or not.
The principle is that the ownership of people as property (with any lack of accountability on behalf of the slave owners) is morally wrong and should not be legal. The fact that you may be a "good" slave owner does not change that fundamental fact.
If you find this difficult to understand, just consider any other example - does it make it okay for one to kidnap someone and justify it by saying that they were treated well?
Lastly, "lived experience" doesn't mean anything - it's anecdotal, and ultimately, one person's opinion. You can find people with certain lived experiences to justify any point of view. Just because there are people who believe a certain thing does not make that certain thing true, nor morally justified.
The principle is that the ownership of people as property (with any lack of accountability on behalf of the slave owners) is morally wrong and should not be legal. The fact that you may be a "good" slave owner does not change that fundamental fact.
Feel free to remind me where I claimed owning other people is okay and should be legal, i'll wait. (This is called straw-manning, you're arguing against some made up adversary in your own head).
Lastly, "lived experience" doesn't mean anything - it's anecdotal
Okay, then scientifically prove to me that your ethical framework is objectively better than a slave owners. Once again, i'll wait. (This comment of yours gave me the biggest WTF of the day, congrats. I mean who the hell thinks ethics is an objectively provable system?)
@ssfps: Honestly mate. Our ethical framework is far better because we don’t think owning other people is acceptable.
Let’s start with the UN charter.
“Article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that ‘No one shall be held in slavery or servitude: slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms’.”
The fact that slavery is actually illegal in Australia, and has been prosecuted recently.
https://www.cdpp.gov.au/crimes-we-prosecute/human-traffickin…If you talked to a lawyer, a religious person, or anyone else who uses ethical concepts in their day to day life they will tell you owning other people is about as unethical as you can get. We don’t have to prove we are more ethical because they will do it for us.
You really are on a losing wicket on this one. Find me one government around the world that is proposing reinstating slavery as a policy? Then we can talk about the ethics of those governments, if you can find one.
I can’t even work out what your argument is about? If you don’t think slavery should be reintroduced then why not? What is your actual standpoint here? If it is ethical then what is the problem? Do tell.
I can’t even work out what your argument is about? If you don’t think slavery should be reintroduced then why not? What is your actual standpoint here? If it is ethical then what is the problem? Do tell.
My standpoint is very clear in my above comments, and I never said (or implied) chattel slavery is good or should be reintroduced here. People have mostly responded to my posts disingenuously, or they simply haven't read them.
I think most likely you and others are being genuine, but it's a problem of word association and tribal mentality (us vs them). I pointed out that "woke" has been drained of meaning and become a crappy tribal shibboleth, and then this happens:I'm being downvoted because some people have a Pavlovian conditioning to certain words, and stimulus-response doesn't go via any higher functioning.
My original point, rephrased, is that most of the public discourse on racism is at best ineffectual and at worst actively harmful, serving only to decrease the unity of people against the ruling class that have been the architects of various systems of oppression, including slavery, for a long time. This is the insight Frederick Douglas (and many others) had, which is why he became involved in socialism, he realized there was a larger and more inveterate enemy that stoked the fires of disunity to maintain their control.
@ssfps: Let’s go back and look at other examples of what Fred Douglass said about slavery. This are excerpts from the Narrative live of Frederick Douglass.
https://www.gla.ac.uk/media/Media_898204_smxx.pdfIt would appear you found an obscure reference that doesn’t even represent what the man felt about slavery in general. I should’ve stopped this caravan early by actually looking this guy up. A Mea Culpa on that one.
What this proves is you are the one doing the gaslighting. What this reinforces is what I already suspected. He was using rhetoric to make a point.
It would appear you found an obscure reference that doesn’t even represent what the man felt about slavery in general.
No, I didn't, you're just jumping to conclusions.
Yes, he spoke greatly about how wonderful freedom from slavery was, that's not a secret. It was later in his life after having delved into his freedom that he started talking more about discovering the other form of slavery that he and his brethren had been freed into.
What this reinforces is what I already suspected. He was using rhetoric to make a point.
He was making that point later in his life after his views evolved. Keep reading about his life instead of discrediting his opinion as meaningless rhetoric if you actually care what he thought.
@ssfps: The word “woke” came out of the Black community in the 1930s to indicate someone who is alert to injustice particularly racial. It was an expression they used to explain their experiences. We should be fighting the morons distorting it because misusing a word like that, with that history, is inherently racist. The only advantage is these idiots are making such a pigs breakfast of using it that they are exposing their own stupidity. It is devolving into anything the user disagrees with. However, when misused it does act as a shorthand way of identifying the idiots.
I still think Douglass was using rhetoric to suit that situation. Yes in later life he did try to build bridges, but anyone who experienced the deprivations he, and his fellow slaves, had experienced is unlikely to consider the experience of slavery in anyway equates with poor wages. Most likely he was pointing out that being freed from slavery was not enough. This is backed up by looking at his body of work instead of one quote. I never said it was meaningless rhetoric, just that it was rhetoric that suited that situation at that time and that audience. I don’t think one quote represents his total opinion; especially given his work with the abolitionists and his most famous work on slavery. Some of his conciliatory comments later on were considered as quite controversial at the time in the black community.
Are people around the world racially discriminated against, without doubt. Has being dispossessed of land and culture had a negative effect on these people, without doubt. Do we see the same issues of lower life expectancy, alcoholism, incarceration levels, lower education outcomes, etc occur in groups who have experienced this discrimination, without doubt. These issues are intergenerational and entrenched. We can’t just pretend that because they have the vote all people are equal now. Yes some people overcome their backgrounds however if you come from disadvantage you are more likely to be disadvantaged. Race just doubles down on the likelihood of disadvantage. Conversely money breeds money. The best way to be rich is to be born into a rich family.
If you read my other comments I certainly think more needs to be done about the imbalance between the people with the money and the people without. Raising the tide to improve the lot of all workers should be the aim. The trouble is we need to bail out a few of the boats to get them to the water line.
I'm glad the term woke has been turned around from being something positive into something negative.
Works for me.
Why? Do you believe in injustice particularly racial?
I don't understand your question, are you asking me if I believe in racial injustice?
@try2bhelpful: The 'woke' may be 'awake' to racial injustice, but they also actually advocate for it.
Seemingly blind to their own actions.
@try2bhelpful: They advocate for racial discrimination!
As I said, seemingly blind to their own actions. Everyone else is the 'racist'.
that's cuz u r lame
Such an intellectual answer.
Thanks for your contribution.
It is true that ‘woke’ is used by right wing media and others to suggest something is negative.
I think it’s lazy thinking. If something is negative then make the case don’t just label it with a word.
I was expecting the picture to be old man yells at cloud!
Poor China, where they gonna dump all those manufactured Merchandise for WW lol
In SA, it will go straight to Cheap As Chips or The Reject Shop stores.
Why would they care? All craps must've been ordered and paid for.
They only make what is ordered, nothing for them to dump. Perhaps a few Aussie distributers of this crap may get burnt if they expected woolies to order more and pre purchased.
China will make anything companies ask them to. They have manufacturing equipment that is world class. If their asked to make crap they'll make crap.
If it were about the sentiment of Australia day then ideally people would own "high quality" Aus day items they pull out of the cupboard each year.
Lets be honest, only "oldies" would do that. Its the young ones that buy the cheap crap on the way to the park/party last minute.