It wasn't until my mid-teens that I heard racism for the first time.

"Don't waste your time on a half-caste," I was told.

Although aware of some forms of bigotry that were squarely aimed at my father's accent, it was a term I had never heard.

My father was ropeable. "Who said that?" he demanded.

I knew who the person was, but I couldn't remember their name. It was never spoken of again.

As I matured, I never forgot that moment and it is never far from my thoughts when discussion turns to Australia's First Peoples.

Half-caste, a Latin term meaning pure, is deeply offensive and racist, describing a person of mixed-race parents. The term arrived with British colonialists.

In 1901, then Attorney-General and future Prime Minister Alfred Deakin ruled in relation to Section 127 of the Constitution.

His advice at the time was to exclude "aboriginal natives" from being counted.

The rationale for the decision was underpinned by his view that "half-castes" were not "aboriginal natives".

There are equally offensive and racist terms referring to a person's blood or other percentage terms that are, thankfully, becoming far less common because of their derogatory nature.

Therefore, can you imagine the utter surprise when The Examiner chose to publish a Letter to the Editor that contained words which are colonialist at best, from another time, and deeply racist at worst.

The contributor wrote, "Last Census there were 8000 full blooded aboriginals and 842,000 part indigenous - 3.8 percent of Australia's population."

Firstly, The Examiner should think about who reads its letters.

It's no different to the same-sex marriage debate, think about Australia's First Peoples and the sadness that being described as sub-human, full-blooded, quarter-blooded, and/or less than 16 per cent.

Using the term "full blooded" is not free speech because free speech requires responsibility. It's just plain wrong, don't use it, and don't print it.

To be considered Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islander by the Australian Institute Of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies and the Tasmanian state government you must be able to positively respond to three criteria:

being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent

• identifying as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person

• being accepted as such by the community in which you live, or formerly lived.

Nonetheless, to further understand the ignorance of recent Letters to the Editor let's look at what the 2021 Census posed.

Firstly, the questions:

"11. Is the person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin?

"22. What is the person's ancestry?"

And the rationale:

"The 2021 Census included improvements to the response categories of the ancestry question to increase the inclusiveness and usability of the Census form for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

"These improvements were also intended to increase awareness of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ancestries as available response options.

"Feedback during the 2021 Census topic consultation process indicated that revising the response categories for ancestry may increase the relevance of the Census to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people."

At no point does the questions, rationale, and/or results point to derogatory, racist, terms - that is as far from the objective of the Census as you can get.

In fact, the more inclusive language has enabled Australia's First People to feel prouder of their identity.

In the 2016 Census, 649,171 people identified as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.

In five years that figure increased by about 150,000, demonstrating increased awareness and less shame - we should rejoice in the results.

Demographers believe the 2021 figure to be underestimated as people continue to hide their ancestry. And if you're wondering why, just spend a few moments scrolling your social media feeds.

The 1967 Referendum to have "Aborigines" counted as part of the Australian population garnered massive support across the nation with 90.77 percent voting in favour of changes to the Constitution.

Of 167,176 Tasmanians who voted, 90.21 percent voted in favour of recognising Australia's First People.

As white Australians, we have educated ourselves but, if recent weeks are any example, there is still so far to go.

There is a common misconception that people are treated equally, yet this is not actually the case.

We positively discriminate in favour of those who need our support the most.

Positive discrimination is employed to assist citizens from low-socioeconomic backgrounds, different cultural backgrounds, age, gender, and disability.

We provide financial support, set policies with benchmarks, ensure additional services are available, withhold fees, and discount goods and services to improve opportunities for disadvantaged members of our society.

Being equal doesn't mean we are all the same, rather, it ensures that we do our best to create a level playing field.

And while some people may use throw-away lines which highlight casual racism and unconscious bias, Australia is built upon a fair go for all; it is the cornerstone of our democracy.

When heading to the ballot box, think of those who need our help through recognition the most - we can't change the past, but we can assist to make amends.