PDA

View Full Version : How politically correct racist patronizing attitudes hurt ordinary Aborigines



Pages : [1] 2

Capablanca-Fan
10-12-2007, 11:07 PM
Judge Sarah Bradley, District Court, Cairns Qld sez in a paper Using Indigenous Justice Initiatives in Sentencing (http://archive.sclqld.org.au/judgepub/2007/bradley200107.pdf):


The statistical facts highlight why Indigenous offenders should be given special consideration in courts.

So she let off a gang of pedophile scum who gang-raped a 10yo girl because she must have asked for it (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22896877-601,00.html):


Nine males who pleaded guilty last month to gang-raping a 10-year-old girl at the Aurukun Aboriginal community on Cape York have escaped a prison term, with the sentencing judge saying the child victim "probably agreed" to have sex with them.

Cairns-based District Court judge Sarah Bradley ordered that the six teenage juveniles not even have a conviction recorded for the 2005 offence, and that they be placed on a 12-month probation order.

So who cares about the aboriginal victims of aboriginal criminals? Why is the judge not removed from the bench?

Garrett
11-12-2007, 06:19 AM
Thanks for the link Jono.

It seems the sentencing did not match what the judge said. We've all heard the 'probably agreed' bit but she also mentions, inter alia, how 'to my mind (this is) horrific in the extreme'.

Although I have no experience with other cultures, I think that a custodial sentence would have been very appropriate in this case, and a fairly lengthy one at that.

I guess we will hear more about this.

George.

Capablanca-Fan
11-12-2007, 12:02 PM
It seems the sentencing did not match what the judge said. We've all heard the ‘probably agreed’ bit but she also mentions, inter alia, how ‘to my mind (this is) horrific in the extreme.’
One must wonder how lenient she would have been about a rape that wasn't so ‘horrific in the extreme’. Paid the rapists? What would it actually take for her to put someone in jail?


Although I have no experience with other cultures, I think that a custodial sentence would have been very appropriate in this case, and a fairly lengthy one at that.
Of course. ‘Culture’ should not be used as an excuse for such evil crimes. And the victims of this pandering are usually those in this ‘culture’ that is ostensibly being protected.

Dr Thomas Sowell, an African American economist and author, comments on attitudes like that pedophile-excusing judge in his top class book, The Vision of the Anointed:


“Widespread personification of ‘society’ is another verbal tactic that evades issues of personal responsibility. Such use of the term ‘society’ is a more sophisticated version of the notion that ‘the devil made me do it.’ Like much of the rest of the special vocabulary of the anointed, it is used as a magic word to make choice, behavior, and performance vanish into thin air.” — P. 199

“The vision of the anointed is one in which ills as poverty, irresponsible sex, and crime derive primarily from ‘society’, rather than from individual choices and behavior. To believe in personal responsibility would be to destroy the whole special role of the anointed, whose vision casts them in the role of rescuers of people treated unfairly by ‘society’.” — P. 203


I guess we will hear more about this.
Yeah, in Child safety failed rape girl (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22902781-601,00.html):


A senior departmental official yesterday told The Australian that the child involved was sexually abused at age seven and, as a safety measure, was put with various foster families, eventually ending up in 2005 with a non-indigenous family in Cairns. But she was returned nine months later to Aurukun, where she was gang-raped by the nine males.

“These non-indigenous people were fantastic — ensuring she went to school, and the father actually took a year off his work to personally supervise this girl,” he said. “But two new social workers were appointed to the north and they expressed the view, which was repeated many times to the investigating committee, that putting an indigenous child with white foster parents was another stolen generation…”

See, once again, this ‘stolen generation’ paranoia is harming real aboriginal children. It's also notable that two of Robert Manne's trophy cases for the ‘stolen generation’, aboriginal girls called Topsy and Dolly, were removed from similar situations, according to Andrew Bolt (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/another_raped_child_sacrificed_to_the_stolen_gener ations_myth/):


I looked up those cases and found they were girls little different to this girl who has been raped at Aurukun.

Topsy was brought in for protection by a station owner because she was just 12, fatherless, a half-caste in a black tribe — and already had syphilis. Dolly was about 13, but was already seven months pregnant and penniless, working for nothing on a station, when she was rescued.

These are cases that Manne himself handpicked as clear proof of the “stolen generations”. …

Desmond
11-12-2007, 10:07 PM
I don't agree with many of Jono's views on race-related subjects, but this sentence is a compete joke. Who cares if the 10-year old "probably agreed" or not? We as a society surely have formed the opinion that 10 years old is not old enough to make that decision.

Garvinator
12-12-2007, 12:49 AM
The prosecutor at the centre of the case in which six attackers escaped jail time for the gang rape of a 10-year-old
in far-north Queensland has been stood aside, pending an investigation.

Queensland Attorney-General Kerry Shine said late Tuesday the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions would investigate the conduct of Steve Carter, the senior legal officer responsible for Cape York matters in the DPP's Cairns chambers.

Court transcripts released Tuesday showed Mr Carter had described the 2006 incident as "childish experimentation" and consensual "in a general sense".

The child - who cannot be named - was gang-raped at the age of seven in Aurukun on Cape York in 2002, and was later put into foster care with a non-indigenous family in Cairns.

However, child safety officers in April 2006 returned her to Aurukun, where she was raped again at the age of 10.

Premier Anna Bligh admitted the Child Safety Department had failed the girl.

"I think it is very important to understand, and I don't resile from the fact for one moment, the system clearly failed this little girl," Ms Bligh told reporters.

But she said the government took immediate action by disciplining the officers involved, moving the child, and improving child safety processes.

Ms Bligh could not give a reason for the officers' decision to return the girl to Aurukun, but said it should never have happened.

Cairns-based District Court judge Sarah Bradley did not record convictions against six teenage attackers and gave three others aged 17, 18 and 26 suspended sentences over the 2006 rape.

The state government is appealing the sentences and has ordered a review of around 75 sexual assault cases in Cape York over the past two years.

One senior child safety officer has been sacked and two others suspended for 12 months on full pay over the incident, but the two suspended officers are appealing the decision.

The girl is now in the care of the Child Safety Department away from Aurukun.

While the Director of Public Prosecutions Leanne Clare declined to comment, her office released transcripts of the court case.

They revealed that during the case, Mr Carter described the incident - in which the girl contracted a sexually transmitted disease - as "consensual sex".

"To the extent I can't say it was consensual in the legal sense, but in the other - in the general sense, the non-legal sense - yes, it was," Mr Carter told the court.

Mr Carter said the sex had been prearranged and the males had not forced themselves on the girl.

"... they're very naughty for doing what they're doing but it's really, in this case, it was a form of childish experimentation, rather than one child being prevailed upon by another," he said.

Mr Carter also told the court such incidents were not out of character in small, remote communities.

" ... children, females, have got to be - deserve - the same protection under the law in an Aboriginal or an indigenous community as they do in any other community," Mr Carter said.

"But sometimes things happen in a small community when children get together."

Hetty Johnston, founder of Bravehearts, said a judicial inquiry was needed.

"The prosecutor is there to defend the rights of the victims - that man is standing behind the wrong desk," Ms Johnston told AAP.

"This girl's life has been screwed up by a combination of the (child safety) department and the DPP."

Garvinator
12-12-2007, 12:53 AM
I don't agree with many of Jono's views on race-related subjects, but this sentence is a compete joke. Who cares if the 10-year old "probably agreed" or not? We as a society surely have formed the opinion that 10 years old is not old enough to make that decision.
Not just as a society. It is a matter of law.

A person under the age of 16 is legally regarded as not being able to consent to sex. This is because the 'minor' is not legally regarded as being able to judge right from wrong and the consequences of their actions.

Garvinator
12-12-2007, 12:56 AM
One must wonder how lenient she would have been about a rape that wasn't so ‘horrific in the extreme’. Paid the rapists?Paid the girl for her time would be more likely :eek:

Capablanca-Fan
12-12-2007, 01:01 AM
I don't agree with many of Jono's views on race-related subjects,
What about my agreement with Martin Luther King Jr., that people should be judged on the content of their character, not the colour of their skins? :confused:


but this sentence is a compete joke. Who cares if the 10-year old "probably agreed" or not? We as a society surely have formed the opinion that 10 years old is not old enough to make that decision.
Yeah, should be obvious. And as ggrayggray says, below the age of 16, it is legally impossible to consent! So it is an automatic crime of rape.

It just shows how political correctness is actually harming members of the politically designated victim race. Expecting lower standards from them is actually a pernicious form of racism.

Garvinator
12-12-2007, 01:34 AM
Out of all this, the thing I most concerned about is- what would have happened if this case and similar ones had not been aired in the media.

Would it have just continued the Qld Labor's government pattern of only acting on 'issues' once they are known in the media? Otherwise, do nothing or cover it up.

Desmond
12-12-2007, 06:03 PM
What about my agreement with Martin Luther King Jr., that people should be judged on the content of their character, not the colour of their skins? :confused:Yep, I agree with that. It is more your views of welfare I disagree with.

Anyway, to me this is not (or should not be) a case of race. It is a case of an abused girl.

Capablanca-Fan
12-12-2007, 06:09 PM
Yep, I agree with that. It is more your views of welfare I disagree with.
OIC.


Chess Chat Forum - Reply to TopicAnyway, to me this is not (or should not be) a case of race. It is a case of an abused girl.
Most definitely. People who abuse a young girl so grievously should be punished with long jail terms, regardless of the race of the victim or rapists.

Capablanca-Fan
13-12-2007, 12:14 PM
Family's warnings ignored (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22916179-5013172,00.html)
Padraic Murphy and Tony Koch

THE family of a 10-year-old gang-rape victim last night revealed they had warned child safety authorities she would be attacked if taken out of a Cairns foster home and returned to their remote Aboriginal community of Aurukun.

Amid a continuing public outcry over the Queensland Department of Child Safety's failure to protect the girl and a Queensland District Court judge's controversial decision not to jail her attackers, her family has told of a community in crisis and "a little girl who has had the light turned off on her life".

In October, judge Sarah Bradley decided not to record convictions against six teenage attackers and gave three others, aged 17, 18 and 26, suspended sentences over the rape. The sentences will be appealed and dozens of other sex abuse cases from the Cape reviewed after The Australian on Monday revealed the lenient sentences in the gang-rape case.

The prosecutor in the case, Steve Carter - who described the rape as "a form of childish experimentation" of which the victim was a willing participant - has also been stood down pending an internal investigation.

The girl's aunt said she was deeply offended by Mr Carter's claim that the victim had consented to the rape, and said suggestions underage sex was a fact of life in Cape communities was abhorrent.

"That's not right. It's not traditional to have sex without parents' consent. Something is not right. She is a little girl who has had the light turned off on her life," she said.

Her uncle, the family patriarch, said sexual assaults, family violence and drugs had become so bad in the community he would support a Northern Territory-style intervention.

"The violence happens all the time. Something needs to be done, we shouldn't have to live like this," he said.

Cape York Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson last night described the case as "just the tip of the iceberg" of dysfunction in indigenous communities.

Mr Pearson blasted the notion that indigenous children taken into care and placed with non-indigenous foster carers were "another Stolen Generation" - as social workers in the Aurukun case believed. He said that where children's welfare was under threat, the placement should be "one of safety, whether it is whitefellas or blackfellas".

"Those child protection practices that have sought to place Aboriginal children exclusively with Aboriginal carers have resulted in a great deal of harm for the individual children under care," Mr Pearson said.

"This is a case of children in urgent need of protection. As long as Aboriginal society is so dysfunctional that we have to take children into care and protection, we should never hear people bleat about some Stolen Generation.

"Today children on communities are living in dysfunctional situations where their welfare is under threat. There should be no hesitation in taking them out of those threatening circumstances and placing them with carers — whitefellas or blackfellas."

Spiny Norman
13-12-2007, 01:04 PM
Someone should tell Professor Mann (?) ... where's his expert commentary on all of this? ... =8^)

Basil
13-12-2007, 01:36 PM
I'd just like to note that there has been some endemic cultural cringing in recent times regarding 'avoiding the ghost of the stolen generation' and subsequent policy making.

If you suspect you are a cringer, (cultural or PC),
1. Out yourself now and start working for a more enlightened self. Slavish copybook third millenium PC think is weighing you down and will send your children potty.

2. First hour (read 'berating/ reprogramming') with me is free!

Basil
13-12-2007, 01:53 PM
We have an R&B / Urban section with our mag (http:www.scenemagazine.com.au). For the uninitiated, think black music.

One of the regular columns is entitled 'Blackboard'. The column is styled, named and written by people of mixed race and heritage. It is also prepared for broadcast on one of the radio stations each week.

You can imagine my surprise (NOT!) when our editors received the following via e-mail, yesterday:



To whom it may concern,

I often read you magazine, but want to complain about the section labelled "Blackboard - weekly wrap of Hip Hop & RNB"

I find this offensive, as this type of labelling can be seen as racist to members of our community. I hope you take this into consideration next time you print this section.

Look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

*******


I will be patient and polite with my simple explanatory reply. What sends me potty is that I know there are a million others like her :wall:

Please people ... G.E.T. A. C.L.U.E!

Capablanca-Fan
13-12-2007, 07:45 PM
Someone should tell Professor Mann (?) ... where's his expert commentary on all of this? ... =8^)
Andrew Bolt has already told Manne, that poseur who also wants to suppress conservative dissent. He challenged Manne in a debate, "Name just 10", and the ones Manne named were not stolen but removed from situations just like this poor little 10yo girl.

And the Law Society demands suppression of criticism of the judge. Typical, they care more about verbal attacks on that silly bint than the horrific sexual attack on a little girl, whose rapists walked totally free.

Kevin Bonham
13-12-2007, 08:17 PM
Does anyone on this thread have the legal knowledge to tell me whether the judge had an ability to go beyond the sentence requested by the prosecutor? Obviously, that needs to be the case for any criticism of the judge's sentence (as opposed to the prosecutor's request) to be valid.

Also, if people are of the view that any sex between an adult and a person below age X (whatever X is) should carry a mandatory jail sentence, then surely some of the blame for the lack of such a requirement should go to the politicians, who could have passed such a law at any time?

WhiteElephant
13-12-2007, 09:38 PM
Does anyone on this thread have the legal knowledge to tell me whether the judge had an ability to go beyond the sentence requested by the prosecutor?

An appropriate sentence would be firing squad. Those scum have forfeited their right to live on this planet.

Denis_Jessop
13-12-2007, 10:17 PM
Does anyone on this thread have the legal knowledge to tell me whether the judge had an ability to go beyond the sentence requested by the prosecutor? Obviously, that needs to be the case for any criticism of the judge's sentence (as opposed to the prosecutor's request) to be valid.

Also, if people are of the view that any sex between an adult and a person below age X (whatever X is) should carry a mandatory jail sentence, then surely some of the blame for the lack of such a requirement should go to the politicians, who could have passed such a law at any time?

If we put aside the rather hysterical rhetoric that that has been posted on this matter and look at it as dispassionately as one can - which is what a court is supposed to do - there are some very odd aspects of this case as it has been reported. One must also add the caveat that newspaper reports of court cases are often wildly inaccurate or written by reporters who just don't understand what took place.

To answer Kevin's question, as far as I am aware nothing that the prosecutor says binds the court and that includes a requested sentence.

What astounds me in the reports is that the prosecutor made statements that were tantamount to supporting the defence's case. It makes one wonder why the prosecution was ever brought. Whilst it may not be improper for the prosecutor to make such remarks, it is almost so, at the least.

Moreover the comments about the girl's apparent consent are patently absurd in my view and there would need to be extraordinarily unusual evidence to justify that conclusion.

Garvin's statement that:


Not just as a society. It is a matter of law.

A person under the age of 16 is legally regarded as not being able to consent to sex. This is because the 'minor' is not legally regarded as being able to judge right from wrong and the consequences of their actions.

is not wholly correct. A "minor" in law used to be a person under 21 though this has been changed to 18 in many, if not all, Australian jurisdictions, the lead having been given by the Commonwealth when Lionel Murphy was Attorney-General. The age at which a person is legally considered to be able to have a criminal intent and thus be prosecuted for an offence is less than 16 (14, if I remember correctly) while a person is considered old enough to be able to give evidence at the age of 7. I think that 16 is chosen as the age of consent for the purpose of the law about illegal sex with a minor partly for social reasons. There is no apparent logic for the view that one can form the criminal intent to steal (for example) at the age of 14 but not to have the judgement to be able to consent to an act of sex until the age of 16.

But in the present case what is extraordinary is that the defendants all pleaded guilty to rape so that consent, actual or imagined, is no longer relevant at least to their guilt. If the defendants raise it as an issue going to sentencing how can they be believed or, in view of the girl's age, how can it be relevant? Some of these questions may be clarified or at least some light may be shed on them were one to read the full transcript of the hearing which no doubt will be done by the person conducting the enquiry.

My concluding comment is that those who are here calling for the firing squad and the like nonsense are committing the same acts and errors of which they are complaining on the part of the prosecutor and the judge in the case.

DJ

WhiteElephant
13-12-2007, 10:25 PM
My concluding comment is that those who are here calling for the firing squad and the like nonsense are committing the same acts and errors of which they are complaining on the part of the prosecutor and the judge in the case.
DJ

That is a load of crap. You keep looking at it dispassionately mate while the girl suffers for the rest of her life. What kind of human being are you?

Kevin Bonham
13-12-2007, 10:49 PM
What astounds me in the reports is that the prosecutor made statements that were tantamount to supporting the defence's case. It makes one wonder why the prosecution was ever brought.

Thanks Denis. I had a similar impression - that the prosecutor is saying the kinds of things you would expect a rather stretching defence to say to try to reduce the sentence. It seems decidedly odd.


That is a load of crap. You keep looking at it dispassionately mate while the girl suffers for the rest of her life. What kind of human being are you?

Probably one who knows that killing people doesn't actually undo anything and only creates far more misery and trouble.

Capablanca-Fan
13-12-2007, 11:25 PM
If we put aside the rather hysterical rhetoric that that has been posted on this matter and look at it as dispassionately as one can - which is what a court is supposed to do — there are some very odd aspects of this case as it has been reported.
One wonders what is "hysterical rhetoric" about the horror that self-confessed gang-raping pedophiles, including a 26yo, received no jail time.


What astounds me in the reports is that the prosecutor made statements that were tantamount to supporting the defence's case. It makes one wonder why the prosecution was ever brought. Whilst it may not be improper for the prosecutor to make such remarks, it is almost so, at the least.
He should be fired. What he said would be extremely poor form even for a defence lawyer.


Moreover the comments about the girl's apparent consent are patently absurd in my view and there would need to be extraordinarily unusual evidence to justify that conclusion.
For sure. And as GGray said, it should not even have been an issue, since a 10yo cannot legally consent to sex.


The age at which a person is legally considered to be able to have a criminal intent and thus be prosecuted for an offence is less than 16 (14, if I remember correctly) while a person is considered old enough to be able to give evidence at the age of 7. I think that 16 is chosen as the age of consent for the purpose of the law about illegal sex with a minor partly for social reasons. There is no apparent logic for the view that one can form the criminal intent to steal (for example) at the age of 14 but not to have the judgement to be able to consent to an act of sex until the age of 16.
This poor girl had been sexually abused for years before this horrific crime.


My concluding comment is that those who are here calling for the firing squad and the like nonsense are committing the same acts and errors of which they are complaining on the part of the prosecutor and the judge in the case.
What about long jail terms? Not punishing these scum sends the message that little aboriginal girls are expendable.

Garvinator
14-12-2007, 01:20 AM
What about long jail terms? Not punishing these scum sends the message that little aboriginal girls are expendable.
I would think that a long jail term would be a worse punishment than any kind of death penalty. Child rapists are not exactly the most welcome kind in prisons. In fact, if sent to jail, I would be surprised if they would survive more than a couple of years.

Maybe this played some part in the sentencing. Who knows.

WhiteElephant
14-12-2007, 05:31 AM
I would think that a long jail term would be a worse punishment than any kind of death penalty.

I don't like the idea of taxpayers paying even a cent for feeding and clothing this filth in prison.


Child rapists are not exactly the most welcome kind in prisons.

And there is good reason for this. Even other criminals know that pedophilia and rape are the two worst crimes in existence. Eliminating these people from the face of the earth would be a community service.

Glenn Wheatley gets 15 months in jail for tax fraud while pedophile gang rapists get off with nothing.

DanielBell
14-12-2007, 07:11 AM
I don't like the idea of taxpayers paying even a cent for feeding and clothing this filth in prison.

Privatise jails, problem solved. They will be very cheap labour for a very long time.



And there is good reason for this. Even other criminals know that pedophilia and rape are the two worst crimes in existence. Eliminating these people from the face of the earth would be a community service.

Personally I think they're scumbags too, but a state that can kill its citizens is a state that I feel is a bit too powerful.

WhiteElephant
14-12-2007, 07:41 AM
First of all, thanks for a no bullshit reply, unlike Denis Jessop's pompous and dismissive waffle.


Privatise jails, problem solved. They will be very cheap labour for a very long time.

Completely agree with that. The more privatisation (of anything) the better.


Personally I think they're scumbags too, but a state that can kill its citizens is a state that I feel is a bit too powerful.

I'm afraid you are right, given our current political system. There is too much incompetence built in to the system and it cannot help but get things wrong. I do support the death penalty given massive political and economic reform.

My belief is that it is a privilege to exist on this earth and rapists and child molesters do not deserve to do so. These crimes cause the most amount of damage you can do to another human being.

DanielBell
14-12-2007, 08:13 AM
First of all, thanks for a no bullshit reply, unlike Denis Jessop's pompous and dismissive waffle.



Completely agree with that. The more privatisation (of anything) the better.



I'm afraid you are right, given our current political system. There is too much incompetence built in to the system and it cannot help but get things wrong. I do support the death penalty given massive political and economic reform.

My belief is that it is a privilege to exist on this earth and rapists and child molesters do not deserve to do so. These crimes cause the most amount of damage you can do to another human being.

I don't support the death penalty in any circumstances. I do however support life sentences that mean just that.

DanielBell
14-12-2007, 08:19 AM
Probably one who knows that killing people doesn't actually undo anything and only creates far more misery and trouble.

Basically the gist of why I don't support the death penalty.

WhiteElephant
14-12-2007, 08:25 AM
I don't support the death penalty in any circumstances. I do however support life sentences that mean just that.

Isn't that the same thing as the death penalty except you have to pay to support these people, buy them new tvs, etc and there is a chance they will escape/be released and rape again.

Whose daughter/wife/girlfriend will be next?

WhiteElephant
14-12-2007, 08:28 AM
killing people doesn't actually undo anything and only creates far more misery and trouble.

Yes, there are many complications but at least those vermin won't rape or molest anyone else.

CameronD
14-12-2007, 09:51 AM
The main reason I dont support the death sentence is because I dont have any confidence in the legal and jury system. The jury system brings wrong convictions based on their prejudices. It becomes a battle of lawyers and jury members rather than the truth. In America they had a fake trial to examine the jury through cameras, and the jury degraded itself to a personality contest between its members and domination/yelling, instead of focusing on the facts.

WhiteElephant
14-12-2007, 09:56 AM
The main reason I dont support the death sentence is because I dont have any confidence in the legal and jury system. The jury system brings wrong convictions based on their prejudices. It becomes a battle of lawyers and jury members rather than the truth. In America they had a fake trial to examine the jury through cameras, and the jury degraded itself to a personality contest between its members and domination/yelling, instead of focusing on the facts.

Yes, as I mentioned, I struggle with this as well. Philosophically and morally I support the death penalty but given the prevailing systems, many mistakes are made. However, I have faith that as we evolve, a better legal/political/economic system will be devised and rapists won't get the comparatively easy ride they currently enjoy.

WhiteElephant
14-12-2007, 10:15 AM
By the way when I served on a jury it was a complete joke....we were split 50/50. We kept telling the judge that we couldn't reach a consensus but he wouldn't accept it and kept sending us back in. Finally half the people just said they wanted to go home and changed their vote. One guy was losing thousands of dollars a day because he had to run his small business, another lady couldn't afford to pay her babysitter and so on....

Spiny Norman
14-12-2007, 10:16 AM
The situation in Arukun has also been indirectly responsible (as a trigger) for a number of suicides elsewhere in the country. My heart is breaking for these poor people who have been abused for so long and yet cannot obtain justice. Sooner or later there will be a judgement. That's the only thing that keeps me remotely sane when I consider some of these issues.

Garvinator
14-12-2007, 11:56 AM
From www.skynews.com.au

Updated: 13:16, Friday December 14, 2007


Indigenous affairs could be placed at the top of the agenda for next week's Council of Australian Governments meeting, after the recent sexual assault allegations in several Aboriginal communities.

There were more damaging claims released today alleging that Queensland government ministers told Department of Child Safety officers not to hand over details on hundreds of suspected child abuse and neglect cases on Cape York to the Queensland police.

An Australian newspaper claims the revelations came from a recorded interview by investigating officers with a senior child protection specialist officer.

Meanwhile, police in Queensland are still side-lining calls for a major operation to crack down on child abuse in Cape York.

However, more revelations have surfaced in the Aurukun rape case, revealing one of the nine men accused of gang raping a 10 year old girl, is the son of the town's Mayor.

Mayor Neville Pootchemunka admitted that his son, Ian Koowata, and the other eight men should be punished under traditional law, and speared.

There has been widespread outrage over the case when the nine men, who pleaded guilty, escaped jail time for the sexual assault.

The incident has led to numerous calls for intervention, including an extension of the operation currently underway in the Northern Territory.

Noel Pearson, from the Cape York Land Council, says the case of the 10 year old girl is just the tip of the iceberg.

Mr Pearson says many more at-risk children need to be taken from their families, and governments need to stop being fearful of creating another stolen generation.

'We have got to shed any hesitation whatsoever, about the notion that we should take children away from abusive situations and place them into foster care whether it be Aboriginal families or European families. There's absolutely no justification for leniency,' he told ABC television.

'In fact, part of the whole social and cultural breakdown that we see in our communities is the consequence of courts taking into account the historical and social background of Aboriginal offenders.'

Capablanca-Fan
14-12-2007, 12:32 PM
www.skynews.com.au[/url])
Mayor Neville Pootchemunka admitted that his son, Ian Koowata, and the other eight men should be punished under traditional law, and speared.

There has been widespread outrage over the case when the nine men, who pleaded guilty, escaped jail time for the sexual assault.
This shows up the gross inconsistency (quite aside from the bankrupt cultural relativism that has betrayed the little girl) of these panderers to "culture". If they were pandering consistently, the scum would have been punished the traditional aboriginal way. But no, they got off scot-free, sending a lovely message that there are no consequences for gang-raping little girls.

Capablanca-Fan
14-12-2007, 12:45 PM
By the way when I served on a jury it was a complete joke....we were split 50/50. We kept telling the judge that we couldn't reach a consensus but he wouldn't accept it and kept sending us back in. Finally half the people just said they wanted to go home and changed their vote. One guy was losing thousands of dollars a day because he had to run his small business, another lady couldn't afford to pay her babysitter and so on....
Since jury members are not properly compensated, many of the most capable members of the public do their best to escape jury duty. Who would want to be tried by people who are not bright enough to escape ;)

A good friend of mine in America relates his recent experience of being called up for duty, but not getting picked:


"Will being on this jury cause you any hardship?" There were the expected answers from people about finances, as well as one person with an invalid mother she had to take care of and a man with a planned vacation he’d already paid for. ...
"Would you give more credibility to a witness who was a police officer?"
"Would you give less credibility to a witness that was a convicted criminal?" These two questions likely got me booted for sure. I had to answer yes to both based on experience and what I knew about the field. Related to the second question, the attorneys later asked if we’d have any problem with testimony given by cellmates. I would have answered that one with an all-capitals YES. Behind bars that kind of inmate is called a snitch, and their purposes are always self-serving. There’s no way to ascertain credibility for such a witness. ...

One question she asked struck me as a sad commentary on the state of the system. She asked who watched shows like CSI. Then she asked those people if they’d hold it against her if her case wasn’t pretty and exciting like the ones on CSI – because apparently, jurors in the past had expected that. How nice that TV is having such an effect on the justice system. Or to put it more forthrightly, how sad that people are stupid enough to let themselves be brainwashed by TV that way. ...

On the one hand, we were told to ONLY consider evidence presented in court and not do our own research. You can imagine that raised hackles with me. ... I knew from reading trial transcripts and experience that attorneys felt free to hide information damaging to their case.

Yet the defense attorney told us that we should also keep an “open mind.” Huh?

In other words, keep your mind open only to what we tell you? :twitch: Sorry. Not into that sort of contradiction in epistemology.

The defense attorney also asked the lady in front of me if she thought the [OJ] Simpson jurors were people who “did the best job they could.” I nearly laughed aloud at that. I’d done homework on the Simpson case years ago, including Bugliosi’s account. The jurors in that case were incompetent and ignorant; the defense felt free to withhold critical information, etc. It was a travesty of justice.

When I worked for that expert witness, I once protested something he did that was unjust, and he replied: “This is not about truth. This is not about justice. This is a business.” Sad to say, even what little I saw yesterday confirms that this is a prevalent view throughout the courts. I’m sure there are exceptions, but I think that in most trials, one attorney or the other knows he/she doesn’t have a case, and is pursuing the matter purely to enrich themselves or to keep their jobs. The only reason the system isn’t completely messed up is that there’s only a 50-50 chance it will get the wrong decision made. Of course, this wastes resources as well as the time of judges and yes, jurors.

If I had my druthers, I’d like to see the system revamped — maybe with professional jurors being used, people trained in weighing evidence, often in specific fields. The system as designed was intended for an informed populace, not one that decided cases based on what they saw on CSI or Oprah Winfrey.

Capablanca-Fan
14-12-2007, 12:58 PM
I would think that a long jail term would be a worse punishment than any kind of death penalty. Child rapists are not exactly the most welcome kind in prisons. In fact, if sent to jail, I would be surprised if they would survive more than a couple of years.

Maybe this played some part in the sentencing. Who knows.
Aren't they segregated now?

Kevin Bonham
14-12-2007, 01:09 PM
Finally half the people just said they wanted to go home and changed their vote. One guy was losing thousands of dollars a day because he had to run his small business, another lady couldn't afford to pay her babysitter and so on....

The guy should have applied for an exemption from jury duty. I applied for one on the basis of being essentially self-employed when I was called up a year or two ago, and got it without difficulty.

Of course the issue of juries is entirely irrelevant to this case since in this case the plea was guilty.

Capablanca-Fan
14-12-2007, 01:11 PM
Privatise jails, problem solved. They will be very cheap labour for a very long time.
But your Libertarianz link (http://www.libertarianz.org.nz/?faq=libertarianism#492) says:


Anarchy is the absence of government and law. Government is necessary to protect individual rights, i.e. to protect people from physical force and fraud. Libertarianz would restrict government to the following functions; a police force, to protect citizens from force; defence forces (army, navy, airforce), to protect citizens from foreign invasion; and a justice system, to protect property and contracts from breach or fraud, and to settle disputes by upholding objective law.

Jails are part of the justice system, which is one of the roles of government according to the above. BTW, I basically agree with that paragraph.

WhiteElephant
14-12-2007, 02:21 PM
The guy should have applied for an exemption from jury duty. I applied for one on the basis of being essentially self-employed when I was called up a year or two ago, and got it without difficulty.

Of course the issue of juries is entirely irrelevant to this case since in this case the plea was guilty.

Yeah, the first time I was called up, I got an exemption because of uni exams but the second time they got me :)

It turned out to be a fairly long trial so he probably wasn't expecting to be there that long. I mean, most jurors in the pool don't get to a trial in the first place and most trials are less than a week long.

DanielBell
14-12-2007, 04:42 PM
But your Libertarianz link (http://www.libertarianz.org.nz/?faq=libertarianism#492) says:


Anarchy is the absence of government and law. Government is necessary to protect individual rights, i.e. to protect people from physical force and fraud. Libertarianz would restrict government to the following functions; a police force, to protect citizens from force; defence forces (army, navy, airforce), to protect citizens from foreign invasion; and a justice system, to protect property and contracts from breach or fraud, and to settle disputes by upholding objective law.

Jails are part of the justice system, which is one of the roles of government according to the above. BTW, I basically agree with that paragraph.

I agree with it also but it does not mean I believe jails need to be run by the government. And even if they were - they would be self funding if you apply other Libertarianz policy.

Capablanca-Fan
23-01-2008, 10:42 AM
IN 2003 Dr Lara Wieland was the resident Royal Flying Doctor medico on Kowanyama Aboriginal Community in Cape York. Her abhorrence at the incidence of sexual abuse of young children forced her to write a 10-page letter to Prime Minister John Howard and Queensland Premier Peter Beattie. After she handed the letter to Mr Howard, she was sacked by the Queensland Department of Health for making public her concerns. She now works in aboriginal health on Queensland's Atherton Tableland and returns three times a year to Kowanyama where she and her husband, Ron, run volunteer health and recreation programs for the children of Kowanyama during school holidays.

Text of Dr Lara Wieland's letter to John Howard and Peter Beattie (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23092587-5013172,00.html)
(The Australian, 23 Jan 2007)

And from the Australian's article same day, Abuse victims become predators (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23094398-5013172,00.html):


The serial assaults on young boys and girls in Kowanyama were first reported by then resident Royal Flying Doctor medico Lara Wieland who, in March 2003, handed a 10-page letter to John Howard and then premier Peter Beattie outlining the issues.

Her letter said child sexual abuse and neglect were out of control and that the majority of her young female patients had been sexually abused.

"I have had many patients as young as five and six test positive for STDs such as chlamydia," she wrote.

"There are grandmothers who tell me that on 'drinking nights' they lock themselves in the bedroom with their grandchildren to protect them from being raped. Another person told me that on the drinking nights, they could hear a grandma down the road yell 'get off of those kids'.

"I have made multiple reports of abuse about children over months that have been ignored and nothing has happened. When a child discloses sexual abuse to me, I no longer promise to make it stop as that makes me a liar.

"There was a six-year-old boy to whom I made that promise and he was put back in the same unsupervised situation, and had contacted chlamydia."

Dr Wieland yesterday told The Australian that that child was one of those now accused of being involved in the rapes of other young boys on Kowanyama.

The Queensland Health Department sacked Dr Wieland for reporting her concerns to the prime minister.

Capablanca-Fan
31-01-2008, 02:15 PM
A typically PC ABC interview with Mary Hooker of the Stolen Generations Alliance by John Faine (http://www.abc.net.au/melbourne/mornings/jfmediaondemand.htm) allegedly showed that she was stolen because she was black:


In those days we were removed because of our skin color.

Oops, her next sentence was:

There was also abuse going on in the community, so we were removed on those grounds.

Oh, so maybe that's why she was "stolen"? Faine asked if the 'stealing' was "well-intentioned", and Mary replied:


In most cases it was. They were trying to do what was called in the best interests of the child which was fair because there were children being abused. There are still being abused now…

Yes, I was raped by my brother.

But as per the above, now the bureaucrats, some of Pax's latest heroes, are condemning Aboriginal children to remain in sexually abusive homes, because we mustn't "steal" them, and firing whistleblowers like Dr Lara Wieland. And the so-called "leaders" in the Aboriginal community are enabling this with their clamour for money in return for being rescued stolen from equally abusive situations.

MichaelBaron
31-01-2008, 10:12 PM
I do not quite understand why we can not have contemporary Australian laws being equally applicable to all of the Australians (aborigines included). A lot of countries had to leave their past behind...and move on..and they did so...The "secret" was in ability to move on rather give in to "black mail" by community groups.

Capablanca-Fan
31-01-2008, 10:45 PM
I do not quite understand why we can not have contemporary Australian laws being equally applicable to all of the Australians (aborigines included).
Of course. At one time, it used to be considered racist to treat people differently based on skin colour. To modern lefties, it's apparently racist to advocate treating people the same regardless of skin colour. And the real victims of this unequal treatment are the poorer and weaker members of the group that these preferences are supposed to help.


A lot of countries had to leave their past behind...and move on..and they did so...The "secret" was in ability to move on rather give in to "black mail" by community groups.
Or else the Brits should demand compensation from the French and the Romans for their conquests ...

Many people immigrate to Australia and America with nothing, and make fortunes. Yet certain groups within these countries, instead of emulating what makes these immigrants successful, sit around and whinge about what happened to their ancestors 50, 100 or 150 years ago.

Igor_Goldenberg
01-02-2008, 12:49 PM
I do not quite understand why we can not have contemporary Australian laws being equally applicable to all of the Australians (aborigines included). A lot of countries had to leave their past behind...and move on..and they did so...The "secret" was in ability to move on rather give in to "black mail" by community groups.
I guess white population owes it to black population for mistreatment in the past.
For example, my ancestors caused a lot of hardship to aborigines, so I have to pay back to the offspring of my ancestor's victim. Don't ask me how they (my ancestors) manage to do it (harm aborigines) without ever setting foot in Australia, for I am sure "apology" apologists will explain it.

Capablanca-Fan
01-02-2008, 01:07 PM
I guess white population owes it to black population for mistreatment in the past.
And the next generation might have a strong case against the white leftists who refused to rescue aboriginal children from abuse.


For example, my ancestors caused a lot of hardship to aborigines, so I have to pay back to the offspring of my ancestor's victim.
Or at least to those on the gravy train. Whether the most victimized individuals will receive a red cent is another matter.


Don't ask me how they (my ancestors) manage to do it (harm aborigines) without ever setting foot in Australia, for I am sure "apology" apologists will explain it.
Of course. But don't expect a smidgen of logic in the explanation. And will descendants of a conquering Aboriginal tribe have to pay the descendants of the conquered tribe?

Igor_Goldenberg
01-02-2008, 02:36 PM
I guess white population owes it to black population for mistreatment in the past.
For example, my ancestors caused a lot of hardship to aborigines, so I have to pay back to the offspring of my ancestor's victim. Don't ask me how they (my ancestors) manage to do it (harm aborigines) without ever setting foot in Australia, for I am sure "apology" apologists will explain it.
Sarcasm intended. I am a first generation immigrant

Capablanca-Fan
01-02-2008, 04:22 PM
Sarcasm intended. I am a first generation immigrant
While I was born here to immigrant parents.

Basil
01-02-2008, 07:19 PM
I'm a first gen immigrant. I was treated to all sorts of condescending behaviour.

Lefties please note that my colour makes no difference, right :eek:, but seeing as my children weren't protected, I mean confiscated, I'll settle for only a small apology and I'll pass on the compo.

Did I miss something? Is there a flaw in my reasoning?

Desmond
02-02-2008, 12:21 AM
I do not quite understand why we can not have contemporary Australian laws being equally applicable to all of the Australians (aborigines included).Isn't that what we currently have?

Capablanca-Fan
08-02-2008, 12:46 PM
Truth is what was stolen (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_truth_is_what_was_stolen/)
Andrew Bolt
8 Feb 08


… I’ve asked, for instance, why I’d say sorry to Lowitja O’Donoghue, the Stolen Generations Alliance’s co-patron.

O’Donoghue in fact was dumped at a children’s home by her footloose Irish father, to be educated by missionaries.

For what should I say sorry to Peter Gunner, who sought compensation in the Federal Court for being “stolen”?

Gunner, in fact, was sent to a home in Alice Springs with the written permission of his mother, to get a schooling.

For what should I say sorry to Topsy, named by Manne as a “stolen” child?

Topsy, in fact, was just 12 when she was found, riddled with syphilis and far from hospitals, schools or police, with her parents unknown.

For what should I say sorry to Mary Hooker, another Stolen Generations Alliance spokeswoman?

Hooker, in fact, was removed with three of her 11 siblings because welfare officers thought she was neglected and “I was raped by my brother”.

For what should I say sorry to Lorna Cubillo, who claimed compensation?

Cubillo, in fact, was just seven, with no parents or even known guardian when she was found at a missionary-run ration camp in the bush, and sent to a home and school in Darwin.

For what should I say sorry to Molly, portrayed in Rabbit Proof Fence as a girl stolen to “breed out the colour”?

Molly in fact was taken into care with the agreement of her tribal chief after warnings that she was in danger of sexual abuse and had been ostracised as a half-caste by her tribe.

For what should I say sorry to Archie Roach, famous for his song Took the Children Away?

Roach, in fact, said yesterday he was removed when he was three because “word got around” he was neglected—his parents weren’t there, and his sister was trying to care for him.

For what should I say sorry to all the “stolen children” like these—activist Robert Riley, whose mother dumped him at a home; author Mudrooroo Narogin, who turned out to be neither stolen nor Aboriginal; claimant Joy Williams, whose mother gave away her illegitimate girl; bureaucrat Charlie Perkins, whose mother asked a boarding school to help her gifted boy; and “stolen generations” leader Annette Peardon, whose mother was jailed for three months for neglecting her children. …

Capablanca-Fan
15-02-2008, 10:59 AM
Gang-rape judge in new child sex furore (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23216629-2702,00.html)
Padraic Murphy, Natasha Robinson and Tony Koch
The Australian, 15 February 2008


THE north Queensland judge who last year allowed nine child rapists to go free has given a teacher, who has admitted forcing an indigenous 11-year-old boy to perform oral sex on him, time to gather evidence that he was educating his victim in ”men’s business”.

James Last, a Sydney-educated teacher who recently worked in Northern Territory communities, including Maningrida, east of Darwin, last week pleaded guilty in Cairns before District Court judge Sarah Bradley to seven counts of indecently dealing with an 11-year-old boy over a four-month period in 1983.

But Judge Bradley has granted a three-month adjournment to allow Last, who claims he received no sexual gratification from the assaults, to allow his lawyers to find an anthropologist to support his claim that he had been trying to introduce the Torres Strait boy to "traditional" islander sexual practices.

Judge Bradley granted the adjournment despite the prosecution pointing out that it had two witnesses — "respected elders" from the boy's home island of Saibai — ready to debunk the claim that such practices were part of "men's business".

On another point related to this sordid account, I note that the Leftmedia is not attacking the whole government education system as bankrupt because of the actions of a single teacher. If it had been a single clergyman, the Leftmedia would be abetting the vociferous misotheists in the mould of Dawko, Harris or Hitchens in pouncing on the Christian Church as a whole.

Capablanca-Fan
09-03-2008, 01:19 PM
Coming Ready or Not!
Aborigines are heading for town (http://www.bennelong.com.au/occasional/etherington2007.pdf)
Rev. Steve Etherington PhD (doctoral thesis on Aboriginal pedagogy from Charles Darwin University).


I have wondered what mysterious force makes otherwise liberal and
intelligent people reject with some hostility the idea that Aboriginal children might want to aspire to live like mainstream children.

Since this insistence that remote Aboriginal people should continue to live in their remote Aboriginal way is such a powerful force in making policy, I want to tease it out.. Is it a sort of benevolent racism that won’t allow Aboriginal people to be like us because it’s not good for them?




We’re scientific, educated, savvy, hard-headed and mature. We no longer need our ancestors’ beliefs… But we still have this spiritual hunger. The apparently unproblematic spirituality of the Aborigines, in whatever form we imagine it to be, is a comfort and makes no demands… So we continue to insist that Aboriginal people maintain some sort of obligation-free, spiritual rootedness for us

...

And of course, there is global warming! Our mutual blaming and the collective guilt we teach even our primary children about the environment needs the spiritual ointment of our constructed vicarious Aboriginal lifestyle, where their relationship with the environment is wise, unproblematic and exemplary… Better they live simply and without jobs, because we’re not about to slow down or shut down our own industries. ...



In summary, if the remote Aboriginal people didn’t exist, or didn’t live the way we need them to, it would have been necessary to invent them, and to invent the way in which they live. In protecting them and projecting them, we are trying to live by proxy through them.

Capablanca-Fan
24-03-2008, 08:27 PM
Victimhood: Rhetoric or Reality (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4255)
by Walter Williams (9 June 2005)


What about the decline of the black family? In 1960, only 28 percent of black females between the ages of 15 and 44 were never married.

Today, it's 56 percent. In 1940, the illegitimacy rate among blacks was 19 percent, in 1960, 22 percent, and today, it's 70 percent. Some argue that the state of the black family is the result of the legacy of slavery, discrimination and poverty. That has to be nonsense. A study of 1880 family structure in Philadelphia shows that three-quarters of black families were nuclear families, comprised of two parents and children. In New York City in 1925, 85 percent of kin-related black households had two parents. In fact, according to Herbert Gutman in "The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom: 1750-1925," "Five in six children under the age of 6 lived with both parents." Therefore, if one argues that what we see today is a result of a legacy of slavery, discrimination and poverty, what's the explanation for stronger black families at a time much closer to slavery — a time of much greater discrimination and of much greater poverty? I think that a good part of the answer is there were no welfare and Great Society programs.

Kevin Bonham
24-03-2008, 10:51 PM
Therefore, if one argues that what we see today is a result of a legacy of slavery, discrimination and poverty, what's the explanation for stronger black families at a time much closer to slavery — a time of much greater discrimination and of much greater poverty?

We had this discussion on another thread. However, in addition to the alternative possibilities I mentioned there, there is another one. I quite recently saw the case argued (don't recall by whom, and don't think there was any evidence advanced for that being the cause rather than any other) that people facing clearly unfair conditions are more likely to remain together out of solidarity against those conditions, in circumstances where they might otherwise split up.

Capablanca-Fan
23-09-2008, 12:55 PM
“During decades of researching racial and ethnic groups in countries around the world—with special attention to those who began in poverty and then rose to prosperity—I have yet to find one so preoccupied with tribalistic identity as to want to maintain solidarity with all members of their group, regardless of what they do or how they do it. Any group that rises has to have norms, and that means repudiating those who violate those norms, if you are serious. Blind tribalism means letting the lowest common denominator determine the norms and the fate of the whole group. There was a time when most blacks, like most of the Irish or the Jews, understood this common sense. But that was before the romanticizing of identity took over, beginning in the 1960s... The unanswered question is why an approach with a proven track record, not only in American society but in various other countries around the world, has been superseded by a philosophy of tribal identity overriding issues of behavior and performance. Part of the problem is the ‘multicultural’ ideology that says all cultures are equally valid. It is hard even to know what that means, much less take it seriously as a guide to living in the real world.” —Thomas Sowell

Desmond
23-09-2008, 01:37 PM
This Sowell fellow seems to fancy himself as a bit of an expert on any given subject. Has he considered doing talk-back radio in Sydney? ;)

Capablanca-Fan
23-09-2008, 01:56 PM
This Sowell fellow seems to fancy himself as a bit of an expert on any given subject.
For good reason, considering the amount of research he does before writing, as shown by the copious endnotes in his book.


Has he considered doing talk-back radio in Sydney? ;)
Maybe; he said that Sydney is his favorite city. ;)

Capablanca-Fan
18-11-2008, 11:51 AM
We had this discussion on another thread. However, in addition to the alternative possibilities I mentioned there, there is another one. I quite recently saw the case argued (don't recall by whom, and don't think there was any evidence advanced for that being the cause rather than any other) that people facing clearly unfair conditions are more likely to remain together out of solidarity against those conditions, in circumstances where they might otherwise split up.
Still seems like trying to explain away the data. It certainly suits the Jesse Jacksons of the world to explain black problems by white racism, but as Walter Williams says:


"The fact that the nation elected a black president hopefully might turn our attention away from the false notion that discrimination explains the problems of a large segment of the black community to the real problems that have absolutely nothing to do with discrimination. The illegitimacy rate among blacks stands at about 70 percent. Less than 40 percent of black children are raised in two-parent households. Those are major problems but they have nothing to do with racial discrimination. During the early 1900s, illegitimacy was a tiny fraction of today's rate and black families were just as stable as white families. Fraudulent education is another problem, where the average black high school senior can read, write and compute no better than a white seventh-grader. It can hardly be blamed on discrimination. Black schools receive the same funding as white schools and most of the teachers and staffs are black and the schools are often in cities where the mayor and the city council are mostly black. Crime is a major problem. Blacks commit about 50 percent of all homicides and 95 percent of their victims are blacks. Tragically, many black politicians and a civil rights industry have a vested interest in portraying the poor socioeconomic outcomes for many blacks as problems rooted in racial discrimination. One of the reasons they are able to get away with such deception is because there are so many guilt-ridden white people."

MichaelBaron
19-11-2008, 10:30 AM
"The fact that the nation elected a black president hopefully might turn our attention away from the false notion that discrimination explains the problems of a large segment of the black community to the real problems that have absolutely nothing to do with discrimination. The illegitimacy rate among blacks stands at about 70 percent. Less than 40 percent of black children are raised in two-parent households. Those are major problems but they have nothing to do with racial discrimination. During the early 1900s, illegitimacy was a tiny fraction of today's rate and black families were just as stable as white families. Fraudulent education is another problem, where the average black high school senior can read, write and compute no better than a white seventh-grader. It can hardly be blamed on discrimination. Black schools receive the same funding as white schools and most of the teachers and staffs are black and the schools are often in cities where the mayor and the city council are mostly black. Crime is a major problem. Blacks commit about 50 percent of all homicides and 95 percent of their victims are blacks. Tragically, many black politicians and a civil rights industry have a vested interest in portraying the poor socioeconomic outcomes for many blacks as problems rooted in racial discrimination. One of the reasons they are able to get away with such deception is because there are so many guilt-ridden white people."

Very good article :clap: I am a person who is rarely in agreement with everything someone else says or writes but i would be happy to put my signature next to this one. The author is writing about the way things are in the USA..but somehome some of the issues he is talking about are painfully familiar to us here in Australia :)

TheJoker
19-11-2008, 10:47 AM
Still seems like trying to explain away the data. It certainly suits the Jesse Jacksons of the world to explain black problems by white racism, but as Walter Williams says:


"The fact that the nation elected a black president hopefully might turn our attention away from the false notion that discrimination explains the problems of a large segment of the black community to the real problems that have absolutely nothing to do with discrimination. The illegitimacy rate among blacks stands at about 70 percent. Less than 40 percent of black children are raised in two-parent households. Those are major problems but they have nothing to do with racial discrimination. During the early 1900s, illegitimacy was a tiny fraction of today's rate and black families were just as stable as white families. Fraudulent education is another problem, where the average black high school senior can read, write and compute no better than a white seventh-grader. It can hardly be blamed on discrimination. Black schools receive the same funding as white schools and most of the teachers and staffs are black and the schools are often in cities where the mayor and the city council are mostly black. Crime is a major problem. Blacks commit about 50 percent of all homicides and 95 percent of their victims are blacks. Tragically, many black politicians and a civil rights industry have a vested interest in portraying the poor socioeconomic outcomes for many blacks as problems rooted in racial discrimination. One of the reasons they are able to get away with such deception is because there are so many guilt-ridden white people."

Yes the problem is a socio-economic one. But how would explain the skewed distribution of the black population in America towards the lower end of the socio-economic scale? Possibly because of a poverty trap (once your there its damn hard to get out). Now what caused the black population to be so impoverished in the first place. Slavery/Racism.

It's a very different situation to the one in Australia. Problems in Australia stem largely from failed integration of cultures (and some racism).

Igor_Goldenberg
19-11-2008, 10:52 AM
Yes the problem is a socio-economic one. But how would explain the skewed distribution of the black population in America towards the lower end of the socio-economic scale? Possibly because of a poverty trap (once your there its damn hard to get out). Now what caused the black population to be so impoverished in the first place. Slavery/Racism.

AFAIK, the gap between black and white population in USA was narrowing until "war on poverty" and affirmative actions were introduced.
Both programs heart the group they were supposed to help. "War on poverty" was successful only in perpetuating poverty. Affirmative actions were successful in halting development and progress among the minorities they were supposed to help. Typical "unintended consequences" of "good intentions".
If we remember that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" we'll find a relevance to the debate on the other thread.

TheJoker
19-11-2008, 11:08 AM
AFAIK, the gap between black and white population in USA was narrowing until "war on poverty" and affirmative actions were introduced.
Both programs heart the group they were supposed to help. "War on poverty" was successful only in perpetuating poverty. Affirmative actions were successful in halting development and progress among the minorities they were supposed to help. Typical "unintended consequences" of "good intentions".

Got any specific data?

Also my post didn't not suggest any measures for addressing the issue. Just that in essence most of problems faced by black americans have their root in racism (even if from the distant past)

Capablanca-Fan
19-11-2008, 11:49 AM
Now what caused the black population to be so impoverished in the first place. Slavery/Racism.
TheJoke never puts his politically correct assertions to the test, or like most assertions of the Anointed, they are deemed unfalsifiable by any evidence. But if slavery and racism were the cause of the problems, then one would expect more illegitimacy and crime when there was more of both than now. Yet as Williams points out, black families were largely intact during both slavery and the period of the Jim Crow laws.


AFAIK, the gap between black and white population in USA was narrowing until "war on poverty" and affirmative actions were introduced.
Exactly. Sowell documents this in The Vision of the Anointed (http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=484). Same with teenage pregancies: E.g. in the US, teenage pregnancy and venereal disease, which were actually on the decrease for more than a decade before sex ed was force-fed into schools. STDs in the 1960s, before sex ed, were actually only half the incidence that they had in 1950:


"As sex education programs spread widely through the American educational system during the 1970s, the pregnancy rate among 15- to 19-year-old females rose from approximately 68 per thousand in 1970 to approximately 96 per thousand by 1980. Among unmarried girls in the 15- to 17-year-old bracket, birth rates rose 29 percent between 1970 and 1984, despite a massive increase in abortions, which more than doubled in the same period. Among girls under 15, the number of abortions surpassed the number of live births by 1974." — P. 18


Both programs heart the group they were supposed to help. "War on poverty" was successful only in perpetuating poverty.
And the worst thing was replacing fathers with the welfare state, something that has badly affect blacks, largely egged on by victicratic grievance-mongering black "leaders" like Je$$e Jackson.


Affirmative actions were successful in halting development and progress among the minorities they were supposed to help.
Yes, I think even TheJoke doesn't defend "affirmative action" any more (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=7273&page=2)after its huge empirical flaws were demonstrated (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=7273). E.g. they mainly help those in the favoured classes who are already well off, while hurt those in the disfavoured classes who are already among the poorest in that class, and there is a logical reason why it inevitably produces resentment among far more than it helps (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=7273&page=5). Ironically, AA always hurts those in the politically favoured group who actually earn their positions on merit, because it's hard to shake the perception that their position was the result of the policy. It's notable that none of the white proponents of affirmative action (e.g. PC university presidents, leftist politicians or newspaper editors) would give up their own jobs for a minority applicant; they are generous only with other people's career prospects.


Typical "unintended consequences" of "good intentions".
Another one is that quota laws forcing companies to hire less qualified minorities provide them a good incentive to relocate away from areas where these minorities live, hurting them overall.


If we remember that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" we'll find a relevance to the debate on the other thread.
True. It's notable that the best way to end unfair discrimination is to let the free market work; most racial discrimination has occurred in non-profits and government organizations (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams082498.html).

TheJoker
19-11-2008, 12:06 PM
But if slavery and racism were the cause of the problems, then one would expect more illegitimacy and crime when there was more of both than now.

Only if ceretus paribus applied (all other things being held equal), which certain and absolutely does not apply. That is obvious even to an idiot.

Totally different cultural and economic environment, directly comparing the two eras is an excercise for fools. Illegitimacy and crime has likely risen across all low socio-economic groups. So yet another strawman!

So how does Williams explain socio-economic distribution? If its a poverty trap as the previous post of his comments seems to imply. What was the cause for the unequal distribution of black american into low socio-economic situations in the first place?

Capablanca-Fan
19-11-2008, 12:48 PM
Only if ceretus paribus applied (all other things being held equal), which certain and absolutely does not apply. That is obvious even to an idiot.
It's up to you to prove that slavery and racism were the causes. Yet the actual data show that illegitimacy and crime have increased as racism has decreased.

Other groups, like Jews and Chinese, have faced worse racism and still prosper and have intact families.


Totally different cultural and economic environment, directly comparing the two eras is an excercise for fools. Illegitimacy and crime has likely risen across all low socio-economic groups. So yet another strawman!Rubbish, because this doesn't explain why they have increased disproportionately among blacks, yet other groups that started off poor don't have these problems.


So how does Williams explain socio-economic distribution?
What distribution? His friend Sowell has pointed out that most wealth is not distributed at all, but consumed by those who earn it. He also points out that the differences in income are not due to permanent classes but are really the same people at different stages of their lives.


If its a poverty trap as the previous post of his comments seems to imply. What was the cause for the unequal distribution of black american into low socio-economic situations in the first place?
Welfare replacing fathers with the state, and grievance mongering that blames other people for their own problems. Je$$e Jackson and other black "leaders" have done very well from their victicracy, and it's easier to blame other people than yourself for your problems.

MichaelBaron
19-11-2008, 01:06 PM
Only if ceretus paribus applied (all other things being held equal), which certain and absolutely does not apply. That is obvious even to an idiot.

Totally different cultural and economic environment, directly comparing the two eras is an excercise for fools. Illegitimacy and crime has likely risen across all low socio-economic groups. So yet another strawman!

So how does Williams explain socio-economic distribution? If its a poverty trap as the previous post of his comments seems to imply. What was the cause for the unequal distribution of black american into low socio-economic situations in the first place?


Lets be honest here, Afro-Americans (as well as indiginous Australians) generally do not like the idea of ceretus paibus....as it would automatically strip them of their priviledges. I like Jono's point about Jewish and Chinese...they did manage to overcome years of hardship to prosper.

From an economic theory perspective, socio-economic distribution is a variable factor and it is supposed to be elastic. Therefore, if Aboriginal community would lack the resources only, the problems would be easy to solve by providing them witn an adequate amount of money. But as we all know - money alone can not solve the problems.

Igor_Goldenberg
19-11-2008, 01:11 PM
Lets be honest here, Afro-Americans (as well as indiginous Australians) generally do not like the idea of ceretus paibus....as it would automatically strip them of their priviledges.
Unfortunately many of them don't realise that those privileges save cents and miss dollars.

Igor_Goldenberg
19-11-2008, 01:17 PM
Other groups, like Jews and Chinese, have faced worse racism and still prosper and have intact families.

Chinese in South-East Asian countries (Malaysia, Indonesia, etc.) are indeed loathed and discriminated against. Many Malays are indignant that "Chinese control 95% of all business". Never mind that Chinese actually created those businesses in the first place.
Yet those Chinese in China (and Jews in Israel for that matter) are nowhere near as successful when they don't have to face uphill battle and can rely on the government assistance(especially in Israel).

TheJoker
19-11-2008, 03:10 PM
Lets be honest here, Afro-Americans (as well as indiginous Australians) generally do not like the idea of ceretus paibus.

Maybe I wasn't clear here but i meant ceterus paribus interms being able to compare variable between two periods.


From an economic theory perspective, socio-economic distribution is a variable factor and it is supposed to be elastic. Therefore, if Aboriginal community would lack the resources only, the problems would be easy to solve by providing them witn an adequate amount of money. But as we all know - money alone can not solve the problems.

That's exactly the point. But what are the other barriers (outside of income)?

I know for one that there is massive cultural difference.

One barrier is lack of personal responsibility for property. If I knew the government would give me a new car/house everytime I burnt the old one, I'd be off to the shop to buy a box of matches right now.

What makes personal responsibility for property difficult in Aboriginal communities is that they culturally tend have collective property rights. For example if I have a car and I am not using it, and a relation asks to borrow it I am culturally obliged to lend it. He in turn is quite likely to lend it someone else and so on. I don't really own the car the community does. Same applies to money. Just as any socialised systems can suffer from free-riders so does the Aboriginal community.

TheJoker
19-11-2008, 03:16 PM
Chinese and Jews are both very industrious and entrepreneurial cultures, they adapt very well to a capitalist economic structures. Aboriginals were a hunter gather society only 200 odd years ago.

Capablanca-Fan
19-11-2008, 03:30 PM
Chinese and Jews are both very industrious and entrepreneurial cultures, they adapt very well to a capitalist economic structures.
Exactly! So it is this sort of cultural capital that would benefit blacks too, as many have proved, and this is what should be encouraged. But many black "leaders" and the Dems have a vested interest in perpetuating the victicracy.


One barrier is lack of personal responsibility for property. If I knew the government would give me a new car/house everytime I burnt the old one, I'd be off to the shop to buy a box of matches right now.

Ys, responsible Aboriginal leaders like Warren Mundine and Noel Pearson say that welfare has killed their people. Yet lefties have expanded the responsibility-killing welfare mentality.


What makes personal responsibility for property difficult in Aboriginal communities is that they culturally tend have collective property rights. For example if I have a car and I am not using it, and a relation asks to borrow it I am culturally obliged to lend it. He in turn is quite likely to lend it someone else and so on. I don't really own the car the community does. Same applies to money. Just as any socialised systems can suffer from free-riders so does the Aboriginal community.
Exactly! So it's folly to look to socialism for the answer. Property rights are vital for a sound economy, and Howard wanted to expand them for Aborigines.

Thomas Sowell wrote in a letter in the early 1960s, near the start of the Civil Rights movement, against expansion of welfare and affirmative action. He pointed out that the leaders have rightly said that Negroes (sic) are no different from other other people, so they should not overlook the fact that they are just as likely as any other people to want something for nothing.

Igor_Goldenberg
19-11-2008, 03:32 PM
Chinese and Jews are both very industrious and entrepreneurial cultures, they adapt very well to a capitalist economic structures.
But look what happens to them when they put in communist (Mao's China) or semi-socialist(Israel) environment.

Aboriginals were a hunter gather society only 200 odd years ago.
Then they would benefit greatly from immersing into modern society, not from shielding them from that society.

TheJoker
19-11-2008, 04:09 PM
But look what happens to them when they put in communist (Mao's China) or semi-socialist(Israel) environment.

Totally agree with you. You might got the impression from Jono's slander that I support socialism. That is not true, I favour market economies, however i recognise a need to regulate such markets. And that some socialised goods and services are beneficial (such as national parks and education etc)


Then they would benefit greatly from immersing into modern society, not from shielding them from that society.

Not as easy as it sounds. It is pretty hard to change thousands of years of culture overnight.

MichaelBaron
19-11-2008, 04:52 PM
Aboriginals were a hunter gather society only 200 odd years ago.

Well we seem to be in agreement here. The main problem that the indigenous australians are facing at the moment is backwardness (and i know its a very politically incorrect word to use) of their social environment. There is nothing new about the preconceptions that they are having....very same attitudes were common in europe and asia ...2000 years ago :).

Now, lets move to the deeper (and arguably much more critical issue): how can we change the situation for the better? is it about Outsiders (e.g. Aus government) bringing the change upon the indigenous people or is it about the people themselves trying to develop their community further?:doh:

TheJoker
19-11-2008, 09:00 PM
Now, lets move to the deeper (and arguably much more critical issue): how can we change the situation for the better? is it about Outsiders (e.g. Aus government) bringing the change upon the indigenous people or is it about the people themselves trying to develop their community further?:doh:

Two words: Education, Time

MichaelBaron
20-11-2008, 12:19 AM
Two words: Education, Time

Wow we are in agreement once again :clap:

Igor_Goldenberg
20-11-2008, 10:08 AM
Two words: Education, Time
Your forgot handouts.

MichaelBaron
20-11-2008, 10:50 AM
Your forgot handouts.

May be it is the "subsidies" that harm :hmm: indigenous communities more than anything else.

Capablanca-Fan
22-11-2008, 01:53 PM
But look what happens to them when they put in communist (Mao's China) or semi-socialist(Israel) environment.
Sowell noted in a letter he wrote soon after a 1984 visit to Israel:


“Jews … join the peoples of China and India as groups that prosper all over the world — except in their homelands. Stifling policies and bureaucracies seem to be the common denominator in all three cases.”

(from his book A Man of Letters (http://www.hebookservice.com/products/bookpage.asp?prod_cd=c7054))

Igor_Goldenberg
22-11-2008, 02:00 PM
May be it is the "subsidies" that harm :hmm: indigenous communities more than anything else.
Of course

Capablanca-Fan
09-12-2008, 12:06 PM
More politically correct sexism and racism in Victoria: Discrimination against white males will soon be encouraged (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24771759-661,00.html).

MichaelBaron
09-12-2008, 02:19 PM
More politically correct sexism and racism in Victoria: Discrimination against white males will soon be encouraged (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24771759-661,00.html).

Unfortunately nothing surprising about it

Igor_Goldenberg
09-12-2008, 02:53 PM
More politically correct sexism and racism in Victoria: Discrimination against white males will soon be encouraged (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24771759-661,00.html).
Let's see whether any politician has the guts to oppose it.

Capablanca-Fan
09-12-2008, 04:34 PM
Let's see whether any politician has the guts to oppose it.
I doubt that the Labor-Lite wimps like Red Ted Baillieu in the Vic Coalition will, unfortunately. Yet Labor is so incompetent that the Coalition would have the election in the bag if they provided a real alternative not "me too".

Kevin Bonham
09-12-2008, 11:11 PM
More politically correct sexism and racism in Victoria: Discrimination against white males will soon be encouraged (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24771759-661,00.html).

I agree that the "positive discrimination" part of the changes is both sexist and racist but you have not made clear how it will hurt ordinary Aborigines.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-12-2008, 09:34 AM
I agree that the "positive discrimination" part of the changes is both sexist and racist but you have not made clear how it will hurt ordinary Aborigines.
It will hurt everyone (not just white males).

Capablanca-Fan
10-12-2008, 02:27 PM
I agree that the "positive discrimination" part of the changes is both sexist and racist but you have not made clear how it will hurt ordinary Aborigines.
Well, mainly I wanted to put it in the thread closest to the topic. But Sowell's detailed analysis of "positive discrimination" in his book Affirmative Action Around the World documents the harm it does to those in the favoured groups as well. E.g.:


Those that enter very hard universities due preferential treatment are mismatched to those who obtained admission on merit, so they have a higher failure rate (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=1635). But if they were matched to universities according to their grades, they might have passed.
Even those who earn their positions on merit are tarred, in that they can be accused of being affirmative action appointees.
The better off in the favoured groups tend to be beneficiaries of "affirmative action", not those who most need help. And those hurt by it in the disfavoured groups tend to be the poorest already. It's notable that white male bureaucrats, academics and journalist who push for affirmative action are not lining up to surrender their own jobs to blacks or females.


Edit: Thomas Sowell argues in The High Cost of Favoritism (http://townhall.com/Columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/12/10/the_high_cost_of_favoritism) that one reason for OJ's evils was the constant impression presented by preferential treatment that rules are for other people and don't apply to the favoured.

Kevin Bonham
10-12-2008, 08:50 PM
Those that enter very hard universities due preferential treatment are mismatched to those who obtained admission on merit, so they have a higher failure rate (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=1635). But if they were matched to universities according to their grades, they might have passed.

Firstly this doesn't seem to be an issue covered by the proposed law changes as reported, which appear to concern discrimination in employment. Secondly, it's something I've never looked into - does Australia have "very hard universities"? Do the top unis really flunk people who would easily pass in a regional uni? I suspect they do but I've never looked into it.


Even those who earn their positions on merit are tarred, in that they can be accused of being affirmative action appointees.

That's always a risk and I think it's a strong argument against affirmative action when the group receiving affirmative action was close to equality of success anyway - however Australian Aborigines are not on just about any indicator one cares to mention.


The better off in the favoured groups tend to be beneficiaries of "affirmative action", not those who most need help. And those hurt by it in the disfavoured groups tend to be the poorest already. It's notable that white male bureaucrats, academics and journalist who push for affirmative action are not lining up to surrender their own jobs to blacks or females.
[/LIST]

This also (while valid) doesn't demonstrate any way in which the recipients of affirmative action are harmed.


Edit: Thomas Sowell argues in The High Cost of Favoritism (http://townhall.com/Columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/12/10/the_high_cost_of_favoritism) that one reason for OJ's evils was the constant impression presented by preferential treatment that rules are for other people and don't apply to the favoured.

Sowell also gives many other examples some of whom are or were white. His primary message seems to be that fame brings preferential treatment which brings a tendency to take things for granted.

Capablanca-Fan
11-12-2008, 12:05 AM
Firstly this doesn't seem to be an issue covered by the proposed law changes as reported, which appear to concern discrimination in employment.
Hmm, there is a danger of being mismatched into a job. One of the most famous AA "successes", Patrick Chavis, admitted ahead of the evil white male Allan Bakke, had his medical licence revoked for "gross negligence (http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/mmjennings.html), incompetence and repeated negligent acts" including deaths. Bakke himself became a respected anesthetist.

Another form of "affirmative action" lowers strength standards to allow more women into an occupation. E.g. American firefighters no longer need to have the strength to carry an average man on the shoulder, since most women can't. The result is that victims are now often dragged down stairs with their heads banging on the steps.


Secondly, it's something I've never looked into — does Australia have "very hard universities"? Do the top unis really flunk people who would easily pass in a regional uni? I suspect they do but I've never looked into it.
It seems to be the case in America, where there is a huge range.


That's always a risk and I think it's a strong argument against affirmative action when the group receiving affirmative action was close to equality of success anyway — however Australian Aborigines are not on just about any indicator one cares to mention.
Yet even there, the beneficiaries of AA tend to be the few Aborigines who are already well off, and look quite Caucasian. There was also a case of two half brothers where one was eligible for the far more lucrative Abstudy.

But the way to more widespread equality to success may be impaired if it is achieved by preferences not merit.


This also (while valid) doesn't demonstrate any way in which the recipients of affirmative action are harmed.
It wasn't meant to; it was just an en passant demonstration of the hypocrisy of many of its advocates, who like it only for other people not themselves.


Sowell also gives many other examples some of whom are or were white. His primary message seems to be that fame brings preferential treatment which brings a tendency to take things for granted.
Yes. So it points out the dangers of preferential treatment.

MichaelBaron
11-12-2008, 10:15 AM
Yet even there, the beneficiaries of AA tend to be the few Aborigines who are already well off, and look quite Caucasian. There was also a case of two half brothers where one was eligible for the far more lucrative Abstudy.

.
Just adding to this point: if an Aboriginal kid does make it to the the uni. Amount of money and efforts to keep him there will be enourmous, even at the expense of other students. Lecturers will be encouraged to pass him and problems (e.g. violence) that he will be posing for other students will be ignored. On this particular point - i am speaking from experience!

TheJoker
11-12-2008, 11:31 AM
Just adding to this point: if an Aboriginal kid does make it to the the uni. Amount of money and efforts to keep him there will be enourmous, even at the expense of other students. Lecturers will be encouraged to pass him and problems (e.g. violence) that he will be posing for other students will be ignored. On this particular point - i am speaking from experience!

Well speaking from my own experince (possibly more extensive). Having attended Northern Territory University that has a large number of aboriginal students this seems to be an isolated incident (in terms of violence/problems being ignored).

As far as pressure to pass students. Having also attended university in Sydney, I found international students are given far more preferential treatment than the aborignal students in the NT. Entire courses in many major Universities in Australia are often strucutured around ensuring international students pass. Plagarism is often overlooked. Work that if submitted by local student would be failed is almost always passed. Some students can barely read or write english.

Capablanca-Fan
11-12-2008, 11:49 AM
As far as pressure to pass students. Having also attended university in Sydney, I found international students are given far more preferential treatment than the aborignal students in the NT. Entire courses in many major Universities in Australia are often strucutured around ensuring international students pass. Plagarism is often overlooked. Work that if submitted by local student would be failed is almost always passed. Some students can barely read or write english.
This is wrong too.

MichaelBaron
11-12-2008, 11:53 AM
Well speaking from my own experince (possibly more extensive). Having attended Northern Territory University that has a large number of aboriginal students this seems to be an isolated incident (in terms of violence/problems being ignored).

As far as pressure to pass students. Having also attended university in Sydney, I found international students are given far more preferential treatment than the aborignal students in the NT. Entire courses in many major Universities in Australia are often strucutured around ensuring international students pass. Plagarism is often overlooked. Work that if submitted by local student would be failed is almost always passed. Some students can barely read or write english.

In NT there are a lot of aboriginal students i guess so its harder to pass them all...

In Melbourne you usually have one Aboriginal student in a class...and he is being treated by uni authorities in a "special way". I had such students in my classes. And i can clearly recall recieving special instructions how to deal with them. At the same time, no instructions were provided on how to deal with other students in the classes. Therefore, the treatment was cleary preferntial. Furthermore, after the student failed - i was pressured to review my marks even though he failed by a big margin!

Regarding international students: To some extent I agree with you - universities do compromise their standards in order to attract more money from these students and i never said it is a good thing! I feel that every student (aboriginal or not, international or not) should be treated equally.

However, with international students the pressure is (unless you are working in a private college that is simply a visa shop - and i had to work in those as well) is moderate. It is common understanding that we need to help some of these kids ..so uni keeps getting money...but if the student is really off the mark - he or she obviously fails. With Aboriginal students....each student is being treated like an '8th wonder of the world". Should he fail a subject...he calls his lecturer "Racist" and brings in student union, Aboriginal study officer etc...

By the way, i still do not understand what Aboriginal study officers are for...
you have 4 aboriginal students for the entire university...and 2 Ab officers to look after them. At the same time, there is on average one welfare officer/per 160 or so non-aboriginal students....How fair is that?

TheJoker
11-12-2008, 12:57 PM
In NT there are a lot of aboriginal students i guess so its harder to pass them all...

In Melbourne you usually have one Aboriginal student in a class...and he is being treated by uni authorities in a "special way". I had such students in my classes. And i can clearly recall recieving special instructions how to deal with them. At the same time, no instructions were provided on how to deal with other students in the classes. Therefore, the treatment was cleary preferntial. Furthermore, after the student failed - i was pressured to review my marks even though he failed by a big margin!

Regarding international students: To some extent I agree with you - universities do compromise their standards in order to attract more money from these students and i never said it is a good thing! I feel that every student (aboriginal or not, international or not) should be treated equally.

However, with international students the pressure is (unless you are working in a private college that is simply a visa shop - and i had to work in those as well) is moderate. It is common understanding that we need to help some of these kids ..so uni keeps getting money...but if the student is really off the mark - he or she obviously fails. With Aboriginal students....each student is being treated like an '8th wonder of the world". Should he fail a subject...he calls his lecturer "Racist" and brings in student union, Aboriginal study officer etc...

By the way, i still do not understand what Aboriginal study officers are for...
you have 4 aboriginal students for the entire university...and 2 Ab officers to look after them. At the same time, there is on average one welfare officer/per 160 or so non-aboriginal students....How fair is that?

Definitely doesn't sound good. In terms of education for any group of people that can be shown not to have the capability to gain entry to university due to deficient educational abilities, it needs to be addressed at the grassroots level not by dumping them into course and hoping they will somehow adapt.

MichaelBaron
11-12-2008, 01:25 PM
Definitely doesn't sound good. In terms of education for any group of people that can be shown not to have the capability to gain entry to university due to deficient educational abilities, it needs to be addressed at the grassroots level not by dumping them into course and hoping they will somehow adapt.

Right, we appear to be in agreement here :). Therefore, should we conclude that aborigines should not be shown any favoritism over others?

TheJoker
11-12-2008, 01:39 PM
Right, we appear to be in agreement here :). Therefore, should we conclude that aborigines should not be shown any favoritism over others?

Depends how you define favourtism? If you define it as providing "capabilities" (using the word in the Amartya Sen capabilities approach context) beyond that of ohers citizens then I agree with you.

If you define it as providing a extra level of support to ensure that aboriginals have the same level of "capabilities" as other citizens then I disagree with you.

Capablanca-Fan
11-12-2008, 01:45 PM
With Aboriginal students....each student is being treated like an '8th wonder of the world". Should he fail a subject...he calls his lecturer "Racist" and brings in student union, Aboriginal study officer etc...
Yes, just like Americans were accused of being racist if they didn't vote for Comrade Obamov.


By the way, i still do not understand what Aboriginal study officers are for...
you have 4 aboriginal students for the entire university...and 2 Ab officers to look after them. At the same time, there is on average one welfare officer/per 160 or so non-aboriginal students....How fair is that?
Worldwide, affirmative action is a lovely gravy train for activists, oftening profiting from the misplaced guilt of the disfavoured races. Meanwhile, most of the "favored" race receives no benefit.

MichaelBaron
11-12-2008, 03:55 PM
Depends how you define favourtism? If you define it as providing "capabilities" (using the word in the Amartya Sen capabilities approach context) beyond that of ohers citizens then I agree with you.

If you define it as providing a extra level of support to ensure that aboriginals have the same level of "capabilities" as other citizens then I disagree with you.

Why provide capabilities beyond that of other citizens? This is indeed Racism. You can have some kind of program for providing extra aid to people from disadvantaged background (e.g. drinking parents - and this will indeed apply to most of aborigines) - i am in favour of it, but I am against provision of any extra support on the basis of nationality.

TheJoker
11-12-2008, 04:18 PM
Why provide capabilities beyond that of other citizens? This is indeed Racism. You can have some kind of program for providing extra aid to people from disadvantaged background (e.g. drinking parents - and this will indeed apply to most of aborigines) - i am in favour of it, but I am against provision of any extra support on the basis of nationality.


I meant that if you define favourtism as providing additional "capabilities" then I agree with you favourtism is wrong. I probably wasn't clear in what I wrote.

I agree with you.

Capablanca-Fan
12-12-2008, 02:48 PM
The main point is:
Equality of opportunities: good
Equality of outcomes: bad if engineered by dispensing with equality of opportunities

MichaelBaron
12-12-2008, 08:14 PM
The main point is:
Equality of opportunities: good
Equality of outcomes: bad if engineered by dispensing with equality of opportunities

In any case - equality of outcomes is mission impossible

TheJoker
12-12-2008, 09:55 PM
The main point is:
Equality of opportunities: good
Equality of outcomes: bad if engineered by dispensing with equality of opportunities

Yes this is similiar to the Capabilities Approach, which focuses on people's capability to persue a range of outcomes. The actual outcomes they choose to persue is a matter of personal choice/freedom. Therefore welfare is measured by capabilities and not outcomes.

Opportunities can encompass both positive and negative freedoms, whereas capabilities focus on postive freedoms.

Wiki explains Sen's capabilities approach as follows:


capabilities approach focuses on positive freedom, a person's actual ability to be or do something, rather than on negative freedom approaches, which are common in economics and simply focuses on non-interference. In the Bengal famine, rural laborers' negative freedom to buy food was not affected. However, they still starved because they were not positively free to do anything, they did not have the functioning of nourishment, nor the capability to escape morbidity.

Capablanca-Fan
13-12-2008, 02:07 AM
In any case — equality of outcomes is mission impossible
Of course. That's one conclusion of Sowell's extensive studies of people groups around the world: statistical disparities in jobs, income, education etc. are the norm. Yet the PC Lefties use statistical disparities as “proof” of discrimination and racism.

Sowell also documented that many of the most successful people groups could not have benefited from discrimination, because they were in no position to discriminate. Rather, they were often discriminated against: Chinese in southeast Asia, Jews in Europe and the Arab world, Indians in east Africa, Lebanese in west Africa — see Is Anti-Semitism Generic? Is Anti-Semitism Generic? What do Jews have in common with Armenians, Ibos, and Marwaris? An historically similar pattern of economic and social roles—and of persecution. (http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/2931421.html) Further, he documented that the greatest economic progress by American blacks was in the decade before civil rights laws were introduced.

Capablanca-Fan
15-12-2008, 12:57 PM
Here is a typically very insightful article from Dr Theodore Dalrymple: False Apology Syndrome—I’m sorry for your sins (http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/theodore-dalrymple-false-apology-syndrome-%E2%80%93-i%E2%80%99m-sorry-for-your-sins/):


...

But official apologies for distant events, however important or pregnant with consequences those events may have been, are another matter entirely. They have bad effects on both those who give them and those who receive them.

The effect on the givers is the creation of a state of spiritual pride. Insofar as the person offering the apology is doing what no one has done before him, he is likely to consider himself the moral superior of his predecessors. He alone has had the moral insight and courage to apologize.

On the other hand, he knows full well that he has absolutely no personal moral responsibility for whatever it is that he is apologizing for. In other words, his apology brings him all kudos and no pain.

This inevitably leads to the false supposition that the moral life can be lived without the pain of self-examination. The locus of moral concern becomes what others do or have done, not what one does oneself. And a good deed in the form of an apology in public for some heinous wrong in the distant past gives the person who makes it a kind of moral capital, at least in his own estimation, against which he can offset his expenditure of vice.

The habit of public apology for things for which one bears no personal responsibility changes the whole concept of a virtuous person, from one who exercises the discipline of virtue to one who expresses correct sentiment. The most virtuous person of all is he who expresses it loudest and to most people. This is a debasement of morality, not a refinement of it. The end result is likely to be self-satisfaction and ruthlessness accompanied by unctuous moralizing, rather than a determination to behave well.

The effect on some of the recipients of such apologies is likely to be very bad also, for similar though slightly different reasons.

...

It isn’t very difficult to discern what lies behind it: money, and lots of it. Nor does it require extraordinary powers of prediction or foresight to know who would get the lion’s share of any such money that was forthcoming.

But even when money is not involved, there are deleterious effects on the recipients of what one might call class-action apologies. Just as those who give them become convinced of their own virtue, so do those who receive them. It is enough that they should be considered victims for them to conclude that they can do no wrong, or at any rate no wrong worth talking about. For what is a personal peccadillo to set beside a great historical wrong?

An apology of this kind, then, or even the supposition that such an apology ought to be forthcoming, exerts a liberating, that is to say loosening, effect upon personal morals. For what can I do wrong to compare with the wrongs that my ancestors suffered at the hands of your ancestors? How dare you even mention it, you hypocrite!

...

False Apology Syndrome — which is not yet found in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association or the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases, tenth edition — is a therefore rich but poisonous mixture of self-importance, libertinism, condescension, bad faith, loose thinking, and indifference to the effects it has on those who are apologized to.

I am, of course, sorry if you disagree.

TheJoker
15-12-2008, 01:42 PM
Here is a typically very insightful article from Dr Theodore Dalrymple.

Bunch of psycho-bable without a shred of evidence to back up the claims made.

Interestingly enough according to wiki, the above-mentioned "Dr Theodore Dalrymple" does even exist. It is a psuedo-name for former prison pyschiatrist Anthony Daniels.

Capablanca-Fan
15-12-2008, 02:14 PM
Bunch of psycho-bable without a shred of evidence to back up the claims made.
Anointed lefties usually resort to denunciations like this, ignoring the reality of what was said, and the reality that the evidence is against favorite Anointed programs.

It should be common sense that apologies for sins the apologizer didn't commit is pointless except to show the apologizers moral superiority. And it is no accident that crims from apologized-to groups try to excuse their behaviour by blaming it on their ancestors' oppression. The Anointed conveniently ignore the fact that the victims of these crims are also mostly members of the apologized-to group, e.g. the aboriginal girl who was gang raped where the rapists were not jailed. But the Anointed don't care about individuals in these groups, because they are just mascots (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n14_v47/ai_17367760/pg_2?tag=artBody;col1).


Interestingly enough according to wiki, the above-mentioned "Dr Theodore Dalrymple" does even exist. It is a psuedo-name for former prison pyschiatrist Anthony Daniels.
I know perfectly well who he is, and that his vast experience of working in slums, prison and the third world gives him immensely more practical experience of the way the poor and criminals think than the Anointed lefties like Joke and his heroes.

BTW, psuedo[sic]-names or pseudonyms have a long and honorable tradition, as someone calling himself "TheJoker" should know, hypocrite! :P

TheJoker
16-12-2008, 03:11 PM
ignoring the reality of what was said, and the reality that the evidence is against favorite Anointed programs.

If he presented some evidence I failed to see it. He presented his own hypothesis. He didn't present a shred of data to back it up.



It should be common sense that apologies for sins the apologizer didn't commit is pointless except to show the apologizers moral superiority.

Ever heard of sympathy? e.g "I am sorry to hear that you were raped"

In my experience some people just want recognition that they have wronged. It is not always necessary that this recognition comes from the perpetrator. Apologising for some elses actions is a way of providing recognition and confirming that you do not blame the victim for the outcome.



I know perfectly well who he is, and that his vast experience of working in slums, prison and the third world gives him immensely more practical experience of the way the poor and criminals think than TheJoker.

Interesting how you can judge my experience without knowing a thing about me! I guess that may be good indication of your objectivity.


BTW, pseudonyms have a long and honorable tradition, as someone calling himself "TheJoker" should know, hypocrite! :P

I use the TheJoker (a clown) because I recognise that most of what I say is personal opinion and shouldn't be taken seriously without further investigation. Unlike some of the "other clowns" on this forum who take what they say far more seriously than its content merits.

Capablanca-Fan
16-12-2008, 04:00 PM
If he presented some evidence I failed to see it. He presented his own hypothesis. He didn't present a shred of data to back it up.
The Joke, like all Anointed, can't see common sense observations, but as Sowell said in The Vision of the Anointed (http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/anointed.php):


"The charge is often made against the intelligentsia and other members of the anointed that their theories and the policies based on them lack common sense. But the very commonness of common sense makes it unlikely to have any appeal to the anointed. How can they be wiser and nobler than everyone else while agreeing with everyone else?" — p. 248

Dalrymple also provided ample evidence that crime and general scumbaggery is often excused among the apologized-to groups.


Ever heard of sympathy? e.g "I am sorry to hear that you were raped"
John Howard did that. And if that's what "apologizing" was about, who would object?


In my experience some people just want recognition that they have wronged.
But the people who have been wrong died long ago, as did those who wronged them.


It is not always necessary that this recognition comes from the perpetrator. Apologising for some elses actions is a way of providing recognition and confirming that you do not blame the victim for the outcome.
But a real apology can't be on behalf of anyone else. It's just posturing about the assumed moral superiority of the apologiser. And what you say is often carried further, which was one of Dalrymple's main points: we not only don't blame the victim for what happened back then (not that apology opponents ever did) becomes not blaming their descendants for their own actions now.


Interesting how you can judge my experience without knowing a thing about me! I guess that may be good indication of your objectivity.
What I do know about you is that you come to a chess site but hardly ever talk about chess!


I use the TheJoker (a clown)
TheJoker was a particularly nasty villain.


because I recognise that most of what I say is personal opinion and shouldn't be taken seriously without further investigation.
And further investigation confirms that it shouldn't be taken seriously :lol:

TheJoker
16-12-2008, 04:38 PM
What I do know about you is that you come to a chess site but hardly ever talk about chess!

That's because I read about the chess, I have little to add since I am a mere beginner.

TheJoker
16-12-2008, 04:41 PM
And further investigation confirms that it shouldn't be taken seriously :lol:

Of course it does when your investigation is biased towards that outcome in the first place. ;)

Kevin Bonham
17-12-2008, 12:04 AM
"The charge is often made against the intelligentsia and other members of the anointed that their theories and the policies based on them lack common sense. But the very commonness of common sense makes it unlikely to have any appeal to the anointed.

Actually as I've pointed out a few times elsewhere, so-called "common sense" frequently isn't commonly held at all, but quite often the person using it to prop up their argument just wishes more people agreed with them.


But a real apology can't be on behalf of anyone else.

How about an apology by an organisation which was responsible for a given deed some time ago, but where that organisation no longer has the same staff as those who made the original decision? Would you consider that a real apology or not?

MichaelBaron
17-12-2008, 10:28 AM
How about an apology by an organisation which was responsible for a given deed some time ago, but where that organisation no longer has the same staff as those who made the original decision? Would you consider that a real apology or not?

I would indeed apologise on behalf of the organisation...but not if as a result of the apologies i will have to provide Aborigines with more grog and drugs money :hmm:

TheJoker
17-12-2008, 11:32 AM
I would indeed apologise on behalf of the organisation...but not if as a result of the apologies i will have to provide Aborigines with more... money :hmm:

Interestingly enough in NSW an apology for a government official is not an admission of liability.

Government officials are free to apologise to the public to express sympathy for their situation, without it being construed as an admission of any liability.

MichaelBaron
17-12-2008, 02:57 PM
Interestingly enough in NSW an apology for a government official is not an admission of liability.

Government officials are free to apologise to the public to express sympathy for their situation, without it being construed as an admission of any liability.

Wait and see...calls for compensations are yet to come.

Capablanca-Fan
17-12-2008, 03:04 PM
Wait and see...calls for compensations are yet to come.
It has in Canada and other places with silly apologies. Even in this country, apologies have made it harder to remove Aboriginal children from abusive homes, or sentence gang rapists of children to jail terms. As usual, pandering to group identity politics favours mainly those who are already well off in those groups, while those who are worse off are not improved.

TheJoker
17-12-2008, 10:00 PM
Wait and see...calls for compensations are yet to come.
I wasn't referring to the apology issued to the stolen generation, only apologies issued in general by NSW Public Service. I believe that legislation was ammended accordingly.

Of course it doesn't prevent compensation from being awarded where liability is established, only that an apology from a NSW public servant is no an admission of government liability.

MichaelBaron
17-12-2008, 11:29 PM
I wasn't referring to the apology issued to the stolen generation, only apologies issued in general by NSW Public Service. I believe that legislation was ammended accordingly.

Of course it doesn't prevent compensation from being awarded where liability is established, only that an apology from a NSW public servant is no an admission of government liability.

With Aborigines..nothing would stop with an apology. Today, I went to friends' graduation ceremony at RMIT 25 mins of the ceremony was wasted on some idiot blowing into some wooden stick (aboriginal traditional music) then a speech by Some indigenous elder. Special congratulations were given to some indigenous person completing TAFE diploma.

Nobody gives special mention to all the Ph.D graduates...and someone gets one for completing TAFE was a ridiculous example of political correctness.

TheJoker
18-12-2008, 12:41 AM
With Aborigines..nothing would stop with an apology.

I dont thinking seeking compensation or special treatment is unique to Aboriginals, and if given the option of preferrential treatment or access government compensation I doubt many Australians would refuse to take up the offer. Be careful not to blame Aboriginals for others stupid policies, which they happily take advantage of.

MichaelBaron
18-12-2008, 10:23 AM
I dont thinking seeking compensation or special treatment is unique to Aboriginals, and if given the option of preferrential treatment or access government compensation I doubt many Australians would refuse to take up the offer. Be careful not to blame Aboriginals for others stupid policies, which they happily take advantage of.

Well...but not many Australians are in a position to take advantage of such policies...Does it mean that the policies are preferential towards the Aboriginals?

Capablanca-Fan
18-12-2008, 11:16 AM
I dont thinking seeking compensation or special treatment is unique to Aboriginals,
Indeed, Thomas Sowell has analysed "Affirmative Action Around the World", and found disastrous consequences common to all examples.

TheJoker
19-12-2008, 12:23 AM
Well...but not many Australians are in a position to take advantage of such policies...Does it mean that the policies are preferential towards the Aboriginals?

In some cases yes but th Aboriginals are not to blame for this, the policy makers are.

MichaelBaron
19-12-2008, 10:35 AM
In some cases yes but th Aboriginals are not to blame for this, the policy makers are.

So do we agree (I like it when discussions reach agreements :) ). That policy makers should make policies that do not provide Aboriginal with extra ordinary benefits over other citizens?

Capablanca-Fan
05-07-2009, 11:45 PM
Aborigines trapped by Labor (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25732784-5001030,00.html)
By Piers Akerman
5 July 2009

LABOR'S determination to play the blame game while the rate of indigenous child abuse soars has again starkly revealed the emptiness of the Rudd government's commitment to "closing the gap".

The Productivity Commission’s report (last month) ... measured and compared 50 indicators of disadvantage. It found no improvement in 80 per cent of economic and social categories for Aborigines. They were 13 times more likely to end up in jail, while victims of domestic violence were hospitalised at a rate 34 times higher than non-Aboriginal people.

The good news is that people like anthropologist Peter Sutton have spoken out eloquently and factually about the causes of this dysfunction… Indigenous rights, land rights and UN treaties have done nothing to improve their health, education or employment....

As historian Inga Clendinnen noted in a review of Sutton’s book: “He is harsh on the gratifications to be extracted from the liberal-left position: the warming sense of moral superiority, the reliable pleasure of defending people denied agency by being cast as permanent victims. He is especially ferocious against those who would put the pursuit of ‘increasingly stratospheric rights and international covenants’ above the care and protection of brutalised children.”

In essence, the blind defence of Aboriginal culture has been a disaster....

In an interview with Sutton last week, ABC-TV’s Kerry O’Brien insinuated the author was in favour of assimilation, a taboo word for so-called progressives.

Sutton spotted the trap, saying: “Assimilation is a term that’s tainted with the idea that governments and churches would put pressure on people and even force them to become ‘Europeanised’, as it was called. But that’s . . . not the sort of thing that is really being proposed now.”

Sutton exposed O’Brien’s prejudice and ignorance, pointing out that “what people wish for in New Guinea or Mozambique or Botswana, or some other place in the Third World - you wouldn’t call it assimilation. It would actually be quite socially acceptable if you referred to it as modernisation and development. I don’t see any real difference. What a lot of Aboriginal people want, actually, is modernisation and development.”

antichrist
06-07-2009, 09:31 AM
So do we agree (I like it when discussions reach agreements :) ). That policy makers should make policies that do not provide Aboriginal with extra ordinary benefits over other citizens?

Would you say the reverse also should not take place in places like the illegally occupied West Bank? And all of Israel? All those new "settlers" houses are highly illegal!

This off-topic analogy is justified coz my philosophy lecturer told me that we must be internally and externally consistent for our arguments to hold up (that is my term internally and externally consistent - aren't I smart). And it is an analogy that readily comes to mind, and it would be difficult to think up another analogy that would strictly stick to topic. And it is an analogy that is relevant to the poster (my mate in this life and next, Mike)

Capablanca-Fan
21-08-2009, 12:42 PM
Former Labor Minister Barry Cohen, himself a produce of many ethnicities, on multiculturalism, the feelgood faith of his party when he was in Government:

Not all cultures are good: Australia is multiracial but it should not be multicultural (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25957852-7583,00.html)


...
I became involved in politics almost 50 years ago with the prime motivation of fighting racism. However, I am aghast at the way multicultural advocates have taken control of the race debate by denouncing as racist anyone who disagrees with their view of the future of Australian society.

...

So why, I hear you ask, do I bridle at the word multiculturalism? We are a multiracial society and a harmonious one. What I object to is the idea promoted by the multicultural lobby that not only should we be a society of a hundred cultures but it is the government’s duty, nay obligation, to see that we remain permanently culturally divided. If some groups wish to remain separate from mainstream Australia, then that is their choice, but they should not expect governments to aid and abet those divisions.

...

Strangely, it is the Anglo-Celtic culture that is continually denigrated. No culture is perfect but few can match the British tradition of equality before the law, respect for minority views, freedom of speech and association, political and civil rights and above all, democracy. The word that best fits that heritage is “tolerance”. Oddly, those most critical of that culture often come from the most oppressive and repulsive regimes, those ruled by feudal monarchies, military and theocratic dictatorships and one-party states.

The idea that all cultures are equally good is arrant nonsense. A glance at Freedom House's annual rankings of freedom will attest to that. Australia ranks among the very best.
...

TheJoker
02-09-2009, 01:21 PM
Former Labor Minister Barry Cohen, himself a produce of many ethnicities, on multiculturalism, the feelgood faith of his party when he was in Government:

Not all cultures are good: Australia is multiracial but it should not be multicultural (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25957852-7583,00.html)


...
What I object to is the idea... that not only should we be a society of a hundred cultures but it is the government’s duty, nay obligation, to see that we remain permanently culturally divided. If some groups wish to remain separate from mainstream Australia, then that is their choice, but they should not expect governments to aid and abet those divisions.



The other view of course is that attempt to create a national mono-cultural is practically infeasable and therefore the government has an obligation to facilitate all the various cultures that exist within its jurisdiction to some degree.




Strangely, it is the Anglo-Celtic culture that is continually denigrated.

I haven't seen any evidence of the denigration of the Anglo-Celtic culture perhaps you can give some examples. Of course there has been an ever so minor shift away from the dominace of that culture in Australia which reflects the change in demographics. But globally I think we have seen a dramatic increase in the dominance of Western culture particularly American culture.



No culture is perfect but few can match the British tradition of equality before the law, respect for minority views, freedom of speech and association, political and civil rights and above all, democracy..

Last time I checked it was the Ancient Greeks that pioneered these traits, and they are certainly by no means exclusive to the British culture. I am British myself and quite proud of my culutre, but it is by no means superior to the other cultures I've experienced in depth which include Chinese and Japanese.

Cohen may not be a racisit be he is certainly an ethnocentrist which IMO is often more harmful.



The idea that all cultures are equally good is arrant nonsense.
...

This is true, however one must be careful not to automatically assume western culture is somehow superior. As an example, Japanese culture which is vastly different from European/American culture has certain areas of additional benefit lower crime rates for one.

Edit: Having read the article in full it is rather more balanced than the extractions imply. Basically Cohen arguement is let culture evolve without government intervention. Interestingly enough the exact opposite of what he said was his underlying mandate of entering politics was (i.e. to change a culture of racism through government intervention)

Capablanca-Fan
03-09-2009, 10:46 AM
The other view of course is that attempt to create a national mono-cultural is practically infeasable and therefore the government has an obligation to facilitate all the various cultures that exist within its jurisdiction to some degree.
Or else, the government can insist that English is the national language, and immigrants must learn it, but otherwise stay out of the way. The immigrants of 50+ years ago agreed: they came here for a better life, were loyal to Australia, but still managed to keep their culture without any help from the government.


I haven't seen any evidence of the denigration of the Anglo-Celtic culture perhaps you can give some examples.
You need to get out more. The only acceptable racist or sexist insult is against white men or WASPs.

We should certainly study British culture, warts and all; the trouble is that now it's all warts.


Last time I checked it was the Ancient Greeks that pioneered these traits, and they are certainly by no means exclusive to the British culture.
Not so: they believed that there were humans who were "natural slaves", while it was the British empire which first abolished slavery.


I am British myself and quite proud of my culutre, but it is by no means superior to the other cultures I've experienced in depth which include Chinese and Japanese.
Thomas Sowell's book Race and Culture documents that the Japanese in the 19th century recognized their inferiority to Americans, and even proposed American heroes to inspire Japanese students. The Chinese were once the leaders in technology but fell way behind, hence they were conquered by the West and Japanese.

Similarly, the Scots after their defeat at Culloden recognized that their ways were inferior, and were determined to catch up. The result was the Scots becoming leaders in many fields like philosophy, economics, technology and medicine.


Cohen may not be a racisit be he is certainly an ethnocentrist which IMO is often more harmful.
But the word "ethnocentrism" is a product of a Western politically correct culture. Most cultures around the world are ethnocentric.


This is true, however one must be careful not to automatically assume western culture is somehow superior.
But usually the opposite is automatically assumed: that all cultures are equal. They are not. A culture with the rule of law, equality under the law, and economic freedom is better than one lacking these.


Edit: Having read the article in full it is rather more balanced than the extractions imply. Basically Cohen arguement is let culture evolve without government intervention. Interestingly enough the exact opposite of what he said was his underlying mandate of entering politics was (i.e. to change a culture of racism through government intervention)
No contradiction, since "culture" in the sense of national behaviours and values is different from the way it is used in "culture of racism", which just means "racism".

TheJoker
07-09-2009, 05:43 PM
Or else, the government can insist that English is the national language, and immigrants must learn it, but otherwise stay out of the way.

No problem with the requirement for a official national language, for the sake of efficiency. English happens to be the most widely spoken language in Australia at this point and is therefore the obvious choice. I have no porblem if that changes to say Mandarin at sometime in the future if we have a majoirty of Mandarin speakers (I don't see that happpening in my life time). I don't language has much to with the culture debate.

I was talking more about the fact that if the government puts funds into cultural organisations that should be equally available based on merit. For example, an budhist school should have the same access to government funding that a catholic or anglican school has.



You need to get out more. The only acceptable racist or sexist insult is against white men or WASPs.

That's not a denigration of culture


We should certainly study British culture, warts and all; the trouble is that now it's all warts.

We should certainly study all cultures there is alot to be learned not just from British culture but from the various cultures worldwide.


Not so: they believed that there were humans who were "natural slaves", while it was the British empire which first abolished slavery.

Many cultures never had slavery in the first place!



Thomas Sowell's book Race and Culture documents that the Japanese in the 19th century recognized their inferiority to Americans, and even proposed American heroes to inspire Japanese students.

Sowell obviously got no real experience of modern Japanese, they are certainly very ethnocentric, I would go as far to say 99.9% of Japanese believe there culture is vastly superior to that of Western culture. They might have recognised that USA was ahead in certain areas such as technology and governance, but you'd be foolish to think that they recognise Western culture as superior. Nothing could be further from the truth.


The Chinese were once the leaders in technology but fell way behind, hence they were conquered by the West and Japanese.

No culture has or likley ever will remain the most technically advanced culture for any sustained period. China, however, is back on the rise and you want to hope to your god that that they ascend peacfully.

There is a lot more to culture than level of technology and legal and economic systems.


Most cultures around the world are ethnocentric.

I don't doubt this, but that doesn't mean it is a good thing. Also as globalisation moves foward ethnocentrism is progressively being erroded.


But usually the opposite is automatically assumed: that all cultures are equal. They are not. A culture with the rule of law, equality under the law, and economic freedom is better than one lacking these.

You might consider whether aborginals or native americans are better off since the introduction of Western Culture. You might also want to consider how to evaluate culture, and whether it is even possible to define a universal set of measures for quality of life.

The UN has tried to do this with its Human Development Index, and according to that we should take a leaf out of the Scandanavian cultures. But I certainly don't want to be forced to live like a Scandanavian because someone's evaluates it as the best culture based on there own set of values.

A Chinese living in Australia should be forced to go down the pub to watch the footy get pissed, hurl abuse at the umpire and assualt someone on the way home after losing because its part of the Australian culture, which apparently all immigrants are supposed to aspire to regardless of there own judgement of our cultural behaviours.


No contradiction, since "culture" in the sense of national behaviours and values is different from the way it is used in "culture of racism", which just means "racism".

No a "culture of racism" means a group (in this case a nation) predominatly has racist values and exhibits racist behaviours. It's a total contradiction in my books. And since government is responsible for the rule of law, which you correctly identify as a cultural artefact, I don't see how government can possibly be removed from the process of evolving culture.

Capablanca-Fan
07-09-2009, 06:38 PM
I was talking more about the fact that if the government puts funds into cultural organisations that should be equally available based on merit. For example, an budhist school should have the same access to government funding that a catholic or anglican school has.
I would prefer the government to fund the parents not the schools, so the schools would have to perform to attract the students, as per the program below

Bx4pN-aiofw


That's not a denigration of culture
Of course it is. Anglo-Saxon is a culture.


We should certainly study all cultures there is alot to be learned not just from British culture but from the various cultures worldwide.
Sure. But modern government (mis)education idolizes other cultures and trashes our own.


Many cultures never had slavery in the first place!
Really? Slavery occurred in Europe; Asia; Africa; and America, Australia and New Zealand before the Europeans arrived.


Sowell obviously got no real experience of modern Japanese, they are certainly very ethnocentric, I would go as far to say 99.9% of Japanese believe there culture is vastly superior to that of Western culture. They might have recognised that USA was ahead in certain areas such as technology and governance, but you'd be foolish to think that they recognise Western culture as superior. Nothing could be further from the truth.
He has plenty of experience; he has a whole chapter, “Japanese around the Worl”, in Migrations and Cultures. I was talking about the Japanese of the 19th century, after Commodore Perry's naval vessels showed up how technologically inferior the Japanese were. Japanese intellectuals during the Meiji Restoration praised the American way of life, held up Americans like Lincoln and Franklin as models, and even suggested that English become the national language. During WW2, many Japanese-American families emigrated during the Meiji Era, so were very loyal to the USA, making Democrat FDR's internment most unjust.

But the Meiji Era was followed by the reactionary Taisho Era (1912–1926). Many Japanese-Brazilians emigrated from this period, so they strongly supported Japan in WW2, to the ludicrous extent of preparing a welcome for the victorious Imperial Japanese troops as mushrooms were sprouting over the homeland.


No culture has or likley ever will remain the most technically advanced culture for any sustained period. China, however, is back on the rise and you want to hope to your god that that they ascend peacfully.
Yes, by adopting some free market policies, although not nearly enough. If they don't stay peaceful, then an American president with the cojones of Reagan will have to win another cold war.


You might consider whether aborginals or native americans are better off since the introduction of Western Culture. You might also want to consider how to evaluate culture, and whether it is even possible to define a universal set of measures for quality of life.
I have already considered it. As Dr Sowell says, the first African slaves were much worse off when they were kidnapped. But their descendants, including himself, are much better off for growing up in America.


A Chinese living in Australia should be forced to go down the pub to watch the footy get pissed, hurl abuse at the umpire and assualt someone on the way home after losing because its part of the Australian culture, which apparently all immigrants are supposed to aspire to regardless of there own judgement of our cultural behaviours.
Don't be moronic. They should aspire to our rule of law, for example, and they do, mostly.


No a "culture of racism" means a group (in this case a nation) predominatly has racist values and exhibits racist behaviours. It's a total contradiction in my books. And since government is responsible for the rule of law, which you correctly identify as a cultural artefact, I don't see how government can possibly be removed from the process of evolving culture.
Unfortunately, the way it's used implies that white Europeans have a monopoly on racism.

TheJoker
08-09-2009, 02:33 AM
I would prefer the government to fund the parents not the schools, so the schools would have to perform to attract the students, as per the program below.

Totally off point.... this is not a thread about vouchers, we could have just as easily been talking about funding for a footbal program vs kendo



Of course it is. Anglo-Saxon is a culture.
Call people names doesn't denigrate there culture in my opinion. Same a a racist slur against an aboriginal does not denigrate their culture. But I guess that's my personal feeling. To me in order to denigrate someones culture you need to undermine the values and practices that make up that culture. I would say western culture is the least denigrated and most proliferant culture in the world today.


Sure. But modern government (mis)education idolizes other cultures and trashes our own.

No it doesn't... that's just plain rubbish.



Really? Slavery occurred in Europe; Asia; Africa; and America, Australia and New Zealand before the Europeans arrived.

I dont recall the aboriginal people adopting slavery but I could be wrong.



He has plenty of experience; he has a whole chapter, “Japanese around the Worl”, in Migrations and Cultures. I was talking about the Japanese of the 19th century, after Commodore Perry's naval vessels showed up how technologically inferior the Japanese were. Japanese intellectuals during the Meiji Restoration praised the American way of life, held up Americans like Lincoln and Franklin as models, and even suggested that English become the national language. During WW2, many Japanese-American families emigrated during the Meiji Era, so were very loyal to the USA, making Democrat FDR's internment most unjust..

Firstly I used the word "modern".... Secondly writing a book is not experience... Unless Sowell has lived in Japan for an extended he has very little experience of the culture, I would say practically none. So I would be taking cultural advise on the Japanese from a an American who's never spent a great deal of time in Japan. Just as I wouldn't expect a Japanese to be able to give insights into the inner workings of American culture having never lived or worked there.


Yes, by adopting some free market policies, although not nearly enough. If they don't stay peaceful, then an American president with the cojones of Reagan will have to win another cold war.

You mean by adopting a balance between free markets and national control / interest. Whilst they might have along way to go in terms of human rights and political freedoms. They have proven that it can be a great benefit to maintain profitable industries under state control. But that's a separate debate.



I have already considered it..

So what's ur opinion is the majority of the Aboriginal population better-off since the introduction of Western Culture. If so how so. Note my question relates to your opinion of aboriginals in Australia (not Sowell's opinion of the USA).



Don't be moronic. They should aspire to our rule of law, for example, and they do, mostly..

It was a rhetorical argument designed to illuminate the fact that their are certain undesireable facets to our culture. Within the bounds of the law each individual should be free to adopt whatever culturre they like.

They should be free to wear whatever clothing they like. They shoudl be free to celebrate whatever festivals they like. And they should be free to campaign to have there culture adopted into law. For example, I should be I should be free to campaign to have the Christmas public holiday repalced by Lunar New Year if I so wish. And were possible government should accomodate those wishes as long as it does not disadvantage any other group. For example, I see no reason why mutliple spouses shouldn't be allowed as long as all parties are consenting adults. I don't see how allowing this would disadvantage anybody (except for the cost of changing and administering the new legislation that can be addressed through taxation).



Unfortunately, the way it's used implies that white Europeans have a monopoly on racism.

No it doesn't. Either you're paranoid or you've got a chip on your shoulder. Unfortunately racism is pretty much universal across cultures and races.

Capablanca-Fan
08-09-2009, 08:51 AM
I would say western culture is the least denigrated and most proliferant culture in the world today.
The two are not mutually incompatible. Much of the denigration comes from envy.


Firstly I used the word "modern".... Secondly writing a book is not experience... Unless Sowell has lived in Japan for an extended he has very little experience of the culture, I would say practically none. So I would be taking cultural advise on the Japanese from a an American who's never spent a great deal of time in Japan. Just as I wouldn't expect a Japanese to be able to give insights into the inner workings of American culture having never lived or worked there.
So please tell us where Sowell was wrong. Also, a modern Japanese may have no idea of the Meiji or Taisho eras, and the resulting different attitudes of Japanese-Americans and Brazilian-Americans towards WW2. Good grief, some Japanese in Japan don't even believe the Japanese atrocities in WW2.


You mean by adopting a balance between free markets and national control / interest.
"National interest" meaning the interests of the Communist despots.


Whilst they might have along way to go in terms of human rights and political freedoms. They have proven that it can be a great benefit to maintain profitable industries under state control. But that's a separate debate.
More likely, any benefits come from any freedom and their huge size.


So what's ur opinion is the majority of the Aboriginal population better-off since the introduction of Western Culture. If so how so. Note my question relates to your opinion of aboriginals in Australia (not Sowell's opinion of the USA).
Much better off. They have modern medicine, education, food growing. No longer are people punished by being speared through the leg, for example. The activists even use European technology and terminology to spread their grievances!


It was a rhetorical argument designed to illuminate the fact that their are certain undesireable facets to our culture.
Which we are free to reject. I have not the slightest interest in football of any sort or cricket for example.


Within the bounds of the law each individual should be free to adopt whatever culturre they like.
No dispute there.


They should be free to wear whatever clothing they like. They shoudl be free to celebrate whatever festivals they like.
Certainly.


And they should be free to campaign to have there culture adopted into law. For example, I should be I should be free to campaign to have the Christmas public holiday repalced by Lunar New Year if I so wish.
They could, but then expect the backlash that if they don't like Australian festivals, don't immigrate to Australia.


And were possible government should accomodate those wishes as long as it does not disadvantage any other group.
Replacing the Western festivals disadvantages Westerners.


No it doesn't. Either you're paranoid or you've got a chip on your shoulder.
But just because you're paranoid, it doesn't follow that you aren't being persecuted in reality :P Case in point from economist Dr Walter Williams (himself black) denouncing a glaring example (http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams110707.php3):


The following excerpts are taken from the University of Delaware's Office of Residence Life Diversity Facilitation Training document. The full document is available at www.thefire.org.

Students living in the University's housing, roughly 7,000, are taught: "A racist: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities or acts of discrimination. (This does not deny the existence of such prejudices, hostilities, acts of rage or discrimination.)" This gem of wisdom suggests that by virtue of birth alone, not conduct, if you're white, you're a racist.

If you're white and disagree with racial quotas, preferences and openly racist statements made by blacks to whites, and you call it reverse racism or reverse discrimination, here's the document's message for you: "Reverse racism: A term created and used by white people to deny their white privilege. Those in denial use the term reverse racism to refer to hostile behavior by people of color toward whites, and to affirmative action policies, which allegedly give 'preferential treatment' to people of color over whites. In the U.S., there is no such thing as 'reverse racism.'" I agree with the last sentence. Racism is racism irrespective of color.

A white University of Delaware student might not have an ounce of ill will toward any race. According to the university's document, he's a racist anyway. "A non-racist: A non-term. The term was created by whites to deny responsibility for systemic racism, to maintain an aura of innocence in the face of racial oppression, and to shift responsibility for that oppression from whites to people of color (called 'blaming the victim'). Responsibility for perpetuating and legitimizing a racist system rests both on those who actively maintain it, and on those who refuse to challenge it. Silence is consent."

Then the document asks, "Have you ever heard a well-meaning white person say, 'I'm not a member of any race except the human race?' What she usually means by this statement is that she doesn't want to perpetuate racial categories by acknowledging that she is white. This is an evasion of responsibility for her participation in a system based on supremacy for white people."


Unfortunately racism is pretty much universal across cultures and races.
Agreed.

TheJoker
08-09-2009, 11:32 AM
The two are not mutually incompatible. Much of the denigration comes from envy.

You still haven't provided any evidence of this severe denigration you are talking about.



So please tell us where Sowell was wrong.

Maybe not wrong but certainly outdated and therefore irrelevant.


"National interest" meaning...

Meaning that the cashflows from national industries are not necessarily accruing to only a few individuals. Of course there is still corruption and officials/management looking after there own interests. That the commonly called the "agency problem" and is universal to business public and private.


More likely, any benefits come from any freedom and their huge size.

No doubt the benefits would flow regardless it about ensuring they don't flow offshore. Nairu is a good example of what happens with poor governance that allows all the benefits of an investment to flow to certain individuals or companies. But again were drifting off-topic.



Much better off. They have modern medicine, education, food growing.

It would be interesting to see how much improvement if any there has been in pre-1788 life expectancy. They had no need for for a western education prior to the introduction of western culture. As for food I suspect most have a much worse diet now.

You forgot to mention they now have alcoholism, drug abuse and to use Cohen's words have been "disenfranchised" of their own country, forced to live by the foriegn cultural norms


No longer are people punished by being speared through the leg, for example.

A great example of ethnocentrism. Who is to say being deprived of your freedom is a better form of punishment than being speared through the legs?


if they don't like Australian festivals, don't immigrate to Australia.

Why not I thin one should be free to migrate to a country and attempt to change it through democratic process. I repsect others write to oppose the changes democratically



Replacing the Western festivals disadvantages Westerners..

I agree that's why this would be subject to democratic process. However allowing a person to have multiple wives does not disadvantage anyone and therefore the government should accomodate this practice.




But just because you're paranoid, it doesn't follow that you aren't being persecuted in reality.

The article quoted is an example of racism against "white europeans" but is hardly evidence of any widespread persecution of Western Culture, rather an example of some academics trying to redefine racism in their own terms. I doubt this definition has any widespread acceptance. The fact that this is best example of the denigration of western culture you can provide is a stark example of the lack of any real denigration or persecution

Capablanca-Fan
23-11-2009, 02:59 AM
“There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs -- partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances because they do not want to lose their jobs.” -- Booker T. Washington (1856–1915), African-American leader and educator, born a slave.

Igor_Goldenberg
23-11-2009, 09:52 AM
“There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs -- partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances because they do not want to lose their jobs.” -- Booker T. Washington (1856–1915), African-American leader and educator, born a slave.
Indeed, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
This commentary is still valid a century later and can be applied uncahnged to any "victim group" or "protest group".

Capablanca-Fan
15-12-2009, 10:38 AM
The PC definition of the word “racist” is someone who is winning an argument with a leftard and the subject of the argument involves a non-white person.

antichrist
15-12-2009, 10:42 AM
The PC definition of the word “racist” is someone who is winning an argument with a leftard and the subject of the argument involves a non-white person.

you are in looney tunes land yet I believe you have a good brain - what a contradiction. refer to Does God exist thread for further discussion

Capablanca-Fan
16-12-2009, 10:31 AM
Take down this Rabbit-Proof Fence (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_take_down_this_rabbit_proof_fence/)
Andrew Bolt
16 Dec 09

I AM often asked to talk at schools and almost always ask students three questions about a film that lies about the “stolen generations”.

First: “How many of you have been shown Rabbit-Proof Fence?”

Answer: every one.

Second: “Have you been shown the movie as a great piece of film-making, or as a history lesson?”

Answer: in every case as history. You know, like you learn America’s history from John Wayne movies.

And third: “How many of you have checked whether the film is actually true, by, say, reading the book on which it’s based?”

Answer: of thousands of students, just two have raised their hand.

And that alone is reason enough for me to agree with historian Keith Windschuttle, who this week called for Rabbit-Proof Fence to be banned from our schools for being “grossly inaccurate”.

Lies are being taught as truth, and until the teachers know the difference, it’s mischievous and damaging to so deceive young children about their country’s past.

Windschuttle examines the truthfulness of Rabbit-Proof Fence in the third volume of his ground-breaking series, The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, which this time dissects the myth of the “stolen generations”.

...

Capablanca-Fan
16-12-2009, 03:59 PM
Collusion Against Our Youth (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/walter-e-williams/2009/12/16/collusion-against-our-youth/)
Walter Williams
16 December 2009

I've grown somewhat weary writing about the devastating effects of minimum wage laws but The Wall Street Journal's "Black Youths Miss Out on Good Job News," (Dec. 4, 2009) warrants another try. Today's overall teenage (16-19) unemployment rate, at 25 percent, is the highest since World War II. Black teenage unemployment, at 50 percent, is also the highest since World War II.

How do you think the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton would explain the unemployment difference between black and white teens? You can bet the rent money they would say: It's racial discrimination. Let's investigate. Was racial discrimination in 1948 greater or less than racial discrimination today? In 1948, the unemployment rate for white 16-17 year olds was 10.2 percent while that for blacks was 9.4 percent. Among white 18-19 year-olds, unemployment was 9.4 percent and for blacks it was 10.5 percent. During that period, not only were the unemployment rates similar, black teenagers were either equally as active as whites in the labor force or more so. ...

The major villain is the minimum wage law. With each increase in the minimum wage, black teen unemployment rose relative to whites and teen unemployment rose relative to adult. Why? Put yourself in the place of an employer and ask: If I must pay to whomever I hire $7.25 an hour, plus mandated fringes such as Social Security, vacation, health insurance, unemployment insurance, does it pay me to hire a worker who is so unfortunate so as to have a skill level that allows him to contribute only $5 worth of value an hour? Most employers would view hiring such a person a losing economic proposition. Therefore, the primary effect of a minimum wage law is that of discrimination against the employment of low-skilled workers.

Teenagers tend to be low skilled. They lack the experience, knowledge and maturity of adults. That means they will be the primary victims of a minimum wage law. But why are black teens more heavily impacted than white teens? Black teens are far more likely to come from broken homes and attend some of the worst schools in the nation. Therefore, a law that discriminates against the employment of low-skilled workers will have a greater impact on black workers. ...

Capablanca-Fan
02-01-2010, 12:09 PM
When I hear the fashionable notion that it is "unfair" to judge poor children by the same standards as others, my reaction is: Thank God the schools were "unfair" to me when I was a kid growing up in Harlem. They taught me the same things they taught kids from families with more money and more education — and they didn't take any excuses for not learning it.—Thomas Sowell (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell032399.asp), who was a poor black orphan.

Capablanca-Fan
10-07-2013, 12:26 PM
We must listen to Adam Giles on indigenous issues (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/we-must-listen-to-adam-giles-on-the-issues-of-the-northern-territory/story-e6frfhqf-1226643353846)
ANDREW BOLT HERALD SUN MAY 15, 2013

THE "stolen generations" myth has made us leave Aboriginal children to be bashed, raped and killed. In fact, it's hurt more children than were ever proved stolen just for being Aboriginal.

I've often been told mine is a "racist" position, but perhaps the deniers will at least listen to Adam Giles.

Giles rejects being racially typecast as the "first indigenous Chief Minister" of the Northern Territory, but his heritage does license him to say what desperately needs saying.

He says he's astonished only one Aboriginal child in the NT has been adopted in the past decade.

"You mean to tell me when we've got all these alleged cases of chronic child sexual abuse, children running around on petrol, going on the streets at night sexualising themselves in some circumstances, and there's only one permanent adoption, for fear of Stolen Generation? That is not standing up for kids."

That, he says, must change.

I've repeatedly challenged Manne and other activists to name just 10 such children. No one has managed. Manne tried three times, but produced cases that didn't fit his own definition - even children evacuated in war-time from areas threatened by Japanese bombing.

In his last list he included the 167 children rescued between 1900 and 1905 by the Queensland Protector, Walter Roth.

But those cases included a fatherless 12-year-old girl with syphilis, a 13-year-old who was seven months pregnant and working on a station for no wages and a boy who was chained in a backyard by white employers when he was "bad".

Were such children really "stolen" to "breed out the colour"? Was it not true of them as it was of Aboriginal educator Nancy Barnes, who wrote of being raised in South Australia's Colebrook Home and declared: "We are referred to as the 'stolen generations'. I consider myself saved."

But although we don't know of 10 stolen children, we do know of many victims of the myth. A decade ago the Victorian Government was told child abuse involving Aboriginal children had soared, but the Community Services Minister responded: "The solution is not to continue to take disproportionately high numbers of Koori children into care ...

Capablanca-Fan
03-07-2014, 03:28 AM
NYUNGGAI WARREN MUNDINE
Green groups keep Aboriginal people in poverty (http://www.afr.com/p/opinion/green_groups_keep_aboriginal_people_dyQc0k0oqQYyVw Upl7qhLM)
Financial Review, 2 JUL 2014

It was great to see Cape York traditional owners defeat Queensland’s Wild Rivers legislation in the Federal Court last month.

In 2009, the Bligh Labor government declared three major Cape York rivers as “wild rivers”. It was a politically motivated decision to secure Greens preferences in a close state election. It locked up major areas of Queensland’s far north making it impossible for traditional owners to pursue developments, including things like horticulture and tourism. It made a mockery of the Labor party’s support for land rights. Aboriginal people in Cape York had their land but, unlike every other landowner in Australia, weren’t allowed to prosper from it.

The Wilderness Society was the main agitator for the 2009 declaration. In a statement after the decision, it said “Queensland is blessed with some of the last remaining freeflowing rivers left on the planet and they need to be treasured.”

Too bad Aboriginal people are amongst the poorest people on the planet; a people whose main assets are rights over land and sea. After years of dispossession and being forced off our land, we’re slowly getting some of those rights back – only to be told by Green groups that the music has stopped.

It’s easy to oppose. It’s a lot harder to build something that delivers jobs, creates economic prosperity and gives remote communities a sustainable future.

Cape York leader Noel Pearson said Queensland Labor should hang its head in shame for putting traditional owners through five years of struggle over Wild Rivers. Green groups should hang their heads in shame for wanting to keep indigenous Australians in poverty.

MichaelBaron
09-07-2014, 11:51 AM
“There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs -- partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances because they do not want to lose their jobs.” -- Booker T. Washington (1856–1915), African-American leader and educator, born a slave.

If you would not post the author's name next to the quote and the quite would exclude the word ''Negro'', I would be absolutely convinced he was writing about the indigenous people of Australia.

Goughfather
10-07-2014, 01:26 AM
If you would not post the author's name next to the quote and the quite would exclude the word ''Negro'', I would be absolutely convinced he was writing about the indigenous people of Australia.

Of course, because Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders don't suffer from any disadvantage in comparison with the Australian population any more, do they?

Capablanca-Fan
10-07-2014, 03:22 AM
If you would not post the author's name next to the quote and the quite would exclude the word ''Negro'', I would be absolutely convinced he was writing about the indigenous people of Australia.
Exactly right. Welfare and race-baiting greivance-fosterers have harmed indigenous people across the globe.


Of course, because Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders don't suffer from any disadvantage in comparison with the Australian population any more, do they?
Indeed, because as Noel Pearson (himself Aboriginal) points out, white leftists have poisoned his people with welfare, disconnecting reward from work—see his Passive welfare and the destruction of indigenous society in Australia (http://www.aifs.org.au/institute/pubs/saunders4/RAWS_Chap7.pdf).

MichaelBaron
10-07-2014, 11:40 AM
Of course, because Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders don't suffer from any disadvantage in comparison with the Australian population any more, do they?
I just do not see how a segment of our population should be treated differently from the rest of us. Nationality is no reason for being unemployed and having others' resources wasted on you. No discrimination - just equal and fair treatment.

Capablanca-Fan
10-07-2014, 11:59 AM
I just do not see how a segment of our population should be treated differently from the rest of us. Nationality is no reason for being unemployed and having others' resources wasted on you. No discrimination - just equal and fair treatment.
right you are, but to the PC likes of GF, non-discriminatory race-blind treatment is redefined as ‘racism’.

Rincewind
10-07-2014, 01:05 PM
Is anything less dignified than one racist back-slapping another on how unracist they are?

MichaelBaron
10-07-2014, 04:20 PM
Why are people who insist on everyone being treated equally are referred to as racists?

Rincewind
10-07-2014, 04:30 PM
Why are people who insist on everyone being treated equally are referred to as racists?

Why do those who benefit from the abhorrent mistreatment of people in the past insist that we now treat everyone equally without making any effort to redress for past wrongs? If socioeconomic outcomes for everyone were equal perhaps those trying to forget historical wrongs would be quite so hypocritical. But it is just a matter of degrees.

MichaelBaron
10-07-2014, 04:52 PM
Why do those who benefit from the abhorrent mistreatment of people in the past insist that we now treat everyone equally without making any effort to redress for past wrongs? If socioeconomic outcomes for everyone were equal perhaps those trying to forget historical wrongs would be quite so hypocritical. But it is just a matter of degrees.

I benefit from nothing or no one. I work, I pay my taxes and so do many others. I occupied no land, I stole no property. I do not drink in public and abuse people, I do not receive unemployment payments, I do not swear and scream around knowing that police will be reluctant to come near me cause ''I am not feeling good in prison (who does)''. All I want is a thank you for the taxes I pay...or even better for others to work and pay taxes likewise rather than tell me what happened 200 years ago. 200 years ago, bad things were happening in europe too, so what can we do about it now?

MichaelBaron
10-07-2014, 05:18 PM
Why do those who benefit from the abhorrent mistreatment of people in the past insist that we now treat everyone equally without making any effort to redress for past wrongs? If socioeconomic outcomes for everyone were equal perhaps those trying to forget historical wrongs would be quite so hypocritical. But it is just a matter of degrees.

And Another question for a fellow academic: My Ph.D students get living allowance of 25,000 (and this too they have to compete for), while indigenous ph.d students (all of them!) get a scholarship of 35,000 tax free.....
Why should someone get 10,000 a year extra based on nationality?

Rincewind
10-07-2014, 05:49 PM
I benefit from nothing or no one. I work, I pay my taxes and so do many others. I occupied no land, I stole no property. I do not drink in public and abuse people, I do not receive unemployment payments, I do not swear and scream around knowing that police will be reluctant to come near me cause ''I am not feeling good in prison (who does)''. All I want is a thank you for the taxes I pay...or even better for others to work and pay taxes likewise rather than tell me what happened 200 years ago. 200 years ago, bad things were happening in europe too, so what can we do about it now?

If you think the abuse of the indigenous people of Australia stopped 200 years ago you need an education.

Rincewind
10-07-2014, 05:50 PM
And Another question for a fellow academic: My Ph.D students get living allowance of 25,000 (and this too they have to compete for), while indigenous ph.d students (all of them!) get a scholarship of 35,000 tax free.....
Why should someone get 10,000 a year extra based on nationality?

It is not based on nationality.

Goughfather
10-07-2014, 06:58 PM
If you think the abuse of the indigenous people of Australia stopped 200 years ago you need an education.

Yes, rather sad, isn't it? I'd be more than happy to help MB and Jono overcome their profound ignorance, but such ignorance is a state they feel comfortable with since it allows them to pronounce moral judgments on others that would not be open to them if they had half a clue.

I would have more belief in the sincerity of their opinions if they were to campaign against the fact the fact that an Aboriginal in a remote Queensland community can be fined in excess of $80,000 or be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of up to 18 months for possessing alcohol within their own community. Despite all of Jono's empty rhetoric of "non-discriminatory race-blind treatment", he just loves this kind of discrimination as he has attested to in other threads.

Another example of Jono's myopia is his condemnation of Aboriginal communities for lower rates of marriage, implying that such is an example of a general moral turpitude in Aboriginal people as a whole. He conveniently is oblivious to the fact that many Aboriginal people who are still alive today were either not permitted to marry, or faced such obstacles in seeking to marry that they had little option to give up on that ambition.

Non-discriminatory race-blind treatment indeed.

MichaelBaron
10-07-2014, 07:10 PM
It is not based on nationality.

What is it based on then?

MichaelBaron
10-07-2014, 07:13 PM
If you think the abuse of the indigenous people of Australia stopped 200 years ago you need an education.

I do know about stolen generation etc. however, I do not see how individuals born today can be compensated to what happened yesterday. If particular person got abused, he is entitled to compensation, but what if some people were not, should they still be entitled?

Rincewind
10-07-2014, 07:57 PM
What is it based on then?

It's your example Michael, perhaps you should find out and get back to me. By way of a hint ponder this...

You didn't give the nationalities of specific students you were talking about but let's assume the 25,000 stipend was for a domestic student therefore their nationality was Australian. If the other student (who you claim received a 35,000 stipend) was Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander then in all likelihood their nationality was also Australian.

BTW all stipends are typically tax free since it makes no sense to tax a government grant so I'll class the comments about the 35,000 stipend being "tax free" as rhetoric and not an attempt to be wilfully misleading by implying that the first student was paying tax on their 25,000 stipend.

MichaelBaron
10-07-2014, 08:04 PM
It's your example Michael, perhaps you should find out and get back to me. By way of a hint ponder this...

You didn't give the nationalities of specific students you were talking about but let's assume the 25,000 stipend was for a domestic student therefore their nationality was Australian. If the other student (who you claim received a 35,000 stipend) was Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander then in all likelihood their nationality was also Australian.

BTW all stipends are typically tax free since it makes no sense to tax a government grant so I'll class the comments about the 35,000 stipend being "tax free" as rhetoric and not an attempt to be wilfully misleading by implying that the first student was paying tax on their 25,000 stipend.

Of course. My question is (simplifying it to max.) why should one person get 25,000 while other one is getting 35,000 and both are australian citizens.

Rincewind
10-07-2014, 08:10 PM
I do know about stolen generation etc. however, I do not see how individuals born today can be compensated to what happened yesterday. If particular person got abused, he is entitled to compensation, but what if some people were not, should they still be entitled?

You live in a sovereign nation which dispossessed its native inhabitants, imposed a foreign rule and made substantial profit through the exploitation of natural resources which by any measure of international law, they were not entitled to exploit. The stealing of the land was only the first stage in a 200 year history where the native inhabitants were repeatedly penalised, marginalised and disenfranchised by the English and later Australian governments of the day. Despite claims to the contrary, there is not a parity of socioeconomic outcomes for all Australians and outcomes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders continue to be worse across a range of measures (see for example the Closing the Gap reports) due to the history of persecution (as well as the problems of continuing racism).

In the light of this background to suggest that we should let bygones be bygones and everyone is on a level playing field is not just wrong it is morally destitute. No Michael, you personally did no steal anyone's land. But you continue to profit from that theft and that makes you an accessory after the fact.

MichaelBaron
10-07-2014, 08:32 PM
You live in a sovereign nation which dispossessed its native inhabitants, imposed a foreign rule and made substantial profit through the exploitation of natural resources which by any measure of international law, they were not entitled to exploit. The stealing of the land was only the first stage in a 200 year history where the native inhabitants were repeatedly penalised, marginalised and disenfranchised by the English and later Australian governments of the day. Despite claims to the contrary, there is not a parity of socioeconomic outcomes for all Australians and outcomes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders continue to be worse across a range of measures (see for example the Closing the Gap reports) due to the history of persecution (as well as the problems of continuing racism).

In the light of this background to suggest that we should let bygones be bygones and everyone is on a level playing field is not just wrong it is morally destitute. No Michael, you personally did no steal anyone's land. But you continue to profit from that theft and that makes you an accessory after the fact.

1) So what do we do about countries occupying other countries for centuries? should Indians be given special priviliges in England and Africans in France? History can not be reversed.
2) are these poor outcomes for the indigenious communnities a direct result of what happened in the past? There are others in Australia who had difficult backgrounds (convict families after all :)), so how can their alcohol and drug abuse is not justifyable?
3) So what is the direct outcome of these monetary handouts to the indigineous communities? are they positive? they use the money wisely?

Desmond
10-07-2014, 08:53 PM
If I had the chance I wouldn't trade my life for the life of an Aboriginal living on welfare. Not by a long shot.

Of course it may be an upgrade for Michael.

Rincewind
10-07-2014, 09:09 PM
1) So what do we do about countries occupying other countries for centuries? should Indians be given special priviliges in England and Africans in France? History can not be reversed.

Saying history cannot be reversed is not useful. As I already said you are an accessory to the theft of land and the subsequent persecution by a colonial power. Outcomes for the dispossessed indigenous population continue to be worse than the occupying population. You can take one of two views: either we should do what we can to make outcomes at least equitable for the traditional owners of the land we now occupy; or, you can say "stiff cheddar, we're here now, get over it".

What other counties decide to do about the atrocities they have committed in the past are largely a matter for the citizens of those countries.


2) are these poor outcomes for the indigenious communnities a direct result of what happened in the past? There are others in Australia who had difficult backgrounds (convict families after all :)), so how can their alcohol and drug abuse is not justifyable?

As a group, indigenous Australians are disadvantaged on a number of measures. What is your explanation for this disparity?


3) So what is the direct outcome of these monetary handouts to the indigineous communities? are they positive? they use the money wisely?

The only monetary handouts discussed recently were the 35,000 stipend paid to indigenous research students. I'm not aware of how your students spend their money but one assumes that they probably derived some benefit.

MichaelBaron
10-07-2014, 09:47 PM
Saying history cannot be reversed is not useful. As I already said you are an accessory to the theft of land and the subsequent persecution by a colonial power. Outcomes for the dispossessed indigenous population continue to be worse than the occupying population. You can take one of two views: either we should do what we can to make outcomes at least equitable for the traditional owners of the land we now occupy; or, you can say "stiff cheddar, we're here now, get over it".

What other counties decide to do about the atrocities they have committed in the past are largely a matter for the citizens of those countries.



As a group, indigenous Australians are disadvantaged on a number of measures. What is your explanation for this disparity?



The only monetary handouts discussed recently were the 35,000 stipend paid to indigenous research students. I'm not aware of how your students spend their money but one assumes that they probably derived some benefit.
1) Land transfers are common in history of the universe. So was colonization. In my opinion (and opinion of politically-neutral lawyers) the Mabo case for instance is a total joke as spiritual ownership of the land does not exist.
2) Why are they disadvantaged? drinking? drugs? many reasons! Current generation has been born in a priviledged position rather than underpriviledged. So are they disadvantaged or not?
3) Why should they get double unemployment benefits or higher scholarships than others? why encourage them? why not say ABC chinese? why are they so special. They are just like me and you.

Desmond
10-07-2014, 09:57 PM
Current generation has been born in a priviledged position rather than underpriviledged. Are you that stupid?

MichaelBaron
10-07-2014, 11:11 PM
Are you that stupid?

Certainly not as stupid as you. Opportunities provided to Indigenious people are far grater than those provided to others. If they drink with the money they get, its not my fault

Rincewind
10-07-2014, 11:46 PM
1) Land transfers are common in history of the universe. So was colonization. In my opinion (and opinion of politically-neutral lawyers) the Mabo case for instance is a total joke as spiritual ownership of the land does not exist.

The Mabo v Queensland ruling did not establish spiritual ownership so again I think you need to get an education.


2) Why are they disadvantaged? drinking? drugs? many reasons! Current generation has been born in a priviledged position rather than underpriviledged. So are they disadvantaged or not?

They are manifestly disadvantaged if you look at outcomes like health, education, income, etc. Your explanation seems to be that the aboriginal people have an inclination for alcoholism? Is that correct?


3) Why should they get double unemployment benefits or higher scholarships than others? why encourage them? why not say ABC chinese? why are they so special. They are just like me and you.

No. You are not listening Michael. They are not like you and me because compared to the non-indigenous population, someone of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background has a life expectancy at birth of 10 years less than the rest of the population. They are under-represented in education, in the work force. Have lower literacy and numeracy levels. On just about any measure you care to name they are patently worse off compared to the average non-indigenous Australian. You can't just pretend that there is no problem.

Capablanca-Fan
11-07-2014, 12:08 AM
Why are people who insist on everyone being treated equally are referred to as racists?
If the race-baiters (such as Je$$e Jackson, Frau Behrendt, GF, RW, rr) acted ethically and applauded the non-racism of treating people equally, they would be out of a job, as Booker T. Washington noted as per the previous quote.


Of course. My question is (simplifying it to max.) why should one person get 25,000 while other one is getting 35,000 and both are australian citizens.
Especially, as has happened, when they are half-siblings raised in the same family, so have been treated equally in other respects.
The above group-thinking race-baiters GF and RW love to show how morally superior they are by giving some people privileges based on what happened to their ancestors 200 years ago, and punishing others for what their ancestors might have done 200 years ago. Of course, the strongest pushers of affirmative action are not in danger of any of the disadvantages they foist on others. Yet these privileges help the already-privileged and do very little to help the rank and file, as shown by the continuing poverty in the communities.

Also, many immigrants who come to Australia with the shirts on their backs and barely speaking English have succeeded very well, and the same for America. So the failures of members of some groups should be blamed on those people, not on others; taking responsibility for one's own choices will do far more to help than throwing still more welfare at them, and privileges to the already-privileged members of the groups.

Capablanca-Fan
11-07-2014, 12:23 AM
Saying history cannot be reversed is not useful. As I already said you are an accessory to the theft of land and the subsequent persecution by a colonial power.
Of course, RW's talk is cheap. He certainly won't be giving up any of his own privileges. That is for the masses, not him, GF, or rr.


Outcomes for the dispossessed indigenous population continue to be worse than the occupying population. You can take one of two views: either we should do what we can to make outcomes at least equitable for the traditional owners of the land we now occupy; or, you can say "stiff cheddar, we're here now, get over it".
Which indeed is the best thing for those people; take advantage of the great benefits of Western civilization, and I don't mean welfare which is one of the curses. E.g. the Jews have been persecuted across the world, but still managed to succeed. E.g. Tal Fortgang, Checking My Privilege: Character as the Basis of Privilege (http://theprincetontory.com/main/checking-my-privilege-character-as-the-basis-of-privilege/):


Perhaps it’s the privilege my grandfather and his brother had to flee their home as teenagers when the Nazis invaded Poland, leaving their mother and five younger siblings behind, running and running until they reached a Displaced Persons camp in Siberia, where they would do years of hard labor in the bitter cold until World War II ended. Maybe it was the privilege my grandfather had of taking on the local Rabbi’s work in that DP camp, telling him that the spiritual leader shouldn’t do hard work, but should save his energy to pass Jewish tradition along to those who might survive. Perhaps it was the privilege my great-grandmother and those five great-aunts and uncles I never knew had of being shot into an open grave outside their hometown. Maybe that’s my privilege.

Or maybe it’s the privilege my grandmother had of spending weeks upon weeks on a death march through Polish forests in subzero temperatures, one of just a handful to survive, only to be put in Bergen-Belsen concentration camp where she would have died but for the Allied forces who liberated her and helped her regain her health when her weight dwindled to barely 80 pounds.

Perhaps my privilege is that those two resilient individuals came to America with no money and no English, obtained citizenship, learned the language and met each other; that my grandfather started a humble wicker basket business with nothing but long hours, an idea, and an iron will—to paraphrase the man I never met: “I escaped Hitler. Some business troubles are going to ruin me?” Maybe my privilege is that they worked hard enough to raise four children, and to send them to Jewish day school and eventually City College.

Perhaps it was my privilege that my own father worked hard enough in City College to earn a spot at a top graduate school, got a good job, and for 25 years got up well before the crack of dawn, sacrificing precious time he wanted to spend with those he valued most—his wife and kids—to earn that living. I can say with certainty there was no legacy involved in any of his accomplishments. The wicker business just isn’t that influential.Now would you say that we’ve been really privileged? That our success has been gift-wrapped?


What other counties decide to do about the atrocities they have committed in the past are largely a matter for the citizens of those countries.
Indeed, and most realize that it's fruitless to live in the past. Should France compensate England for the 1066 invasion? Or Italy for the first-century Roman conquest of Britannia?


As a group, indigenous Australians are disadvantaged on a number of measures. What is your explanation for this disparity?
It's up to you to show that disparity is the result of discrimination. Group disparities are the norm not the exception throughout history in all inhabited continents.

However, welfare is a good partial explanation as Noel Pearson (himself Aboriginal) argues, since many groups where inter-generational welfare is common also exhibit many common pathologies. E.g. there are strong similarities in white "Anglo-Saxon" groups in the UK where welfare has become the lifestyle for generations as with some communities of Aboriginal people in Australia and many black communities in America.


The only monetary handouts discussed recently were the 35,000 stipend paid to indigenous research students. I'm not aware of how your students spend their money but one assumes that they probably derived some benefit.
If so, this is one of many examples of where the main beneficiaries of affirmative action are the most privileged members of the favoured group.

Desmond
11-07-2014, 08:04 AM
Certainly not as stupid as you. The degree of stupidity between the two of us is not even, certainly.


Opportunities provided to Indigenious people are far grater than those provided to others. By what measure? By what measure are they "born in a priviledged [sic] position"?

Desmond
11-07-2014, 08:08 AM
If the race-baiters (such as Je$$e Jackson, Frau Behrendt, GF, RW, rr) acted ethically and applauded the non-racism of treating people equally, they would be out of a job, as Booker T. Washington noted as per the previous quote.And I would be out of a job ... how?

MichaelBaron
11-07-2014, 11:36 AM
By what measure? By what measure are they "born in a priviledged [sic] position"?

Explaining again. They are entitled to greater financial benefits and services than any other Australian citizens and residents. This is their natural right if they are indigenous by birth. For example, more scholarships (and scholarships of higher value), greater unemployment benefits etc. To me, its rather simple. Not sure why you find it so hard to comrehend. Your economics/sociology rating must be under 1000. Try getting it to 1200 at least

MichaelBaron
11-07-2014, 11:40 AM
No. You are not listening Michael. They are not like you and me because compared to the non-indigenous population, someone of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background has a life expectancy at birth of 10 years less than the rest of the population. They are under-represented in education, in the work force. Have lower literacy and numeracy levels. On just about any measure you care to name they are patently worse off compared to the average non-indigenous Australian. You can't just pretend that there is no problem.

So who is to blame? Is it my fault or your fault? Are they forced to drink? Our life-styles are not only products of the enviroment but also our choices. Btw, some of the ''victims'' of the stolen generation. Ended up getting good education and good life as a result of being taken out of the abusive environment. There is lots of talk about what happened to some of them after being put into the ''white'' households but not so much talk about what has been happening in their lives prior to that point.

Desmond
11-07-2014, 12:14 PM
Explaining again. They are entitled to greater financial benefits and services than any other Australian citizens and residents. This is their natural right if they are indigenous by birth. For example, more scholarships (and scholarships of higher value), greater unemployment benefits etc. To me, its rather simple. Not sure why you find it so hard to comrehend. Your economics/sociology rating must be under 1000. Try getting it to 1200 at leastThanks for taking the time to explain it to me Michael, I shall do my best to try to comrehend.

However to me saying that someone is "born into priviledge [sic]" implies a level of affluence, luxury, advantage etc. For example a child born into a rich family with two generations of university graduates, well to-do, most likely goes on to do quite well themselves too.

From what you're saying, the other child who is born into a not so rich family, no high-school graduate let alone university or professional, more likely to live in poverty, be unemployed, have inferior health outcomes, but heck they get a few extra bucks from the government - this is the privileged one?

Like I said, you may long to be born into this, perhaps it would have been an upgrade for you, but I do not.

Rincewind
11-07-2014, 12:59 PM
So who is to blame? Is it my fault or your fault?

First you need to accept there is a problem. I think there is patently a problem as evidenced by the sort of statistics in my last message. If you have a part of the population which is obviously disadvantaged who has been systematically persecuted by government policies over the entire period since European settlement I think you would have to agree that there is an obligation on society to fix those inequities.


Are they forced to drink? Our life-styles are not only products of the enviroment but also our choices.

Yes alcoholism and substance abuse generally is a issue in the indigenous community. Thanks for pointing that out. However this is not a problem that will be fixed by reducing unemployment benefits and HDR stipends to the base levels. No one knows how to fix this problem but very few problems of this magnitude have ever been solved by throwing less money at it and pretending it isn't there.

Capablanca-Fan
11-07-2014, 01:11 PM
First you need to accept there is a problem. I think there is patently a problem as evidenced by the sort of statistics in my last message.
The problems now are not due to discrimination. No white racist forced any aboriginal to get drunk, beat his wife, rape a child, etc.


If you have a part of the population which is obviously disadvantaged who has been systematically persecuted by government policies over the entire period since European settlement I think you would have to agree that there is an obligation on society to fix those inequities.
No one alive today was persecuted by government policies 200 or even 100 years ago. Also, you presuppose that the best way to help them is to throw welfare money at them or give them racially preferential treatment, which disadvantages non-aboriginals although they had nothing to don with any persecution.


Yes alcoholism and substance abuse generally is a issue in the indigenous community.
As they are in Anglo-Saxon communities in the UK on welfare, where there can be no possibility that it's due to racism.


Thanks for pointing that out. However this is not a problem that will be fixed by reducing unemployment benefits and HDR stipends to the base levels. No one knows how to fix this problem but very few problems of this magnitude have ever been solved by throwing less money at it and pretending it isn't there.
Throwing money at people for nothing separates reward from effort. But known alcoholics should have any benefits, money coerced from taxpayers, for

Capablanca-Fan
11-07-2014, 01:17 PM
Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me Michael, I shall do my best to try to comrehend.

However to me saying that someone is "born into priviledge [sic]" implies a level of affluence, luxury, advantage etc. For example a child born into a rich family with two generations of university graduates, well to-do, most likely goes on to do quite well themselves too.

From what you're saying, the other child who is born into a not so rich family, no high-school graduate let alone university or professional, more likely to live in poverty, be unemployed, have inferior health outcomes, but heck they get a few extra bucks from the government - this is the privileged one?

Like I said, you may long to be born into this, perhaps it would have been an upgrade for you, but I do not.
However, in many cases, race-based affirmative action policies benefit members of the preferred group who come from a rich family with two generations of university graduates, well to-do. While those who lose out from the non-preferred group who are most badly hurt by them come from poverty, unemployment, and have inferior health outcomes. I.e. in Australia, aboriginals from rich families benefit from AA over white people from poor families.

Desmond
11-07-2014, 04:41 PM
However, in many cases, race-based affirmative action policies benefit members of the preferred group who come from a rich family with two generations of university graduates, well to-do. While those who lose out from the non-preferred group who are most badly hurt by them come from poverty, unemployment, and have inferior health outcomes. I.e. in Australia, aboriginals from rich families benefit from AA over white people from poor families.I notice you didn't answer my question in #173.

MichaelBaron
12-07-2014, 12:02 AM
First you need to accept there is a problem. I think there is patently a problem as evidenced by the sort of statistics in my last message. If you have a part of the population which is obviously disadvantaged who has been systematically persecuted by government policies over the entire period since European settlement I think you would have to agree that there is an obligation on society to fix those inequities.



Yes alcoholism and substance abuse generally is a issue in the indigenous community. Thanks for pointing that out. However this is not a problem that will be fixed by reducing unemployment benefits and HDR stipends to the base levels. No one knows how to fix this problem but very few problems of this magnitude have ever been solved by throwing less money at it and pretending it isn't there.

So will throwing more money solve the problem? Or will it simply corrupt their lifestyles? So far, the latter appears to be more transparent.

Rincewind
12-07-2014, 12:26 AM
So will throwing more money solve the problem? Or will it simply corrupt their lifestyles? So far, the latter appears to be more transparent.

There have been problems addressing the issues to date (which is why there are still problems) and literally throwing money is not a good strategy.

However if you at least acknowledge that there are inequity issues and likewise acknowledge that resources need to be allocated to address them then at least we are on the same page. The next question then becomes how many resources needs to be allocated to fixing these issues and how best to apply these resources.

Goughfather
12-07-2014, 01:00 AM
Are they forced to drink?

While I don't have quite enough evidence to identify you as a racist (unlike Jono who has proved the case against him beyond all reasonable doubt), your generalisation of Aborigines as people who invariably drink is astoundingly ignorant. It might interest you to know:

- A lower percentage of Aboriginal people drink than the non-Aboriginal population; and
- On average, Aboriginal people who do drink actually drink less frequently than the non-Aboriginal population.

Given that you would undoubtedly take offence at me pushing stereotypes of Russians as a nations of drunkards, you need to consider your comments about Aboriginal people much more carefully.

Capablanca-Fan
12-07-2014, 01:45 AM
The shyster GF has proved beyond reasonable doubt to be a race-baiter who in fact advocates different treatments for different races.

He hypocritically whinges about stereotypes while supporting group preferences, which tacitly support the stereotype that the preferred group needs government help to succeed.

The website Australian Indigenous HealthInfoNet (http://www.healthinfonet.ecu.edu.au/health-facts/summary) supports GF's first claim but not his second:


Indigenous people are much more likely to not drink alcohol (abstain) than non-Indigenous people. The 2008 NATSISS found that more than one-third of Indigenous adults did not drink alcohol (compared with around one-in-eight of non-Indigenous adults) [92][93]. However, Indigenous people who drink alcohol are more likely to drink it at high-risk levels than non-Indigenous people. The 2008 NATSISS found that one-in-six Indigenous adults were drinking at high-risk levels for a long time (‘chronic’ risky/high-risk drinking), and one-third of Indigenous adults had reported drinking at high-risk levels over a short time (binge drinking) in the two weeks before they were interviewed [57].
In 2006-2010, alcohol was responsible for almost 400 deaths of Indigenous people [13]. Most of these deaths were from alcoholic liver disease.

MichaelBaron
12-07-2014, 03:06 AM
While I don't have quite enough evidence to identify you as a racist (unlike Jono who has proved the case against him beyond all reasonable doubt), your generalisation of Aborigines as people who invariably drink is astoundingly ignorant. It might interest you to know:

- A lower percentage of Aboriginal people drink than the non-Aboriginal population; and
- On average, Aboriginal people who do drink actually drink less frequently than the non-Aboriginal population.

Given that you would undoubtedly take offence at me pushing stereotypes of Russians as a nations of drunkards, you need to consider your comments about Aboriginal people much more carefully.

First of all I totall agree that Russians indeed drink too much too :). Secondly, If the Indigenous people do not have the ''special problems'' why do they need ''special treatment''? To be honest, I do not worry if you identify me as racist or not - you can think whatever you like but to me the essense of the issue is not about race but about treating everyone equally without giving anyone preferencial treatment.

MichaelBaron
12-07-2014, 03:09 AM
The shyster GF has proved beyond reasonable doubt to be a race-baiter who in fact advocates different treatments for different races.

He hypocritically whinges about stereotypes while supporting group preferences, which tacitly support the stereotype that the preferred group needs government help to succeed.

The website Australian Indigenous HealthInfoNet (http://www.healthinfonet.ecu.edu.au/health-facts/summary) supports GF's first claim but not his second:


Indigenous people are much more likely to not drink alcohol (abstain) than non-Indigenous people. The 2008 NATSISS found that more than one-third of Indigenous adults did not drink alcohol (compared with around one-in-eight of non-Indigenous adults) [92][93]. However, Indigenous people who drink alcohol are more likely to drink it at high-risk levels than non-Indigenous people. The 2008 NATSISS found that one-in-six Indigenous adults were drinking at high-risk levels for a long time (‘chronic’ risky/high-risk drinking), and one-third of Indigenous adults had reported drinking at high-risk levels over a short time (binge drinking) in the two weeks before they were interviewed [57].
In 2006-2010, alcohol was responsible for almost 400 deaths of Indigenous people [13]. Most of these deaths were from alcoholic liver disease.
And the drinking+consequent medical care happen at our expense!

Vlad
12-07-2014, 03:50 AM
While I don't have quite enough evidence to identify you as a racist (unlike Jono who has proved the case against him beyond all reasonable doubt), your generalisation of Aborigines as people who invariably drink is astoundingly ignorant. It might interest you to know:

- A lower percentage of Aboriginal people drink than the non-Aboriginal population; and
- On average, Aboriginal people who do drink actually drink less frequently than the non-Aboriginal population.

Given that you would undoubtedly take offence at me pushing stereotypes of Russians as a nations of drunkards, you need to consider your comments about Aboriginal people much more carefully.

Two of my colleagues have recently published a paper in a leading medical journal, which uses data on Aussies about their habits (drinking, smoking, etc) and their medical habits (how often they go to a doctor, etc). Roughly speaking authors divided the population in different groups; for example, normal people vs "troublemakers" (people who drink, smoke, etc. extensively). They showed that behavior of aboriginals is not different from other people. The only substantial difference is that they have a higher proportion of "troublemakers".

What happened next was quite unbelievable. The authors suddenly got attacked by different aborigine groups. In particular, the groups asked why authors did not include a coauthor who is an aboriginal himself.

A ridiculous comment has been published in the same journal, which was criticizing the economic modeling in the mentioned above paper. It was written by people who have no idea what economics is or does.

The author have been invited to our vc to discuss the wrong doing.:)

MichaelBaron
12-07-2014, 11:24 AM
Two of my colleagues have recently published a paper in a leading medical journal, which uses data on Aussies about their habits (drinking, smoking, etc) and their medical habits (how often they go to a doctor, etc). Roughly speaking authors divided the population in different groups; for example, normal people vs "troublemakers" (people who drink, smoke, etc. extensively). They showed that behavior of aboriginals is not different from other people. The only substantial difference is that they have a higher proportion of "troublemakers".

What happened next was quite unbelievable. The authors suddenly got attacked by different aborigine groups. In particular, the groups asked why authors did not include a coauthor who is an aboriginal himself.

A ridiculous comment has been published in the same journal, which was criticizing the economic modeling in the mentioned above paper. It was written by people who have no idea what economics is or does.

The author have been invited to our vc to discuss the wrong doing.:)

Unfortunately this story is not uncommon at all. I have been reprimanded several times for writing/public speaking about some factual issues related to the indigenous Australians. Political correctness rules!
The absolutely highlight occured when I questioned why a certain university was paying salary to an Indigenous Study Support Officer (full-time) while having only 2 indigenous students enrolled (what to do for 40 hours a week) but clear shortage of staff in the general academic support area. I wanted to bring this item to the meeting to make it part of the agenda. However, I was informed (in a private conversation of course) that there is no way the University can do it...because ''I should know why''.

Desmond
12-07-2014, 11:30 AM
Unfortunately this story is not uncommon at all. I have been reprimanded several times for writing/public speaking about some factual issues related to the indigenous Australians. Political correctness rules!
The absolutely highlight occured when I questioned why a certain university was paying salary to an Indigenous Study Support Officer (full-time) while having only 2 indigenous students enrolled (what to do for 40 hours a week) but clear shortage of staff in the general academic support area. I wanted to bring this item to the meeting to make it part of the agenda. However, I was informed (in a private conversation of course) that there is no way the University can do it...because ''I should know why''.Wow a big 2 indigenous students enrolled in your university huh. And your response is to cut their support is it.

MichaelBaron
12-07-2014, 11:47 AM
Wow a big 2 indigenous students enrolled in your university huh. And your response is to cut their support is it.

Big 2...yea....what an Achievement! And you take it for granted they require special support. Does it mean that on equal terms they can not pass?

Goughfather
12-07-2014, 01:23 PM
Of course, RW's talk is cheap. He certainly won't be giving up any of his own privileges. That is for the masses, not him, GF, or rr.

Jono still hasn't substantiated this point, thereby answering rr's question in #173, showing what type of a pathetic coward he is.


Which indeed is the best thing for those people; take advantage of the great benefits of Western civilization, and I don't mean welfare which is one of the curses. E.g. the Jews have been persecuted across the world, but still managed to succeed. E.g. Tal Fortgang, Checking My Privilege: Character as the Basis of Privilege (http://theprincetontory.com/main/checking-my-privilege-character-as-the-basis-of-privilege/):

I couldn't let reference to this essay to go by without some comment. It's always a little amusing when Jono produces a link with the utmost of sincerity and seriousness, expecting it to be taken seriously, when it turns out to be a complete joke. The Majority Report below treats this essay with a ridicule and contempt that is richly deserved:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WTvc3WDLOE

Desmond
12-07-2014, 01:50 PM
Big 2...yea....what an Achievement! It is nothing to crow about. I'm not sure how big your university is or how many students as enrolled there, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that indigenous students are under-represented compared to other groups. You know, that "gap" that has been mentioned. You know, the "born privileged" who don't get to go on to receive a high level of training or the improved employment outcomes that result from it. Yeah, those people. That you would mention how few of them there are to somehow support your views is indicative.


And you take it for granted they require special support. Does it mean that on equal terms they can not pass?I do not know what level of support they need or receive. However anything that helps that group of students would presumably encourage others. That would be a good thing.

BTW I noticed you abandoned the conversation about is michael baron stupid enough to think that indigenous are born into privilege. Probably for the best.

Goughfather
12-07-2014, 03:45 PM
I have been reprimanded several times for writing/public speaking about some factual issues related to the indigenous Australians.

This is not surprising, given how reckless it is for you to speak on an issue about which you are clearly very ignorant. It would be like a law professor giving a lecture on science. Or Jono giving a lecture on anything.

MichaelBaron
13-07-2014, 01:41 AM
This is not surprising, given how reckless it is for you to speak on an issue about which you are clearly very ignorant. It would be like a law professor giving a lecture on science. Or Jono giving a lecture on anything.

GF, not sure what your level of education (both formal and informal) is and how much knowledge you have of the issues discussed, but surely you understand that there is a difference between being a ''racist'' and presenting proven statistical data. Mind you, I was never reprimanded ''formally'' I was instead asked nicely ''to leave the issues aside if possible'' because ''if the issues are discussed, the faculty members will be in no position to support you openly'' :).

MichaelBaron
13-07-2014, 01:44 AM
It is nothing to crow about. I'm not sure how big your university is or how many students as enrolled there, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that indigenous students are under-represented compared to other groups. You know, that "gap" that has been mentioned. You know, the "born privileged" who don't get to go on to receive a high level of training or the improved employment outcomes that result from it. Yeah, those people. That you would mention how few of them there are to somehow support your views is indicative.

I do not know what level of support they need or receive. However anything that helps that group of students would presumably encourage others. That would be a good thing.

BTW I noticed you abandoned the conversation about is michael baron stupid enough to think that indigenous are born into privilege. Probably for the best.

I thought I expressed my viewpoint quite clearly. If someone is entitled to greater economic benefits ''by the rights of birth'' this is positive descrimination and therefore a priviledge. Nothing to abandon.
I am fully supportive of the efforts by the indigenous students, but I have no intention to decide whom and how to support through University or school or life, based on whether they are born white, black, asian or mixed.

Capablanca-Fan
13-07-2014, 07:32 AM
The Majority Report below treats this essay with a ridicule and contempt that is richly deserved:
Trust GF to trust a rabidly leftard internet program that used to have the silly Garofalo bint hosting. Anything to avoid the obvious: that "white" skin does not guarantee "privilege"; Tal Fortgang clearly came from a far less privileged background than many blacks from wealthy families who enjoy the benefits of affirmative action.


This is not surprising, given how reckless it is for you to speak on an issue about which you are clearly very ignorant.
Why is MB ignorant when he is actually an academic unlike GF, and pointing out the lack of diversity there is in what viewpoints are allowed to be expressed.


It would be like a law professor giving a lecture on science. Or Jono giving a lecture on anything.
Typical leftard hypocrisy: a shyster who has attacked my scientific ability although I have an earned Ph.D. in a "hard science" field while he has no scientific qualifications.


Mind you, I was never reprimanded ''formally'' I was instead asked nicely ''to leave the issues aside if possible'' because ''if the issues are discussed, the faculty members will be in no position to support you openly'' :).
Dr Thomas Sowell, himself black, has pointed out that secret ballots of American academics usually oppose race-based preference, but the actual voting is not secret so academics are mostly intimidated into voting for them. Of course, Sowell thinks for himself rather than shackled to the liberal plantation, so the racist GF hates him.

Desmond
13-07-2014, 09:01 AM
I thought I expressed my viewpoint quite clearly. Is that what you thought? Oh dear.


If someone is entitled to greater economic benefits ''by the rights of birth'' this is positive descrimination and therefore a priviledge. Nothing to abandon. In that case let me spell it out for you Michael. I would not have thought it necessary for someone who likes to parade around like they have some sort of academic prowess, but it seems that needs must.

In a loose sense when you say "privilege" in isolation it can mean some sort of benefit, for example access to an additional support resource in a university. However when you say that someone is "born into privilege" then that has a special meaning.

See for example, Collins (http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english-thesaurus/privilege):


privilege
noun

1 . right, benefit, due, advantage, claim, freedom, sanction, liberty, concession, franchise, entitlement, prerogative, birthright • The ancient powers and privileges of the House of Commons.
2. advantage, luxury, indulgence, affluence • She was born into a life of privilege.

So now that you understand what the words mean, let's return to your original statement and substitute to see if they make sense:

Current generation has been born in a advantageous position rather than disadvantageous.
Current generation has been born in a luxurious position rather than non-luxurious.
Current generation has been born in a position of indulgence rather than non-indulgence.
Current generation has been born in a position of affluence rather than non-affluence.

Is an indigenous person in Australia more likely to be born into a position of advantage, luxury, indulgence, affluence than not? Do you now realize that this is not a reasonable characterization of indigenous people on average in Australia or do you need more help?


I am fully supportive of the efforts by the indigenous students, but I have no intention to decide whom and how to support through University or school or life, based on whether they are born white, black, asian or mixed.If being fully supportive of them includes actively trying to have their support removed/reduced, then I'd hate to see what you'd do if you were out to get them.

Desmond
13-07-2014, 09:16 AM
Jono still hasn't substantiated this point, thereby answering rr's question in #173, showing what type of a pathetic coward he is.Indeed and no less than expected. It may be in Jono's nature to assume that people only argue for things that benefit them financially, but it is not the case.

Capablanca-Fan
13-07-2014, 09:20 AM
If being fully supportive of them includes actively trying to have their support removed/reduced, then I'd hate to see what you'd do if you were out to get them.
"Reducing their supporting" is Leftspeak for less money coerced from taxpayers to support people from certain groups on racial grounds, regardless of whether those people have been personally been disadvantaged or have come from wealthy families as most do. You would have a better case if this money were directed towards those who most need it, regardless of race.

Desmond
13-07-2014, 09:31 AM
"Reducing their supporting" is Leftspeak for less money coerced from taxpayersNo it is reality speak for Michael Baron speaking with his colleagues about how one of his peers is not needed / underutilized. I am not sure how the position is funded but it would not surprise me if, contrary to MB's implication, it comes from a different funding pool than general academics. i.e. if MB got his wish and the support person was removed or made part-time, it would not necessarily lead to an increase in staffing levels in other areas.


to support people from certain groups on racial grounds, regardless of whether those people have been personally been disadvantaged or have come from wealthy families as most do. You would have a better case if this money were directed towards those who most need it, regardless of race.I guess the irony of MB talking about how supportive he was shortly after having regaled us with his anecdote of undermining the support person was lost on you.

MichaelBaron
13-07-2014, 12:09 PM
So having better economic conditions offered is not a priviledge? By the way, what about non-Indigenous Australians who are ''disadvantageed'' should they recieve less support due to the fact that they are white/asian/african/south american?

MichaelBaron
13-07-2014, 01:47 PM
‘Please Stop Helping Us’
A new book brilliantly explains how policies designed to help blacks end up harming them.
By Thomas Sowell, 8 July 2014
This book is discussed in another thread. Very relevant reading for those who believe we need more money pumped into the Indigenous communities.

Desmond
13-07-2014, 02:15 PM
So having better economic conditions offered is not a priviledge[sic]? It is not being born into privilege. Do you understand the difference yet?

MichaelBaron
13-07-2014, 02:34 PM
It is not being born into privilege. Do you understand the difference yet?

Ok, will you settle for ''born with entitlement to privileges''? which is effectively same.

Desmond
13-07-2014, 02:38 PM
Ok, will you settle for ''born with entitlement to privileges''? which is effectively same.
Well you seem to have worked out how to spell it :clap:

No they are not the same. As already explained.

Rincewind
13-07-2014, 04:00 PM
‘Please Stop Helping Us’
A new book brilliantly explains how policies designed to help blacks end up harming them.
By Thomas Sowell, 8 July 2014
This book is discussed in another thread. Very relevant reading for those who believe we need more money pumped into the Indigenous communities.

Have you read it?

MichaelBaron
13-07-2014, 05:16 PM
Have you read it?

I have seen the review. Have not read it yet but saw the book review. Definitely going to read...cause loved what I saw.

MichaelBaron
13-07-2014, 05:17 PM
And I have read some other works by Sowell - I believe he is a true economist rather than someone servicing the establishment.

Goughfather
13-07-2014, 05:28 PM
Very relevant reading for those who believe we need more money pumped into the Indigenous communities.

Way to strawperson. In any event, what's your strategy for (remote) indigenous communities?

Rincewind
13-07-2014, 06:24 PM
So you are happy to describe it as "very relevant reading" even though you have never read it personally and by your own admission have very limited first hand knowledge of indigenous people.

Do you realise the book was written about the US welfare system and its supposed impacts on the African American population there?

MichaelBaron
13-07-2014, 07:07 PM
So you are happy to describe it as "very relevant reading" even though you have never read it personally and by your own admission have very limited first hand knowledge of indigenous people.

Do you realise the book was written about the US welfare system and its supposed impacts on the African American population there?
I believe some of the issues are quite similar. In fact, one of the reasons I enjoy Sowell's works is that they are relevant not only for those discussed and those coming ''in contact'' with them but also can lead to discussion of some broader issues.

MichaelBaron
13-07-2014, 07:09 PM
Way to strawperson. In any event, what's your strategy for (remote) indigenous communities?

My strategy is to treat them just like other communities are treated. There should be medical care and other social services available to the same extent as they are available to others. Those unemployed should be treated the same way other unemployed Australians are. Those committing crimes should be facing court the same way others do. Simple enough!

Rincewind
13-07-2014, 07:36 PM
I believe some of the issues are quite similar.

This belief is basically that issues from one population you don't have much knowledge about are similar to the issues affecting another population you don't know much about. However, despite your ignorance in these areas, you believe both issues would be helped by taking note of a book you haven't read?

Do you form all your beliefs using the same rigorous process?

Goughfather
13-07-2014, 08:09 PM
My strategy is to treat them just like other communities are treated. There should be medical care and other social services available to the same extent as they are available to others. Those unemployed should be treated the same way other unemployed Australians are. Those committing crimes should be facing court the same way others do. Simple enough!

Well, I won't argue - you are a simple person. And being a simple person, you are quite happy to employ simplistic solutions to problems that you are completely ignorant about.

Ironically, if we were to employ your strategy, this would see a dramatic influx of funding into medical care and social services for Aboriginal people living in remote communities, given that they currently have significantly less access to services than those living in major cities or even country towns. They also wouldn't be prosecuted for possessing alcohol within their own community and would be arrested far less often than they currently are, because the police would be extending them the discretion that they extend to their non-Aboriginal counterparts.

Of course, with respect to idea to improve the treatment of Aboriginal people within the criminal justice system, you may have to argue the point with our very own racist thug Jono, because he just loves to see Aboriginal people in custody for "offences" like possessing alcohol.

Kevin Bonham
13-07-2014, 09:03 PM
3) Why should they get double unemployment benefits or higher scholarships than others? why encourage them? why not say ABC chinese? why are they so special. They are just like me and you.

Do you have any evidence that Aboriginal people get "double unemployment benefits"? I cannot find any evidence that anything of this sort is true. As far as I can tell they get the same rate as anyone else but if living in a remote area may have the same special entitlements as anyone else living in a remote area.

Systemic exclusion of Aboriginal people from the welfare system was common until the late 1950s and even after that rules frequently disadvantaged them (and probably still do so today - for instance the system disadvantages the partners of workers who have intermittent incomes, which Aboriginal people are more likely to have if working at all). Even if they did receive an advantageous rate they are coming from family backgrounds with a heightened chance of disadvantage in the last few generations (as well as before that) so I'd find it difficult to be all that concerned if they received a higher rate. It is not like affirmative action in which harm is caused by a less competent person being given a job over a more competent one.

As for this:


Those unemployed should be treated the same way other unemployed Australians are.

While you're yet to show that they are not, I'd throw in that no unemployed Australians should be treated the way they are currently treated, and given that Aboriginal people are disproportionately subjected to puerile Centrelink hoopjumping nonsense, I'd take that as evidence of unintended institutional racism.

MichaelBaron
13-07-2014, 09:08 PM
This belief is basically that issues from one population you don't have much knowledge about are similar to the issues affecting another population you don't know much about. However, despite your ignorance in these areas, you believe both issues would be helped by taking note of a book you haven't read?

Do you form all your beliefs using the same rigorous process?

So are you saying that quality book reviews have no value?

MichaelBaron
13-07-2014, 09:11 PM
Do you have any evidence that Aboriginal people get "double unemployment benefits"? I cannot find any evidence that anything of this sort is true. As far as I can tell they get the same rate as anyone else but if living in a remote area may have the same special entitlements as anyone else living in a remote area.

Systemic exclusion of Aboriginal people from the welfare system was common until the late 1950s and even after that rules frequently disadvantaged them (and probably still do so today - for instance the system disadvantages the partners of workers who have intermittent incomes, which Aboriginal people are more likely to have if working at all). Even if they did receive an advantageous rate they are coming from family backgrounds with a heightened chance of disadvantage in the last few generations (as well as before that) so I'd find it difficult to be all that concerned if they received a higher rate. It is not like affirmative action in which harm is caused by a less competent person being given a job over a more competent one.

As for this:



While you're yet to show that they are not, I'd throw in that no unemployed Australians should be treated the way they are currently treated, and given that Aboriginal people are disproportionately subjected to puerile Centrelink hoopjumping nonsense, I'd take that as evidence of unintended institutional racism.

There is obviously evidence that they recieve greater financial benefits that other unemployed Australians. And why are they subjected to ''meet centerlink'' more often? whose fault is it?
I am aware of the problems of the past (1950's exclusion that you are referring to), but does it mean that today they should get paid extra? These are not the same people!

Kevin Bonham
13-07-2014, 09:16 PM
There is obviously evidence that they recieve greater financial benefits that other unemployed Australians.

Where can this obvious evidence be found? I don't know if the claim is true or not, couldn't find evidence of it via official sources, and would like to know the facts from a reliable source.

If you are certain the claim is true, either you can point me to a reliable source or else you are mistaken.

Goughfather
13-07-2014, 09:18 PM
There is obviously evidence that they recieve greater financial benefits that other unemployed Australians.

Well, we're waiting to see it. Any time, sport.

MichaelBaron
14-07-2014, 02:36 AM
Where can this obvious evidence be found? I don't know if the claim is true or not, couldn't find evidence of it via official sources, and would like to know the facts from a reliable source.

If you are certain the claim is true, either you can point me to a reliable source or else you are mistaken.

For Example:
ABStudy: http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/centrelink/abstudy/payment-rates Austudy: http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/austudy

ABstudy entitles to greater financial benefits than Austudy.
The same site: www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/ also includes rates for New Start allowance and payments for the unemployed indigenous people...these 2 also differ.

MichaelBaron
14-07-2014, 02:37 AM
Well, we're waiting to see it. Any time, sport.

www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink - see and compare!

Capablanca-Fan
14-07-2014, 02:51 AM
This belief is basically that issues from one population you don't have much knowledge about are similar to the issues affecting another population you don't know much about. However, despite your ignorance in these areas, you believe both issues would be helped by taking note of a book you haven't read?

Do you form all your beliefs using the same rigorous process?
Actually, there is much similarity in how welfare poisons those who make it an intergenerational lifestyle, whether many American blacks, Australian aboriginals, and white ‘Anglo-Saxons’ in the UK. The USA, with so many universities, presents another problem with racial preferences, which doesn't have such a parallel in countries like NZ and Au with far fewer unis: they result in many black students being mismatched at the most prestigious unis where most of the students had much higher test scores, whereas they would have flourished at other unis where most of the students had similar test scores.

However, to the race-baiters above (GF, RW, rr), apparently one is a "racist" to support equal treatment of race, and "anti-racist" to support treating members of some races better than others.

And despite what GF claims, I am opposed to any prison sentence just for consuming a verboten substance (alcohol, drugs), but punishing crimes committed under the influence severely.

Capablanca-Fan
14-07-2014, 02:54 AM
While you're yet to show that they are not, I'd throw in that no unemployed Australians should be treated the way they are currently treated, ….
But the original LDP policy of negative income tax, which would have abolished that, failed to gain political traction; evidently too many whingers from the left (like Dr Byrom here) and from the right (purists who go further even than Hayek or Friedman against any sort of safety net).

Rincewind
14-07-2014, 09:29 AM
So are you saying that quality book reviews have no value?

What evidence do you have that an ideologue like Sowell is capable of writing a quality book review?

Capablanca-Fan
14-07-2014, 09:51 AM
What evidence do you have that an ideologue like Sowell is capable of writing a quality book review?

He's no ideologue. He was a Marxist in his youth, until actual experience showed that government workers are just as selfish as anyone else, and didn't care about the results of their policies. In a market, if you don't like one company, you can go to another one, but if you don't like a government department, then tough. Countries all over the world have delivered better results to their people with free economies, and dismal results with socialist government control. Here is a short piece, From Marxism to the Market (2002) (http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/01/from-marxism-to-the-market/), and a video clip Thomas Sowell (former Marxist) Dismantles Leftist Ideology (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzT21b-BMQk):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzT21b-BMQk

However, RW is a group-thinking socialist, and of course, socialist dogma thrives only in places where ideas don't have to work to survive: in the news rooms and universities.

MichaelBaron
14-07-2014, 11:34 AM
What evidence do you have that an ideologue like Sowell is capable of writing a quality book review?

He is not an ideologue but an economicst! This is why he is logical rather than populist unlike some socialist writers.

Rincewind
14-07-2014, 11:46 AM
www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink - see and compare!

Seems your computer skills could use some sharpening up...

2632

Rincewind
14-07-2014, 12:06 PM
He is not an ideologue but an economicst! This is why he is logical rather than populist unlike some socialist writers.

"Ideologue" does not equal "socialist". An ideologue who agree with your conservative leanings is still an ideologue.

There is plenty of evidence that Sowell is an ideologue. Just take a look at his recent articles on townhall... http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/

At the time of writing we have

Spruke for the book in question (basically promoting a reduction in welfare spending)
A ID4 piece about various right wing populist whinges including illegal immigrants and the ol' IRS Obama conspiracy theory, etc
An editorial that tries to paint Obama as a lame duck president
A piece lamenting the loss of ground to ISIS in Iraq which comically apologises for GW Bush (who everyone now admits signed the troop withdrawal) and blames the current problems on Obama.
Something on the Bergdahl deal again critical of Obama.


So for an non-ideologue his latest five articles are only vaguely related to economics (perhaps only the book marketing one is the best example) but all of them are political and toxically anti-Obama. To claim he is not an ideologue you would have to find at least some non-political and balanced output from Sowell. He is not exactly a shrinking violet so finding Sowell's output is not the problem. The problem is finding anything which is not politically polarised.

ER
14-07-2014, 12:24 PM
Professor Marcia Langton is an indigenous Australian herself.

Her views on the matter although a tad out dated (the related article from ABC's website
was updated almost two years ago) might provide some additional interesting points for the topic's discussion.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-26/call-for-end-to-perverted-race-based-welfare/4223694

page might take some time to load properly! (SBS's pages load much faster!) :) :P

Desmond
14-07-2014, 12:31 PM
For Example:
ABStudy: http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/centrelink/abstudy/payment-rates Austudy: http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/austudy

ABstudy entitles to greater financial benefits than Austudy.
The same site: www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/ also includes rates for New Start allowance and payments for the unemployed indigenous people...these 2 also differ.Which one is double?

Patrick Byrom
14-07-2014, 12:57 PM
But the original LDP policy of negative income tax, which would have abolished that, failed to gain political traction; evidently too many whingers from the left (like Dr Byrom here) and from the right (purists who go further even than Hayek or Friedman against any sort of safety net).
I wish I had that much influence on political parties! That policy was replaced by the LDP itself, and I don't think the LDP takes much notice of leftists - from what I've read, the person you should be blaming is David Leyonhjelm.

Capablanca-Fan
14-07-2014, 01:35 PM
Professor Marcia Langton is an indigenous Australian herself.

Her views on the matter although a tad out dated (the related article from ABC's website
was updated almost two years ago) might provide some additional interesting points for the topic's discussion.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-26/call-for-end-to-perverted-race-based-welfare/4223694

page might take some time to load properly! (SBS's pages load much faster!) :) :P

Pretty good article. There are sensible indigenous people like Prof. Langton who see the injustice of racist treatment no matter which race is involved. Same with Noel Pearson who judges welfare policies by their results of making indigenous people dependent, as opposed to white leftists who support these policies because it makes them feel morally superior.

Capablanca-Fan
14-07-2014, 01:41 PM
"Ideologue" does not equal "socialist". An ideologue who agree with your conservative leanings is still an ideologue.
Of course, socialists like RW can't be ideologues, even though universities are notorious for leftist groupthink, as are news rooms. There is more political diversity in the average American Southern Baptist Church than in a typical American university or news room. They have been uncritical cheerleaders for Obamov, including the IRS scandals now including 26 months of "lost" emails and Lois Lerner pleading the 5th twice (i.e. against self-incrimination). Nixon had to resign after a 18 1/2 minute gap in tape recordings (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/061614-704897-irs-loses-key-lois-lerner-emails.htm).

Rincewind
14-07-2014, 02:06 PM
In his typically dishonest way Jono infers that I said socialists cannot be ideologues. Of course this is a strawman as I said no such thing.

Kevin Bonham
14-07-2014, 03:00 PM
For Example:
ABStudy: http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/centrelink/abstudy/payment-rates Austudy: http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/austudy

ABstudy entitles to greater financial benefits than Austudy.
The same site: www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/ also includes rates for New Start allowance and payments for the unemployed indigenous people...these 2 also differ.

ABSTUDY is not an unemployment benefit. It is a student benefit. It is therefore irrelevant to your claim concerning unemployment benefits.

You claim the Centrelink site includes rates for "payments for the unemployed indigenous people" that differ from Newstart. Where?

Note that the Indigenous Australians page (http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/subjects/payments-for-indigenous-australians) refers those looking for work to the Newstart page.

Is this really your best attempt at debating, or just your best attempt at imitating Capablanca-Fan?

MichaelBaron
14-07-2014, 03:39 PM
Which one is double?

Not double, but all the payments are higher for those who come from the indigenous background

MichaelBaron
14-07-2014, 03:40 PM
ABSTUDY is not an unemployment benefit. It is a student benefit. It is therefore irrelevant to your claim concerning unemployment benefits.

You claim the Centrelink site includes rates for "payments for the unemployed indigenous people" that differ from Newstart. Where?

Note that the Indigenous Australians page (http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/subjects/payments-for-indigenous-australians) refers those looking for work to the Newstart page.

Is this really your best attempt at debating, or just your best attempt at imitating Capablanca-Fan?

Compare ABstudy with Austudy, are they the same? Why is ABstudy higher?

Kevin Bonham
14-07-2014, 04:02 PM
Not double, but all the payments are higher for those who come from the indigenous background

What is your evidence for this claim? One payment being higher does not mean they all are.


Compare ABstudy with Austudy, are they the same? Why is ABstudy higher?

Again, this is not relevant to your original claim that unemployment benefits were higher. You should either substantiate or else retract that claim. Failing either I'll assume you have no idea what you're talking about. Oh, and that you're not imitating Capablanca-Fan but rather ... somebody else. :)

MichaelBaron
14-07-2014, 04:57 PM
What is your evidence for this claim? One payment being higher does not mean they all are.



Again, this is not relevant to your original claim that unemployment benefits were higher. You should either substantiate or else retract that claim. Failing either I'll assume you have no idea what you're talking about. Oh, and that you're not imitating Capablanca-Fan but rather ... somebody else. :)
Unemployment is higher too. Its on the same site

Rincewind
14-07-2014, 05:37 PM
Unemployment is higher too. Its on the same site

To substantiate a claim you can't just say "it's on the internet somewhere". Provide a line to the page that doesn't return a "page not found" error.

MichaelBaron
14-07-2014, 06:05 PM
To substantiate a claim you can't just say "it's on the internet somewhere". Provide a line to the page that doesn't return a "page not found" error.

Its all in here. http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/subjects/payments-for-job-seekers

MichaelBaron
14-07-2014, 06:10 PM
And how racist it is to have a special phone service for those belonging to a particular nationality: http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/indigenous-phone-services
Why not have ''white phone services'' or ''asian phone services''?

Goughfather
14-07-2014, 08:56 PM
And how racist it is to have a special phone service for those belonging to a particular nationality: http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/indigenous-phone-services
Why not have ''white phone services'' or ''asian phone services''?

Your ignorance truly saddens me, but is probably typical of those living an existence that is sheltered from seeing the disadvantage that exists in remote Aboriginal communities.

I must confess that I find it rather confusing that you would get so worked up about a service that assists Aboriginal people.

It should also be noted that there are "Asian phone services" contrary to your contention. In your palpable rage, you must have missed the different languages that are scrolling at the top of the page. Interpreter services are in fact offered.

If you are willing to learn a bit more about why it might be appropriate to have a specific service that assists Aboriginal people, I'll try to be patient in helping you understand. Send me a Private Message if you are open to discussing this further.

Desmond
14-07-2014, 09:43 PM
He's no ideologue. He was a Marxist in his youth, until actual experience showed that Actual experience being a summer work experience, and surprise surprise the whole department took with a grain of salt the input of a wet behind the ears intern and declined to change everything on his say-so.

Desmond
14-07-2014, 09:46 PM
Not double...Right, so you were wrong again on a point of fact. Was this one of the:


"I have been reprimanded several times for writing/public speaking about some factual issues related to the indigenous Australians."

MichaelBaron
14-07-2014, 10:50 PM
Right, so you were wrong again on a point of fact. Was this one of the:


"I have been reprimanded several times for writing/public speaking about some factual issues related to the indigenous Australians."

There were no questions about my facts. I was asked not to touch the issue due to ''sensitivity'' :).
Majority of academics in the business faculty is as sick of wasting resources on a particular ethnic group as I am.

Rincewind
14-07-2014, 11:09 PM
Its all in here. http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/subjects/payments-for-job-seekers

So where in there exactly does it say that if you are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander that you get a higher level of unemployment benefit? Because the page you linked to just says


Income support while you look for work

Newstart Allowance provides financial help if you are looking for work and supports you while you take part in activities that may increase your chances of finding a job.

Youth Allowance supports young people with financial assistance if they are 16 to 21 years old and looking for full-time work or undertaking approved activities.


And contrary to your claim, both of these seem to be available to indigenous and non-indigenous job seekers with no difference in amount of benefit paid.

Goughfather
14-07-2014, 11:15 PM
Majority of academics in the business faculty is as sick of wasting resources on a particular ethnic group as I am.

Charming. With this attitude, is it any wonder that your university has trouble attracting Aboriginal students?

MichaelBaron
14-07-2014, 11:35 PM
Charming. With this attitude, is it any wonder that your university has trouble attracting Aboriginal students?

No university should focus on attracting students of particular nationality! This is nonsense. You want to study? study the way other students do!

Rincewind
14-07-2014, 11:44 PM
You want to study? study the way other students do!

Is that a precis of your teaching philosophy?