Miranda Devine: Reverse racism is now acceptable in Australia

[Paidiske]

Gotcha...so it's ok to exclude whites, not ok for whites to exclude others.

That's what we call racism.

Perhaps now you understand why people might look at that article and think it's wrong.

It's about working against disadvantage. Whites are not systematically disadvantaged. In this case, English-speakers in Australia are not disadvantaged.

For myself, personally, I prefer to leave race out of it altogether. I abhor racial division of any kind. But I can recognise why a racial group who are a disadvantaged minority might have particular issues that an advantaged majority don't see or aren't willing to address properly. I don't see any "white issues" that aren't actually about something other than race, so I don't think it's legitimate to talk about "white issues" (in an Australian context).

 

[Ana the Ist]

i didn't read this particular article about this but from what i gathered they weren't ejected because they were white but that the group was meant for non-australian (non-english background) people only.
people

I understand that's the excuse they gave...but I'm curious about how they knew this woman didn't belong immediately. From the article, it makes it sound as if they approached her rather quickly and told her she didn't belong. How do they know that she didn't speak English as a second language?

injecting white discrimination into this seems rather childish.

That is the core of what Paidiske was saying though. In her mind, she gets to decide who's problems are valid and who's aren't...and the problems of the white community aren't valid enough for them to form a group that excludes others.

 

[Paidiske]

I understand that's the excuse they gave...but I'm curious about how they knew this woman didn't belong immediately. From the article, it makes it sound as if they approached her rather quickly and told her she didn't belong. How do they know that she didn't speak English as a second language?

Have you ever volunteered in ESL classes? If you had, you wouldn't have to ask "How did they know?" You'd realise that a native English speaker is plainly obvious in that setting.

That is the core of what Paidiske was saying though. In her mind, she gets to decide who's problems are valid and who's aren't...and the problems of the white community aren't valid enough for them to form a group that excludes others.

Not exactly what I'm saying. Everyone's problems are valid. However, in Australia, the problems white people experience are not about being white. They're about being poor, or uneducated, or having a disability, or some other disadvantage... so organising around "white issues" doesn't make sense in our context, rather than focussing on the actual problems which people do have, and which actually cut across racial lines.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's about working against disadvantage. Whites are not systematically disadvantaged. In this case, English-speakers in Australia are not disadvantaged.

When did you become the judge of who is facing "disadvantages" and who isn't? Why should you be able to tell people that they have no right to form a group...specifically for them...at the exclusion of others?

I can be for equality...where no one is excluded based upon their skin...or I can accept a situation where we all get to form groups that excludes others...but to tell one group they "can" and another group they "can't" is unbelievably hypocritical.

For myself, personally, I prefer to leave race out of it altogether. I abhor racial division of any kind. But I can recognise why a racial group who are a disadvantaged minority might have particular issues that an advantaged majority don't see or aren't willing to address properly. I don't see any "white issues" that aren't actually about something other than race, so I don't think it's legitimate to talk about "white issues" (in an Australian context).

Why would you need to recognize any groups' issues in order for them to talk about it as a group? Isn't it enough that if white people feel they're facing some issues that they be given the same courtesy that you'd gladly extend to any minority?

 

[Paidiske]

As a white person living in Australia, I'm pretty well-placed to work out if I face systematic disadvantage for being white. I don't. (For being a woman, yes, but that's a whole other can of worms).

I'm not saying people can't form groups - anyone can form a group - but I'm likely going to think a group of white people trying to deal with "white issues" in Australia is pretty unnecessary. Hence my saying I "couldn't see the point" of it in my earlier post. Not that it should be forbidden or anything, just that I'm not seeing what they're going to try to achieve.

 

[mala]

I understand that's the excuse they gave...but I'm curious about how they knew this woman didn't belong immediately. From the article, it makes it sound as if they approached her rather quickly and told her she didn't belong. How do they know that she didn't speak English as a second language?





That is the core of what Paidiske was saying though. In her mind, she gets to decide who's problems are valid and who's aren't...and the problems of the white community aren't valid enough for them to form a group that excludes others.

It's a fair assumption to make in a country with a large English speaking population concerning a person with features that sync with that population.

From what I read they asked her twice and both times her answer indicated she wasn't a) foreign b) non-English speaking.
Now if she had answered with a noticeable heavy accent and was still ejected then the discrimination case might have merit.

 

[Ana the Ist]

As a white person living in Australia, I'm pretty well-placed to work out if I face systematic disadvantage for being white. I don't. (For being a woman, yes, but that's a whole other can of worms).

That's beyond ridiculous...

So if someone from some minority group said "hey, I can tell you for a fact that as a member of this minority group...we face no systematic disadvantages (which as a pair of words has almost lost all meaning)."...you'd dismiss all claims from that minority group based on one person's experiences?

I'm not saying people can't form groups - anyone can form a group - but I'm likely going to think a group of white people trying to deal with "white issues" in Australia is pretty unnecessary.

So even though you disagree with the reasoning behind it...you're all for whites forming a group that excludes everyone else?

Hence my saying I "couldn't see the point" of it in my earlier post. Not that it should be forbidden or anything, just that I'm not seeing what they're going to try to achieve.

That didn't have anything to do with the question though. I didn't ask if you felt whites had a good reason to form a group that excludes non-whites...I asked if you'd support it.

 

[Paidiske]

That's beyond ridiculous...

So if someone from some minority group said "hey, I can tell you for a fact that as a member of this minority group...we face no systematic disadvantages (which as a pair of words has almost lost all meaning)."...you'd dismiss all claims from that minority group based on one person's experiences?

If you want to start a poll and get opinions from a large range of Australians, I can point you to a good Australian forum where you could do that.

So even though you disagree with the reasoning behind it...you're all for whites forming a group that excludes everyone else?

I'm not "all for" it, but hey, if they want to get together in someone's living room or a cafe or whatever else and talk "white issues," who am I to stop them?

I didn't ask if you felt whites had a good reason to form a group that excludes non-whites...I asked if you'd support it.

Support it? With my time, energy or money, or verbal affirmation and encouragement? No. But I'm not going to try to prevent it, either. Bigger fish to fry, and all that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's a fair assumption to make in a country with a large English speaking population concerning a person with features that sync with that population.

From what I read they asked her twice and both times her answer indicated she wasn't a) foreign b) non-English speaking.
Now if she had answered with a noticeable heavy accent and was still ejected then the discrimination case might have merit.

From what I read...it was a multicultural playgroup. It had nothing to do with learning language. It's a place where mothers who are lonely might be able to meet other mothers who speak their language...none of which are reasons to exclude a white English speaking woman.

It's also worth noting that the actions of the director violated Australia's anti-discrimination laws.

 

[Paidiske]

No, the whole point of the play group was that it was meant to be a place to support people with poor English.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If you want to start a poll and get opinions from a large range of Australians, I can point you to a good Australian forum where you could do that.

I'll pass.

I'm not "all for" it, but hey, if they want to get together in someone's living room or a cafe or whatever else and talk "white issues," who am I to stop them?

I was thinking about appropriating public space....like this group does.

Support it? With my time, energy or money, or verbal affirmation and encouragement? No. But I'm not going to try to prevent it, either. Bigger fish to fry, and all that.

Fry some big fish do you? Big into activism?

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, the whole point of the play group was that it was meant to be a place to support people with poor English.

Where did you read that?

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, the whole point of the play group was that it was meant to be a place to support people with poor English.

"Coverdale said she tried charm in a bid to be allowed to attend the playgroup, but Fletcher insisted it was exclusively for “multicultural” mothers who “might be lonely and might want to build a network of people who speak the same language”."

So basically it's for lonely moms who might want to meet other moms who speak the same language...nothing that should inherently exclude an English speaking white woman.

There's literally zero mention of any support offered...or any language lessons...etc. It's just one dumb director who thought he could kick out the white lady.

 

[Paidiske]

I was thinking about appropriating public space....like this group does.

Since I don't manage public space, I'll leave that between them and their local council.

Fry some big fish do you? Big into activism?

Here's something I learned a long time ago. You can try to improve the world in one of two ways; you can try to uproot bad or imperfect things, or you can try to plant and nurture good things. On the whole, you get better outcomes if you take the second approach (which has a lot to do with why I'm a priest; I get to do a lot of nurturing of good things). So I think it'd probably be a waste of time to try to stop a fairly pointless group from meeting, when I could get on and put my time and energy into something actually worthwhile.

Oh - the play group. I read a bunch of articles about it when it hit the news here. Don't have a link to hand but it was very clear that the purpose of the group was to support people without good English to develop it. Not so they could speak their own language.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Here's something I learned a long time ago. You can try to improve the world in one of two ways; you can try to uproot bad or imperfect things, or you can try to plant and nurture good things. On the whole, you get better outcomes if you take the second approach (which has a lot to do with why I'm a priest; I get to do a lot of nurturing of good things).

Odd analogy...ever look into just how the Catholic church became so big? Hint-it wasn't with the "plant and nurture good things approach"....it was the other one.

So I think it'd probably be a waste of time to try to stop a fairly pointless group from meeting, when I could get on and put my time and energy into something actually worthwhile.

Which is why I asked if you actually do some kind of activism.

Oh - the play group. I read a bunch of articles about it when it hit the news here. Don't have a link to hand but it was very clear that the purpose of the group was to support people without good English to develop it. Not so they could speak their own language.

Well lemme know when you find that link...every other article I've read says otherwise.

 

[mala]

From what I read...it was a multicultural playgroup. It had nothing to do with learning language. It's a place where mothers who are lonely might be able to meet other mothers who speak their language...none of which are reasons to exclude a white English speaking woman.

It's also worth noting that the actions of the director violated Australia's anti-discrimination laws.

i will concede that it was horribly titled.

 

[Paidiske]

Which is why I asked if you actually do some kind of activism.

Good ministry is activism.

Well lemme know when you find that link...every other article I've read says otherwise.

Some of the stuff I've found is saying it was to build English as well as social networks. I can't, on a quick glance, today find an unambiguous statement about language. But I'm not putting much time into it, either.

 

[greenguzzi]

You don't believe there are different races??

Nope, and there is no evidence whatsoever that races exists. Race is just a social construct with no real substance.

Ok...but surely you realize that if there is a correlation, then it's entirely relevant?

This reply of yours makes no sense. As I said before, you need to learn a bit more about statistics before you and I can have a sensible conversation on this subject.

lol what? What mysterious cause is forcing people to watch too much t.v.?

Learn a bit more about statistics and use a little imagination, I'm sure you could come up with a few ideas if you put in the effort.

I'm always amazed at just how many people think they could do better if only they were in charge.

I never said I could do any better. I said it could be done, not that I could do it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Nope, and there is no evidence whatsoever that races exists. Race is just a social construct with no real substance.

Even if race only exists as a social construct...then it still exists. Just because it's an idea doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Capitalism is a "social construct" ....and it exists. Your notion of a "self" is a psychological construct...and it exists.

This reply of yours makes no sense. As I said before, you need to learn a bit more about statistics before you and I can have a sensible conversation on this subject.

I hold a degree in political science, with a minor in international relations. I've had several courses on statistical analysis/research. Everything I've written there makes sense...but if you need me to dumb it down for you, I can.

 

[greenguzzi]

You seem to be suggesting that you don't believe different racial and/or cultural groups have intrinsically different qualities, and that the differences in outcomes can only be attributed to racial bias in the system.

I can see how I gave that impression. I should have worded it better.

Any group of individuals who share a common experience or a common history will share common characteristics. As you point out, certain Asian groups perform better academically than average because their culture demands it. Certain African populations perform better athletically than average because their population has selected for it.

But that's not the same as success in life. I am good at maths and science and hopeless at athletics. A friend of mine is the opposite, he's good at athletics and hopeless at maths and science. But we are both successful in life. It's not the characteristics of the group that's the problem, but the outcomes of the group. For example: If members of one group is incarcerated five times as often as the members of another, then there is a problem beyond the group and its characteristics. The same applies for health outcomes. (Assuming that the group isn't self selecting for health problems: Obviously a group of Down syndrome individuals would fair worse health wise than the average.) Also it seems clear that the health issues of different groups would most likely be different in nature (not in severity), but the overall health outcomes should be very similar for each group, unless there was some external bias.

There is sometimes difficulty separating outcomes and characteristics. I think the best example of this is generational racism. If a group has been deprived of good education for generations solely on the basis of their race (which has happened here in Australia), then this will show up in their characteristics. Poor knowledge and poor reasoning skills will show up as a characteristic. But it's not an intrinsic characteristic. It is one that has been foisted on them from outside their group, and therefore it is actually an external bias.

"systemic racism is the reason for all outcome differences"

I'd put it slightly differently:
"Systematic bias is one of the major reasons for significant outcome differences between different groups within any society"

We can work to help minimize overt and systemic bias. We can't work to create "equal outcomes of all groups" when all groups aren't equal (which doesn't mean superior or inferior, just different characteristics and/or preferences).

It's interesting that you start arguing from the aspect of characteristics and end up talking about outcomes. You do it seamlessly as though they are the same thing. They are not. Yes, different groups may have different characteristics, but the outcomes of each group should be similar. If they are not, then there is a clear reason (eg: my Down syndrome example) or there is some external bias occurring. In both cases we should address the problem; this is why we have affirmative action, anti discrimination laws, and accessibility regulations. .