Miranda Devine: Reverse racism is now acceptable in Australia

[Paidiske]

Culture and race are not the same thing.

I do not believe that one's taste in TV viewing is dictated by one's race. Perhaps, if one were of a minority group, one might be interested in shows depicting that group and its issues... but I suspect that's about as far as it goes.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Culture and race are not the same thing.

I do not believe that one's taste in TV viewing is dictated by one's race. Perhaps, if one were of a minority group, one might be interested in shows depicting that group and its issues... but I suspect that's about as far as it goes.

Not just race...age and gender play a role as well...

Nielsen report confirms blacks watch more TV than any other group

 

[Ana the Ist]

Culture and race are not the same thing.

I do not believe that one's taste in TV viewing is dictated by one's race. Perhaps, if one were of a minority group, one might be interested in shows depicting that group and its issues... but I suspect that's about as far as it goes.

So now that you know that on subjects that are a matter of pure choice...there are differences between different races...why do you think that is? I'm sure some argument could be made regarding the fact that blacks watch 60% (or whatever the number is) more t.v. than whites and poverty (perhaps they watch more since its a cheap source of entertainment) but it's hard to use that argument for other aspects of black viewing habits such as their preference for reality tv. Does it still sound unreasonable for me to say that different races have different cultures which may in turn lead to different outcomes in society? Especially regarding wealth?

The funny thing is, I could probably post about a hundred blogs, articles, etc...talking about "black culture" and how it's so difficult (if not impossible) for whites to understand it. Yet the very moment that I suggest it might have some negative impact on things like wealth outcomes, justice outcomes, educational outcomes...at least half the people I'm talking to get super defensive and completely disagree. Why is that? Is it because what I'm suggesting is so unreasonable? Or is it that the slightest notion that blacks may be at least in part (if not largely) responsible for their outcomes brings out the fear of being called a racist?

Just out of curiosity....do you think that if we had studies done, or if studies have been done, that we might find some differences between whites and blacks regarding the following...

1. The value and importance of education.
2. Shopping/spending habits.
3. Saving habits and debt.
4. What kind of jobs/careers are viable options.
5. What's important in a job (salary, enjoyment, etc)
6. How one gets ahead in a job (hard work, contacts/connections/innovation/etc)

Or are you under the impression that we're basically the same regarding those kinds of attitudes? More importantly, can you see how even minor differences between attitudes regarding those things can lead to dramatically different outcomes in wealth?

 

[Paidiske]

Culture is fluid. It changes with every generation. I myself am an example; my primary language is not the first language either of my parents spoke, and my worship habits, educational outcomes and life choices are significantly different to theirs, despite the fact that I am the same "race" as both of them.

So culture can change. If "black culture" (if that's actually more than a bunch of generalisations and stereotypes) lead to worse outcomes, that too can change. Those outcomes have nothing to do with the inherent abilities of black people (ie. they're not more stupid, more lazy, or less motivated as a function of their race).

And since "black culture" - at least in America - is a subset of wider American culture, it's reasonable to me to expect that Americans generally ought to be concerned that "black culture" be given every opportunity and support to change in positive ways (just as those opportunities and supports ought to be there for everyone).

So suggesting that outcomes are what they are because *reasons,* without any willingness to address and change those reasons, seems to me to be callous at best, and racist at worst (where it stands on the assumption that black people are just inferior, so what could we expect but inferior outcomes?)

 

[Ana the Ist]

Culture is fluid. It changes with every generation. I myself am an example; my primary language is not the first language either of my parents spoke, and my worship habits, educational outcomes and life choices are significantly different to theirs, despite the fact that I am the same "race" as both of them.

Sure, I'm not saying that culture can't change...but I will say that I can't really change someone's culture. They need to do that.

So culture can change. If "black culture" (if that's actually more than a bunch of generalisations and stereotypes) lead to worse outcomes, that too can change.

That's really only going to happen though if they feel like an aspect of their culture is problematic and needs to change. If a group of people are only willing to lay blame on others for their situation...and not look at their own attitudes and behaviors...then their problems will remain.

Those outcomes have nothing to do with the inherent abilities of black people (ie. they're not more stupid, more lazy, or less motivated as a function of their race).

Since no one is suggesting this...why did you feel the need to bring it up?

And since "black culture" - at least in America - is a subset of wider American culture, it's reasonable to me to expect that Americans generally ought to be concerned that "black culture" be given every opportunity and support to change in positive ways (just as those opportunities and supports ought to be there for everyone).

That's up to black Americans...it's not something I can do as a white American.

So suggesting that outcomes are what they are because *reasons,* without any willingness to address and change those reasons, seems to me to be callous at best, and racist at worst (where it stands on the assumption that black people are just inferior, so what could we expect but inferior outcomes?)

Again, who is suggesting that they are inferior?

 

[Paidiske]

Seems to me that "black people experience more poverty, worse educational and health outcomes (etc) because of their culture" is implying that they're inferior. Because if they weren't, their outcomes would be just as good.

That's why I'm pushing back against this; because I don't believe that they are inferior, and because I can see that systemic factors contribute to these things more than a little bit.

 

[greenguzzi]

Why do you think that in a nation with as much personal freedom as Australia you would ever see "roughly the same per capita percentages" with regards to racial makeup and wealth?

I expect there to be differences in the pastimes of different groups (like what TV shows we watch), but I don't expect there to be significant differences in wealth, education, lifespan, health etc.
(What TV shows individuals or groups watch is totally irrelevant to this discussion.)
People choose to go to the gym, or to not watch TV. People don't chose to be poor and unhealthy. It is disingenuous to conflate choice of pastime with wealth and heath outcomes.

The only caveat I can think of is, say, wealth equality for groups who have self imposed limits on such things. For example, I don't expect all Mennonite populations to have the same wealth as the average population (although some will).

Once each group has similar outcomes (lifespan and education would be a good start), then maybe we can start to wind back affirmative action. Until then these kinds of things are desirable (and Ms. Devine will continue have something to whinge about).

 

[Ana the Ist]

I expect there to be differences in the pastimes of different groups (like what TV shows we watch), but I don't expect there to be significant differences in wealth, education, lifespan, health etc.
(What TV shows individuals or groups watch is totally irrelevant to this discussion.)
People choose to go to the gym, or to not watch TV. People don't chose to be poor and unhealthy. It is disingenuous to conflate choice of pastime with wealth and heath outcomes.

This is an almost shocking amount of naivete...you honestly don't see any connection between how people choose to spend their time and outcomes? If I choose to stay home and study instead of going out and partying...doesn't that choice affect my educational outcomes? If I eat healthy instead of eating fast food...doesn't that affect my health outcomes? If I spend money and like to shop/gamble...doesn't that affect my wealth outcomes?

The only caveat I can think of is, say, wealth equality for groups who have self imposed limits on such things. For example, I don't expect all Mennonite populations to have the same wealth as the average population (although some will).

Well I just came up with a bunch of caveats up above...I can come up with a lot more if you like. Just keep in mind that before you object, there's been plenty of research on how blacks in the U.S. spend their money and where they spend it. I'm not going to say that their financial/health/educational situation is entirely their fault (if you have less access to healthy foods at grocery stores and more access to fast food restaurants...you'll likely be spending more money at fast food restaurants) but to sit there and pretend there's little to no correlation between how blacks spend money and wealth is silly.

Once each group has similar outcomes (lifespan and education would be a good start), then maybe we can start to wind back affirmative action. Until then these kinds of things are desirable (and Ms. Devine will continue have something to whinge about).

How would you achieve "similar outcomes"? Would you just take money from wealthy whites and put it into better school systems for blacks? I'm curious as to how you think this sort of thing could be achieved.

 

[Paidiske]

A government-funded health system would be a fabulous start... level, adequate playing field for everyone in terms of medical care.

But I won't hold my breath...

 

[greenguzzi]

This is an almost shocking amount of naivete...you honestly don't see any connection between how people choose to spend their time and outcomes? If I choose to stay home and study instead of going out and partying...doesn't that choice affect my educational outcomes? If I eat healthy instead of eating fast food...doesn't that affect my health outcomes? If I spend money and like to shop/gamble...doesn't that affect my wealth outcomes?

Actually the naivety is yours. I'm shocked that you would need to have this explained to you:


Although we can apply your logic to individuals, we cannot apply it to a larger group; unless we are saying that this larger group has unique and harmful characteristics that are different from the general population.

I'm left with the impression that you may need to brush up on your knowledge of statistics. I really don't have time to attempt to explain the finer details. (Or maybe I've just misunderstood what you are trying to say.)

It may be possible to prove that some individuals are lazy; for example choosing to watch TV instead of studying, and that therefore their outcomes are their own fault. But if one applies the same logic to a large group, then one is saying that the whole group is intrinsically lazier than other groups. If this group is a particular race, then one is guilty of being racist.

Now maybe this type of racism is justified. Maybe some races are lazier than others. I don't believe it for one second, mainly because I don't actually believe that there are different races, but that's probably another discussion.

but to sit there and pretend there's little to no correlation between how blacks spend money and wealth is silly

I never said (pretend or otherwise) that there was no correlation between such things, you are putting words in my mouth. I said that it was irrelevant, I never said there wasn't any correlation.

What I am saying is that any correlation is not causal, and therefore irrelevant. A group might be poorly educated AND watch too much TV because of a common cause beyond their control. But their watching too much TV isn't the cause of their poor education. Correlation doesn't equal causation. You pretty much said the same thing with your grocery-store/fast-food example.

How would you achieve "similar outcomes"? Would you just take money from wealthy whites and put it into better school systems for blacks? I'm curious as to how you think this sort of thing could be achieved.

One way of getting closer to equal outcomes may well be to ensure that all schools are properly funded. But that doesn't necessarily mean taking money from wealthy people. But I wouldn't automatically be against such an idea even if it did take money away from wealthy people.

It can be achieved very simply; any government controlling a fiat currency can decide to grant adequate funding to all public schools. It really is that simple. The only reason that this doesn't happen is because most recent governments have been populist ones, with no clue of what leadership is.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Actually the naivety is yours. I'm shocked that you would need to have this explained to you:


Although we can apply your logic to individuals, we cannot apply it to a larger group; unless we are saying that this larger group has unique and harmful characteristics that are different from the general population.

We are saying that this group has characteristics that are unique (harmful is a bit subjective) to this group. I don't know why that's a surprise to you...look it up.

I'm left with the impression that you may need to brush up on your knowledge of statistics. I really don't have time to attempt to explain the finer details. (Or maybe I've just misunderstood what you are trying to say.)

No...it seems like you understand...but find it hard to believe because you heard "racism" as an explanation for everything and believed it right away without considering other possibilities.

It may be possible to prove that some individuals are lazy; for example choosing to watch TV instead of studying, and that therefore their outcomes are their own fault. But if one applies the same logic to a large group, then one is saying that the whole group is intrinsically lazier than other groups. If this group is a particular race, then one is guilty of being racist.

I'm not making judgements like "lazy"...I'm simply pointing out that these differences exist at the group level. For example...

Let's say that Jaguar noticed that black men who buy Jaguars have, on average, 33% less income than white men who buy Jaguars. Does that mean that black men are buying Jaguars when they're less able to afford them? Possibly...we'd want to know some other factors...but we can generalize some knowledge about the information we do have.

Now maybe this type of racism is justified. Maybe some races are lazier than others. I don't believe it for one second, mainly because I don't actually believe that there are different races, but that's probably another discussion.

You don't believe there are different races??

I never said (pretend or otherwise) that there was no correlation between such things, you are putting words in my mouth. I said that it was irrelevant, I never said there wasn't any correlation.

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

What I am saying is that any correlation is not causal, and therefore irrelevant. A group might be poorly educated AND watch too much TV because of a common cause beyond their control.

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

But their watching too much TV isn't the cause of their poor education. Correlation doesn't equal causation. You pretty much said the same thing with your grocery-store/fast-food example.

I think you missed the point of that example.

One way of getting closer to equal outcomes may well be to ensure that all schools are properly funded. But that doesn't necessarily mean taking money from wealthy people. But I wouldn't automatically be against such an idea even if it did take money away from wealthy people.

Let's imagine a system where every school system gets some supplemental funding from the government so that a basic level of dollars per student is reached. What's to stop wealthy families from deciding to give more money to their children's education thereby producing better outcomes for their children?

It can be achieved very simply; any government controlling a fiat currency can decide to grant adequate funding to all public schools. It really is that simple. The only reason that this doesn't happen is because most recent governments have been populist ones, with no clue of what leadership is.

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

 

[whatbogsends]

Actually the naivety is yours. I'm shocked that you would need to have this explained to you:


Although we can apply your logic to individuals, we cannot apply it to a larger group; unless we are saying that this larger group has unique and harmful characteristics that are different from the general population.

I'm left with the impression that you may need to brush up on your knowledge of statistics. I really don't have time to attempt to explain the finer details. (Or maybe I've just misunderstood what you are trying to say.)

It may be possible to prove that some individuals are lazy; for example choosing to watch TV instead of studying, and that therefore their outcomes are their own fault. But if one applies the same logic to a large group, then one is saying that the whole group is intrinsically lazier than other groups. If this group is a particular race, then one is guilty of being racist.

Now maybe this type of racism is justified. Maybe some races are lazier than others. I don't believe it for one second, mainly because I don't actually believe that there are different races, but that's probably another discussion.

I never said (pretend or otherwise) that there was no correlation between such things, you are putting words in my mouth. I said that it was irrelevant, I never said there wasn't any correlation.

What I am saying is that any correlation is not causal, and therefore irrelevant. A group might be poorly educated AND watch too much TV because of a common cause beyond their control. But their watching too much TV isn't the cause of their poor education. Correlation doesn't equal causation. You pretty much said the same thing with your grocery-store/fast-food example.

One way of getting closer to equal outcomes may well be to ensure that all schools are properly funded. But that doesn't necessarily mean taking money from wealthy people. But I wouldn't automatically be against such an idea even if it did take money away from wealthy people.

It can be achieved very simply; any government controlling a fiat currency can decide to grant adequate funding to all public schools. It really is that simple. The only reason that this doesn't happen is because most recent governments have been populist ones, with no clue of what leadership is.

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.

If this were the case, then you'd have to explain:

a) why Asians perform better academically and with wealth outcomes than whites, and find that there is some racial bias towards Asians that explains these outcomes (rather than their culture which emphasizes hard work).

b) why African Americans have a better outcomes in certain arenas of sport (i.e. basketball and football) than whites, and find that there is some racial bias towards blacks that explains these outcomes (rather than physical or cultural differences which help them achieve more than their white counterparts).

The "systemic racism is the reason for all outcome differences" camp likes to term racial/cultural differences as "superior/inferior", whereas real examination of the data suggests that these are simply (and obviously) "differences".

I don't deny that there are, indeed, systemic injustices and racial biases that exist in our culture. In fact, i'd say that whites have more systemic favor than Asians, however the fact that Asians still achieve quantitatively better outcomes than whites suggests that there is, indeed, a difference in their attributes or culture which contribute to them achieving more, despite being in a system which doesn't favor them.

Instead of pre-determining the cause for different outcomes (racism) and trying to make everything fit into your preconception, try looking at the big picture, and understand why it may actually make sense for different groups of people (whether those groups are delineated by race, culture, geography, sex, religion, or what have you ) to have different outcomes, and why those different outcomes aren't necessarily a problem.

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).

 

[Ana the Ist]

Seems to me that "black people experience more poverty, worse educational and health outcomes (etc) because of their culture" is implying that they're inferior. Because if they weren't, their outcomes would be just as good.

That's why I'm pushing back against this; because I don't believe that they are inferior, and because I can see that systemic factors contribute to these things more than a little bit.

Try not to let your emotions skew your ability to understand this...

How Do Black People in America Spend Their Money?

Here's an article about blacks, written by blacks, for blacks...not some conservative website pandering to their base. What's one of the first things that jumps out at you?

"Compared to all consumers, African Americans spend 30 percent more of their total income — even though we make $20,000 less than the average household. A whopping 87 percent of annual retail spending consists of Black consumers! But where does our money go?Hudson Valley Press Online gives us the scoop via an article from Nielsen’s SVP of public affairs and government relations, Cheryl Pearson-McNeil."

They spend 30% more of their income compared to all other consumers...30%. That's not a small amount. Do you think those spending habits may contribute to wealth outcomes?

 

[Paidiske]

But you've got to dig deeper than just the surface. Why are there different spending habits? What underlying beliefs and patterns of life are driving them?

And - most importantly - if that behaviour really is part of the problem of worse outcomes for black people, where are the levers by which it could be changed? (Rather than just shrugging and saying, "Eh, they do it to themselves, not my problem.")

 

[Ana the Ist]

But you've got to dig deeper than just the surface. Why are there different spending habits? What underlying beliefs and patterns of life are driving them?

We call these things culture.

And - most importantly - if that behaviour really is part of the problem of worse outcomes for black people, where are the levers by which it could be changed? (Rather than just shrugging and saying, "Eh, they do it to themselves, not my problem.")

I'll let you in on a little secret...I'm white. What's worse is I'm a white man. For the past 8-10 years I've been blamed for everything wrong in every minority community...as well as everything wrong with women. No one wants me to comment on any of these issues...and much like yourself, they won't listen.

 

[Paidiske]

But cultural patterns happen for a reason, not just out of a vacuum.

The way I see it, being a responsible citizen and member of your community means being engaged and involved; looking around and saying, "What can I see that is wrong, and how can it be improved, and how can I be part of that?"

It can be as simple as who you vote for, but if you can look around and see that one group of people is experiencing the sorts of disadvantage we're talking about here - worse educational outcomes, worse health outcomes, worse employment outcomes etc. - then asking "How can we fix it?" is an important question.

The people running the play group under discussion did that, and did something positive to make a difference. They provided a space where people with poor English (a necessary skill in Australia) could come and be supported to improve.

So why anyone would think that providing that service is a bad thing is really lost on me. Do we want migrants and their children to suffer for decades to come?

 

[Ana the Ist]

But cultural patterns happen for a reason, not just out of a vacuum.

The way I see it, being a responsible citizen and member of your community means being engaged and involved; looking around and saying, "What can I see that is wrong, and how can it be improved, and how can I be part of that?"

It can be as simple as who you vote for, but if you can look around and see that one group of people is experiencing the sorts of disadvantage we're talking about here - worse educational outcomes, worse health outcomes, worse employment outcomes etc. - then asking "How can we fix it?" is an important question.

The people running the play group under discussion did that, and did something positive to make a difference. They provided a space where people with poor English (a necessary skill in Australia) could come and be supported to improve.

So why anyone would think that providing that service is a bad thing is really lost on me. Do we want migrants and their children to suffer for decades to come?

So you would be cool with a group of white Australians coming together as a group to discuss white issues and excluding any minorities or people of color?

 

[Paidiske]

How... did you get that from my post?

If, for example, we were talking about a particular group of white people who had particular problems (perhaps those in under-served rural locations, or those with disabilities, for example?) I could see the point. But in general, given that there are no significant disadvantages to being white in Australia, I couldn't really see the point to discussing "white issues" to the exclusion of others.

 

[Ana the Ist]

How... did you get that from my post?

If, for example, we were talking about a particular group of white people who had particular problems (perhaps those in under-served rural locations, or those with disabilities, for example?) I could see the point. But in general, given that there are no significant disadvantages to being white in Australia, I couldn't really see the point to discussing "white issues" to the exclusion of others.

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.

 

[mala]

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.

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

Immediately, the woman said: “I’m sorry, you can’t come here. It’s for multicultural families and people who speak languages other than English at home.”

injecting white discrimination into this seems rather childish.